Agenda packet — Milpitas City Council, December 2, 2025 (part 4 of 10)

47 Given th
at 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 purpo se 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 poli
ce 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 providin
g 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
would not create additional demand for s
chool 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 a
nd 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)

5. Other Public Facilities

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 other public facilities?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
5 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 71
-
72 )

Explanation
:

Ot
her public facilities (libraries).

The Santa Clara County Library System
consists of eight libraries and one bookmobile. The Santa Clara County libraries are governed by the Joint Powers Authority, which is comprised of one City Council member from each of

the
eight
-
member City jurisdictions and two members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.

The closest library to the project is located approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the P
roject site
at 160 North Main Street.

(Initial Study, Appendix A to

the Draft EIR,
p
p.
71 -
72)

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 DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 322 of 1283 ends

48 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 services, and the potential increase in demand for services is not expected to adversely affect existing responses time
s 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 C ity. 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, Ap
pendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 72)

RECREATION

1. Existing Facilities

Threshold
:

Would the proposed Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the faci
lity would occur or be accelerated?

Findings
:

No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 73
)

Explanation
: The proposed Project would include the construction of a new creative industrial building,
consisting of uses permitted by the City’s code. As such, the proposed Project would not generate population growth that would result in an increase in the use existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed Project would not
require the expansion of existing recreational facilities or construction of additional recreational facilities elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts to parks or recreational facilities would occur as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study,
Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 7
2 )

2. New Recreational Facilities

Threshold
:

Would the proposed Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 323 of 1283 ends

49 Findings
:

No impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
3 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR,
p. 73
)

Explanation
: The proposed Project would include the construction of a new creative industrial building, consisting of uses permitted by the City’ s code. As such, the proposed Project
would not generate population growth that would result in an increase in the use existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The proposed Project would not require the expansion of existi
ng recreational facilities or construction of additional recreational facilities elsewhere. Therefore, no impacts to parks or recreational facilities would occur as a result of the proposed Project. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 7 2 )

TRAN

SPORTATION

1. Program, Plan, Policy or Ordinance

Threshold
:

Would the proposed Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, pp. IV.E
-
27 -
IV.E
-
28)

Explanation
: The Project will not conflict with a program, plan, policy or ordinance addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle or pedestrian facilities. (Draft EIR
, pp. IV.E
-
27)

The Project is expected to generate new peak hour and daily vehicle and truck trips, as shown in Table IV.E
-
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
27), in the Project vicinity, primarily in the area
bounded by I
-
680, I
-
880, Calaveras Boulevard, and Montague
Expressway. Most trips, including
truck trips, would travel to and from I
-
880 and I
-
680 to the north and south of the site, but some
trips would use other arterials to travel to/from employee residences or delivery locations. Refer to the Local Transport
ation Analysis Report for more information on the traffic operations analysis related to Project traffic. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
27)

The external vehicle trips generated by the Project would not cause conflicts with the relevant planning documents addressing
the local and regional circulation system, including the City of Milpitas General Plan, the Valley Transportation Authority’s planning documents, and the MTC Plan Bay Area 2040 (refer to the regulatory setting for an overview of these plans). (Draft EIR,
p. IV.E
-
27)

The Project would generate demand for bus and BART trips, given that AC Transit bus route 217 serves the Project site on South Milpitas Boulevard and that the Milpitas BART station is located less than a mile (walking distance) to the south of the site. Employees who use BART
may choose to walk or bike to the site or take the bus. There is a continuous sidewalk connection DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 324 of 1283 ends

50 and continuous bicycle lanes between the Milpitas BART station and the Project site. Bus stops are located on South Milpita
s Boulevard at Ames Avenue (north of the intersection in the northbound direction, and south of Ames Avenue in the southbound direction). Thus, there is good pedestrian, bicycle and transit infrastructure and service in place to serve trips by these modes

to
and from the Project site. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.E
-
27 -
IV.E
-
28)

The Project does not propose any off
-
site infrastructure changes which would cause
conflicts with programs, plans, policies, or ordinances addressing off -
site transit, roadway, bicycle,
or ped
estrian facilities. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28)

Based on this assessment, this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28)

2. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)

Threshold
:

Would the
Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.E
-
29 -
IV.E
-
30)

Explanation
:

The Project’s impact on Total Boundary VMT is considered less than significan
t and no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E -
30)

Metric 2: Total Boundary VMT (Existing Plus Project)

This metric measures the total VMT for all trip types within the region expected to be affected by the Project trips. For this analysis
, the three
-
county region of Santa Clara County,
Alameda County, and San Mateo County was selected as likely to capture the effect of most to all Project trips. The total VMT per service population (employees and residents) is calculated. Table IV.E
-
8 (D
raft EIR, p. IV.E
-
30) shows this metric for the City of Milpitas, for information, as well as for the three
-
county region, for the Existing and Existing Plus Project cases. (Draft EIR, pp.

IV.E
-
29 -
IV.E
-
30)

While the Project does increase Total Boundary VMT

within the three
-
county region, the
effect is considered to be within the travel demand model margin of error (0.0008%), and the Boundary VMT per service population is unchanged when calculated to two decimal places.

Therefore, the Project’s impact on To
tal Boundary VMT is considered less than significant

and no
mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
30)

3. Geometric Design Features or Incompatible Uses

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 325 of 1283 ends

51 Threshold
:

Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
32)

Explanation
: The Project proposes to construct or re
-
construct five driveways, two

on
South Milpitas Boulevard and three on Gibraltar Drive (refer to the Project Description section in this chapter). The driveway widths range from 30 feet to 50 feet. The site plan set includes turning diagrams indicating that the three driveways which

will serve larger trucks
–

the northern two
driveways on Gibraltar Drive and the driveway opposite Ames Avenue on South Milpitas Boulevard
–

will accommodate trucks adequately. No traffic control changes or on -
street striping
changes are proposed at the
site driveways. The peak hour traffic operations analysis conducted for the 1000 Gibraltar Industrial Project Local Transportation Analysis indicates that the five site driveways will operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak commute ho urs.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
32)

Because the Project will be subject to the City of Milpitas permitting process, which includes design review, there is no reason to expect that the site driveway designs will not conform to City requirements. (Draft EIR, p. IV
.E
-
32)

Based on this assessment, the Project would have a less -
than
-
significant impact with
respect to hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. No mitigation measures are required.

(Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
32)

4. Emergency Access

Threshold
:

Would th
e Project result in inadequate emergency access?

Findings
: Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
32)

Explanation
: As described under Impact TRANS
-
3 directly above
, the Project driveways
are projected to operate at LOS C or better during weekd ay commute peak hours. The Project
does not propose any off
-
site roadway network changes and therefore would not adversely affect emergency vehicle circulation on surrounding roadways. With two driveways on South Milpitas Boulevard and three on Gibraltar

Drive, emergency vehicle access to all sides of the Project building would be accommodated. Based on this assessment, the Project design would not impede emergency vehicle circulation along the Project frontages or access to and from the Project’s on -
site

buildings
;

and therefore, the Project would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact on emergency
access. No mitigation measures are required.

(Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
32)

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 326 of 1283 ends

52 Q.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Utilities Infrastructure

Threshold
:

Would the Project

require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant envir
onmental effects?

Findings
:

Less
than

significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp.
79 -
8 2
)

Explanation
:

The proposed Project is consistent with the site’s zoning would not substantially increase demand for wat
er compared to the previous on
-
site uses and would therefore
not exceed the capacity of existing water treatment facilities. The proposed Project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities,

other than those already planned as part of the City’s Water Master Plan. The proposed Project would include connections to the existing electrical and gas infrastructure in the vicinity of the Project site, and would not require any new infrastructure, a side from project
‐specific tie‐ins and
lines to serve the proposed Project. Therefore, because the proposed Project would connect to existing utility services within or adjacent to the Project site, the relocation or reconstruction of new or expanded water
, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities would not be required
;

thus,

this impact would be less than
significant.

(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 8
1 )

2. Sufficient

Water Supplies

Threshold
:

Would sufficient water supplies be available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial

Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp.
79 -
8 2
)

Explanation
:

The City of Milpitas provides water to the Project site. The Project site is within the SFPUC wholesale distribution area. The SFPUC supply is predominantly snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada, deli
vered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda County.

Historically, the SFPUC has met demand in its service areas during all year types from its watersheds. T
he proposed Project is also consistent with the site’s zoning. The City would have sufficient water supply to support the proposed Project and implementation of the project would not require new or expanded entitlements for water supplies ;

and, therefore,

the impacts related to
water supply would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 8 1 )

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 327 of 1283 ends

53 3.

Wastewater Treatment Capacity

Threshold
:

Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves

or may serve the project determined that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp.
79 -
8 2
)

Explanation
:

The City of Milpitas owns and operates its municipal wastewater collection system containing of 179 miles of gravity pipe and 5 miles of force main. The system also includes two pump stat
ions: the Venus Station which lifts wastewater from the low ‐lying Pines
neighborhood and the Main Sewer Pump Station which pumps all City sewage through dual 2.5 -
mile force mains to the San Jose/Santa Clara Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) located in San Jos e
at 700 Los Esteros Road for treatment. The WPCP treats an average of 110 million gallons of wastewater per day (mgd), about 65 percent of its 167 mgd capacity, which includes service to the Project site. The proposed Project would generate domestic was tewater, treated by the WPCP.

The project is consistent with the site’s zoning and City has sufficient capacity to serve the proposed Project. The City requires the applicant to complete sewer system modeling to demonstrate adequate conveyance capacity bas
ed on the current discharge allocation, and this
would need to be completed prior to project approval. Therefore, wastewater generated from the proposed Project would not cause the WPCP to violate any wastewater treatment requirements and this impact would

be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 8 1 -
8 2
)

4. Landfill Capacity

Threshold
:

Would
the

Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise

impair the attainment of solid waste
reduction goals?

Findings
:

Less than significant

impact
. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp.
79 -
8 2
)

Explanation
: Solid waste and recycling pickup and disposal in the City of Milpitas is provided by Republic Services. The solid waste is disposed of at the Newby Island Landfill and recycling facility which is located approximately 3.2 miles northwest of the Project s ite on Dixon
Landing Road. The facility recycled materials, operates a construction and demolition material processing facility, and a landfill that accepts industrial wastes, grit, screenings, wastewater treatment sludge, contaminated soils, clean soils,
and municipal solid waste. The Newby Island
Landfill has a capacity of 57.5 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of 21.2 million cubic yards, and can accept 4,000 tons per day. The Newby Island Landfill has adequate capacity to DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 328 of 1283 ends

54 serve the proposed P
roject. Solid waste generated during the demolition, construction, and operational phase of the project would be recycled to maximum extent feasible. As such, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to accommodate the project’s

waste
disposal needs, and impacts associated with the disposition of solid waste would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 8 2 )

5. Solid Waste

Threshold
:

Would th
e

Project comply with federal, state, and local management

and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Findings
:

Less
than

significant. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A to the
Draft EIR, pp.
79 -
8 2
)

Explanation
:

Solid waste generated during the demolition, construction, and operational phase of the project would be properly disposed of or recycled in a nearby landfill or approved disposal facility with capacity to receive the waste. Any materials used during dem olition and
construction would be properly disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations.

Impacts related to solid waste facilities, statutes, and regulations would be less than significant. (Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft E
IR, p.
8 2
)

WILDFIRES

1. Emergency Plan

Threshold
:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 8
3 -
8 4
)

Explanation
:

The Project site is flat, outside the Wildland Urban Interface, and is not considered a High Severity Zone for wildfire. The City of Milpitas Fire Department (Fire Department) Office of Emergency Services coordinates the City’s preparedness efforts to mi tigate,
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 the C
ounty 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 County.

Therefore, the proposed Project would not impair the implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan and would thus have a less ‐than‐
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 329 of 1283 ends

55 significant impact on implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency

evacuation plan.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, pp. 8
3 -
8 4
)

2. Expose Occupants to Pollutant Concentrations

Threshold
:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Proj
ect
due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR
, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 8
3 -
8 4
)

Explanation
:

The Project site

is flat and is bound by existing development on all sides.

The Project site

is outside the Wildland Urban Interface and is not considered a High Severity Zone for wildfire. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the un controlled spread of
a wildfire
;

thus,

this impact would be less than significant.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft
EIR, p. 8
4 )

3. Installation or Maintenance of Associated Infrastructure

Threshold
:

If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the Project

require installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that

may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Initial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 84
-
85 )

Explanation
:

The proposed Project

is f
lat and

is not located within an SRA for fire service
and is not within a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would not
require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure ; thus,

this impact would be less
t
han significant.

(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 8
4 )

4. Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks

Threshold
:

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the
Project

expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -
fire slope
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 330 of 1283 ends

56 instability, or drainage changes?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
6 ,
Ini
tial Study, Appendix A
to the Draft EIR, pp. 84
-
85 )

Explanation
:

The Project site is flat and is not located within an SRA for fire service or a very high fire hazard severity zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to
significant risks as a result of post
‐fire slope instability or drainage and runoff
changes.
(Initial Study, Appendix A to the Draft EIR, p. 8
4 )

SECTION 3.

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED

TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

The
Planning Commission hereby finds that feasible mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR and this Resolution that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. Th e potentially
significant impacts, and the mitigation measures that will reduce them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

AESTHETICS

1. Light and Glare

Threshold
:

Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Findings
:

Less than significant
impact with mitigation incorporated

(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
6 -
IV.A
-
7). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

The Project site is located in a heavily urbanized area with a variety of existing light sources including stree
t lights, interior and exterior building lighting, and light associated with traffic on nearby roadways. Development of the proposed Project would incrementally increase the amount of nighttime lighting in the surrounding area due to new interior and exter
ior lighting at the creative industrial building, safety lighting in the parking lot, and lighting associated with additional vehicular traffic to and from the Project site. The City’s Zoning Ordinance includes the following policies related to outdoor lig hting that would be applicable to
the proposed Project:



Section XI
‐10‐54.17
–

Lighting Exterior.

Lighting shall be shielded or recessed so
that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel, and DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 331 of 1283 ends

57 shall be directed downward a
nd away from adjoining properties and public rights
‐of‐
way. Fixtures shall be appropriate in terms of height, style, design, scale and wattage to the use of the property. Fixtures shall be spaced appropriately to maximize pedestrian safety.

To ensure that
the proposed Project complies with City requirements and that the proposed Project’s final design avoids all excess light and glare, implementation of Mitigation Measure AES
‐1, below, would be required to ensure that potentially significant light and glare

impacts are
reduced to less
‐than‐significant levels.

(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
6 -
IV.A
-
7)



Mitigation Measure AES
‐1:

Outdoor lighting shall be designed to minimize glare and spillover to surrounding properties. The project design and building materials shall inc
orporate non
‐mirrored glass to minimize daylight glare. All lighting elements shall comply with Subsections XI
‐10‐54.17 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the proposed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Department prior to
issuance of a building permit.

AIR QUALITY

1. Sensitive Receptors

Threshold
:

Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Findings
:

Less than significant
impact with mitigation incorporated for fugitive dust
emissions

(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.B
-
25 -
IV.B
-
29). Changes or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section

15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

The Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR
-
3 would reduce potentially
significant impacts of fugitive dust emissions during Project c onstruction to a less
-
than
-
significant
level. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
25 -
IV.B
-
29)

Fugitive Dust Emission

Project demolition, site preparation, grading, and material hauling activities during construction could generate fugitive dust PM
10 and PM

2.5 emissions that could adversely affect
local air quality. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative threshold of significance for fugitive dust PM
10 and PM

2.5 emissions; however, the BAAQMD considers implementation of best management practices to control dust during construction sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less
-
than
-
significant level. More specifically, the BAAQMD recommends that all constructio n
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 332 of 1283 ends

58 projects implement the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures from the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to reduce emissions of fugitive dust (regardless of the estimated emissions).

The BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for controlling dust are summarized
under Mitigation Measure AIR
-
3, below. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
25 -
IV.B
-
26)



Mitigation Measure AIR
-
3: Fugitive Dust Control during Project Construction

During Project construction, the contractor shall implement a dust control program that includes the following measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD):



All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.



All hau
l trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -
site shall be
covered.



All visible mud or dirt track
-
out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed
using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping
is prohibited.



All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.



All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seed
ing or soil binders are used.



A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone numb er shall
also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

The above measures shall be included in contract specifications. In addition, an independent construction monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections, but in no event less than
four total inspections, during the course of construction to ensure these mitigation measures are implemented and shall issue a letter report to the City of Milpitas Building Division documenting the inspection results. Reports indicating non -
compliance wi
th
construction mitigation measu
res shall be cause to issue a stop work order until such time as compliance is achieved.

(Draft EIR, pp. IV..B
-
26)

Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR
-
3 would reduce potentially significant impacts
of fugitive dust emissions during Project construction to a less
-
than
-
significant level.

(Draft
EIR, pp. IV..B
-
26)

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 333 of 1283 ends

59 1.

Native Wildlife or Migratory Wil
dlife

Threshold
:

Would the Project
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sit es
?

Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR, pp. IV.A -
7 -
IV.A
-
8). Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

The Project is located within a developed, landscaped area that supports wildlife species typically associated with urban and suburban areas. Because the Project site is with
in a developed urban area, there are no major wildlife movement corridors that pass through or are adjacent to the site. Existing trees are located throughout and around the Project site. Trees and other landscape vegetation generally have the potential t o support nests of common native bird
species. All native birds, regardless of their regulatory status, are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Wildlife Code. The proposed Project would result in the removal of ap
proximately 88 protected trees. If conducted during the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and construction activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or vegetation that support active nests. Implementation of the
following mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less -
than
-
significant level.

(Draft EIR, pp. IV.A
-
7 -
IV.A
-
8)



Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1 Nesting Birds
and Roosting Bats
:

shall conduct a pre
-
construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting within the Project site. The pre
-
construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for b irds to initiate nesting
during this period), and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in

which no work shall be
allowed until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and would be based on the nesting s pecies, its
sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance .

In order to avoid impacts to roosting bats, a pre
-
construction habitat assessment and
survey(s) for bat roosts shall be conducted in any large trees (dbh >24 inches) within DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 334 of 1283 ends

60 100

feet of any planned work areas and in any buildings planned for demolition. This effort shall occur prior to the start of work to evaluate whether potential roost habitat occurs and to determine the type (i.e., maternity or non -
maternit
y) and status (i.e
.,
active or inactive) of the roost. If an active maternity or special -
status bat roost is
found, removal of maternity roost trees or building shall be avoided during the maternity roosting season or until a qualified biologist determines the roost has be en
vacated. Felled trees without maternity or special
-
status roosts shall be allowed to lay
on the ground for one night to allow any undetected roosting bats to leave the tree before it is chipped or taken offsite.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Archaeological Resour
ces

Threshold
:

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological

resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
8 -
IV.A
-
9). Changes or alterations have
been

required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified i n the EIR. (State CEQA
Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

Through background research, including a records search of the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) and review of historic maps and aerial photography, and a desktop archaeological sensi
tivity analysis, no archaeological resources have been identified in the Project area. As such, no known archaeological resources that may qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, or unique archaeological resources, as defi ned in PRC §
21083.2(g), are present in the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not affect any archaeological resource, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5.

(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
8 )

The desktop archaeological sensitivity analysis concluded

that the Project area has a
moderate sensitivity for the presence of buried pre
-
contact archaeological resources. Because the
proposed Project would involve ground
-
disturbing activities that may extend into undisturbed soil, it is possible that such actio
ns could unearth, expose, or disturb subsurface archaeological resources that have not been previously identified. If such archaeological deposits are present in the Project area and were found to qualify as archaeological resources pursuant to CEQA Guidel
ines § 15064, impacts of the proposed Project on archaeological resources could be potentially significant. Such potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less -
than
-
significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -

1. (Draft
EIR
,
pp. IV.A
-
8 )



Mitigation Measure CULT
-
1 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Archaeological
Resources:

If indigenous or historic
-
era archaeological resources are encountered
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 335 of 1283 ends

61 during proposed Project development or operation, all activity within 100 feet of th e
find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, shall be immediately informed of the d
iscovery. The qualified archaeologist shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. If the resource is indigenous, the City shall also contact relevant California Native American Tribes to assist in de
termining if the resource may qualify as a tribal cultural resource.

