Milpitas City Council
August 13, 2024

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-69 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Relevant Policy Project Consistency Analysis
Goal CON-2 Protect and enhance native trees and vegetation throughout the city Policy CON 2-3 Avoid removal of large, mature
trees that provide wildlife habitat, visual
screening, or contribute to the visual quality of
the environment through appropriate project
design and building siting. If full avoidance is not
possible, prioritize planting of replacement trees
on-site over off-site locations. Replacement trees
for high-quality mature trees should generally be
of like kind, and provide for comparable habitat
functionality, where appropriate site conditions
exist.

Consistent. Although the Project would remove 35 trees onsite, the Project would plant 6 new trees and preserve 58 trees on-site to maintain the overall visual quality of the Project Site to the same level as the site’s existing conditions.

Goal CON-7 Implement a proactive approach to maintain and improve air quality within Milpitas and the region
Policy CON 7-2 Minimize exposure of the public
to toxic or harmful air emissions and odors
through requiring an adequate buffer or setback
distance between residential and other sensitive
land uses and land uses that typically generate
air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, or
obnoxious fumes or odors, including but not
limited to industrial, manufacturing, and
processing facilities, high-volume roadways, and
industrial rail lines. New sensitive receptors,
such as residences (including residential care and
assisted living facilities for the elderly), childcare
centers, schools, playgrounds, churches, and
medical facilities shall be located away from
existing point sources of air pollution such that
excessive levels of exposure do not result in
unacceptable health risks. Compliance shall be
verified through the preparation of a Health Risk
Assessment when deemed necessary by the
Planning Director.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 2, Air Quality, the Project would not exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District construction and operational thresholds for emissions of the region’s identified criteria pollutants (i.e., ROG, NOx, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5). Section 2 of this IS/MND also concluded that the Project would not have the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations, as students are only on-campus during school hours and because diesel exhaust emissions would be low and short term. Furthermore, due to the Project Site’s distance to stationary sources of TAC emissions, the Project would not contribute to human health risk to nearby receptors during operation, and the Project would also not contribute to any cumulative human health risk impact
Source: City of Milpitas General Plan 2040. Dated 2014.

City of Milpitas Zoning
The Project Site is currently zoned by the City as General Commercial (C2). Under Section XI-10-5.02 (Commercial Use Regulations) of the City’s Municipal Code, private schools (elementary, middle, high) would be considered as an acceptable use under C2 zoning, provided that a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is issued to the Project Applicant prior to Project approval. Prior to issuance of the CUP, the Project site plan and supporting documents would be reviewed and considered by the City as part of the Project Application submitted by the Project Applicant. As stated in XI-10-5.04 (Commercial Zone Special Development Standards) of the City’s Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall consider site conditions and design elements of the Project prior to the issuance of a CUP. The Project would renovate the existing office building and would not alter the current size, height, massing, and setback of the existing building. The new building under the Project (i.e., gymnasium) would be inconsistent with two

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-70 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
development standards outlined in Table XI-10-5.03-1, Commercial Zone General Development Standards, of the City’s Municipal Code as it would not meet the Floor Area Ratio and building height requirements.

To address areas of nonconformity, the Project will include a Development Agreement. The Development Agreement is a legally binding contract between the Project Applicant and the City that outlines the terms and conditions for the Project. This approach will ensure that any deviations from the MMSP or the Zoning Code are appropriately mitigated and managed, providing a mechanism for the City to ensure compliance with its planning objectives while accommodating the needs of the Project. Approval of the Development Agreement will be adopted as an ordinance by the City Council, as part of the Project approval process..

Upon approval and issuance of the CUP and the Development Agreement, the Project would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code.

In conclusion, the Project would be generally consistent with the relevant policies and standards under the MMSP, City’s General Plan and Municipal Code for development in BPRD-R and C2 zones.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any local land use plan, policy, or regulation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-71 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

12. Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mine Reclamation, there are no active mines within the City.38 Although there are known mineral resources in Santa Clara County and the region, the Project Site is not located within an area that is known to contain regionally significant mineral resources.39 Thus, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. As stated above, there are no active mines within the City or the Project Site. Additionally, the four areas identified by the City to contain “Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resources” are located outside of the City’s jurisdiction and are part of the South San Francisco Bay ProductionConsumption Region. 40 The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important 38 California Department of Conservation, “Mines Online.” Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed December 15, 2023. 39 California Department of Conservation, “Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region.” 1996. 40 City of Milpitas, Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update. November 2020. Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1168/Draft-EIR-PDF?bidId=, accessed January 11, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-72 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-73 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

13. Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise
Characteristics of Noise
Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound that is an undesirable byproduct of society’s normal day-today activities. Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, and/or when it has adverse effects on health. Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of sound pressure level known as a decibel (dB). The human ear does not respond uniformly to sounds at all frequencies. For example, the human ear is less sensitive to low and high frequencies than medium frequencies, which more closely correspond with human speech. In response to the sensitivity of the human ear to different frequencies, the A-weighted noise level (or scale), which corresponds better with people’s subjective judgment of sound levels, has been developed. This A-weighted sound level, referenced in units of dBA, is measured on a logarithmic scale such that a doubling of sound energy results in a 3 dBA increase in noise level. Typically, changes in a community noise level of less than 3 dBA are not noticed by the human ear.
41 Changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be noticed by some individuals who are sensitive to changes in noise. A greater than 5 dBA increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA increase in sound level to be a doubling of sound.
41 California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 2013.

Available online at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf, accessed January 5, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-74 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
On the A-weighted scale, the range of human hearing extends from approximately 3 to 140 dBA. Table

3.13-1, A-Weighted Decibel Scale, provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from common sources.

Noise sources occur in two forms: (1) point sources, such as stationary equipment or individual motor vehicles; and (2) line sources, such as a roadway with a large number of point sources (motor vehicles).

Sound generated by a point source typically diminishes (attenuates) at a rate of 6 dBA for each doubling of distance from the source to the receptor at acoustically “hard” sites and 7.5 dBA at acoustically “soft” sites.42,43 For example, if a noise source produces a noise level of 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet, the noise level would be 83 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source, 77 dBA at a distance of 200 feet, and so on. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by approximately 3 dBA over hard surfaces and 4.5 dBA over soft surfaces for each doubling of distance.44 Table 3.13-1
A-Weighted Decibel Scale
Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels Sound Level (dBA, Leq)
Threshold of Pain 140
Jet Takeoff at 100 Meters 125
Jackhammer at 15 Meters 95
Heavy Diesel Truck at 15 Meters 85
Conversation at 1 Meter 60
Soft Whisper at 2 Meters 35
Source: United States Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Noise and Hearing Conservation Technical Manual, 1999.

Sound levels also can be attenuated by man-made or natural barriers (e.g., sound walls, berms, and ridges), as well as elevational differences. Noise is most audible when traveling by direct line-of-sight, an uninterrupted visual path between the noise source and noise receptor. Barriers, such as walls or buildings that break the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver, can greatly reduce noise levels from the 42 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, 2011. Available online at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/ revguidance.pdf, accessed January 5, 2024.
43 Examples of “hard” or reflective sites include asphalt, concrete, and hard and sparsely vegetated soils. Examples of acoustically “soft” or absorptive sites include soft, sand, plowed farmland, grass, crops, heavy ground cover, etc.
44 Federal Highway Administration, Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance, 2011. Available online at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_abatement_guidance/ revguidance.pdf, accessed January 5, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-75 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
source since sound can only reach the receiver by diffraction. However, if a barrier is not high or long enough to break the line-of-sight from the source to the receiver, its effectiveness is greatly reduced.

Equivalent Noise Level
Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) is the sound level corresponding to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as several single event noise exposure level events during a given sample period. Leq is the “acoustic energy” average noise level during the period of the sample. It is based on the observation that the potential for noise annoyance is dependent on the total acoustical energy content of the noise. The equivalent noise level is expressed in units of dBA. Leq can be measured for any period, but is typically measured for 15 minutes, 1 hour, or 24 hours. Leq for a 1-hour period is used by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for assessing highway noise impacts. Leq for 1 hour is referred to as the Hourly Noise Level (HNL) in the California Airport Noise Regulations and is used to develop Community Noise Equivalent Level values for aircraft operations. Construction noise levels and ambient noise measurements in this section use the Leq scale.