If the City determines, based on recommendations from the qualified archaeologist and, if the resource is indigenous, relevant California Native American Tribes, that the resource may qua
lify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5), or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074), the resource shall be avoided if feasible. Avoidance means that no activ ities associated with the
proposed Project that may affect cultural resources shall occur within the boundaries of the resource or any defined buffer zones. If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if th
e resource is indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. This shall
include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery or other measures.

Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the

aim to target the recovery
of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource. The resource and treatment method shall be documented in a professional -
level technical report to be filed with
the California Historical Reso
urces Information System. Work in the area may commence upon completion of approved treatment and under the direction of the qualified archaeologist.

(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
9)

2. Human Remains

Threshold
:

Would the Project d
isturb any human remains, including t
hose interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries
?

Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
9 -
IV.A
-
10). Changes or alterations have
been

required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially less
en the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

No human remains have been identified in the Project area through background research. Also, the land use designations for the Pr oject area do not include cemetery
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 336 of 1283 ends

62 uses, and no known human remains exist within the Project area. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to disturb any human remains.
(Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
9)

However, because the proposed Project would
involve ground
-
disturbing activities, it is
possible that such actions could unearth, expose, or disturb previously unknown human remains.

If human remains were discovered during proposed Project construction activities, impacts on the human remains result
ing from the proposed Project would be significant if those remains were disturbed or damaged. Such potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less -
than
-
significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -

2. (Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
8 )



Mitigation Measure CULT
-
2 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Human
Remains:

If human remains are uncovered during proposed Project construction, all work shall immediately halt within 100 feet of the find and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be con
tacted to evaluate the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)(1). If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the Native American Heritage Comm
ission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code §
7050.5(c) and Public Resources Code § 5097.98. As required by PRC § 5097.98, the City shall ensure that further development activity avoids damage or disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the Native Am
erican human remains, according to generally
accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, until the City has conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of mu
ltiple human remains.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Unique Paleontological Resources and Geological Features

Threshold
:

Would the Project
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature
?

Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
10 -
IV.A
-
11). Changes or alterations have
been

required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

Paleontological resources include fossilized rema
ins or traces of organisms
including plants, vertebrates (animals with backbones), invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and marine coral), and microscopic plants and animals (microfossils), including their imprints, from a previous geological p
eriod. Collecting localities and the geologic formations containing those localities are also considered paleontological resources as they represent a limited, non
-
renewable resource and once destroyed, cannot be replaced. The Society of Vertebrate DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 337 of 1283 ends

63 Paleont
ology (SVP) has established guidelines for the identification, assessment, and mitigation of adverse impacts on non
-
renewable paleontological resources. The SVP has helped define the value of paleontological resources and, in particular, states that signif icant paleontological
resources are fossils and fossiliferous deposits consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, strat
igraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are considered to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 years).

(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
10)

The potential to disturb paleontol
ogical resources during
P
roject construction depends on
the types of geologic units (and their fossil
-
bearing characteristics) that would be encountered.

Disturbing artificial fill

materials (which have been identified as the uppermost materials covering t
he site)

during project construction would not impact paleontological resources because, due to the disturbed nature of artificial fill,
intact
fossils are not generally
found or well
-
preserved in
these
materials
.
(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
10)

The
native geologi
c formation
s

on the
P
roject site
have been mapped as Pleistocene and
Holocene
-
aged alluvial deposits.

The results of a search of paleontological localities in the fossil collections database maintained by the University of California Museum of Paleontology

identified

5 localities

(including 2 invertebrate, 1 microfossil, and 2 unidentified types of localities
)

in
Holocene
geologic formations
and 14
localities

(including 12 vertebrate and 2 invertebrate

localities
)

in
Pleistocene
geologic formations within
S
anta Clara County, including a bison fossil
found in Milpitas.

The
P
roject would involve subsurface construction activities which would
extend below fill material and into native geologic formations . Therefore, it is possible that
paleontological resources

could be encountered during
ground
-
disturbing
construction

activities.
(Draft EIR, pp. IV.A
-
10 -
IV.A
-
11)

Significant impacts to paleontological resources could occur during excavation into native geologic formations below existing fill material, where foss ils may be buried and physical
destruction of fossils could occur. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -
1 would reduce
this impact to a less
-
than
-
significant level. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
11)



Mitigation Measure GEO
-
1:

The applicant shall inform its contra
ctor(s) of the
sensitivity of the project area for paleontological resources and shall include the following directive in the appropriate contract documents. The City shall verify that the following directive is included in the appropriate contract documen ts:

Page 338 of 1283 ends

64 activities within 25 feet of the find shall be redirected and the City and a qualified paleontologist contacted to paleontological resources. Project personnel shall not collect or move any paleontologi
cal materials. Paleontological resources include
fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as animal tracks.”

Mitigation may include monitoring, recording the fossil locality, data recovery and analysis, preparation of
a technical report, and providing the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public educational outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of the assessment,

a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review.

HAZARDS AND H
A

ZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Reasonably Foreseeable Upset and Accident Conditions

Threshold
:

Would the Project

create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR
,
pp. IV.A
-
12 -
IV.A
-
13). Changes or alterations have
been

required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explana
tion
: There are two main ways that the public and/or the environment could be affected by the release of hazardous materials from the Project site, including: (1) exposing workers and/or the public to potentially contaminated soil and groundwater during co nstruction
and/or operation of the Project; or (2) exposing workers and/or the public to hazardous building materials (e.g., lead paint, asbestos) during demolition of existing structures. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A -
12)

The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (
Phase I ESA) prepared for the Project site
revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Project site; however, the following business environmental risks were identified: elevated arsenic concentrations in soils

at the Project site and Asbestos
-
Containing Material (ACM). (Draft EIR, p.

IV.A
-
12)

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 339 of 1283 ends

65 A grassy mound located at the southern end of the Project site along Gibraltar Drive consists of excess soil generated during seismic retrofit activities at the Project si te in 1999.

The
Phase I ESA found the soil to contain elevated concentrations of arsenic; but noted that due to historic agricultural activities, most surrounding soils in the project area do as well. Reportedly the arsenic concentrations were considered
similar to background levels and regulatory authorities informed that the soils could remain on
-
site. No further investigation appears warranted at this time. However, future site development/excavations that require removal of these soils would likely req
uire a soil management plan and special disposal of said soils. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A -
12)

Based on the age of the Project site, the Phase I ESA noted that the friable acoustical ceiling tiles may contain asbestos. In addition, the non
-
friable resilient floor

finish assemblies, wallboard
assemblies, acoustical ceiling tiles, built
-
up roofing materials, caulking, and mastics may contain asbestos. The Phase I ESA describes asbestos survey reports from 2014 for Building 1, Building 2, and Building 3 on the Projec
t site. A total of 59 bulk samples were collected from the interior and exterior areas of Building 1; fibrous backing associated with beige resilient sheet flooring was identified as ACM. A total of 83 bulk samples were collected from the interior and exte rior areas
of Building 2; black flooring mastic under carpet in the 2nd floor, black mastic under 12” by 12” light beige with tan streaks vinyl floor tile in the 1st floor mail room and 2nd floor data center, black pedestal mastic in the 2nd floor data cen
ter, and yellow/black mastic under 12” by 12” blue
with white dots vinyl floor tile in the 1st floor south hallway closet on the east side of the building and on the 2nd floor were identified as ACM. A total of 74 bulk samples were collected from the inter
ior and exterior areas of Building 3; no materials were identified as ACM in the survey of Building 3. The Phase I ESA notes that additional ACM identified at the Project site includes asbestos cement piping located underground between Buildings 1 and 2. N evertheless, since these
materials were observed to be in good condition, no further action was recommended at this time other than maintaining same in good condition under an Asbestos Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program. All activities involving ACM
should be conducted in accordance with
governmental regulations. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.A
-
12 -
IV.A
-
13)

The hazardous materials that remain on
-
site are water treatment chemicals associated with
the cooling towers and chilled water system (as needed for the HVAC equipment) and batteries
associated with an Uninterruptable Power Supply (UPS) system located at Building 4 (909 South Milpitas Boulevard), as well as for a UPS system located at Building 2 (1051 South Milpitas Boulevard). The Phase I ESA notes that based
on an inspection performed on January 6, 2015, the
only hazardous materials remaining at the Project site were stored in the secondary containment bunker to the south of Building 4. These materials were observed to be in good condition and were scheduled f
or removal from the site by the end of January 2015

and piping associated with former
emergency generator systems were scheduled to be removed from the former generator enclosures at the Project site by mid
-
January 2015. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
13)

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 340 of 1283 ends

66 Implementat
ion of Mitigation Measure HAZ
‐1, below, is required to ensure that potentially
significant impacts are reduced to less
‐than‐significant levels. (Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
13)



Mitigation Measure HAZ
‐1:

A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared by a
qualified
environmental professional to outline soil management protocols that would be implemented during Project construction to ensure that construction workers, the public, future site occupants, and the environment would not be exposed to hazardous materials (e
.g., arsenic) that may be present in soil at the Project site. The SMP shall be submitted to the

City for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. The SMP shall include, but not be limited to the following:



Procedures for soi
l management including identification and testing of
contaminants, soil stockpiling procedures, soil reuse guidelines, and soil disposal methods.



Requirements for notification to the City and any applicable regulatory agency(ies) of previously unknown haz
ardous materials found in soil during
development.



Guidelines for controlling dust during excavation and grading.

All recommendations included in the SMP shall be implemented during the demolition, grading, and construction phase of the Project. Prior to t he City’s
approval of building occupancy, the applicant shall provide the City with a report prepared by a qualified environmental professional documenting that soils on the Project site were managed in accordance with the SMP during demolition, grading, a
nd construction, and that appropriate safeguards (e.g., capping of remaining arsenic impacted soil with clean fill or hardscape materials) have been incorporated into the project design, as necessary, to ensure that the public, future site occupants, and t
he environment would not be exposed to unacceptable health risks from residual hazardous materials in the subsurface of the Project site.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Cultural Resources (i)

Threshold
:

Would the Project cause

a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 341 of 1283 ends

67 Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorporated (Draft EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
14 -
IV.A
-
15). Changes or alterations have
been

required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

Background research, including a NWIC records se
arch, conducted for the
proposed Project identified no tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC § 21074, in the Project site. Also, the above
-
mentioned work did not identify any tribal cultural resources (outside the Project site) that might be impacte
d by the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to impact any tribal cultural resources. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.A -
14)

Although the proposed Project is not anticipated to impact any tribal cultural resources, there remains the poss
ibility that previously unrecorded archaeological deposits, including human remains, are present in the Project area. If such deposits are present and were found to qualify as tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC § 21074, any impacts of the propose d Project on the
resource would be potentially significant. Such potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less
-
than
-
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CULT -
1 and CULT
-

2. (Draft
EIR, pp. IV.A
-
14 -
IV.A
-
15)



Mitigation Measure CUL
T
-
1 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Archaeological
Resources:

If indigenous or historic
-
era archaeological resources are encountered
during proposed Project development or operation, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find sh
all be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified
archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeolog
ist shall inspect the find within 24 hours of
discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. If the resource is indigenous, the City shall also contact relevant California Native American Tribes to assist in determining if the resource may qual
ify as a tribal cultural resource.

Project that may affect cultural
resources shall occur within the boundaries of the resource or any defined buffer zones.

Page 342 of 1283 ends

68 the resource pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resou
rce and may include data
recovery or other measures. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of imp ortant scientific data
contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource. The resource and treatment method shall be documented in a professional
-
level technical report to be filed with the
California Historical Resources Information System. Work in the area may commence
upon completion of approved treatment and under the direction of the qualified archaeologist.



Mitigation Measure CULT
-
2 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Human
Remains:

If human remains are uncovered during proposed Project constru ction, all
work shall immediately halt within 100 feet of the find and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be contacted to evaluate the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)(1). If the county coroner det
ermines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5(c) and Public Resources Code § 5097.98. As required by Public Resources Code § 5097.98, the Cit
y shall ensure that further development activity avoids damage or disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the Native American human remains, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, until the City has conferred wi
th the most likely descendants regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

2. Tribal Cultural Resources (ii)

Threshold
:

Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significan ce of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to

a California Native American tribe, and that is a
resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1?

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Findings
:

Less than significant with mitigation incorp
orated (Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.A
-
15 -
IV.A
-
17). Changes or alterations have
been

required in, or incorporated into, the Project which
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 343 of 1283 ends

69 avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 1
5091(a)(1))

Explanation
:

Background research, including a NWIC records search, conducted for the proposed Project identified no tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC § 21074, in the Project site. Also, the above
-
mentioned work did not
identify any tribal cultural resources (outside the
Project site) that might be impacted by the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project is not anticipated to impact any tribal cultural resources.

(Draft EIR, p. IV.A
-
15)

Although the proposed Proj
ect is not anticipated to impact any tribal cultural resources, there remains the possibility that previously unrecorded archaeological deposits, including human remains, are present in the Project area. If such deposits are present and were found to quali fy as
tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC § 21074, any impacts of the proposed Project on the resource would be potentially significant. Such potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less
-
than
-
significant with implementation of Mitigati
on Measures CULT
-
1 and CULT
-

2. (Draft
EIR, pp. IV.A
-
15 -
IV.A
-
17)



Mitigation Measure CULT
-
1 Unanticipated Discovery Protocol for Archaeological
Resources:

If indigenous or historic
-
era archaeological resources are encountered
during proposed Project developm
ent or operation, all activity within 100 feet of the
find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards fo
r Archeology, shall be immediately informed of the
discovery. The qualified archaeologist shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify the City of their initial assessment. If the resource is indigenous, the City shall also contact releva
nt California Native American Tribes to assist in
determining if the resource may qualify as a tribal cultural resource.

If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall co
nsult with appropriate Native American
tribes (if the resource is indigenous), and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any potential impacts to the resource pursuant to Public Resources Code
§ 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines §
15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery or other measures. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 344 of 1283 ends

70 not be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, s ite documentation, and
historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource. The resource and treatment method shall be documented in a professional
-
level technical re
port to be filed with the
California Historical Resources Information System. Work in the area may commence upon completion of approved treatment and under the direction of the qualified archaeologist.



Mitigation Measure CULT
-
2 Unanticipated Discovery Prot
ocol for Human
Remains:

and
protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)(1). If the county coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and Safety Code § 7050.5(c) and Pu
blic Resources Code § 5097.98. As required by Public Resources Code § 5097.98, the City shall ensure that further development activity avoids damage or disturbance in the immediate vicinity of the Native American human remains, according to generally accep
ted cultural or archaeological standards or practices,
until the City has conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.

SECTION 4.

FINDINGS

REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT FULLY

MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT

The Planning Commission

hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of m
itigation
measures outlined in the EIR and in this Resolution, the following impacts from the p roposed
Project and related approvals cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:

AIR QUALITY

1. Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Threshold
:

Would the Project result in a c
umulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard?

Findings
:

Less than significant impact during Project
construction; significant and
unavoidable impact during Project operation (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B -
19 -
IV.B
-
25). Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 345 of 1283 ends

71 lessen some of the significant environm
ental effects as identified in the EIR; however, it is not feasible to fully mitigate the Project impact to a less than significant level. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other consider
ations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(3).) (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
19 -
IV.B
-
25).

Ex
planation:

The Project could potentially result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non -
attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard.

(Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
19 -
IV.B
-
25).

The BAAQMD currently recommends 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 P roject. CalEEMod
uses widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data for a 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 construc
tion equipment) are supported by substantial 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 IV.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)

Operat
ional Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants

Project operation would generate criteria air pollutant emissions that could potentially affect regional air quality. The primary pollutant emissions of concern during Project operation would be ROG, NOx, and exha
ust PM
10 and PM

2.5 from mobile sources, energy use, area sources
(e.g., consumer products and architectural coatings), and stationary sources. Since statewide vehicle emission standards are required to improve over time in accordance

with the Pavley
(Assem
bly Bill 1493) and Low
-
Emission Vehicle regulations (Title 13, California Code of Regulations, and Section 1961.2), Project emissions were estimated for the earliest year of operation (2022) to conservatively evaluate the effect of mobile emissions

(Draft
EIR, pp. IV.B
-
20 -
IV.B
-
21)

Because the Project operation could include cold storage for future tenants, the Project’s operation vehicle fleet may include trucks and/or trailers equipped with transport refrigeration unit (TRUs). Stationary activities of the
Project’s TRUs, such as daily unloading and seasonal parking, would not emit any criteria air pollutants because any TRUs entering the Project site are required to be plug
-
in capable and utilize the Project’s electrical connections when idling. Transiting activities of the Project’s TRU on and off the Project site would emit hydrocarbons, NOx, and PM.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 346 of 1283 ends

72 Emissions from transiting TRU operations were calculated based on the assumptions in Table IV.B
-
7, and were included in the Project’s total unmitigated operat ional emissions. Unmitigated
emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 during Project operation were estimated using the CalEEMod input parameters summarized in Table IV.B
-
4 and additional assumptions summarized
in Table IV.B
-
7 (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
21 -
IV.B
-
22 ). (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
21)

The annual average emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors during the first year of Project operation are compared to the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance in Table IV.B -
8 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
2 1
)
. Unmitigated ROG and
exhaust PM
10 and PM

2.5 emissions from Project
operation were below the thresholds of significance for each year evaluated; however, unmitigated NOx emissions from Project operation were above the threshold of significance. As sho wn in Table
IV.B
-
8 (Draft E
IR, p. IV.B
-
22)
, approximately 98 percent of the Project’s estimated NOx emissions are from mobile sources (e.g., trucks and light -
duty vehicles) and are associated with
running emissions from Project
-
generated vehicles miles travelled (VMT).

(Draft EIR, p
. IV.B
-
22)

Trucks are significant contributors to the formation of ozone, PM2.5, and DPM in California, especially trucks over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (“GVWR”), which are responsible for over 70 percent of NOx emissions from on -
road mobil
e sources as of 2019.

Over the last three decades, NOx emission standards for on -
road trucks have become more
stringent. For NOx, the standard has decreased from 6.0 grams per brake horsepower hour (“g/bhp -
hr”) in 1990 to 0.01 g/bhp
-
hr in 2010, which mean
s that a heavy
-
duty truck manufactured in 2000
could be as high as 60 times more polluting than a heavy -
duty truck with the same GVWR
manufactured after 2010. CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation for trucks greater than 14,000 pounds GVWR also results in higher

truck turnover rate by eliminating trucks powered by a 1999 or older model year engine by year 2015, and requiring all trucks to be powered by 2010 or newer models by year 2023. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
22 –

IV.B
-
23)

Consistent with, but more stringent than, t
he CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation,
Mitigation Measure AIR
-
1: Tenant
-
Owned Vehicle Model Year Requirement, below, requires
2014 or newer model year engines on all heavy
-
duty trucks more than 14,000 pounds GVWR
owned by the project tenant accessing the Proj
ect site. As shown in Table IV.B
-
8 (Draft EIR, p.

IV.B
-
22), Mitigation Measure AIR
-
1 would reduce overall Project NOx emissions in 2022 by about 16 percent; however, Project NOx emissions in 2022 would remain above the threshold of significance with implem
entation of Mitigation Measure AIR
-

1. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
23)

No on
-
site mitigation options are available other than Mitigation Measure AIR -
1: Tenant
-
Owned Vehicle Model Year Requirement. Although it is possible to reduce NOx emissions further by placing a

limit on vehicle model years for the third
-
party vehicles (vans and other passenger
cars) accessing the Project site, such measures are difficult to implement in an effective manner.

Unlike tenant
-
owned vehicles, there is no effective protocol for monitor ing third
-
party vehicles
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 347 of 1283 ends

73 accessing the Project site. Therefore, additional off -
site mitigation would be required to reduce the
residual NOx emissions, a maximum of 2.2 tons per year, as shown in Table IV.B -
8 (Draft EIR, p.

IV.B
-
22). Mitigation Measure AIR
-
2: Emissions Offsets would require the Project Applicant to offset the NOx emissions below the threshold of significance by either implementing a specific offset program (e.g., equipment replacement), funding the implementation of an emission reduction pro
ject through payment of a mitigation offset fee to the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Clean Air Foundation, or a combination of the two approaches, in an amount sufficient to mitigate residual emissions. The BAAQMD recommends identifying offset programs located within the
nine
-
county Bay Area in order to reduce the project’s cumulative contribution to the region’s existing air quality conditions. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
23 –

IV.B
-
25 )



Mitigation Measure AIR
-
1: Tenant
-
Owned Vehicle Model Year Requirement

newer
engine models. Proof of evidence can include, but is not limited to: Department of Motor Vehicles registration records; emission control labels on individual vehicles; or records from Truck Regulation Up
-
load, Compliance, and Reporting System (TRUCR
S).



Mitigation Measure AIR
-
2: Emission Offsets

At the beginning of Project tenancy, the Project Applicant, with the oversight of City of Milpitas Planning Department, shall implement emission offset program(s), as necessary, to reduce Project emissions b
elow 10 tons per year for a minimum of 3 years. The NOx emissions offset shall either be based on the existing EIR analysis (a reduction of 2.2 tons of NOx per year) or based on an updated NOx emissions inventory of the tenant -
specific
vehicle fleets and a
nnual vehicle miles traveled. The Project Applicant shall participate in either of the following NOx offset programs or a combination of both to reduce Project NOx emissions below 10 tons per year:

the specific
emissions offset Project must result in emissions reductions within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin that are real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requir ements or
any other legal requirement. Prior to implementation of the direct offset projects, the Project Applicant must obtain Planning Department’s approval of the proposed offset projects by providing documentation of the estimated annual NOx reduction within the
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 348 of 1283 ends

74 San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Project sponsor shall notify the Planning Department within six months of completion of the offset projects for verification.

2. Fund NOx emissions reductions projects to be completed by an independent third -
party
approved by the City, such as the BAAQMD’s Bay Area Clean Air Third Foundation (Independent Party) in an amount to be determined at the time of the impact. Funds shall be sufficient to sponsor NOx emissions reduction offset projects to reduce the Pr
oject NOx emissions below 10 tons per year.

frame to be determined based
on the type of project(s) selected, after receipt of the mitigation fee to achieve the emission reduction objectives specified above; and (2) provide documentation to the City of Milpitas Planning Department and the Project Ap plicant describing the amount
of mitigation fee and the project(s) funded by the mitigation fee, including the amount of emissions of NOx reduced (tons) within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin from the emissions reduction project(s). If there is any re
maining unspent portion of the
mitigation fee following implementation of the emission reduction project(s), the Project Applicant shall be entitled to a refund in that amount from the Independent Third Party. To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction
project must result in emission reduction within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin that are real, surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requiremen
ts or any other legal
requirement.

If the Project Applicant is able to demonstrate that the NOx emissions generated by the Project are less than 10 tons per year for three consecutive years (i.e., NOx emissions offsets were not necessary over the three
-
yea
r time period), then the Project Applicant
may request authorization via a waiver to cease future monitoring and reporting of the NOx emission offset program(s). The waiver application shall contain a tenant -
specific
NOx emission inventory for review and a
pproval by City of Milpitas Planning
Department. If the Project operations will substantially expand, alter, or a change of tenancy will occur, the City of Milpitas may revoke the waiver.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures AIR
-
1 and AIR
-
2 would reduce t
he residual NOx
emissions below the threshold of significance. However, because the offset program or offset fee required by Mitigation Measure AIR
-
2 cannot be determined to be real, verifiable, and enforceable DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 349 of 1283 ends

75 at the time of preparation of this EIR, the P
roject’s operational impacts related to emissions of
criteria pollutant are considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B -
25)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Threshold
:

Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions (
“GHGs”), either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Findings
:

Significant

and unavoidable impact (Draft
EIR
, pp. IV.C
-
21 -
IV.C
-
25). Changes
or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially
lessen some of the significant environmental effects as identified in the EIR; however, it is not feasible to fully mitigate the Project impact to a less than significant level (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1).)
Impa
cts would remain significant and unavoidable. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the E
IR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(3).)

Explanation
:

The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

(Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
21) The
Project’s GHG emissions impact on the environment are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
25)

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommends using the most current versio
n of the California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod” versions 2016.3.2) to estimate emissions of GHGs for a proposed Project. CalEEMod uses widely accepted models for emissions estimates combined with appropriate default data for a variety of land use

projects that
can be used if site
-
specific information is not available. The default data used in the model are supported by substantial evidence provided by regulatory agencies and a combination of Statewide and regional surveys of existing land uses.

Table IV.C
-
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
21) summarizes the
primary input data used to estimate the Project’s GHG emissions. Additional CalEEMod assumptions used to calculate the Project’s projected GHG emissions in 2022, the earliest expected year of operation,
are summarized in Table IV.C
-
5 (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
22). A copy of the
CalEEMod report, which summarizes the input parameters, assumptions, and findings, is provided in Appendix F to the Draft EIR. (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
2 0
)

The BAAQMD does not recommend a
threshold of significance for GHG emissions during
construction because there is not sufficient evidence to determine a level at which temporary construction emissions are significant.

However, to be conservative the temporary GHG emissions from project construction were amortized over the standard lifetime of a project (30 years) and DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 350 of 1283 ends

76 then combined with the operational emissions of the Project to compare to the interim 2030 GHG efficien
cy threshold. (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
2 1
)

The land
-
use sector GHG emissions from operation of the Project were evaluated based on an average service population of 150 employees. As shown in Table IV.C -
6 (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
23), the Project’s estimated CO
2 e e
missions per service population would be above the interim 2030 GHG efficiency threshold for the year 2030. The largest GHG contributions are from mobile emissions and energy use, which account for 90 percent and 6 percent of the total Project GHG emission
s, respectively. Among the mobile emissions, vehicles associated with goods movements such as vans and heavy trucks would be the primary contributor to the Project’s GHG emissions due to sizes of the vehicles and the associated VMTs. The Project does not

demonstrate substantial
progress toward meeting the Statewide 2030 GHG reduction target under SB 32. The Project’s impact related to the generation of GHG emissions is potentially significant. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.C -
21 -
IV.C
-
25)

The following mitigation me
asure would be applied to the Project to reduce GHG
emissions to the maximum extent feasible.



Mitigation Measure GHG
-
1: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan

As a part of the application package for construction
-
related permits, the Project Applicant
shall prepare

a GHG Reduction Plan to demonstrate that the Project’s GHG emissions per employee would be below the interim 2030 GHG threshold (2.9 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent per service population) with the implementation of GHG reduction measures.

Applicabl
e GHG reduction measures include the following options:

Implementation of the Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan, described in Mitigation Trans
-
1;

Increase installation of Level 2 charging stations from 22 (6 percent of total stalls) to 37 (10 p
ercent of total stalls);

Provide conduit for 50 EV charging stations (48 percent of total truck docks) either at the dock doors on in the truck court for future EV trucks;

Site employers who own and operate truck fleets shall be required to inform their drivers of the anti
-
idling requirement;

Future industrial operations shall prohibit idling of on -
and
-
off road heavy
-
duty
diesel vehicles for prolonged periods; and

The Project will provide 10% of its electricity consumption by on -
site solar
installation at

the building roof.

Other applicable GHG reduction measures that may be feasible include, but are not limited to, the following options:

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 351 of 1283 ends

77 o

Eliminating natural gas use at the Project site (approximately 3 percent reduction in total GHG emissions);

Enroll in
the program to purchase Silicon Valley Clean Air Energy Certificates;

Other applicable action items included in the City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan; and

Concrete Truck courts to reduce Heat Island effect.

For physical GHG reduction measures to be in
corporated into the design of the Project,
the measures shall be included on the drawings submitted for construction -
related permits.

If, after exhaustion of feasible physical design features and operational features specific to the Project, the Project’s
GHG emissions would still exceed the 2030 threshold, discussed above, the Project shall include the purchase of carbon credits as a reduction measure.

The amount of carbon credits shall at least cover the difference between the interim 2030 threshold and t
he Project’s GHG emissions after the consideration of design features, to be determined in the GHG Reduction Plan. The cost of carbon credit purchases shall be based on current market value at the time purchased and shall be based on the Project’s operati
onal emissions estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan or subsequent approved emissions inventory, which may result in emissions that are higher or lower than those estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan.

satisfy the requirements set forth in both
subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2) of California Health and Safety Code §38562: real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional. The purchase of the carbon credits shall be approved by the City

of Milpitas, and verified by an independent
verifier who meets stringent levels of professional qualification (i.e., Accreditation Program for GHG Validation/Verification Bodies under the American National Standards Institute’s National Accreditation Boar
d, a GHG Emissions Lead Verifier accredited by
CARB, or equivalent).

The amount of the carbon credits and the locations of the GHG -
reducing programs
generating these carbon credits shall be determined in accordance with the following preferences:

1. Off
-
site within the immediate neighbourhood surrounding the Project site, bounded by West Calaveras

Boulevard to the north, Interstate 680 to the east, Montague Expressway to the South, and Interstate 880 to the west;

2. Within the City of Milpitas;

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 352 of 1283 ends

78 3.

Within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; and

4. Within the State of California.

Implementation of this mit
igation measure will reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible, and is likely to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to below the applicable thresholds with the purchase of carbon credits. GHG reduction features in this mitigation me
asure would also make Project operation more consistent with the state -
level plans
and policies, such as the Sustainable Freight Action Plan and the recent executive orders on carbon neutrality and
zero
-
emission vehicles (
ZEVs). With the implementation of
these GHG reduction
features, especially the additional light
-
duty vehicle charging stations and pre
-
wiring for future
use of heavy
-

and medium
-
duty electric trucks, the Project goes beyond the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and municipal requir
ements to accommodate anticipated increases in the use
of ZEVs. (Draft EIR, p. IV.C
-
2 4

as amended in the Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR at p. III
-

18. )

Nevertheless, the full implementation of this mitigation measure hinges on the availability

of carbon credits. There remains uncertainty of availability of sufficient carbon offset opportunities as well as uncertainty of reliabilities with carbon credit purchases through a third party. Therefore, the successful implementation of Mitigation Mea sure GHG
-
1 is considered
speculative at this time. Thus, the Project’s GHG emissions impact on the environment are conservatively considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, p. IV.C -
25 as amended in the
Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR at

p. III
-
18 )

TRANSPORTATION

1. Consistency with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)

Threshold
:

Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Findings:

Significant and unavoidable impact (D
raft EIR, pp. IV.E
-
28 -
IV.E
-
32).

Significant and unavoidable cumulative impact (Draft EIR, pp. IV.E -
31 -
IV.E
-
33). Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen some of the significant envi
ronmental effects as identified in the EIR; however, it is not feasible to fully mitigate the Project impact to a less than significant level (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15091(a)(1)). Impacts, and cumulative i
mpacts would remain significant and unavoi
dable.

Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures identified in the EIR. (State CEQA Guidelines, section 150 91(a)(3).)

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 353 of 1283 ends

79 Explanation
:

The Project will conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28)

The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) calculation methodology is described in the Analysis Methodology section o
f this chapter (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
1). Tables IV.E
-
5 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28)
through IV.E
-
8 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
30) present the results of the analysis. Note that these tables present results relative to both baseline (existing) and cumulative conditions;

this impact discusses
the Project impact on baseline conditions; see the Cumulative Impacts section for a discussion of the cumulative impacts with respect to VMT. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E -
28)

Table IV.E
-
5 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28) shows the employment totals fo
r the traffic analysis
zone (TAZ) containing the Project site, the City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County, Alameda County, and San Mateo County, as well as the three
-
county total. Table IV.E
-
6 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
29)
presents the service population, defined

as all employees and residents, for the same areas. Values for the Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative No Project, and Cumulative Plus Project cases are shown. These values are used in the VMT calculations in the subsequent tables. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28)

Metric 1: Project Home
-
based Work VMT per Employee (Existing Plus Project)

Table IV.E
-
7 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
29) presents the home based
-
work VMT per employee
for the Project traffic analysis zone (TAZ), for the City of Milpitas, and for Santa C lara County.

While the Project reduces VMT per employee in the Project TAZ from 16.22 to 16.19, and while the Existing Plus Project VMT per employee (16.19) is lower than the Citywide average VMT per employee (17.63), the Existing + Project VMT per employ ee (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). Therefore, the Project has a significant impact on Home
-
base
d Work VMT per employee. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
29)

Cumulative Impacts

The VMT calculation methodology is described in the Analysis Methodology section of this chapter. Tables IV.E
-
3 through IV.E
-
6, on pages IV.E
-
27 though IV.E
-
29 of the Draft EIR,
presented above under Impact TRANS
-
2, present the results of the analysis. Note that these tables present results relative to both baseline (existing) and cumulative conditions; this impact discusses the Project impact on cumulative conditions; Impact TRA NS
-
2 discusses the impacts with respect
to VMT on baseline (existing) conditions. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.E -
32 -
IV.E
-
33)

Table IV.E
-
3 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
27) shows the employment totals for the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) containing the Project site, the City of

Milpitas, Santa Clara County, Alameda County,
and San Mateo County, as well as the three
-
county total. Table IV.E
-
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
27)
presents the service population, defined as all employees and residents, for the same areas. Values DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 354 of 1283 ends

80 for the Exist
ing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative No Project, and Cumulative Plus Project cases are shown. These values are used in the VMT calculations in the subsequent tables. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
33)

Metric 1: Project Home
-
based Work VMT per Employee
(Cumulative Plus Project)

18.02, although the Project TAZ VMT per
employee is lower than the citywide average (18.69). However, the Cumulative + Project VMT per employee (18.02) does not meet the significance criteria of 15 percent below the Santa Clara Countywide average (14.66)
. The Project VMT per employee exceeds the threshold by 23 percent (18.02/14.66). Therefore, the Project has a significant cumulative impact on Home -
based Work
VMT per employee. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
33)



Mitigation Measure TRANS
-
1:

The Project applicant sh
all implement a travel demand management program for all employees with the goal of reducing the use of single
-
occupant vehicles for commuting.

The measures most likely to be effective given the Project’s location and expected use type include the followi
ng (measures are identified with the California Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (August 2010) measure number and VMT reduction effectiveness range):



Implement a commute trip reduction program with req
uired implementation and
monitoring (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
2, effectiveness range 4.2%
-

21.0%);



Provide ride
-
sharing programs (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
3, effectiveness range 1
–

15%);



Implement subsidized or discounted transit program (CAPCOA measure TRT -
4,
effec
tiveness range 0.3%
-

20%);



Provide end
-
of
-
trip facilities (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
5, effectiveness based on
effectiveness of measures TRT
-
2 and TRT
-
3);



Implement commute trip reduction marketing (CAPCOA measure TRT -
7,
effectiveness range 0.8%
-

4.0%);



Impleme
nt car
-
sharing program (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
9, effectiveness range

0.4%
-

0.7%);

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 355 of 1283 ends

81 

Restripe Green Bike lanes along property frontage; and



Bike locker subsidy.

(a) VMT Strategy Report



Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit (Tenant to provide after 90 da ys of
occupation), the Project Applicant (or Project site operator) shall prepare a VMT Strategy Report that includes the following items:



Identification of a baseline Project home
-
based work VMT per employee estimate,
which shall be determined using proje
ct
-
specific information derived from location
-
based data services such as StreetLight data which can estimate the trip generation, trip lengths, and VMT for the site. This shall be supplemented/verified by driveway counts, employee commute mode surveys, a
nd employee residence data which can
provide a second VMT estimate to verify the StreetLight estimate. Other methods may be approved by City staff if new data sources and methods become available by the time of the Project is occupied.



Identification of
the Santa Clara County regional home
-
based work VMT per
employee, also derived from StreetLight data to provide an apples to apples comparison to the Project
-
specific baseline.



Identification of the percent reduction in VMT needed to achieve the target o f 15
percent below the regional average.



Identification of selected transportation demand management strategies per the above list, and others if appropriate.



Demonstration of how the TDM strategies in the VMT Strategy Report would reduce the home
-
based wo
rk VMT per employee generated by the Project to 15 percent below the countywide average home
-
based work VMT per employee.

After implementing the transportation demand management strategies selected in the VMT Strategy Report upon occupancy of the Project,
the effectiveness of these measures relative
to the performance target noted previously must be monitored, as follows.

(b) Project Site VMT Monitoring Approach



Page 356 of 1283 ends

82 regional average. The monitoring shall include Project -
generated VMT estimates
compatible with the meth
odology used to estimate project baseline VMT so that
performance comparisons can be made. The methodology for setting the baseline VMT and measuring the annual performance shall be defined in the VMT Strategy Report.



target. The Project applicant/operator may propose new strategies that develop over time to further reduce Project
-
generated VMT if substantial evidence is
provided to support the efficacy of the strategy. If a 15% VMT reduction is achieved for three co
nsecutive years, the project will no longer need to provide annual reporting.



The City of Milpitas may develop a citywide VMT monitoring program to allow global monitoring of City VMT, which may provide cost efficienci es and be a more
effective way to track VMT generation by various uses in the City. The monitoring program could make use of emerging technologies including location -
based services
on cell phones and in vehicles to track trip lengths, along with tradition al
technologies such as driveway traffic counts. If such a program is developed, the Project could participate in the monitoring and demonstrate performance relative to the Project’s VMT target.

SECTION 5.

FINDINGS REGARDING CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Consistent with CEQA’s requirements, the EIR for the Project includes an analysis of cumulative impacts.

CEQA Guidelines §

15130(b) describes two acceptable methods for
identifying a study area for purp
oses of conducting a cumulative impact analysis. These two approaches include (1) “the list of projects approach,” based on “a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including if necessary, those proje
cts outside the control of the agency” and (2) “the summary of projections approach,” based on a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certif ied, which described or
evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.

In Chapter III,
Project Description, of the Draft EIR, Table III
-
1 lists the related (or cumulative) projects identified for the proposed Project. T
hese related projects consist of all approved, proposed, or projects currently under construction located in the City of Milpitas. The list includes proj ects of various
land uses, including (but not limited to) single
-
family residential, multi
-
family resid
ential,
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 357 of 1283 ends

83 commercial, and retail. Figure III
-
8 (Related Projects Map), on page III
-
13 of the Draft EIR,
illustrates the location of each related project. For an analysis of the cumulative impacts associated with these related projects and the proposed Projec
t, the reader is referred to the cumulative impact
discussions under each individual impact category in Chapter IV of the Draft EIR. Forty -
one (41)
pending and approved projects were identified as cumulative projects (See Draft EIR, pp. III -
10 -
III
-
12).