Characteristics of Vibration
Vibration consists of waves transmitted through solid material. Groundborne vibration propagates from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings by surface waves. Vibration may comprise a single pulse, a series of pulses, or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly it is oscillating and is measured in hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a composite, or “spectrum” of many frequencies, and are generally classified as broadband or random vibrations. The normal frequency range of most groundborne vibration that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than one Hz to a high of about 200 Hz. Vibration is often measured in terms of the peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (in/sec) when considering impacts on buildings or other structures, as PPV represents the maximum instantaneous peak of vibration that can stress buildings.

Because it is a representation of acute vibration, PPV is often used to measure the temporary impacts of short-term construction activities that could instantaneously damage existing structures. Vibration is often also measured by the Root Mean Squared (RMS) because it best correlates with human perception and response. Specifically, RMS represents “smoothed” vibration levels over an extended period of time and is often used to gauge the long-term chronic impact of a project’s operation on the adjacent environment.

RMS amplitude is the average of a signal’s squared amplitude. It is most commonly measured in decibel notation (VdB).

Vibration energy attenuates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude to decrease with distance away from the source. High frequency vibrations reduce much more rapidly than low

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-76 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
frequencies, so that in the far-field from a source, the low frequencies tend to dominate. Soil properties also affect the propagation of vibration. When groundborne vibration interacts with a building, there is usually a ground-to-foundation coupling loss (i.e., the foundation of the structure does not move in sync with the ground vibration), but the vibration can also be amplified by the structural resonances of the walls and floors. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows or items on shelves, or the motion of building surfaces. At high levels, vibration can result in damage to structures.

Manmade groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain types of construction activities, especially pile driving. Road vehicles rarely create enough groundborne vibration to be perceptible to humans unless the road surface is poorly maintained and there are potholes or bumps.

If traffic induces perceptible vibration in buildings, such as window rattling or shaking of small loose items (typically caused by heavy trucks in passing), then it is most likely an effect of low-frequency airborne noise or ground characteristics.

Regulatory Framework
Federal Transit Administration Vibration Guidance
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidance relative to vibration impacts.

Construction vibration damage criteria are assessed based on structural category (e.g., reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber). The FTA guidelines consider 0.2 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings. Structures or buildings constructed of reinforced concrete, steel, or timber have a vibration damage criterion of 0.5 inch/sec PPV pursuant to FTA guidelines.45 The FTA guidelines include a table showing the vibration damage criteria based on structural category and is presented below in Table 3.13-2, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria. 45 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018. Available online at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibrationimpact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed December, 1, 2023.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-77 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Table 3.13-2
Construction Vibration Damage Criteria
Building/Structural Category PPV, in/sec
I. Reinforced-concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Local Plans and Policies
City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan
The Noise Element of the General Plan contains goals, policies, and actions that seek to reduce community exposure to excessive noise levels through the establishment of noise level standards for a variety of land uses.46 The Noise Element includes information on existing and projected noise conditions with policies and programs to maintain or reduce noise from transportation, land use operations and single-event noise.

Applicable Goals, Policies and Actions include:

Goal N-1: Preserve a nuisance-free noise environment for existing and future land uses by minimizing exposure to harmful and excessive noise levels.

Policy N 1-1: Consider the noise compatibility of existing and future development when making land use planning decisions. Require development and infrastructure projects to be consistent with the land use compatibility standards contained in Tables N-1 and N-2 to ensure acceptable noise exposure levels for existing and future development.

Policy N 1-2: Require new development to mitigate excessive noise to the standards indicated in Tables N-1 and N-2 through best practices, including building location and orientation, building design features, placement of noisegenerating equipment away from sensitive receptors, shielding of noise46 City of Milpitas, General Plan 2040, adopted March 9, 2021. Available online at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57277b461d07c02f9c2f5c2c/t/60906e6349539311604cae70/1620078198914/Mil pitas+General+Plan_Final_online+version.pdf, accessed December 1, 2023

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-78 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
generating equipment, placement of noise-tolerant features between noise sources and sensitive receptors, and use of noise-minimizing materials.

Policy N 1-3: Use sound walls for sound attenuation only when other measures are not practical, or when recommended by an acoustical expert as part of a mitigation measure. Sound walls shall be designed to be aesthetically pleasing, and should incorporate features such as vegetation, variations in color and texture, artwork, and other features deemed appropriate by the City.

Policy N 1-5: Require acoustical studies for new discretionary developments and transportation improvements that have the potential to affect existing noise-sensitive uses such as schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas; and for projects that would introduce new noisesensitive uses into an area where existing noise levels may exceed the thresholds identified in this element.