The

Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:

A
IR

QUALITY

For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would have certain significant cumulative impacts relating to air quality due to criteria air pollutants. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B -
19 -
IV.B
-
3 2)

Cumulative Toxic Air Contaminants Emissions

In addition to a project’s individual TAC emissions during construction and operation, the potential cumulative health risks to the MEIR from existing and reasonably foreseeable future sources of TACs were eva
luated. The MEIR was evaluated because the project’s contribution to health risks at the MEIR are at least three times greater than other nearby sensitive receptors, including the residential receptor northwest of the Project. The BAAQMD’s online screening

tools
were used to provide conservative estimates of how much existing and foreseeable future TAC sources would contribute to cancer risk, HI, and PM2.5 concentrations. The individual health risks associated with each source were summed to find the cumula tive health risk at the MEIR. (Draft
EIR, p. IV.B
-
30 as amended by the Corrections and Additions at p. III -
14 )

Based on the BAAQMD’s Permitted Stationary Sources Risks and Hazards Screening Tool, no existing stationary source of TAC emissions were identifi ed within 1,000 feet of the
MEIR. As shown in
Revised
Figure IV.B
-
1 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
11), all the there are five existing
stationary sources of TAC emissions located within 1,000 feet of the Project, but more than 1,300 feet from the MEIR. The combined
health risks from all the existing stationary sources near the Project site are less than 10 percent of the BAAQMD’s cumulative health risk thresholds. Health risk impacts from these existing stationary sources would be substantially attenuated by the dist
ance between individual sources and the sensitive receptors. According to BAAQMD guidance, concentrations of particulate matter tends to be reduced substantially or can even be indistinguishable from upwind background concentrations a distance 1,000 feet d ownwind from
existing sources. Therefore, the cumulative health impacts from existing stationary sources beyond 1,000 feet of the MEIR are considered negligible. As shown in Figure III -
8, Related Projects Map
(Draft EIR, Chapter III. Project Description, p
. III
-
13), there are two foreseeable future projects
located within 1,000 feet of the MEIR. However, both of these projects are townhome development and would not include any stationary source of TAC emissions. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B -
30 as amended
by the Corr
ections and Additions at p. III
-
14)
Preliminary health risk screening values at the MEIR
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 358 of 1283 ends

84 from exposure to mobile sources of TACs were estimated based on the BAAQMD’s Bay Area modelling of health risks from highways, railroads, and major roadways with an ave rage annual
daily traffic volume greater than 30,000 vehicles per day. According to the BAAQMD’s modelling of mobile sources, nearby highways and major roadways contribute substantially to the existing health risks at the MEIR, as shown in Table IV.B
-
10 on

page IV.B
-
31 of the Draft EIR. (Draft
EIR, pp. IV.B
-
30 -
IV.B
-
31)

Estimates of the cumulative health risks at the MEIR are summarized and compared to the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds of significance in Table IV.B -
10 (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
31). The
cumulative

cancer risk and chronic HI from DPM emissions and annual average PM2.5 concentrations at the MEIR were below the BAAQMD’s cumulative thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s emissions of DPM and PM2.5 during construction and operation would have a less -
than
-
s
ignificant cumulative impact on nearby sensitive receptors; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.B
-
31)

Criteria air pollutant impacts are cumulative impacts because no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result
in non
-
attainment of air quality standards. The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants were designed to represent levels above which a project’s individual emissions would result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the S FBAAB’s
existing air quality conditions. Although construction and operation of the Project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants (including ozone precursors) with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -
1, Mitig
ation Measure AIR
-
1 is
deemed difficult to enforce, resulting in the cumulative impacts on regional air quality as being significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
3 0
-
IV.B
-
3 1
)

The BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for fugitive dust, TACs and PM2.5

were also
designed to determine if a project’s contribution to local air pollution would be cumulatively considerable. Based on the analysis above, emissions of fugitive dust, DPM and PM2.5 generated during construction and operation of the Project would
have a less
-
than
-
significant impact on local
air quality with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR -

3. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.B
-
3 0
-
IV.B
-
3 1
)

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Global climate change (GCC) occurs as the result of global emissions of GHGs. An individual development project does not have the potential to result in direct and significant GCC -
related effects in the absence of cumulative sources of GHGs. The CEQA Gui delines emphasize
that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s requirements for cumulative impacts analysis (See CEQA Guidelines section 15130[f]).

As discussed in the Draft EIR, Chapter IV.C, Greenhous
e Gas Emissions, GHG impacts
are, by their nature, cumulative impacts because one project by itself cannot significantly contribute to, or cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, because the Project would DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 359 of 1283 ends

85 have potentially significant and unavo
idable impacts related to the generation of GHG emissions, the cumulative impacts of the Project would also be considered significant and unavoidable. (Draft EIR
, p. IV.C
-
2 5
)

NOISE

For the reasons discussed herein and in the EIR, the Project would not have significant cumulative impacts relating to noise. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D -
24)

A significant impact would occur if two criteria are met: 1) if the cumulative traffic noise level incre
ase was 3 dBA DNL or greater for future levels; and 2) if the project would make a “cumulatively considerable” contribution to the overall traffic noise increase. A “cumulatively considerable” contribution would be defined as an increase of 1 dBA DNL or mo re attributable
solely to the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D
-
24)

Cumulative traffic noise level increases were calculated by comparing the cumulative no project traffic volumes and the cumulative plus project volumes to existing traffic volumes. A t
raffic noise increase of 3 dBA DNL or more was calculated along several roadways, however, since the same increase was calculated for both cumulative scenarios (no project and plus project), the project’s contribution along these roadway segments would be less than 1 dBA DNL, which
would not be considered a “cumulatively considerable” contribution. The Project would not cause a significant cumulative noise increase at noise
-
sensitive uses in the Project vicinity. This is a less
-
than
-
significant impact and n
o mitigation measures are required. (Draft EIR, p. IV.D -
24)

TRANSPORTATION

The Project’s cumulative traffic impacts were previously addressed in Section 4 herein.

The Project would result in cumulatively considerable traffic impacts. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.E -
32 -
IV.E
-
33)

The Project will conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), resulting in Impact TRANS
-

5. The VMT calculation methodology is described in the Analysis Methodology section of this chapter. Tables IV.E
-
3 thr
ough IV.E
-
6, on pages IV.E
-
27 though IV.E
-
29 of the Draft EIR,
presented above under Impact TRANS
-
2, present the results of the analysis. Note that these tables present results relative to both baseline (existing) and cumulative conditions; this impact di scusses
the Project impact on cumulative conditions; Impact TRANS -
2 discusses the impacts with respect
to VMT on baseline (existing) conditions. (Draft EIR, pp. IV.E -
32 -
IV.E
-
33)

Table IV.E
-
3 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
27) shows the employment totals for the traff
ic analysis
zone (TAZ) containing the Project site, the City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County, Alameda County, DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 360 of 1283 ends

86 and San Mateo County, as well as the three
-
county total. Table IV.E
-
4 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
27)
presents the service population, defined as all emp
loyees and residents, for the same areas. Values
for the Existing, Existing Plus Project, Cumulative No Project, and Cumulative Plus Project cases are shown. These values are used in the VMT calculations in the subsequent tables. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
33)

Metric 1: Project Home
-
based Work VMT per Employee (Cumulative Plus Project)

Table IV.E
-
5 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
28) presents the home based
-
work VMT per employee
for the Project TAZ, for the City of Milpitas, and for Santa Clara County. The Project increas es
VMT per employee in the Project TAZ from 17.98 to 18.02, although the Project TAZ VMT per employee is lower than the citywide average (18.69). However, the Cumulative + Project VMT per employee (18.02) does not meet the significance criteria of 15 perc ent below the Santa Clara
Countywide average (14.66). The Project VMT per employee exceeds the threshold by 23 percent (18.02/14.66). Therefore, the Project has a significant cumulative impact on Home -
based Work
VMT per employee. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
33)

Metric 2: Total Boundary VMT (Cumulative Plus Project)

This metric measures the total VMT for all trip types within the region expected to be affected by the Project trips. For this analysis, the three -
county region of Santa Clara County,
Alameda County,
and San Mateo County was selected as likely to capture the effect of most to all Project trips. The total VMT per service population (employees and residents) is calculated. Table IV.E
-
6 (Draft EIR, p. IV.E
-
29) shows this metric for the City of Milpitas,

for information, as well
as for the three
-
county region, for the Existing and Existing Plus Project cases. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E -
33)

Under Cumulative condition, the Project decreases Total Boundary VMT within the three -
county region, and the VMT per service

population drops from 14.69 VMT per service population
to 14.67 VMT per service population. Therefore, the Project’s impact on Total Cumulative Boundary VMT is considered less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. IV.E -
33)

SECTION 6.

FINDINGS

REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE

ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES

According to
Sections 15126 and 15126.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is required to address any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would occur should the
Project be implemented. Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible envi ronmental
changes if any of the following would occur:



The project would involve a large commitment of non
-
renewable resources;



The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 361 of 1283 ends

87 generations to similar uses;



The project involves

uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or



The proposed consumption of resources is not justified.

Construction of the proposed Project would require the use of nonrenewable resources (i.e., wood, metals,

sand, gravel, fossil fuels) for building materials and to fuel construction vehicles and equipment. Subsequent use and maintenance of the Project would also require the long -
term
consumption of these nonrenewable resources. Energy usage on the Project si te during
construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. The use of construction materials and nonrenewable resources is not unusual or extraordinary, and, as a result, there w ould be no significant irreversible
environmental effects related to resource consumption during construction. (Draft EIR, p. V -
3)

On a permanent, long term basis, the proposed Project would consume energy associated with the daily operation of the Project

site and transportation off
-
site. This energy use would be a
long
-
term commitment and the use of energy would be irretrievable, although energy -
saving
features of the Project would reduce this commitment. For example, Level 2 EV Charging stations will be

installed at a count of 4% of the total parking spaces (approximately 14). Additionally, 25% of the truck dock doors will be provided as Level 2 EV Capable for future EV truck charging.

The proposed Project will be constructed to California Green Buildin g Standards Code
(CALGreen) standards Tier I or Tier II, which would help to reduce energy and natural gas consumption. Air quality and greenhouse gas mitigation measures included in this Draft EIR will also reduce the consumption of energy during the con
struction and operational phases of the
Project. The Project site does not contain any significant mineral, oil, or other energy sources that would be adversely affected by project implementation. No potentially significant loss of availability of a known
mineral resource of value to the region and the residents of the state would occur as a result of the Project. (Draft EIR, pp. V
-
3 and V
-
4)

The Project would use common cleaning and maintenance materials, which would be shipped, stored, used and disposed o
f in accordance with applicable regulations. Otherwise, the proposed Project would not involve the routine use, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials.

During project construction the Project would be required to follow all applicable requirements

to
ensure safe use, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials or waste that could be used. For these reasons, the Project would not result in any significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of

hazardous materials, or through upset
or accident conditions. (Draft EIR, p. V
-
4)

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 362 of 1283 ends

88 SECTION 7.

FINDINGS REGARDING GROWTH
-

INDUCING IMPACTS

The State CEQA Guidelines requires a Draft EIR to discuss the ways the Project could foster economic or population grow
th or the construction of additional housing, directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.

Growth must not be assumed as beneficial,
detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15
126.2, a project would be considered to have a growth
-
inducing effect if it
would result in any of the effects listed below.



Directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environ
ment;



Remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., construction of an infrastructure expansion to allow for more construction in service areas);



Tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause signif
icant environmental effects; or



Encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.

The following analysis is based in part on the Public Revenue and Economic Impact Analysis of th
e OMP Warehouse in Milpitas (Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., August 7, 2020) (Appendix E to the Draft EIR
). The proposed Project would not directly induce population growth during the demolition and construction phases as it does not include residential

uses. While
the proposed Project would add short
-
term employment opportunities during the demolition and constr
uction phases, it is likely that the construction workers would be taken from the labor pool currently residing in the Bay Area, as this work w
ould be temporary in nature and would not
provide long
-
term employment opportunities that would encourage population growth. This increase in construction jobs would result in some short -
term economic growth but it would not
represent “substantial populati
on growth” if such employees permanently relocated their residences to Santa Clara County from outside the County. (Draft EIR, p. V -
2)

According to the Project’s public revenue and economic impact analysis (Appendix E to the Draft EIR), the construction of

the Project will generate one
-
time economic impacts, estimated
to include about 198 job
-
years and associated employee compensation of about $19.7 million. In other words, Project construction would support 198 construction jobs if completed over the cours e
of a year, or 99 construction jobs over the course of two years. (Draft EIR, p. V -
2)

Upon completion, the Project’s proposed uses are to include advanced manufacturing, e -
commerce, light assembly, warehouse/distribution, among other uses permitted by cod e. The
Project site has been used for industrial use but has been vacant since 2015. The proposed Project will generate about $240,000 annually in public revenues to the City of Milpitas General Fund at project completion. This includes approximately $180,
000 annually in net new property tax
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 363 of 1283 ends

89 revenues and an additional $60,000 annually from other revenues sources such as sales and use taxes, franchise taxes, and other charges and services. Over a 20 -
year period, this would sum to
about $4.8 million to the Ci
ty’s General Fund (in 2020 dollar terms). These revenues would be available to the City to support expenditures on General Fund public services, including police, fire, and parks and recreation services. (Draft EIR, p. V -
2)

or $220,600 annually and $4.41 million over 20 years. The remaining share of the Project’s property tax revenue is allocated to the San Jose -
Evergreen Community College District,
the State’s Education Revenue Augmentation Fund, and a water and air quality

districts. (Draft
EIR, p. V
-
2)

The Project applicant expects the proposed Project will support about 375 ongoing on -
site
jobs based on warehouse size and parking availability. This represents about 0.76 employees per 1,000 square feet, which is consistent

with industry standards. Annually, a total of $24.4 million in employee compensation is expected to be associated with the ongoing operation of the warehouse. (Draft EIR, pp. V
-
2 and V
-
3)

Levels of service related to public services and
utilities would not be substantially affected
by proposed Project. The Project site is located within a developed urban setting in the City’s Industrial Zone M2. Off
-
site water and sewer mains, storm drains, and utility infrastructure adjacent to the site

would service the proposed Project and would not require the extension of existing utilities or new utilities which would induce growth. Further, the proposed Project would be adequately served by existing public services such as fire/emergency and polic e services in the
vicinity of the Project site. (Draft EIR, p. V
-
3)

SECTION 8.

FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES

The EIR analyzed two
alternatives to the Project as proposed and evaluated these alternatives for their ability to avoid or reduce the Project’s

significant environmental effects while
also meeting the majority of the Project’s objectives.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Chapter III, Project Description, (Draft EIR, p. III
-
26)

and Chapter VI, Alternatives to the
Proposed Project, (Draft EIR pp. VI
-
2 -
VI
-
3)

incl
udes the Project Objectives. The objectives of
this proposed Project are as follows:

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 364 of 1283 ends

90 

To redevelop and maximize the buildout potential of an underutilized property and reduce existing blight thereby providing for a range of potential uses including light

industrial, manufacturing, warehouse or e
-
commerce
.



Construct an infill development of up to approximately 500,000 square feet exhibiting quality design, consistency with the designated land use and zoning and compatibility with the surrounding land uses.



Develop a Project that is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan and the surrounding uses.



Attract new employment
-
generating businesses to Milpitas to help create more equal jobs
-
housing balance in Milpitas and reducing the need for residents to commut e
outside the area for employment.



Implement the City of Milpitas desire to create new uses that generate additional revenue and help Milpitas and other public agencies achieve fiscal balance.



Develop a logistics center that is in close proximity to nearby

truck routes and freeways,
minimizing vehicle miles travelled on the streets in order to facilitate the efficient movement of goods, which is recognized as a strong benefit for local and regional economic growth.



Satisfy the substantial demand for a logis
tics center building that is both physically and
economically feasible to construct and operate, that is attractive to potential users and economically competitive with other geographic markets.



To help improve the quality of life for Milpitas residents th rough job creation, revenue
generation and other associated Project benefits.



Generate local employment opportunities, both in short
-
term construction employment
and long
-
term Project employment.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED DURING THE

SCOPING/PRO

JECT PLANNING PROCESS

As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible for detailed study, and briefly explain the
reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Furthermore, Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that “[a]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability o f
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries . . . and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire or control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by

the proponent). No one of these
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 365 of 1283 ends

91 factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.” (Draft EIR, pp. VI -
3 -
VI
-
4)

Based on preliminary evaluations, additional alternatives to the proposed Project were considered but eliminated from f
urther evaluation for the various reasons described below, such as the alternatives resulting in greater adverse environmental impacts than the proposed Project or not meeting Project objectives. (Draft EIR, p. VI
-
4)

An alternative involving commercial uses such as retail, and commercial services, restaurants, or professional office, lodging, or medical was rejected as infeasible as it would not meet most of the Project objectives, nor would it be permitted within the Heavy Industrial (M2)
zoning designation. Any alternatives including residential, open space, or park uses on the Project site were dismissed because they would not meet any of the Project objectives and they would not be consistent with the General Plan
land use designation. (Draft EIR, p. VI
-
4)

An off
-
site alternative was rejected as infeasible because the Project Applicant does not own any other property that would be feasible for this project or that could accommodate the size of this project in the C
ity of Milpitas and cannot “reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to [an] alternative site” (refer to §15126.[f][1] of the CEQA Guidelines). (Draft EIR, p. VI -
4)

ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR

1. Alternative A: No Project Altern
ative

Description:

Alternative A, the No Project Alternative, considers no development on the Project site beyond what occurs on the site under existing conditions. (Draft EIR, p. VI -
5)

Under the CEQA
-
required “No Project Alternative” (Alternative A), th
e existing
conditions at the Project site would predominantly remain as they are. The existing four office buildings and research/development facilities ranging from one to two stories in height, representing 397,009 square feet would not be demolished an d the proposed Project’s 491,040
-
square foot tilt
-
up concrete creative industrial building with two supporting offices would not be constructed. Alternative A includes the following existing uses and associated square footage:

•

Office
–

162,090 square feet

•

Manufacturing
–

20,000 square feet

•

Warehouse
–

45,643 square feet

•

Lab and Manufacturing
–

169,276 square feet

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 366 of 1283 ends

92 The FAR for the No Project Alternative is .31. Building No. 1 would remain as a single -
story and Building Nos. 2, 3, and 4 would remain at two stories. Ingress and egress would continue
to be provided along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. (Draft EIR, p. VI -
5)

The analysis of Alternative A assumes the continuation of existing physical conditions on the site, as well as development o
f the related projects described in the Draft EIR, Chapter III, Section III.C (Related Projects). The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative A are described in Chapter VI of the Draft EIR (Draft EIR, pp.

VI
-
5 -
VI
-
9 and VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23) and
are compared to the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project.

Aesthetics

Under Alternative A, no demolition of existing buildings, grading, or development would occur on the Project site and the existing aesthetic characteristics would remain unchanged. Under
this Alternative, there would be no impact to scenic vistas, and no impact to the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Similar to the proposed Project, under this Alternative, ther
e would be no impact to scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Under this Alternative there would be no new sources of light or glare on the site, and therefore this Alternative would result in no impact, compared to the Project’s less -
than
-
significant impact with
mitigation related to light and glare. While the proposed Project’s significant aesthetic impacts can be mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant levels, impacts
to aesthetics under Alternative A would
be less compared to the proposed Project.

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
6)

Air Quality

No demolition, grading, or construction (other than retrofitting Building No. 1 to convert office space to warehouse) would occur under Alter
native A. In addition, no air pollutant
emissions (i.e., respirable particulate matter [PM10], carbon monoxide [CO], nitrogen oxides [NOX]) related to grading would be generated under this Alternative. Under this Alternative it is assumed the existing on
-
site buildings could be occupied. Both the Project and Alternative A would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and the associated impacts would be less than significant. Both the Project and Alternative A wou ld result
in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable as an o
perational impact under the Project and Alternative
A. The Project could potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction. However, these potentially significant impacts related to fugitive dust emissions
during Project construction would be reduced to a less
-
than
-
significant level after
mitigation, whereas this impact would not occur under Alternative A. The Project would result in a less
-
than
-
significant impact related to other emissions (such as those l eading to odors) because
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 367 of 1283 ends

93 the Project is a warehouse facility, and construction and operation would not be expected to generate significant odors. Similar to the Project, Alternative A would have a less -
than
-
significant
impact to related to other emissions

such as those leading to odors.

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
6)

Biological Resources

Because the Project site would not be developed under Alternative A, no demolition, grading or development (other than retrofitting Building No. 1 to convert office space to wareho
use) would occur and no trees or vegetation would be removed from the site. Thus, similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A would have no impacts related to the special -
status wildlife
species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters . Under this Alternative there
would be no impact to any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, compared to the Project’s less -
than
-
significant impact. This
Alternative would also ha
ve no impact with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, compared to the proposed Project’s less -
than
-
significant impact. However,

since there would be no tree or vegetation removal under Alternative A, there would be no impact to the movement of any native resident or wildlife species, or invasive non -
native plant species on
the Project site. These impacts are less
-
than
-
significant

with mitigation for the proposed Project.

While the proposed Project’s significant biological resources impacts can be mitigated to less -
than
-
significant levels, impacts to biological resources under Alternative A would be less compared to the proposed P
roject.

(Draft EIR, pp. VI
-
6 -
IV
-
7)

Cultural Resources

Under Alternative A, no demolition or ground
-
disturbing activities would occur at the site.

Since no demolition or ground
-
disturbing activities would occur, Alternative A would result in no impacts to historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains, compared to the Project’s no impact to historical resources, less
-
than
-
significant impact with mitigation related to
archaeological resources, and less
-
than
-
significant impact wi
th mitigation related to human
remains. While the proposed Project’s significant cultural resources impacts can be mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant levels, impacts to unknown cultural resources under Alternative A would be less compared to the proposed
Project.

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
7 )

Geology and Soils

The Project site would still be subjected to ground shaking and related hazards under both Alternative A and the proposed Project. Since no grading or ground disturbing activities would take place under Alte
rnative A, no impact to paleontological resources could occur during excavation into native geologic formations below existing fill material, where fossils may be buried and physical destruction of fossils could occur. Under the proposed Project, this imp act
would be reduced to less
-
than
-
significant with mitigation. While the Project’s significant geology DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 368 of 1283 ends

94 and soils impact can be completely mitigated and reduced to less -
than
-
significant levels, geology
and soils impacts associated with Alternative A would
be less compared to the proposed Project.

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
7 )

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This Alternative would not include any new development (other than retrofitting Building No. 1 to convert office space to warehouse), and thus would not generate any si gnificant
construction related GHG emissions. However, it is assumed that under this Alternative the existing buildings could be occupied; therefore, there could be potential sources of near -
term or
long
-
term GHG emissions. By comparison, the Project wou
ld result in new development and
associated construction and operational emissions of GHGs would exceed applicable thresholds, which would be a significant impact. While mitigation is recommended that would implement GHG
‐reduction measures, these measures

would not reduce the Project’s contribution to a less
‐
than
‐significant level, and impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Similar to the Project, Alternative A would also have significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions. The P
roject would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, resulting in a less -
than
-
significant
impact, which would be similar under Alternative A as well. (Draft EIR, p p
.

VI
-
7 -
VI
-
8 )

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Because no new land uses would be built on the site and no new residents or employees would be at the site under Alternative A, this Alternative would result in no impact related to the creation of a significant h
azard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, compared to the Project’s less
-
than
-
significant impacts with mitigation. Because no grad
ing of
the Project site would occur under Alternative A, workers and/or the public would not be exposed to potentially contaminated soil during construction and/or operation of the Project, nor would workers and/or the public be potentially exposed to haza rdous building materials (e.g., lead paint,
asbestos) during demolition of existing structures. Under the proposed Project, this impact would be less
-
than
-
significant with mitigation. Similar to the Project, under this Alternative, there would be no impa
ct when it comes to emitting hazardous emissions within one -
quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school. Also similar to the proposed Project, there would be no impact to the thresholds associated with airport proximity and wildland fires under this Al ternative. Under this
Alternative, impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be less than significant, similar to the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. VI -
8 )

Noise

No demolition, grading, or construction (other than
retrofitting Building No. 1 to convert
office space to warehouse) would occur under Alternative A. Construction and operational noise DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 369 of 1283 ends

95 impacts associated with the proposed Project were found to be less than significant, and would remain less than significa
nt under Alternative A. The Project site is located approximately four miles from the nearest airport, and the proposed Project would not expose people working at the site to excessive aircraft noise, resulting in a less
-
than
-
significant impact. This imp
act would
remain less than significant under Alternative A, since the distance from the airport would not change. (Draft EIR, p. VI
-
8 )

Transportation

No demolition, grading, or construction (other than retrofitting Building No. 1 to convert office space
to warehouse) would occur under Alternative A. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative A would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, an d impacts would
be less than significant. Alternative A would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), nor would it result in inadequa
te emergency access, therefore resulting in less
-
than
-
significant impacts, similar to the proposed Project. The proposed Project would result in approximately 3,303 daily trips, 348 AM peak hour trips, and 88 PM peak hour trips. Alternative A would resul
t in approximately 2,402 daily trips, 313 AM peak hour trips, and 321 PM peak hour trips. The VTA’s (Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority) Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) screening tool was applied to the No Project Alternative and found a home -
work V
MT per
employee of 15.98, which is slightly lower than the proposed Project’s VMT rate of 16.19 (both are for the baseline (2019) case). Therefore, Alternative A would generate slightly lower VMT per employee than the proposed Project (15.98 versus 16.19) . Alternative A would result in fewer
overall daily trips compared to the proposed Project but would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) related to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), and impacts would be significa
nt and unavoidable, similar to the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p p
.

VI
-
8 -
VI
-
9 )

Tribal Cultural Resources

Under Alternative A, no demolition or ground
-
disturbing activities would occur at the
Project site. Since no demolition or
ground
-
disturbing activities would occur, Alternative A would
result in no impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources, compared to the Projects less -
than
-
significant impacts with mitigation. While the proposed Project’s significant tribal cultural resou
rces impacts can be mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant levels, impacts to unknown tribal
cultural resources under Alternative A would be less compared to the proposed Project.

(Draft
EIR, p. VI
-
9 )

This alternative was selected by the City of Milpitas to co mpare the environmental effects
of the proposed Project with an alternative that would leave the property in its existing state.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 370 of 1283 ends

96 Impacts:

Alternative
A
,
the No Project Alternative,
would not eliminate any significant
impacts of the Project, however, some
of the effects of the Project’s significant impacts would be lessened.

All other impacts from the
No Project
Alternative would be similar to the Project.

(Draft
EIR, pp. VI
-
5 -
VI
-
9 and VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23)

Objectives and Feasibility:

The No Project Alternative wou
ld not meet all of the Project
objectives. (Draft EIR, pp. VI
-
9 and VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23)

Finding:

The Planning Commission rejects the No Project Alternative on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of th is
alternative: (1) this alternative fails to meet all of the Project objectives ; (2) even though this
alternative would reduce impacts relating to redevelopment of the Project site, given the regional high demand for logistics/warehouse uses this alternat
ive would most likely displace impacts to
another location rather than reduce or avoid impacts to the environment; and (3) this alternative is infeasible given that retention of the site in its unoccupied condition would result in a blighted condition and
would be inconsistent with the City of Milpitas General Plan, which anticipates full development of the Project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is eliminated from further consideration.

2. Alternative B: Reduced Project Alternative

Description:

The Reduced Project Alternative was selected to evaluate the comparative environmental benefits of constructing a project with less building square footage. Similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B would involve demolition and removal of the existi ng four office
buildings and research/development facilities that are currently developed on -
site. Also similar to
the proposed Project, 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. Under this Alternative, 364,600 square feet of warehouse space would be provided and 3,680 square feet of office space, as compared to the Project’s proposal of a pproximately 486,130 square feet of
warehouse space and 4,910 square feet of office space. The FAR for Alternative B would be .29 compared to the proposed Project’s FAR of .38. Alternative B would also involve the same amount of tree removal as the propo
sed Project with the removal of 88 trees, as well as the same level of landscaping. Under this Alternative, the amount of grading and impervious surfaces would be the same as the proposed Project, as this Alternative approximates 100,800 cubic yards of so il to be
moved around on
-
site, with balanced grading of the site as well. (Draft EIR, p. VI -
10)

The potential environmental impacts associated with Alternative B are described in Chapter VI of the Draft EIR (Draft EIR, pp.

VI
-
10 -
VI
-
13 and
VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23) and are compared to
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 371 of 1283 ends

97 the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, pp. VI -
10 -
VI
-
13 and
VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23)

Aesthetics

Under Alternative B, all impacts to aesthetics would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Und
er this Alternative, there would be a less
-
than
-
significant impact to scenic vistas, and
to the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Under this Alternative, there would also be no impact to scenic resource s including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Since this Alternative would involve demolition of the existing buildings on -
site, and construction of the
proposed warehouse with reduced squ
are footage, new sources of light or glare would still be introduced on
-
site, and impacts would be similar to those identified under the proposed Project.

Similar to the proposed Project, significant impacts to aesthetics associated with Alternative B woul
d completely mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures listed in Table II -
1 and
included in the Initial Study (Appendix A

to the Draft EIR
).

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
10 )

Air Quality

Air quality impacts during construction would be slightly less under this Alternative than the proposed Project because this Alternative involves less development. Long -
term operational
air quality impacts from stationary emissions would also be less unde r this Alternative compared
to the proposed Project. This is because Alternative B involves fewer square feet of development, resulting in less natural gas and electricity consumption and associated air pollution than the Project. Alternative B would not

conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and would result in a less
-
than
-
significant impact, which is similar to the Project.

Also similar to the Project, Alternative B would result in significant and unavoidable impac ts
related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is in non
-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Both the Project and Alternative B would have a less
-
than
-
significant impact with mitigation when it
comes to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts associated with other emissions (such as those leading to odors) affecting a substantial number of people would be less than

significant for both the Project and Alternative B.

(Draft EIR, p
p
. VI
-
10 -
VI
-
11 )

Biological Resources

The development of Alternative B would reduce the building square footage of the Project, but it would not significantly alter the amount of site prepar ation and grading activities that would
be required. As with the proposed Project, site preparation and grading activities under Alternative B would require the removal of the existing vegetation that is located on the Project site. Under this Alternativ
e, the same 88 trees would be removed. Similar to the proposed Project, if conducted DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 372 of 1283 ends

98 during the breeding season (February through August), vegetation removal and construction activities could directly impact nesting birds by removing trees or vegetation t hat support active
nests. These impacts are similar to those identified under the proposed Project, and can be completely mitigated by implementing the mitigation measures listed in Table II -
1 and included
in the Initial Study (Appendix A

to the Draft EIR
).

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
1 1
)

Cultural Resources

Under Alternative B, cultural resources impacts would be similar to the proposed Project because roughly the same amount of grading and ground
-
disturbing activities would be required.

Therefore, should the site
contain historical resources, unknown archaeological resources, or unknown human remains, implementation of Alternative B would result in similar cultural resource impacts compared to the proposed Project. These impacts can be mitigated to less -
than
-
signi
ficant levels via the mitigation measures listed in Table II -
1 and included in the Initial Study
(Appendix A

to the Draft EIR
).

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
1 1
)

Geology and Soils

The Project site would still be subjected to ground shaking and related hazards under bo th
Alternative B and the proposed Project. Since grading and ground -
disturbing activities associated
with Alternative B would be similar to the proposed Project, a potentially significant impact to unknown paleontological resources could occur during exca vation into native geologic formations
below existing fill material, where fossils may be buried and physical destruction of fossils could occur. Similar to the proposed Project, this impact would be reduced to less -
than
-
significant levels
after mitigatio
n. Alternative B would also require compliance with applicable building codes and be subject to the geotechnical report recommendations which would ensure that no significant earth resource impacts would be created under this Alternative. Therefore, simi lar to the proposed
Project, significant geology and soils impacts under Alternative B can be completely mitigated and reduced to less
-
than
-
significant levels via the mitigation measures listed in Table II -
1 and
included in the Initial Study (Appendix A

the Draft EIR
). (Draft EIR, p
p
. VI
-
1 1
-
VI
-
12 )

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Overall, GHG emissions would be less than they would be under the proposed Project because there would be less development under this Alternative. Under this Alternative, the total bui
lding area developed would be less than the Project; therefore, this Alternative would generate a reduced amount of construction and operational GHG emissions compared to the Project.

However, because of the size of the Project, total GHG emissions would exceed applicable
thresholds, which would be a significant impact. GHG
-
reduction mitigation recommended for the
Project would reduce but not eliminate this impact, and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. While Alternative B would also be

subject to the same GHG
-
reduction measures as
the project, GHG impacts would remain significant and unavoidable like the Project. Alternative DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 373 of 1283 ends

99 B would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emiss
ions of greenhouse gases, and impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Project. (Draft EIR, p. VI
-
1 2
)

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

The reduction in building square footage associated with Alternative B is not anticipated to substantially
change the hazards and hazardous materials impacts associated with the Project.

Implementation of Alternative B would result in less
-
than
-
significant impacts related to the routine
use, transport and disposal of hazardous materials, similar to the Project . Also similar to the
proposed Project, under this Alternative, there would be no impact when it comes to emitting hazardous emissions within one
-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Also similar to the proposed Project, there would be no impa
ct associated with airport proximity and wildland
fires under this Alternative. Implementation of Alternative B would also result in less -
than
-
significant impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Alternative B would res
ult in significant but mitigatable impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials, which is similar to the impacts associated with the Project. Like the proposed Project, Alternative B’s significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts ca n also be
completely mitigated and reduced to less
-
than
-
significant levels via the mitigation measures listed
in Table II
-
1 and included in the Initial Study (Appendix A

to the Draft EIR
).

(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
1 2
)

Noise

The reduction in building square footag
e associated with Alternative B is not anticipated
to substantially change the noise impacts associated with the Project. Although less construction would be associated with Alternative B due to a reduction in square footage, this Alternative would still
result in less
-
than
-
significant impacts related to construction noise, similar to the proposed Project. Also similar to the proposed Project, Alternative B would result in less -
than
-
significant
operational noise impacts. Construction
-
related vibration le
vels for the proposed Project are not
anticipated to exceed 0.3 in/sec PPV at the nearest structures, resulting in a less -
than
-
significant
impact. This impact would also remain less than significant under Alternative B. The Project site is located approx
imately four miles from the nearest airport, and the proposed Project would not expose people working at the site to excessive aircraft noise, resulting in a less -
than
-
significant
impact. This impact would remain less than significant under Alternative B,

since the distance
from the airport would not change. Overall impacts related to noise would be less under Alternative B than under the proposed Project, but would remain less -
than
-
significant, like the
proposed Project.

(Draft EIR, p
p
. VI
-
1 2
-
VI
-
13 )

Tran
sportation

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 374 of 1283 ends

100

Compared to the proposed Project, Alternative B would result in approximately 25 percent fewer daily vehicle trips as well as approximately 25 percent fewer trips during the AM and PM peak hours. Alternative B would not conflict with a program,

plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative B would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design featu
re (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), nor would it result in inadequate emergency access, therefore resulting in less than significant impacts. Alternative B would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b) related to VMT, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable, similar to the proposed Project. Although Alternative B would result in similar impacts as the proposed Project, those impacts would all be reduced in nature. However,
Alternative B would not reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to VMT. (Draft EIR, p. VI
-
1 3
)

Tribal Cultural Resources

Under Alternative B, tribal cultural resource impacts would be similar to the prop osed
Project because roughly the same amount of grading and ground -
disturbing activities would be
required. Therefore, should the site contain any tribal cultural resources, implementation of Alternative B would result in similar tribal cultural resource impacts compared to the proposed
Project. These impacts can be mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant levels via the mitigation measures
listed in Table II
-
1 and included in the Initial Study (Appendix A

to the Draft EIR
).

(Draft EIR, p.

VI
-
1 3
)

Impacts:

Alter
native B, the Reduced Project Alternative,

would not eliminate any
significant impacts of the Project, however, some of the effects of the Project’s significant impacts would be lessened. All other impacts from the Reduced Project Alternative would be simi lar to the
Project. (Draft EIR, pp.

VI
-
10 -
VI
-
13 and VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23)

Objectives and Feasibility:

The Reduced Project Alternative would meet most of the
Project objectives, although to a lesser degree. (Draft EIR, pp. VI -
13 and VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23)

Finding:

Although Alternative B would not eliminate any significant impacts of the Project, some of the effect
s of the Project’s significant impacts would be lessened. Additionally, Alternative B would not meet all of the Project objectives. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects Alternative B, the Reduced Project Alternative, and this alternative is

eliminated from further consideration.

ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed Project and the alternatives, Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally supe rior”
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 375 of 1283 ends

101

alternative be selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts. Identification of the enviro nmentally superior alternative is an
informational procedure and the alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City and/or Project applicant. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that i
f the environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (Draft
EIR, p. VI
-
14)

Based on the analysis provided in
C
hapter VI of the Draft EIR, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, and in the Alternatives Comparison Table (see Table VI -
1, Draft EIR, pp. VI
-
15 -
VI
-
23),
it has been determined that Alternative B (Reduced Project Alternati ve) would be the
environmentally superior alternative. Although Alternative B would not eliminate any significant impacts of the Project, some of the effects of the Project’s significant impacts would be lessened.

Additionally,
Alternative B would not me
et all of the Project objectives. For these reasons, the Planning Commission rejects Alternative B, the Reduced Project Alternative, and this alternative is eliminated from further consideration.
(Draft EIR, p. VI
-
14)

SECTION 9.

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OV

ERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

The Planning Commission hereby declares that, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the Planning Commission has balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determinin
g whether to approve the proposed Project.

Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the benefits of the proposed Project outweigh the Project’s unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered “acceptable.”

Having reduced the ad
verse significant environmental effects of the proposed Project to the extent feasible by adopting the Mitigation Measures contained in the EIR, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), and this Resolution, having considered the entire admin
istrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation, the Planning Commission has determined that each of the following social, economic and environmental benefits of the proposed Project
separately and individually outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impact and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations:

The proposed Project provides deve
lopment of a functional, well serviced, and
attractive logistics center that is sensitive to its setting in proximity to surrounding

land uses, and that improves and maximizes economic viability within the City by DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 376 of 1283 ends

102

the orderly redevelopment of an unoccupied property into a productive industrial use;

The Project Applicant expects the proposed Project will support about 375 ongoing on
-
sit
e jobs based on warehouse size and parking availability. This represents about

0.76 employees per 1,000 square feet, which is consistent with industry standards.

Annually, a total of $24.4 million in employee compensation is expected to be associated with
the ongoing operation of the warehouse;

Upon completion, the Project’s proposed uses are to include advanced manufacturing, e
-
commerce, light assembly, warehouse/distribution, among other uses permitted by code. In doing so, the Project will further divers ify the City’s
economy and secure the City’s position in the regional, State, and international marketplace;

The proposed Project attracts new employment
-
generating business to the City of
Milpitas thereby reducing the need for members of the local workfor ce to commute
outside the area for employment;

The proposed Project creates short
-
term construction jobs that would generate
increases in construction employee wages, as well as a multiplier effect of those wages that will create secondary jobs to support
Project
-
related construction
activities and the needs of construction workers. The addition of new jobs to the City of Milpitas will create direct and indirect economic benefits, such as increased tax income to the City and spending on goods and services;

The proposed Project will help to strengthen and diversify the City’s economy by adding buildings that are in strong demand by logistics companies in the regional, State, and international marketplace;

The proposed Project provides adequate and upgraded i
nfrastructure, roadway
improvements, utility improvements, and contributions to public services;

The proposed Project will generate about $240,000 annually in public revenues to the City of Milpitas General Fund at Project completion. These revenues would be
available to the City to support expenditures on General Fund public services, including police, fire, and parks and recreation services;

Implementation of the proposed Project will result in payment of Development Impact Fees, City permitting fees, and

property taxes, that would benefit the City
of Milpitas by increasing available funding for needed public services and infrastructure;

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 377 of 1283 ends

103

At Project buildout, property tax is expected to generate approximately $1.1 million in net new property taxes, based o
n the estimated incremental increase in the
assessed value of the property. County departments and districts collectively receive 20 percent of the property tax revenue, or $220,600 annually and $4.41 million over 20 years. The remaining share of the Proje ct’s property tax revenue is
allocated to the San Jose
-
Evergreen Community College District, the State’s
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund, and a water and air quality districts; and

The proposed Project will redevelop a former property, thereby eliminat ing the
vacancy and neglect that has occurred due to the property not being occupied or reused since 2015
.