Policy N 1-6: For projects that are required to prepare an acoustical study to analyze noise impacts, the following criteria shall be used to determine the significance of those impacts:

Stationary and Non-Transportation Noise Sources
A significant impact will occur if the project results in an exceedance of the noise level standards contained in this element. In instances where the ambient noise level is already above the standards contained in this element, a significant impact will occur if the project will result in an increase in ambient noise levels by more than 3 dB. This does not apply to temporary construction activities.

Transportation Noise Sources
Where existing traffic noise levels are 60 dB Ldn or less at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant;

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-79 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dB Ldn and up to 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant; and Where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 65 dB Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +1.5 dB Ldn increase in roadway noise levels will be considered significant.

Applicable Actions in Support of Goal N-1
Action N-1a: Require that new development projects are reviewed for compliance with the noise requirements established in this element, including the standards established in Tables N-1 and N-2, prior to project approval.

Action N-1b: Require acoustical studies for new development projects which have the potential to generate noise impacts which exceed the standards identified in this element. The studies shall include representative noise measurements, estimates of existing and projected noise levels, and mitigation measures necessary to ensure compliance with the noise standards included in this element. Studies shall be conducted by a qualified acoustical professional.

Action N-1c: Require developers to prepare a construction management/noise mitigation plan that defines best management practices to reduce construction noise, and includes proposed truck routes (that comply with Section 12 V-100-12.05 - Truck Routes of the Milpitas Municipal Code) as part of the entitlement process.

Action N-1d: During the environmental review process, determine if proposed construction will constitute a significant impact on nearby sensitive receptors and, if necessary, require mitigation measures in addition to the standard best practice controls. Suggested best practices for control of construction noise include:

Noise-generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm. No construction shall occur on National holidays.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-80 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noisegenerating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.

Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited for a duration of longer than five minutes.

Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.

Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.

The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-81 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Table 3.13-3
Noise and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (City of Milpitas Noise Element) Land Use Category
Exterior Noise Exposure (Ldn)
55 60 65 70 75 80
Single-Family Residential
Multi-Family Residential, Hotels, and Motels
Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Neighborhood Parks,
and Playgrounds
Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals, Personal Care,
Public Assembly
Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and
Professional
Industrial
Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable - Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation was found to be infeasible to comply with noise element policies.

*Please note that these guidelines are general and may not apply to specific sites.

Source: City of Milpitas. General Plan Noise Element. Table N-1.

City of Milpitas Municipal Code
Chapter 213, Noise Abatement, of Title V – PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) sets noise standards for construction and operation activities as follows:47 • V-213-3 - Unlawful to Create or Permit Disturbing Noise • (a)Residential Zone Regulations.
• 3.01 Except as permitted in Section V-213-3(b), it shall be unlawful for any person in any district zoned for residential use (under the provisions of Chapter 10, Title XI of the 47 City of Milpitas. Municipal Code. Available online:
https://library.municode.com/ca/milpitas/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TITVPUHESAWE_CH213NOAB_2 13-3UNCRPEDINO accessed December 12, 2023.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-82 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Milpitas Municipal Code) to make, continue, maintain, permit or cause to be made, continued, maintained, or permitted any Disturbing Noise that increases the noise exposure level by three dB over the local ambient noise level measured from the property line of the noise source, or more than 65 dB measured from the property line of the noise source, whichever is more restrictive.
• 3.02 Except as permitted in Section V-213-3(b), it shall be unlawful for any person who owns, possesses, or controls any real property in any district zoned for residential use (under the provisions of Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) to make, continue, maintain, permit or cause to be made, continued, maintained or permitted any Disturbing Noise that increases the noise exposure level by three dB over the local ambient noise level measured from the property line of the noise source, or more than 65 dB measured from the property line of the noise source, whichever is more restrictive. • 3.03 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter and in addition thereto, it is unlawful for any person or any person who owns, possesses, or controls real property in any district zoned for residential use (under provisions of Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) to make, continue, maintain, permit, or cause to be made, continued, maintained or permitted any Disturbing Noise. It shall be prima facie violation of this Section if any Disturbing Noise is audible during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. from a distance of 50 feet from the property line of the noise source or from a distance of 100 feet from any nonstationary noise source. It shall also be prima facie violation of this Section if any Disturbing Noise is audible during the hours of 7:01 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. from a distance of 100 feet from the property line of the noise source or any nonstationary noise source.
• 3.04 The above prohibition against making, continuing, maintaining or permitting any Disturbing Noise in any district zoned for residential use shall not apply to the authorized collection of solid waste, recyclables, and/or yard trimmings by an authorized collector beginning at 6:00 a.m.
• (b)Outdoor Music Regulations for Commercial and Mixed Use Zones. • 3.05 Outdoor music shall be permitted on real property in the C1, C2, TC, MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zoning districts (per Chapter 10, Title XI of the Milpitas Municipal Code) as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar that is a principal permitted use or approved conditional use. Outdoor music shall be permitted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
• 3.06 Except as provided below in Subsection V-213-3(b) 3.06(1), noise levels for outdoor music as an accessory use shall not exceed 70-90 dB measured from the property line of the parcel on which the outdoor music occurs. See also "Table XI-10-5.02-1 - Commercial Zone Uses" in Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 5.02 and "Table XI-10-6.02-1 - Mixed Use Zone Uses" in Title XI, Chapter 10, Section 6.02.
• (1)For any parcel in a C1, C2, TC, MXD, MXD2, or MXD3 zoning district that is located within 100 feet of a parcel in a R1 or R2 zoning district, noise levels for outdoor music as an accessory use shall not exceed 65 dB measured from the property line of

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-83 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
the parcel on which the outdoor music occurs.(2)For residential uses in the MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zoning districts, it is recognized that ambient noise from outdoor music that is permitted as an accessory use to a restaurant or bar is a normal condition inherent to a mixed-use, urban living environment; therefore accessory outdoor music at a restaurant or bar shall not be subject to the noise restrictions in Section V-213- 3(a) 3.01 and 3.02 in the case of residential uses in the MXD, MXD2, and MXD3 zones.
• (c)Site Construction Regulations.
• 3.07 No person shall engage or permit others to engage in construction of any building or related road or walkway, pool or landscape improvement or in the construction operations related thereto, including, delivery of construction materials, supplies, or improvements on or to a construction site except within the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends. No construction work shall be conducted or performed on the holidays indicated in Section V-213-2-2.05 of this Chapter.
• 3.08 Exemption from Off-Site Construction Regulations. Exempt from the Off-Site Construction Regulations of this article are as follows:
• (1)Emergency construction and repair that is necessary for protection of life and property,(2)Operation preempted from local regulation by state law, such as construction of public school buildings,(3)Furnishing utility-type service including construction and maintenance of utility facilities,(4)Any work on an existing singlefamily or duplex (two-family) dwelling undertaken by the property owner,(5)Operation to construct and maintain facilities within the public right-ofway as deemed necessary by the Public Works Director, and(6)Any other circumstances where the City Manager deems that an exemption would be appropriate.

Environmental Setting
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
To establish baseline noise conditions, existing noise levels were monitored at four locations in the vicinity of the Project Site. The locations of the noise measurements are depicted in Figure 3.0-1, Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Location Map. The noise survey was conducted in December 2023 using the Larson Davis SoundTrack LxT (Type 1) sound level meter, which conforms to industry standards set forth in ANSI S1.4-1983 (R2006) – Specification for Sound Level Meters/Type 1. This instrument was calibrated and operated according to the manufacturer’s written specifications. At the measurement sites, the microphone was placed at a height of approximately five feet above grade. The results of the measurements are summarized in Table 3.13-4, Existing Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project Site. As shown in Table

3.13-4, the ambient noise levels ranged from 63.7 dBA Leq to 66.1 dBA Leq in the vicinity of the Project Site.

In addition, based on the measurement data collected at Location 1 (located on the eastern boundary of the

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-84 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Project Site), the existing on-site noise level for the Project Site is 72.5 dBA Ldn, as shown in Appendix C Noise Data.