The Planning Commission hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through the approval and implementation of the
proposed Pr
oject

outweigh the identified
significant adverse environmental impact of the
proposed Project
that cannot be mitigated. The
Planning Commission finds that each of the Project
’s

benefits separately and individually
outweigh all of the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable.

SECTION 10.

ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM

Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the Planning Commission hereby adopts

the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A.” Implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the MMRP is hereby made a condition of approval of the
proposed Project
. In the event of any inconsi
stencies between the
mitigation measures set for herein and the MMRP, the MMRP shall control.

SECTION 11.

CERTIFICATION

The Planning Commission finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the
EIR is an accurate and objective statement that
has been completed in full compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's Local CEQA Guidelines and that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission declares that no evidence of new significant impacts as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 have been received by the Planning Commission after circulation of the Draft EIR which would require recirculation.

Therefo
re, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 378 of 1283 ends

104

SECTION 12.

CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, CA. The custodian for these records is Ned Thomas, Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.

SECTION 13. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Santa Clara and the State Clearinghouse within 5 (five) working days of final Project approval.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on March 24, 2021.

_______________________________
____
Chair
TO WIT:

COMMISSIONER AYES
NOE

S ABSENT ABSTAIN
Steve Ta
o, Chair

Merced
es Albana
Timothy Alcorn
Steve Belong

Bill Chuan
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1 Apr-08-2021

Page 379 of 1283 ends

105

I HE
REBY 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:

Larry Ciardella
Ale
xander Galang
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 380 of 1283 ends

106

Exhibit “A”

MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 381 of 1283 ends

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
1 SCH
#2020069024

I
V
.

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program

(MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14), which state the following:

In order to ensure that the mitigation measures and project revisions identified in the EIR or negative declaration are implemen
ted, the public agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions which it has required in the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. A public agency may delegate reporting o
r monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity which accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed the lead agency remains responsible for ensuring that implementation of the mitigation measur es
occurs in accordance with the program.

The public agency may choose whether its program will monitor mitigation,

report on
mitigation, or both.

“Reporting”

generally consists of a written compliance review that is presented to the
decision
-
making

body or authorized staff person. A report may be required at various stages during project implementation or upon completion of the mitigation measure. "Monitorin
g" is generally an ongoing or periodic process of project oversight. There is often no clear distinction between monitoring and reporting and the program best suited to ensuring compliance in any given instance will usually involve elements of both.

Tabl
e
IV
-
1 lists the potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigation measure s

identified in
the
Final
Environmental Impact Report

(
F
inal
EIR
). Table
IV
-
1 describes the timing of
implementation of the mitigation measures (i.e., when the measure will be implemented
) and the
City of
Milpitas

(
City
)

staff

or individual responsible for ensuring implementation of the measures.

Finally, Table
IV
-
1 describes the
City

staff

o
r

individual responsibility for monitoring the mitigation measures.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 382 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
2 SCH #2020069024

Thi
s page intentionally left blank

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 383 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
3 SCH #2020069024

Table

IV
-
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

AESTHETICS

Impact AES
-
1:

Create a new
source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in
the area

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less
T
han Significant

Mitigat
ion Measure AES
-
1:

54.17 of the City’s
Zoning Code and the proposed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant

Implementa
tion
Frequency:

P
rior to issuance of
Building Permit

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas
Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

A
IR

QUALITY

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
applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard

Significance of Impact

b
efore
Mitigation:

Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Significant
and Unavoidable

Miti
gation Measure AIR
-
1:

Tenant
-
Owned Vehicle Model Year
Requirement

At the beginning of Project tenancy, the Project Applicant shall submit proof of evidence to the City of Milpitas that any tenant -
owned
vehicles above 14,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight rating (GVWR)
accessing the Project site are solely powered by 201
4 or newer
engine models. Proof of evidence
of
Tenant
-
Owned Vehicle Model
Year Requirement include, but is not limited to: Department of Motor Vehicles registration records; emission
control labels on individual
vehicles; or records from Truck Regulation Up
-
load, Compliance, and
Reporting System (TRUCRS).

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project Applicant

Implementation
Frequency:

During
P
roject
operation

M
onitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

City of Milpitas

Public Works

Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 384 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
4 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

Mitigation Measure AIR
-
2: Emission Offsets

At the beginning of Project tenancy, the Project Applicant, with the oversight

of City of Milpitas Planning Department, shall implement emission offset program(s), as necessary, to reduce Project emissions below 10 tons per year for a minimum of 3 years. The NOx emissions offset shall either be based on the existing EIR analysis (a reduction of 2.2 tons of NOx per year) or based on an updated NOx emissions inventory of the tenant
-
specific vehicle fleets and annual
vehicle miles traveled. The Project Applicant shall participate in either
of the following
NOx offset programs

or a combi
nation of both
to
reduce Project NOx emissions below 10 tons per year
:

1. Directly implement a specific offset program (such as requiring Project tenant(s) to replace equipment in the existing tenant
-
owned operation fleet) to reduce Project NOx
emissions belo
w 10 tons per year
, subject to the City of
Milpitas Planning Department’s approval. To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions offset Project must result in emissions reductions within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin that are rea
l, surplus, quantifiable,
enforceable, and would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements or any other legal requirement. Prior to implementation of the direct offset projects, the Project Applicant must obtain Pla
nning
Department’s approval of the proposed offset projects by providing documentation of the estimated annual NOx
reduction within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Project sponsor shall notify the Planning Department within six months of completi
on of the offset projects for verification.

2. Fund NOx emissions reductions projects to be completed by an independent third
-
party approved by the City, such as the
BAAQMD’s Bay Area Clean Air Third Foundation
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 385 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
5 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

(Independent Party) in an amount to be determine
d at the
time of the impact. Funds shall be sufficient to sponsor NOx emissions reduction offset projects to reduce the Project NOx

emissions below 10 tons per year.

For this option, the Project Applicant is required to enter into a Memorandum of Understa
nding (MOU) with the
Independent Third Party. The MOU will include details
regarding the funds to be paid, administrative fee and the timing of the emissions reductions project(s). Acceptance of this fee by the Independent Third Party shall serve as an ack
nowledgement and commitment by the Independent Third
Party to: (1) implement an emissions reduction project(s) with a time frame to be determined based on the type of project(s) selected, after receipt of the mitigation fee to achieve the emission reductio
n objectives specified above; and (2)
provide documentation to the City of Milpitas Planning
Department and the Project Applicant describing the amount of mitigation fee and the project(s) funded by the mitigation fee, including the amount of emissions of
NOx reduced (tons)
within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin from the
emissions reduction project(s). If there is any remaining unspent portion of the mitigation fee following implementation of the emission reduction project(s), the Project Applicant sha
ll be entitled to a refund in that amount from the
Independent Third Party. To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction project must result in emission reduction within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin that are real, surp
lus, quantifiable, enforceable, and
would not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory requirements or any other legal
requirement.

If the Project Applicant is able to demonstrate that the NOx DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 386 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
6 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

emissions generated by the Project are less than 10 tons per year for three consecutive years (i.e., NOx emissions offsets were not necessary over the three
-
year time period), then the
Project Ap
plicant may request authorization via a waiver to
cease future monitoring and reporting of the NOx emission offset program(s). The waiver application shall contain a tenant
-
specific NOx emission inventory for review and
approval by City of Milpitas Plannin
g Department. If the
Project operations will substantially expand, alter, or a change of tenancy will occur, the City of Milpitas may revoke the waiver.

Impact AIR
-
3:

Expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less
T
han Significant

Mitigation Measure AIR
-
3: Fugitive Dust Control during
Project
Construction

During Project construction, the contractor shall implement a dust control program that includes the following measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD):



All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas,
staging areas, soil
piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.



All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off
-
site shall be covered.



All visible mud or dirt track
-
out onto adjacent public road
s
shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.



All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour.



All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as Implementation
Responsibility:

Project Applicant/

Construction

Contractor

Implementation
Frequency:

During demolition,
grading, and
construction

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 387 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
7 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.



A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone nu
mber and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.

The above measure
s shall be included in contract specifications. In
addition, an independent construction monitor shall conduct periodic site inspections, but in no event less than four total inspections, during the course of construction to ensure these mitigation measure s are
implemented and shall issue a letter report to the City of Milpitas Building Division documenting the inspection results. Reports indicating non
-
compliance with construction mitigation measures
shall be cause to issue a stop work order until such tim e as
compliance is achieved.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 388 of 1283 ends

City of Milpita
s March 2021

1000 Gib
raltar Drive IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final
EIR Page IV-8
SCH #2020069024

Environmen
tal Impact Mitiga
tion Measures
Imp
lementation
Respo
nsibility &
Timing
Monitori
ng
Respo
nsibility
Perf
ormance
Objec
tive

BIOLOGIC

AL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-1: Interfere
s
ubstantially with the movement
of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less Than Significant
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Nesting Birds and Roosting Bats:

If feasible, all vegetation removal shall be conducted during the non- breeding season (i.e., September 1 to January 31) to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. If such work is scheduled during the breeding season, a qualified biologist or ornithologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine if any birds are nesting within the project site. The pre-construction survey shall be conducted within 15 days prior to the start of work from March through May (since there is a higher potential for birds to initiate nesting during this period) and within 30 days prior to the start of work from June through July. If active nests are found during the survey, the biologist or ornithologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall be allowed until the young have successfully fledged.

The size of the buffer shall be determined by the biologist or ornithologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and would be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance.

In order to avoid impacts to roosting bats, a pre-construction habitat assessment and survey(s) for bat roosts shall be conducted in any large trees (dbh >24 inches) within 100 feet of any planned work areas and in any buildings planned for demolition. This effort shall occur prior to the start of work to evaluate whether potential roost habitat occurs and to determine the type (i.e., maternity or non-maternity) and status (i.e., active or inactive) of the roost. If an active maternity or special-status bat roost is found, removal of maternity roost trees or building shall be avoided during the maternity roosting season or until a qualified biologist determines the roost has been vacated. Felled trees without maternity or special-status roosts shall be allowed to lay on the ground for one night to allow any undetected roosting bats to leave the tree before it is chipped or taken off-site.

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project Applicant/
Construction
Contractor

Implementation
Frequency:

Prior to demolition
Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of Milpitas
Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 389 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
9 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impact CULT
-
1 :

Cause a
substantial adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to Section 15064.5

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less
T
han Significant

Mitigation Measure CULT
-
1 –

Unanticipated Discovery Protocol
for Archaeological Resources:

If indigenous or historic
-
era archaeological resources are
encountered during proposed Project development or operation, all activity within 100 feet of the find shall cease and the find shall be flagged for avoidance. The City and a qualified archaeologis t, defined
as one meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology, shall be immediately informed of the discovery. The qualified archaeologist shall inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery and notify
the City of their initial
assessment. If the resource is indigenous, the City shall also contact relevant California Native American Tribes to assist in determining if the resource may qualify as a tribal cultural resource.

If the City determines, based on

recommendations from the qualified
archaeologist and, if the resource is indigenous, relevant California Native American Tribes, that the resource may qualify as a historical resource or unique archaeological resource (as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 1506

4.5), or a tribal cultural resource (as defined in PRC
§ 21074), the resource shall be avoided if feasible. Avoidance means that no activities associated with the proposed Project that may affect cultural resources shall occur within the boundaries of the resource or
any defined buffer zones. If avoidance is not feasible, the City shall consult with appropriate Native American tribes (if the resource is indigenous) and other appropriate interested parties to determine treatment measures to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate any potential
impacts to the resource pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. This shall include documentation of the resource and may include data recovery or other measures. Treatment for most resources woul
d consist of, but
would not be limited to, sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the Implementation
Responsibility:

Project Applicant/
Construction
Contractor

Implementation
Frequency:

During grading and
construction

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 390 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
10 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource. The re
source and treatment method shall be
documented in a professional
-
level technical report to be filed with the
California Historical Resources Information System. Work in the area may commence upon completion of approved treatment and under the direction of

the qualified archaeologist.

Impact CULT
-
2:

Disturb any
human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated
cemeteries

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less
T
han Significant

Mitigation Measure CULT
-
2 –

Unanticipated Discovery Protocol
for Human Remains:

If human remains are uncovered during
proposed Project

construction, all work shall immediately halt within 100 feet of the find and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be co
ntacted to evaluate
the remains and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(e)(1). If the
Santa Clara C
ounty
C
oroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the N
ative
A
merican
H
eritage
C
om
mission (NAHC)
, in
accordance with H
ealth and
S
afety
C
ode

§ 7050.5(c) and P
ublic
R
esources
C
ode

§ 5097.98. As required by P
ublic
R
esources
C
ode

§ 5097.98, the City shall ensure that further development activity avoids damage or disturbance in the immediate

vicinity of the Native
American human remains, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, until the City has conferred with the most likely descendants regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into acc
ount the possibility of multiple human
remains.

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project Applicant/
Construction
Contractor

Implementation
Frequency:

During grading and
construction

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of Milpitas

Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

GEOLOGY AND SOILS

Impact GEO
-
1:

Directly or
indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site
or unique geologic feature

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation Measure GEO
-
1 :

The applicant shall inform its contractor(s) of

the sensitivity of the
project area for paleontological resources and shall include the following directive in the appropriate contract documents. The City Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant
/
Construction
Contractor

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 391 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
11 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less
T
han Significant

shall verify that the following
directive is included in the appropriate
contract documents:

“The subsurface of the construction site may be sensitive for paleontological resources. The contractor shall provide information to construction crews on how to recognize paleontological resourc es. If
paleontological resources are encountered during project subsurface construction, all ground disturbing activities within 25 feet of the find shall be redirected and the City and a qualified paleontologist contacted to assess the
paleontological res
ources
. Project personnel
shall not collect or move any paleontological materials.

Paleontological resources include fossil plants and animals, and such trace fossil evidence of past life as animal tracks.”

The City and a qualified paleontologist shall ma
ke recommendations
for the treatment of the discovery. If found to be significant, and project activities cannot avoid the paleontological resources, adverse effects to paleontological resources shall be mitigated. Mitigation may include monitoring, record
ing the fossil locality, data recovery and
analysis, preparation of a technical report, and providing the fossil material and technical report to a paleontological repository, such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology. Public educational
outreach may also be appropriate. Upon completion of
the assessment, a report documenting methods, findings, and recommendations shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review.

Implementation
Frequency:

During grading and
construction

________

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Impact GHG
-
1:

Generate
greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on
the environment

Mitigati
on Measure GHG
-
1: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan:

As a part of the application package for construction
-
related permits,
the Project Applicant shall prepare a GHG Reduction Plan to demonstrate that the Project’s GHG emissions per employee would be
below the interim 2030 GHG threshold (2.9 metric tons carbon Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant

Implementation
Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 392 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
12 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Significant and Unavoidable

dioxide equivalent per service population) with the implementation of GHG reduction measures. Applicable GHG reduction measures include the following options:



Implementation of the Transportation

Demand Management
(“TDM”) Plan, described in Mitigation Trans
-
1;



Increase installation of Level 2 charging stations from 22

(6
percent of total stalls)
to 37

(10 percent of total stalls)
;



Provide conduit for 50 EV charging stations

(48 percent of
total t
ruck docks)
either at the dock doors on in the truck court
for future EV trucks;



Site employers who own and operate truck fleets shall be required to inform their drivers of the anti
-
idling requirement;



Future industrial operations shall prohibit idling o
f on
-
and
-
off
road heavy
-
duty diesel vehicles for prolonged periods; and



The Project will
provide

10% of

its electricity consumption by
on
-
site solar installation at the building roof
.

Other applicable GHG reduction measures that may be feasible include, but are not limited to, the following options:



Eliminating natural gas use at the Project site (approximately 3 percent reduction in total GHG emissions);



Enroll in the program to purchase Silicon Valley Clean Air Energy Certificates;



Other appl
icable action items included in the City of Milpitas
Climate Action Plan; and

Frequency:

During
P
roject
operation

________

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 393 of 1283 ends

City of Milp
itas March 2021

1000 G
ibraltar Drive IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Fina
l EIR Page IV-13
SCH #2020069024

En
vironmental Impact Miti
gation Measures
Im
plementation
Re
sponsibility &
Tim
ing
Moni
toring
Re
sponsibility
Pe
rformance
Obj
ective
 Concr
ete Truck courts to reduce Heat Island effect.

For physical GHG reduction measures to be incorporated into the design of the Project, the measures shall be included on the drawings submitted for construction-related permits. If, after exhaustion of feasible physical design features and operational features specific to the Project, the Project’s GHG emissions would still exceed the 2030 threshold, discussed above, the Project shall include the purchase of carbon credits as a reduction measure. The amount of carbon credits shall at least cover the difference between the interim 2030 threshold and the Project’s GHG emissions after the consideration of design features, to be determined in the GHG Reduction Plan. The cost of carbon credit purchases shall be based on current market value at the time purchased and shall be based on the Project’s operational emissions estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan or subsequent approved emissions inventory, which may result in emissions that are higher or lower than those estimated in the GHG Reduction Plan.

All carbon credits shall be purchased from a carbon offset registry (the registry) approved by CARB. The carbon credit shall be verifiable by the City of Milpitas and enforceable in accordance with the registry’s applicable standards, practices, or protocols. The purchase of the carbon credits must substantively satisfy the requirements set forth in both subdivisions (d)(1) and (d)(2) of California Health and Safety Code §38562: real, permanent, quantifiable, verifiable, enforceable, and additional. The purchase of the carbon credits shall be approved by the City of Milpitas, and verified by an independent verifier who meets stringent levels of professional qualification (i.e., Accreditation Program for GHG Validation/Verification Bodies under the American National Standards Institute’s National Accreditation Board, a GHG Emissions Lead Verifier accredited by CARB, or equivalent).

The amount of the carbon credits and the locations of the GHG- reducing programs generating these carbon credits shall be DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 394 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
14 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

determined in accordance with the following preferences:

1. Off
-
site within the immediate neighbourhood surrounding the Project site, bounded by West
Calaveras Boulevard to the
north, Interstate 680 to the east, Montague Expressway to the South, and Interstate 880 to the west;

2. Within the City of Milpitas;

3. Within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin; and

4. Within the State of California.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Impact HAZ
-
1:

Create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving
the release of hazardous
materials into the environment

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less
T
han Significant

Mitigation Measure HAZ
‐
1:

Mitigation Measure HAZ
‐
1: A Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be
prepared by a qualified environmental professional to outline soil management protocols that
would be implemented during Project
construction to ensure that construction workers, the public, future site occupants, and the environment would not be exposed to hazardous materials (e.g., arsenic) that may be present in soil at the Project site.

The SM
P shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of demolition or grading permits. The SMP shall include, but not be limited to the following:



Procedures for soil management including identification and testing of contaminants, so
il stockpiling procedures, soil
reuse guidelines, and soil disposal methods.



Requirements for notification to the City and any applicable regulatory agency(ies) of previously unknown hazardous
materials found in soil during development.

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant

Implementation
Frequency:

P
rior to issuance of
grading

permits

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas
Planning
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 395 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
15 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective



Guidelines for con
trolling dust during excavation and grading.

All recommendations included in the SMP shall be implemented during the demolition, grading, and construction phase of the Project.

Prior to the City’s approval of building occupancy, the applicant shall provide

the City with a report prepared by a qualified environmental professional documenting that soils on the Project site were managed in accordance with the SMP during demolition, grading, and construction, and that appropriate safeguards (e.g., capping of re
maining arsenic impacted soil with clean fill or hardscape materials) have been incorporated into the project design, as necessary, to ensure that the public, future site occupants, and the environment would not be exposed to unacceptable health risks from

residual
hazardous materials in the subsurface of the Project site.