Table 3.13-4
Existing Noise Levels in the Vicinity of the Project Site Noise Monitoring Locations Primary Noise Sources Noise Levels (dBA) Leq Lmin Lmax

1. Falcon Drive
Morning Drop Off Morning Student Drop Off Vehicle Traffic 64.6 57.2 81.0 After School Pick Up After School Pick Up Vehicle Traffic, Car Honking, Retail Vehicle Traffic 66.1 54.5 79.5

2. Great Mall Drive Morning Student Drop Off Vehicle Traffic 64.7 57.7 79.6

3. Northwest Corner of the Project Site Vehicle Traffic, Train 63.8 59.0 79.3

4. Centre Pointe Drive Apartments Vehicle Traffic, Neighborhood Activity 63.7 51.9 77.8 Source: Impact Sciences, Inc., December 2023. See Appendix C.

Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Locations
FIGURE 3.0-1
1451.002•01/24
SOURCE: Esri, 2024

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-86 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Existing Vehicle Traffic Noise Levels
Existing roadway noise levels were calculated for primary roadway segments located in the vicinity of the Project Site. The roadways selected are representative of the segments that would be most impacted by an increase in traffic according to the Project’s transportation engineer.48 Calculations of the existing roadway noise levels are based on the Federal Highway Administration Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108) and traffic volumes from the Project’s Transportation Analysis.49 The model calculates the average noise level at specific locations based on traffic volumes, average speeds, roadway geometry, and site environmental conditions. The average vehicle noise rates (energy rates) utilized in the FHWA Model have been modified to reflect average vehicle noise rates identified for California by Caltrans. The Caltrans data show that California automobile noise is 0.8 to 1.0 dBA higher than national levels and that medium and heavy truck noise is 0.3 to 3.0 dBA lower than national levels. The average daily noise levels along study area roadway segments are presented in Table

3.13-5, Existing Roadway Noise Levels.

Table 3.13-5
Existing Roadway Noise Levels
Roadway Roadway Segment Existing Land Uses Along Segment dBA Ldn Falcon Drive
Between Montague Exp and Site
Driveway
Commercial 61.0
Between Site Driveway and Great Mall
Drive
Commercial 61.0
Great Mall Drive
Between Mustang Drive and Site
Driveway
Commercial 59.9
Between Site Driveway and Falcon
Drive
Commercial 59.8
Source: Impact Sciences, January 2024. See Appendix C, Noise Data.

Traffic data: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 1323 Great Mall Drive Stratford School, Traffic Operations Analysis, January 8, 2024.

Report available on file with the City Planning Department.

Existing Groundborne Vibration
The main sources of groundborne vibration near the Project Site are heavy-duty vehicular travel (e.g., refuse trucks, delivery trucks, and transit buses) on local roadways and I-880. Trucks and buses typically 48 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 1323 Great Mall Drive Stratford School, Traffic Operations Analysis, January 8, 2024. Report available on file with the City Planning Department. 49 See Appendix C for roadway noise calculations.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-87 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
generate groundborne vibration velocity levels of around 63 VdB at 50 feet, and these levels could reach 72 VdB where trucks and buses pass over bumps in the road.50 In terms of PPV levels, a heavy-duty vehicle traveling at a distance of 50 feet can result in a vibration level of approximately 0.001 inch per second.

Noise Sensitive Receptors
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for individuals to be exposed to increased and prolonged exposure to both interior and exterior noise levels. According to the City’s Noise Element, noise-sensitive uses include schools, hospitals, libraries, care facilities, and residential areas.51 The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the Project Site include: the existing Stratford School adjacent to the south of the Project Site; existing vacant land approximately to the west that is currently under construction and is anticipated to operate as a multi-family apartment complex by the time the Project begins operations (551 ft); Centre Pointe Drive apartments to the west of the Project Site (511 ft); and, the Capitol Apartments south of the Project Site (645 ft) (See Figure 3.0-1, Noise Monitoring and Sensitive Receptor Location Map.)
Would the project:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than Significant Impact.

Construction Noise Impacts
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in temporary noise level increases in the vicinity of the Project Site on an intermittent basis and, as such, could expose nearby sensitive receptors to increased noise levels. The increase in noise at off-site sensitive receptors during construction of each phase of construction under the Project would be temporary in nature and would not generate continuously high noise levels, although occasional single-event disturbances from construction would occur. Construction noise would typically be higher during the heavier periods of initial construction (i.e., demolition and 50 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 2018. Available online at:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibrationimpact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf, accessed March, 14, 2023. 51 City of Milpitas, General Plan Noise Element, see Policy N 1-5.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-88 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
grading work) and reduced in the later construction phases (i.e., interior building construction) because the physical structure of the buildings would break line-of-sight noise transmission from the construction area to the nearby sensitive receivers. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use, distance between the noise source and receivers, and presence or absence of intervening structures, terrain, or other noise attenuation barriers.

Table 3.13-6, Estimated Construction Noise Levels, shows the maximum expected noise levels at sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site. The analysis shows the maximum noise levels from the use of equipment anticipated to be used during demolition, grading and building construction.

Table 3.13-6
Estimated Construction Noise Levels
Sensitive Land Uses
Distance to
Project Site
(feet)
Estimated
Construction Noise
Levels
[dBA]
Exceed FTA
Threshold of
80 dBA Leq?

1. Existing Stratford School
(nearest school building) 165 72.6 No

2. Centre Pointe Drive Apartments 511 60.6 No

3. Vacant Land Under Construction -
anticipated to operate as a multi-family
apartment complex
551 62.2 No

4. Capitol Apartments 645 58.5 No
Source: Impact Sciences, January 2024. See Appendix C for equipment noise data sheets and assumptions.

As shown in Table 3.13-6, construction activity would generate noise levels of up to 72.6 dBA Leq at the nearest existing sensitive receptor (Sensitive Receptor No. 4). As such, temporary construction noise would not exceed the FTA’s 80 dBA Leq daytime construction threshold. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with Chapter 213 of Title V of the City’s Municipal Code, which prohibits construction activities outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends, and on holidays except during emergencies. It should also be noted that the Project would be required to comply with Noise Element Action N-1d, which requires the Project Applicant to implement standard best practices to limit construction noise levels to the extent feasible. Notwithstanding the implementation of best practices, because the Project would be consistent with the construction hours identified in the City’s Municipal Code and because Project construction noise would not exceed the FTA’s 80 dBA Leq daytime construction threshold, impacts would be less than significant.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-89 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Operational Noise Impacts
Traffic Noise
The Project would increase the number of vehicle trips within the vicinity of the Project Site which would increase traffic noise on roadways. To determine whether the Project would create traffic noise resulting in a significant noise increase, existing and potential future noise levels were calculated based on the FHWA Traffic Noise Model consistent with data provided by the Project’s transportation engineer52 (see Appendix C). The noise increases between the Existing and Existing Plus Project scenarios are shown in Table 3.13-7, Project Traffic Noise.

Table 3.13-7
Project Traffic Noise
Roadway Roadway Segment
dBA Ldn
Existing Existing Plus
Project Project Increase
Falcon Drive
Between Montague Exp and Site
Driveway

61.0 61.8 0.8
Between Site Driveway and Great
Mall Drive

61.0 62.4 1.4
Great Mall Drive
Between Mustang Drive and Site
Driveway

59.9 62.2 2.3
Between Site Driveway and Falcon
Drive

59.8 61.5 1.7
Source: Impact Sciences, January 2024. See Appendix C.

Traffic data: Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 1323 Great Mall Drive Stratford School, Traffic Operations Analysis, January 8, 2024. Report available on file with the City Planning Department As shown in Table 3.13-7, Project Traffic Noise, the Project would increase local traffic noise levels by a maximum of 2.3 dBA Ldn along Falcon Drive. As discussed previously, where existing traffic noise levels are greater than 60 dBA Ldn and up to 65 dBA Ldn at the outdoor activity areas of noise-sensitive uses, a +3 dBA Ldn increase in roadway noise levels would be considered significant. Because the Project would increase local traffic noise levels by a maximum of 2.3 dBA Ldn along any segment, these thresholds would not be exceeded and impacts with respect to operational traffic noise would be less than significant. 52 Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., 1323 Great Mall Drive Stratford School, Traffic Operations Analysis, January 8, 2024. Report available on file with the City Planning Department.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-90 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
On Site Noise
Stationary Noise
The operation of the Project would generate on-site stationary noise from HVAC equipment. Noise from HVAC equipment serving the Project would typically generate noise in the range of 60 to 70 dBA Leq at a reference distance of 15 feet from the source.53 As discussed previously, noise-sensitive receptors are located at least 165 feet from the Project Site and noise from HVAC equipment would attenuate at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source. Thus, HVAC related noise would not exceed 52 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receptor. As shown in Table 3.13-4, ambient noise levels in the Project Site vicinity were measured between 63.7 dBA Leq to 66.1 dBA Leq. Based on estimated noise level of 52 dBA Leq at 165 feet for HVAC equipment, noise levels from such equipment would not exceed ambient noise levels at off-site sensitive receptors. Furthermore, HVAC units are traditionally rooftopmounted and/or shielded from surrounding land uses, serving to block line-of-sight noise transmission to sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant.