TRANSPORTATION

Impact TRANS
-
2:

Conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Significant and Unavoidable

Mitigation Measure TRANS
-
1:

The Project applicant shall implement a travel demand management program for all employees with the goal of reducing the use of single -
occupant vehicles for commuting. The measures most likely to be effective given the Project’s location and expected use type include
the following (measures are identified with the California Air Pollution Control Officers (CAPCOA)
Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures

(August 2010) measure number and VMT reduction
effectiveness range):



Implement a commute trip re
duction program with required
implementation and monitoring (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
2,
effectiveness range 4.2%
-

21.0%);



Provide ride
-
sharing programs (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
3,
effectiveness range 1
–

15%);

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant

Implementation
Frequency:

During
P
roject operation

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

City of Milpitas
Public Works
Department

Initials

_______

Date

_______

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 396 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
16 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective



Implement subsidized or discounted transit
program
(CAPCOA measure TRT
-
4, effectiveness range 0.3%
-

20%);



Provide end
-
of
-
trip facilities (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
5,
effectiveness based on effectiveness of measures TRT
-
2 and TRT
-
3);



Implement commute trip reduction marketing (CAPCOA
measure TRT
-
7, effec
tiveness range 0.8%
-

4.0%);



Implement car
-
sharing program (CAPCOA measure TRT
-
9,
effectiveness range 0.4%
-

0.7%);



Restripe Green Bike lanes along property frontage; and



Bike locker subsidy.

(a) VMT Strategy Report



Prior to the issuance of an occupancy p
ermit (Tenant to
provide after 90 days of occupation), the Project Applicant (or Project site operator) shall prepare a VMT Strategy Report that includes the following items:



Identification of a baseline Project home
-
based work VMT
per employee estimate, w
hich shall be determined using
project
-
specific information derived from location
-
based data
services such as StreetLight data which can estimate the trip generation, trip lengths, and VMT for the site. This shall be supplemented/verified by driveway coun
ts, employee
commute mode surveys, and employee residence data
which can provide a second VMT estimate to verify the
StreetLight estimate. Other methods may be approved by City staff if new data sources and methods become available by the time of the Proj
ect is occupied.



Identification of the Santa Clara County regional home
-
based work VMT per employee, also derived from
StreetLight data to provide an apples to apples comparison to the Project
-
specific baseline.

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 397 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
17 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective



Identification of the percent reduction in VMT needed to ac
hieve the target of 15 percent below the regional average.



Identification of selected transportation demand
management strategies per the above list, and others if appropriate.



Demonstration of how the TDM strategies in the VMT
Strategy Report would reduce

the home
-
based work VMT
per employee generated by the Project to 15 percent below the countywide average home
-
based work VMT per
employee.

After implementing the transportation demand management strategies selected in the VMT Strategy Report upon occupan cy of
the Project, the effectiveness of these measures relative to the performance target noted previously must be monitored, as follows.

(b) Project Site VMT Monitoring Approach



The Project shall be monitored by the City or by the Project application/ope
rator on an annual basis to determine the
efficacy of the selected transportation demand management strategies in achieving the performance target of 15 percent below the regional average. The monitoring shall include Project
-
generated VMT estimates compa
tible with the
methodology used to estimate project baseline VMT so that performance comparisons can be made. The methodology
for setting the baseline VMT and measuring the annual
performance shall be defined in the VMT Strategy Report.



An annual monitori
ng memorandum shall be submitted to
City staff. If the Project site is found not to be in compliance with the mitigation measure, the Project must incorporate additional transportation demand management strategies to meet the performance target. The Proj
ect applicant/operator
may propose new strategies that develop over time to further reduce Project
-
generated VMT if substantial evidence is
DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 398 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
18 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

provided to support the efficacy of the strategy. If a 15% VMT reduction is achieved for three consecutive years, t
he project
will no longer need to provide annual reporting.



The City of Milpitas may develop a citywide VMT monitoring program to allow global monitoring of City VMT, which may provide cost efficiencies and be a more e
ffective way to track
VMT generation by various uses in the City. The monitoring program could make use of emerging technologies including location
-
based services on cell phones and in vehicles to
track trip lengths, along with traditional technologies su ch as
driveway traffic counts. If such a program is developed, the Project could participate in the monitoring and demonstrate performance relative to the Project’s VMT target.

Cumulative Impact TRANS
-
5 :

Conflict or be
inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Significant and Unavoidable

Mitigation Measure:

See

Mitigation Measure TRANS
-
1 above
.

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant

Implementation
Frequency:

During
P
roject
operation

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

City of Milpitas
Public Works
Department

Initials
_______

Date
________

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

Impact TRIBAL CULT
-
1:

Cause
a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074
Mitigation Measure
:

S
ee Mitigation Measure
s

CULT
-
1 and CULT
-
2 above.

Implementation
Responsib
ility:

Project
Applicant

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpitas

Planning
Department

Initials

_______

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 399 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
19 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms
of size and scope of the
land
scape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe,
and that is listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register
of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical
resources as defined in Public
Res
ources Code section
5020.1(k)

Significance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less than Significant

Implementation
Frequency:

During grading and
construction

Date

________

Impact TRIBAL CULT
-
2:

Cause
a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074
as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms
of size and scope of the
land
scape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe,
Mitigation Measure
:

S
ee Mitigation Measure CULT
-
1 and CULT
-
2 above.

Implementation
Responsibility:

Project
Applicant

Implementation
Frequency:

During grading and
construction

Monitoring
Responsibility:

City of
Milpi
tas
Planning
Department

Initials

_______

Date

________

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 400 of 1283 ends

City

Milpitas

March

2021

1000 Gibraltar Drive

IV
.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

Final

EIR

Page

IV
-
20 SCH #2020069024

Environmental Impact

Mitigation Measures

Implementation
Responsibility &
Timing

Monitoring
Responsibility

Performance
Objective

and that is a resource
determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in sub
division (c) of Public
Resources Code section 5024.1?
In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a California Native American
tribe

Sig
nificance of Impact Before
Mitigation:

Potentially Significant

Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:

Less than Significant

DocuSign Envelope ID: F99CA6B5-7BC6-48FE-92EC-EC1DCAFEC6D1

Page 401 of 1283 ends

Attachment C
1000 Gibraltar Drive Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Report

https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8836/Att-C-1000-Gibraltar-Draft-and-Final-EIR-ZIP

Page 402 of 1283 ends

1000 Gibraltar Drive
15164 Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final
Environmental Impact Report
(State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024)
City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County, California
PREPARED FOR:

City of Milpitas
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
408.586.3274
Contact: Kristina Phung, Senior Planner
PREPARED BY:

FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Janna Waligorski, Project Director
Brittany Perez, Project Manager
August 28, 2025

Page 403 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 404 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS iii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Table of Contents
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
1 - Introduction 1

1.1 - Environmental Checklist 1

1.2 - Environmental Analysis and Conclusions 1

1.3 - Mitigation Monitoring Program 3
2 - Project Description 5

2.1 - Location and Setting 5

2.2 - Project Background 6

2.3 - Proposed Project Characteristics 6

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals 10

2.5 - Other Approvals 10
3 - CEQA Addendum 17

3.1 - Explanation of Addendum Evaluation Categories 17

3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections 18

3.3 - Environmental Topics 19
I. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare 21
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources 27
III. Air Quality 32
IV. Biological Resources 58
V. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources 66
VI. Energy 74
VII. Geology, Seismicity, and Soils 80
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 91
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 99
X. Hydrology and Water Quality 107
XI. Land Use and Planning 121
XII. Mineral Resources 124
XIII. Noise 127
XIV. Population and Housing 132
XV. Public Services 135
XVI. Recreation 141
XVII. Transportation 144
XVIII. Utilities and Service Systems 156
XIX. Wildfire 162
XX. Mandatory Findings of Significance 167

Page 405 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

iv FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Appendix A: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Supporting Information
Appendix B: Biological Resources Supporting Information B.1 - Database Search Results
B.2 - Tree Survey
B.3 - Tree Survey Report Addendum
Appendix C: Cultural Resources Supporting Information
Appendix D: Transportation Supporting Information
D.1 - Local Transportation Analysis
D.2 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis

Tables
Table 1: Project Comparisons 7
Table 2: Project Consistency with Clean Air Plan Control Measures 34 Table 3: Approved Project Estimated Project Construction Emissions (Pounds per Day) 38
Table 4: Approved Project Estimated Unmitigated and Mitigated Project Operation Emissions 39
Table 5: Construction Emissions 42
Table 6: Operational Emissions 44
Table 7: Health Risks During Project Construction and Operation at the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident 48
Table 8: Summary of Cumulative Health Risks at the Maximally Exposed Individual Resident 50
Table 9: Estimated Construction Cancer Risks and Chronic Non-Cancer Hazards 51 Table 10: Summary of the Cumulative Health Impacts at the MEIR 54 Table 11: Estimated Project Construction and Operational Energy Consumption 76 Table 12: Project GHG Emissions from Land-Use Sectors 92 Table 13: Proposed Project Construction GHG Emissions 93 Table 14: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions 95
Table 15: Proposed Project GHG Emissions per Service Population Compared to Prior EIR 95
Table 16: Difference in Trip Generation from the Previously Approved Project 146 Table 17: Proposed Project VMT Calculations by Category 150 Table 18: VMT Significance 151

Page 406 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS v
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map 11
Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map 13
Exhibit 3: Site Plan 15

Page 407 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 408 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS vii
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
ACM asbestos-containing materials
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB California Air Resources Board
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
BMP Best Management Practice
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CBC California Building Standards Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CGS California Geological Survey
DOC California Department of Conservation
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FAR floor area ratio
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
LEED® Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID Low Impact Development
M2 Heavy Industrial
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MFG Manufacturing
mgd m illion gallons per day
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
mph miles per hour
MRP Municipal Regional Permit

Page 409 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

viii FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Negative Declaration
NFHL National Flood Hazard Layer
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NWIC Northwest Information Center
O&M Plan Operations & Maintenance Plan
PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company
PRC Public Resources Code
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SB Senate Bill
SCP Stormwater Control Plan
SCVHP Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMP Soil Management Plan
SOI Sphere of Influence
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WPCP Water Pollution Control Plant
VOC volatile organic compounds

Page 410 of 1283 ends

1000 Gibraltar Drive
15164 Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final EIR

FCS 1
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx 1 - INTRODUCTION
Pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15164, this Addendum (herein after referred to as Addendum) and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024, certified March 24, 2021), hereinafter referred to as the previous Final Environmental Impact Report (previous FEIR), prepared for the City of Milpitas (City) remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project (P-SD24- 0006) (proposed project) or whether additional documentation is required under the CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.).

1.1 - Environmental Checklist
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, subd. (a), the attached Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the proposed project.

Consistent with the thresholds used by the Lead Agency in the previous FEIR, the attached Addendum uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a).

1.2 - Environmental Analysis and Conclusions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (a)).

An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the FEIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the proposed project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (e)).

Consequently, once an EIR or ND has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND is required under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence:

Page 411 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

2 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx 1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 1 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR or ND . . . due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FEIR was certified as complete or the ND was adopted. . . shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR or ND or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous FEIR or ND;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR or ND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162, subd. (a); see also Pub. Resources Code, Section 21166).

This Addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required.

This Addendum addresses the conclusions of the previous FEIR in light of the proposed project.

1.2.1 - Findings
There are no substantial changes proposed by the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Project or under the circumstances in which the proposed project would be undertaken that would require major revisions of the previous FEIR. The proposed revisions do not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible nor has the proposed project proponent declined to adopt any additional mitigation measures or alternatives that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on

1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines “significant effect on the environment” as “ . . . a substantial, or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance . . .” (see also Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21068).

Page 412 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 3
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx the environment. Applicable mitigation measures from the previous FEIR are identified and discussed in this Addendum.

As illustrated herein, the proposed project is consistent with and within the scope of the previous FEIR and would involve only minor changes; therefore, an Addendum is appropriate and required CEQA compliance for the proposed project.

1.2.2 - Conclusions
The impacts of the proposed project remain within the impacts previously analyzed in the previous FEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15164).

1.3 - Mitigation Monitoring Program
As required by Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, subd. (a)(1), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was adopted to implement the certified previous FEIR and to monitor the implementation of the mitigation measures that were adopted by the Lead Agency. Long-term monitoring of mitigation measures imposed on the overall development will be implemented through the MMRP. The MMRP has been updated to identify the relevant mitigation measures applicable to the 1000 Gibraltar project evaluated in this Addendum.

Page 413 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 414 of 1283 ends

1000 Gibraltar Drive
15164 Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final EIR

FCS 5
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx 2 - PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 - Location and Setting

2.1.1 - Location
The approximately 28.96-acre project site is located in the City of Milpitas (City), in Santa Clara County (County), California (Exhibit 1). The City is located in the northern portion of the County and is bordered by the City of San José to the west and the City of Fremont to the north. The eastern portion of the City is comprised of a range of high foothills and mountains, which are a part of the Diablo Range. The City is divided into three sections by Interstate 680 (I-680) and I-880. Areas west of I-880 are largely industrial and commercial. Between I-880 and I-680, there is an industrial zone in the south and residential neighborhoods in the north. Other residential neighborhoods and undeveloped mountains are to the east of I-680. The proposed project site is located in the industrial zoned area between I-880 and I-680. The project site is located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive and encompasses one corresponding Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN): 086-42-033 (Exhibit 2).

2.1.2 - Environmental Setting
Existing Land Use Activities
The project site is currently developed with a vacant, 397,009-square-foot corporate campus including four office buildings and research/development facilities ranging from 1 to 2 stories in height with surface parking lots along the site periphery and has been vacant since 2015. The existing on- site floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.31. Existing impervious surface areas comprise approximately 876,485 square feet. The project site has seven access points, three on South Milpitas Boulevard and four on Gibraltar Drive. The project 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. According to the Arborist Report Addendum prepared in 2025 a total of 98 on-site trees are large enough to quality for protected status according the Milpitas Municipal Code.

Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is within the south-central portion of the City and is surrounded by industrial offices, places of worship, and a restaurant/café accessory use to the north; Gibraltar Drive as well as office and industrial office uses to the west and south; and South Milpitas Boulevard as well as industrial and office uses to the east (Exhibit 2). The project site is approximately 0.4 mile north of Montague Expressway, 0.4 mile west of I-680, 0.9 mile south of SR-237, and 1.1 mile east of I-880. The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tracks are located approximately 700 feet west of the project site. The

Page 415 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

6 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Union Pacific Railroad Milpitas Yard is located approximately 1,200 feet northwest of the site (and approximately 70 feet west of the BART tracks).

2.1.3 - Existing General Plan and Zoning Designations
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Manufacturing (MFG) and is located within the City’s Heavy Industrial District (M2) zoning district. The MFG designation allows a variety of light and heavy industrial uses including manufacturing, packaging, processing, warehousing and distribution, and ancillary support uses at a FAR of up to 1.0. The M2 Zoning District allows for the construction, use, and occupancy of buildings and facilities for office, research, general manufacturing, warehousing and distribution, and other uses compatible with the district.

2.2 - Project Background

2.2.1 - Previously Approved Project
Implementation of the previously approved project would have involved the demolition of all existing on-site buildings (representing 397,009 square feet), parking lots, and associated improvements. The previously approved project included a new 491,040-square-foot tilt-up concrete creative industrial building, inclusive of two supporting offices at the northwest and southeast corners (4,910 square feet) and surface parking on all sides of the building. The previously approved project’s FAR was

0.38. The previously approved building was designed to accommodate up to two separate tenants with uses including advanced manufacturing, e-commerce, light assembly, warehouse/distribution, and possibly other uses permitted within the M2 Zoning District. The previously approved project was not constructed.

2.2.2 - 2020 1000 Gibraltar Drive Environmental Impact Report The previous FEIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024) was certified by the Milpitas City Council on March 24, 2021 per Resolution 21-007. As part of the environmental review an Initial Study was prepared and circulated to the public during the Notice of Preparation process. The Initial Study was attached to the Draft EIR as Appendix A and was available during public comment periods and is incorporated in the previous FEIR. The analysis of impacts was contained in the Initial Study, with the exception of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, which were found to have a potential impact and were therefore analyzed in the FEIR.

2.3 - Proposed Project Characteristics
Panattoni Development Company (applicant) is seeking approval of a modified site plan for the 1000 Gibraltar Drive project site considered in the previous FEIR (Table 1). Implementation of the now proposed project involves the demolition of all existing on-site buildings representing 397,009 square feet, parking lots, and associated improvements. The proposed project consists of a 487,564- square- foot building with 476,864 square feet of warehouse space and 10,700 square feet of office space at the northeast corner of the building, truck docks, trailer parking, passenger vehicle parking, backup

Page 416 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 7
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx generator, landscaping and stormwater facilities (detention basins) (Exhibit 3). The proposed building would be 1 story with a maximum height of 46.5 feet above the ground surface at the top of the parapet and the project would have 0.39 FAR. The proposed building would have a setback of 35 feet from the face of the curb on Gibraltar Drive and South Milpitas Boulevard. An average of 363 employees (accounting for seasonal flucations) are expected.

Table 1: Project Comparisons

Existing
Conditions
Previously
Approved Project Proposed Project
Difference
(Previously
Approved vs.

Proposed)
Number of Buildings 4 1 1 0
Demolition (square feet) n/a 397,009 397,009 0
Total Square Footage
397,009 square
feet
491,040 487,564 -3,476
Warehouse 486,130 square
feet
476,864 square feet -9,266
Office 4,910 square feet 10,700 square feet +5,790
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.31 0.38 0.38 +.01
Impervious Surface Area
(square feet)
876,485 928,755
(additional 52,270)
982,012
(additional 105,527)
+53,257
Height (feet) 1 to 2 stories 42 46.5 +4.5
Protected Tree Removal N/A 88 181 -63
Employees N/A 330 363 +33
Notes:
1 Seven protected status trees have been removed between certification of the previous FEIR and the currently proposed project. These trees were removed as a result of their declining health. In total, the proposed project and current existing conditions results in 25 fewer protect trees on-site.

Source: City of Milpitas. 2020, Initial Study 1000 Gibraltar Drive. June.

City of Milpitas. 2020. 1000 Gibraltar Drive Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024.

December.

Stantec, Kier-Wright. 2025. SSD–SSJ1 Entitlement Package. June 26.

Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program. 2025. Provision C.3 Data Form for Gibraltar Industrial.

August 8.

Access, Circulation, and Parking
The circulation for the proposed project has been designed to ensure the safe and efficient movement of cars and trucks throughout the project site. Four driveways ranging in widths of 30 to 50 feet would be provided along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. As shown on Exhibit 3, the northern most existing automobile driveway entry on Gibraltar Drive would be relocated slightly to the south.

Page 417 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

8 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx The two driveways further to the south on Gibraltar Drive would be removed. The fourth driveway on Gibraltar Drive, located on the southern boundary of the site, would be maintained. The northern most existing driveway on South Milpitas Boulevard would be removed. The existing driveway at the intersection of South Milpitas Boulevard and Ames Avenue would be maintained. Finally, a new driveway would be constructed near the southeastern corner of the proposed building and would serve as the primary office driveway.

The primary path of truck traffic on-site site would enter at the South Milpitas Boulevard and Ames Avenue intersection, travel straight and north to truck docks and trailer parking, then west to the northern most driveway on Gibraltar Drive (Exhibit 3). Smaller personal and commercial vehicle paths of travel would be permitted on any of the four proposed driveways for entry or exit. Additionally, the proposed project would include on-site fire lanes which would provide emergency access to the project site.

Truck and trailer parking is proposed to the northeast of the proposed building, adjacent to South Milpi
tas Boulevard and located along the primary path of truck traffic. An 8-foot-tall concrete tilt-up screen wall is proposed to be constructed around the trailer parking stalls. Automobile parking would be located surrounding the proposed building on the southern half of the project site. Based upon a total of 487,564 square feet of warehouse and office building area, 343 parking spaces are required, whereas the proposed project includes 781 parking spaces, thus exceeding the City’s parking requirements. The proposed warehouse building has approximately 1.61 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet. In addition, 24 bicycle parking spaces would be provide adjacent to the proposed office area. Of the 24 bicycle parking spaces, 12 spaces would be short-term and 12 spaces would be long- term.

A metal gate with Knox box would be installed at the South Milpitas Boulevard and Ames Avenue driv
eway as well as on-site between truck and automobile parking areas. No other driveways would be gated. The proposed project would include frontage street improvements consisting of a full width grind and overlay of Gibraltar Drive and crack and slurry repair on South Milpitas Boulevard.

Pedestrian paths of travel would be demarcated throughout the project site and would connect to the existing sidewalk along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. The proposed project would also construct crosswalks and curb ramps as well as upgrades to existing traffic signal equipment at the northern and western leg of the South Milpitas Boulevard and Ames Avenue intersection.

Crosswalk striping and curb ramp replacements would also be provided at the intersection of Gibraltar Drive and Milpitas Boulevard as well as at the southwest corner of the project site, crossing Gibraltar Drive.

Open Space and Landscaping
The proposed project would maintain the landscaping areas along South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. The proposed project would remove 18 of the 98 on-site trees that classify as protected trees under the Milpitas Municipal Code but would include the planting of replacement trees exceeding the required ratio of 2:1. As such, the proposed project would include the planting of 185

Page 418 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 9
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx trees. The proposed project would maintain other existing trees and proposed trees would include various tree and shrub species consistent with the surrounding area and meeting drought -tolerant requirements. The landscaping plan includes trees along the perimeter of the site, within the site’s parking areas, and near the eastern and western façades of the building. Stormwater infrastructure, in the form of detention basins, would be incorporated into on-site landscaping and open space with larger basins located along the project site’s northern boundary and southwestern corner.

Lighting
The proposed lighting plan includes night lighting for parking areas, walkways, and driveways.

Outdoor lights would cast downward and would be shrouded to prevent glare. Proposed site lighting would be designed to comply with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ®) light pollution reduction requirements.

Storm Drainage
The proposed project would construct new detention basins and storm drains that would connect to existing 15- to 18-inch storm drains on-site and in Gibraltar Drive. The proposed project includes the construction of Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater management systems, including proposed bioretention treatment and pervious pavement (self-retaining) areas, which would allow stormwater runoff from the project site to infiltrate the ground surface and would treat as well as reduce runoff from the site. The project site consists of approximately 876,485 square feet of existing impervious surfaces to which the proposed project would add 105,527square feet, resulting in approximately 982,012 square feet of impervious surfaces (Table1).

Utilities
The proposed project would connect to the City’s existing utility and service systems. The proposed project would include the construction of sanitary sewer lines that would connect to two existing sanitary sewer lines in South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive. Existing fire hydrants on South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive would serve the proposed project. An existing fire hydrant on South Milpitas Boulevard would be relocated to the east to allow for driveway access. The proposed project’s new domestic water lines would connect to 8- to 14-inch water lines on South Milpitas Boulevard. Fire service water would be served to the project site via connections in Gibraltar Drive.

Electricity would be provided by Pacific, Gas, and Electric Company (PG&E), which currently serves the site.

Demolition and Construction
The proposed project would result in the demolition of the existing on-site buildings and all surface pavements on the site. The proposed project would require 45,111 cubic yards of cut material and 50,030 cubic yards of fill material, resulting in 3,913 cubic yards of import. Demolition and construction methods, as well as disturbance area, would be generally the same as that considered for the previously approved on-site project, including the potential for temporary dewatering. The demolition and construction phases of the proposed project are anticipated to take approximately 1 4 months. The proposed project is anticipated to be completed and occupied by December 2026.

Page 419 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

10 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx

2.4 - Discretionary Approvals
The proposed project requires the following discretionary approvals from the City of Milpitas :
• Site Development Permit No. SD24-0006
• Tree Removal Permit No. TR25-0021
• Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0002

2.5 - Other Approvals
• Approval of site, demolition, grading, and building permits (City of Milpitas Office of Building Safety)
• Approval of permits for streetscape improvements in the public right-of-way (City of Milpitas Public Works, Engineering Division)
• Fire Department Review and Approval of proposed fire truck access and site fire flow design

Page 420 of 1283 ends

Exhibit 1
S o u rc e : C e n s u s 2 0 0 0 D a ta , T h e C a l i f o rn i a S p a ti a l I n f o rm a ti o n L i b ra ry ( C a S I L ) . !
·|}þ82
·|}þ35
·|}þ9
·|}þ
San Mateo County
Santa Cruz County
·|}þ9·|}þ236
·|}þ17
·|}þ85
Alameda County
Santa Clara County
·|}þ92
·|}þ84
·|}þ237
·|}þ84
%&'(580
%&'(680
%&'(880
!"#$580
·|}þ238
£¤101
£¤101
%&'(280
·|}þ17
Lake Chabot
Lake Del
Valle
San Antonio
Reservoir
Calaveras
Reservoir
Anderson
LakeCalero
Reservoir
Chesbro
Reservoir
DublinCastro ValleySan Leandro
Livermore
San Lorenzo Pleasanton
Hayward
Union City
Foster City
NewarkRedwood CityBelmont
San Carlos
Menlo ParkNorth
Fair Oaks
East Palo
Alto
Milpitas
Stanford
Mountain ViewPalo Alto
Sunnyvale East
Foothills
Los Altos
Santa Clara
Cupertino
San Jose
Campbell
Saratoga
Los Gatos
Fremont
¥
5 0 52 . 5
M i l e s
F C S
R e g i o n a l L o c a ti o n M a p S E C T I O N 1 5 1 6 4 A D D E N D U M T O T H E 1 0 0 0 G I B R A L T A R D R I V E F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T CI T Y OF MI L PI T AS
1 8 9 8 0 0 1 5 " 0 7 / 2 0 2 5 | 1 _ re g i o n a l . m xd !
Text
P ro j e c t S i te
P ro j e c t S i te
L e g e n d
C i ty o f M i l p i ta s

Page 421 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 422 of 1283 ends

1 8 9 8 0 0 1 5 " 0 7 / 2 0 2 5 | 2 _ l o c a l _ v i c i n i t y . m x d Exhibit 2
S o u r c e : E S R I A e r i a l I m a g e r y . S a n t a C l a r a C o u n t y .

S E C T I O N 1 5 1 6 4 A D D E N D U M T O T H E 1 0 0 0 G I B R A L T A R D R I V E F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T %&'(680
Montague Expy
Ames Ave
Capitol Ave
Pecten Ct
Berryessa Creek
Yosemite Dr
S Milpitas Blvd
Great Mall Dr
Hillview Dr
Vista Way
Sinclair Frontage Rd
Dempsey Rd
Park Victoria Dr
Great Mall Pky
Mccandless Dr
Trimble Rd
Falcon Dr
Curtis Ave
Main St
S Main St
Gibraltar Dr
Creighton Park
Robert Randall
Elementary School
Parc Metro East
Northwood Elementary School
Penitencia East Channel
Lower Penitencia Creek
Piedmont Creek
Wrigley Ford Creek
¥
1 , 0 0 0 0 1 , 0 0 05 0 0
F e e t
F C S
L o c a l V i c i n i t y M a p
CI T Y OF MI L PI T AS
Legend
P r o j e c t S i t e

Page 423 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 424 of 1283 ends

Source: Kier + Wright, 06/26/2025.
18980015 • 07/2025 | 3_site_plan.cdrF C S
Exhibit 3
Site Plan
S E C T I O N 1 5 1 6 4 A D D E N D U M T O T H E 1 0 0 0 G I B R A L T A R D R I V E F I N A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

C I T Y O F M I L P I T A S
Feet
0 0 0 0

Page 425 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 426 of 1283 ends

1000 Gibraltar Drive
15164 Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final EIR

FCS 17
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx 3 - CEQA ADDENDUM
The purpose of the Addendum’s checklist is to evaluate the revisions in the proposed project in light of the previous FEIR to evaluate any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously ide ntified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15162).

The questions posed in the Addendum’s checklist come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the Final EIR. These environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist since the proposed project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the previously approved CEQA document.

This Addendum addresses the conclusions of the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR.

3.1 - Explanation of Addendum Evaluation Categories
(1) Conclusion in the Previous FEIR and Related Documents This column summarizes the conclusion of the previous FEIR relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.
(2) Do the Proposed Changes Involve New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(1), this column indicates whether the changes represented by the revised project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the previous FEIR or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. (3) New Circumstances Involving New Impacts?
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous FEIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Page 427 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

18 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx (4) New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3)(A-D), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous FEIR was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous FEIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous FEIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the previous FEIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document would be required.
(5) Mitigation Measures Implemented to Address Impacts
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3), this column indicates whether the previous FEIR provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category.

Any previously adopted mitigation measures will be identified. The response will also address proposed revisions to previously adopted mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the project, as applicable. If “NA” is indicated, the Final EIR has concluded that the impact either does not occur with this project or is not significant, and therefore no additional mitigation measures are needed.

3.2 - Discussion and Mitigation Sections
The following sections include three components for each environmental checklist question:
discussion of each checklist question and any potential impacts to the environment, any mitigation measures required, and a conclusion of the analysis. Each component is further described below:

Page 428 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 19
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx (1) Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.
(2) Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the previous FEIR that apply to the proposed project are listed under each environmental category.
(3) Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis is contained in each section.

3.3 - Environmental Topics
The following topics are evaluated in accordance with current CEQA Guidelines and requirements:
• Aesthetics
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• GHG Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire

Page 429 of 1283 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Page 430 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 21
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in Previous
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
I. Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None
b) Substantially
damage scenic
resources,
including, but not
limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings,
and historic building
within a State
Scenic Highway?
No impact No No No None
c) 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
Less than
significant
impact
No No No None

Page 431 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

22 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in Previous
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
governing scenic
quality?
d) Create a new
source of
substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day
or nighttime views
in the area?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No None

Existing Conditions
The project site is relatively flat and consists of four 1- to 2-story office buildings, paved surface parking areas, and landscaping including trees. An open grassland area with trees is located at the southern end of the site. The site is surrounded by paved roadways (i.e., South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive) and 1- to 2-story office and industrial buildings with paved parking areas and landscaping. The visual character of the existing site and surrounding areas is consistent with the visual setting described in the previous FEIR.

Discussion
a) Scenic Vistas
Previous FEIR Conclusions
The previous FEIR concluded that the previously approved project would have a less than significant impact on scenic vistas. The previous FEIR indicated that the project site is not located in an area considered to be within view of a scenic vista and would not consist of or block any possible City- designated views. Furthermore, it was concluded that development of the previously approved project would not obscure any views of scenic vistas from surrounding public vantage points. Therefore, in certifying the previous FEIR for the previously approved project, the City found that impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation was required.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project is located on the same site analyzed in the previous FEIR and proposes development substantially similar to what was already analyzed and approved. There are no officially

Page 432 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 23
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx designated scenic vista points in the General Plan Milpitas Planning Area. The project site is not located in an area considered to be within view of a scenic vista. As such, the proposed project would have no impact on views of scenic vistas.

Significant visual resources in the Milpitas Planning Area include Mission Hills and Monument Peak (more than 5 miles northeast of the site), which form a distinctive scenic backdrop to the City. The project site is surrounded by urban development and landscaping which substantially blocks views of the above-mentioned hillsides from the surrounding area. As shown in Table 1, the proposed project would include a single-story warehouse and office building similar in scale and mass to the previously approved project with an overall reduction in square footage. The proposed building would be approximately 4.5 feet taller than the previously approved project (see Table 1), but this slight increase would not substantially block views of the Mission Hills or Monument Peak from publicly accessible locations due to distance and intervening urban features. Furthermore, as shown in Table 1, the proposed project’s building footprint would be approximately 3,476 square feet smaller than the previously approved project. As such, the modifications included in the proposed project are within the scope of and consistent with the analysis in the previous FEIR. For the above reasons, the proposed project would not significantly impact views of visual resources from surrounding public vantage points. As such, impacts would be less than significant and the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not identified in the previous FEIR. b) Scenic Highways
Previous FEIR Conclusions
The previous FEIR concluded that there would be no impacts related to the substantial damage of scenic resources within a State scenic highway. The previous FEIR indicated that the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’s) California Scenic Highway Mapping System identifies I- 680 to the north of Mission Boulevard as an officially designated State Scenic Highway, a location approximately 8.5 miles from the project site. The previous FEIR concluded that given this distance, the previously approved project would not be visible from the designated scenic roadway and the previously approved project would have no impact on scenic resources located within view of a State scenic highway.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is not located within or adjacent to an officially State-designated scenic highway. As stated above, the nearest officially designated scenic highway is a portion of I-680 to the north of Mission Boulevard, approximately 8.5 miles north of the project site.2 Given the distance of the proposed project from the nearest State scenic highway, the project would have no impact on a scenic highway. As such, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a State scenic highway. The proposed project would have no impact on scenic resources within a State

2 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). California State Scenic Highway System Map. Website:
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa. Accessed April 24, 2025.

Page 433 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

24 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx scenic highway and the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the previous FEIR. c) Consistency with Scenic Quality Regulations and Visual Character Previous FEIR Conclusions
The previous FEIR concluded that although the previously approved project would temporarily degrade the existing visual character of the site due to construction activities, impacts related to the permanent development of the previously approved project and its consistency with scenic quality regulations and visual character of the project area would be less than significant.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is located within an urbanized area; the site and surrounding office/industrial uses are located within the M2 Zoning District, in which heavy industrial use is permitted. The proposed project would consist of a 1-story warehouse/office building primarily made of tilt-up concrete panels with glass corners which address the main entry and surrounding site vantage points while the bulk of the structure is offset by various façade movement and vertical undulation. The office portion of the building would contain additional glazing to address the tenant layout. The proposed development would have landscaping, including trees and open space areas. Overall building type and visual appearance would be similar to that of the previously proposed project.

Consistent with the previously approved project, the proposed project could temporarily degrade existing visual character of the site during temporary construction activities (which would be similar to those previously approved). However, these construction activities would be typical of similar projects and would not represent a lasting conflict with existing uses or unusual degradation of the visual environment. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and Streetscape Master Plan policies and regulations governing scenic quality. The proposed project would comply with General Plan Policy CD 3-3, which requires redevelopment to reinforce desirable elements of its neighborhood, district, or center, including architectural style, scale, and setback patterns. The proposed project would have a similar architectural style to the surrounding office/industrial uses and would comply with M2 Zoning District setback and landscaping requirements. The proposed development would have a front and side yard setback of 25 feet from South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive, in compliance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 7, Industrial Zones and Standards. The proposed project would also include street trees, in compliance with the City’s Streetscape Master Plan and the Municipal Code, Section 7. For the above reasons, the proposed project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. The impact would be less than significant and the proposed project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the previous FEIR.

Page 434 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 25
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx d) Light and Glare
Previous FEIR Conclusions
The previous FEIR concluded that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The project site is located in a heavily urbanized area with a variety of existing light sources including streetlights, interior and exterior building lighting, and light associated with traffic on nearby roadways. Development of the previously approved project would incrementally increase the amount of nighttime lighting in the surrounding area due to new interior and exterior building lighting, safety lighting in the parking lot, and lighting associated with additional vehicular traffic to and from the project site. The previous FEIR concluded that the previously approved project would be required to comply with Section XI-10-54.17 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which includes the following requirements related to outdoor lighting. • Section XI-10-54.17–Lighting Exterior. Lighting shall be shielded or recessed so that direct glare and reflections are contained within the boundaries of the parcel and shall be directed downward and away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. Fixtures shall be appropriate in terms of height, style, design, scale and wattage to the use of the property.

Fixtures shall be spaced appropriately to maximize pedestrian safety.

In addition, the previous FEIR concluded that the previously approved project would be required to implement Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1, which requires outdoor lighting to be designed to minimize glare and spillover to surrounding properties.

MM AES-1 Outdoor lighting shall be designed to minimize glare and spillover to surrounding properties. The project design and building materials shall incorporate non-mirrored glass to minimize daylight glare. All lighting elements shall comply with Sections XI- 10-45.15-3 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and the proposed lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit.

Based on the conclusions in the previous FEIR, with the implementation of MM AES-1 and Municipal Code Section XI-10-54.17, the City found that the previously approved project would result in less than significant light and glare impacts. As such, impacts related to light and glare were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Proposed Project Analysis and Conclusion
As discussed above, the project site is located on the same site as the previously approved project, in a heavily urbanized area with a variety of existing light sources including streetlights , interior and exterior building lighting, and light associated with traffic on nearby roadways. The proposed project is approximately the same size and design as the approved project (as shown in Table 1) and, similar to the previously approved project, development of the proposed project would incrementally increase the amount of nighttime lighting in the surrounding area due to new interior and exterior building lighting, safety lighting in the parking lot, and lighting associated with additional vehicular traffic to and from the project site.

Page 435 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

26 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx The proposed project would adhere to Municipal Code Section XI-10-54.17, which includes standards related to outdoor lighting. Consistent with the previous FEIR, the proposed project’s outdoor lighting is designed to minimize glare and spillover to surrounding properties. The project design and building materials incorporate non-mirrored glass windows to minimize daylight glare. Further, the proposed project would comply with Municipal Code Section XI-10-45.15-3, which states that outdoor lighting should use the minimum wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area. In addition, the proposed project’s lighting plan would be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning and Building Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. The lighting requirements in MM AES-1 have been incorporated into the proposed project’s design and, therefore, the proposed project would not require mitigation to reduce light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. With the implementation of the above Municipal Code standards related to outdoor lighting, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to light and glare. The proposed project would not result in a new or more severe adverse impact that was not previously identified in the previous FEIR.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not result in any aesthetic impacts beyond those considered in the previous FEIR. MM AES-1 identified in the previous FEIR, pertaining to light and glare impacts, has been incorporated into the proposed project’s design; as such, mitigation is not required to reduce the proposed project’s light and glare impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed project’s light and glare impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. All other impact conclusions for the proposed project would be the same as the conclusions identified in the previous FEIR.

The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the previous FEIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:

1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous FEIR.

2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous FEIR.

3. No new information of substantial importance has been identified which results in a significant effect not discussed in the previous FEIR or an impact which is more severe than shown in the previous FEIR.

4. No new mitigation measures are necessary.

Page 436 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

FCS 27
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in Previous
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) 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 nonagricultural
use?
No impact No No No None
b) Conflict with
existing zoning for
agricultural use, or
a Williamson Act
Contract?
No impact No No No None
c) Conflict with
existing zoning for,
or cause rezoning
of, forest land (as
No impact No No No None

Page 437 of 1283 ends

1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE
15164 ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL EIR

28 FCS
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/1898/18980015/Addendum/edit/18980015 1000 Gibraltar Dr Addendum Update.docx Environmental Issue
Area
Conclusion
in Previous
FEIR
Do the
Proposed
Changes
Involve New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
Mitigation
Measures
defined in Public
Resources Code
Section 12220(g)),
timberland (as
defined by Public
Resources Code
Section 4526), or
timberland zoned
Timberland
Production (as
defined by
Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of
forest land or
conversion of forest
land to non-forest
use?
No impact No No No None
e) Involve other
changes in the
existing
environment which,
due to their location
or nature, could
result in conversion
of Farmland, to
nonagricultural use
or conversion of
forest land to non-
forest use?
No impact No No No None

Discussion
The project site is developed with vacant office buildings and is surrounded by urban and built-up land primarily used for industrial and office purposes. There are no agricultural or forest uses on the

Page 438 of 1283 ends

Milpitas City CouncilDecember 2, 2025

Milpitas City Council
December 2, 2025