Playfield Noise
The proposed synthetic turf playfield would introduce noise sources associated with children playing. As noted above, the City’s noise ordinance generally limits the generation of noise that exceeds the actual measured existing ambient noise level by 3 dB(A) DNL at neighboring properties. The day-night average sound level (Ldn or DNL) is an average noise level over a 24-hour period. Noise levels occurring between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM are increased by 10 decibels (dB). This noise is weighted to take into account the decrease in community background noise of 10 dB(A) during this period.

A noise measurement was taken at the existing Stratford School’s outdoor play area and noise levels reached 62.4 dBA Leq during typical play activities (see Appendix C for noise measurement data). As shown in Table 3.13-4 above, ambient noise levels in the Project Site vicinity were measured between 63.7 dBA Leq to 66.1 dBA Leq. Thus, noise associated with the playfield would not exceed ambient noise levels in the area. Furthermore, as no playfield activity would occur during evening hours, there would be no potential to increase the day-night average noise levels at neighboring properties by 3 dBA. Impacts would be less than significant.
53 Illingworth & Rodkin. Environmental Noise Assessment for Wal-Mart Expansion, Williamson Ranch Plaza – Antioch, California. Available at: https://www.antiochca.gov/fc/community-development/planning/Walmart/DEIR-VOLIIAPPENDICES-C-H/Appendix%20G%20Noise%20Assessment.pdf Accessed on March, 14, 2023.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-91 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Parking Noise
Operational noise sources are also associated with on-site parking and vehicle circulation, including delivery trucks and trash-hauling trucks. The Project is a K-12 preparatory school and would not cause a substantive increase in delivery or trash trucks in the Project area. Various noise events would occur periodically from the Project’s parking uses. Such periodic events would include activation of car alarms, sounding of car horns, slamming of car doors, engine revs, and tire squeals. It should be noted that the existing urban environment of the Project Site currently generates noise levels associated with these parking and vehicular noise sources. Although the Project would increase the number of vehicles parking in the area, the types of noise would be similar to those currently occurring in the vicinity of the Project Site. Parking-related noise for the existing Stratford School was observed during field noise measurements.

As detailed in Appendix C, parking noise levels were found to be 64.6 dBA Leq, which would be generally consistent ambient noise levels that range from 63.7 dBA Leq to 66.1 dBA Leq (see Table 3.13-4). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant Impact.

Vibration Impacts
Construction activities associated with the Project could intermittently generate vibration in the Project Site vicinity when it reaches building walls and floors of sensitive receptors. Vibration-generating equipment could include bulldozers and loaded trucks to move materials and debris, jackhammers to break apart concrete, and caisson drills for foundations. Table 3.13-8, Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment, identifies vibration velocity levels for equipment at various distances from the source.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-92 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Table 3.13-8
Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
Approximate PPV (in/sec) Approximate RMS (VdB)
25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet 25 Feet 50 Feet 60 Feet 75 Feet 100 Feet Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Caisson Drilling 0.089 0.031 0.024 0.017 0.011 87 78 76 73 69 Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.020 0.015 0.010 86 77 75 72 68 Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.009 0.007 0.004 79 70 68 65 61 Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 58 49 47 44 40

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, 2018.

With respect to human annoyance, the FTA thresholds are 80 VdB at residences and buildings where people normally sleep, and 75 dB for institutional uses such as schools. With respect to building damage, the FTA guidelines consider 0.12 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage, 0.2 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings, 0.3 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for engineered concrete and masonry, and 0.5 inch/sec PPV to be the significant impact level for reinforced-concrete, steel or timber.

Based on Table 3.13-8, construction equipment could reach vibration levels of 69 VdB at 100 feet. As such, the 80 VdB residential annoyance threshold would not be exceeded at the nearest residential receptor (Sensitive Receptor No. 2). In addition, the 75 VdB annoyance threshold for schools would not be exceeded at Sensitive Receptor No. 1. It should also be noted that construction-related vibration levels experienced would be temporary and intermittent and the Project would be consistent with Title V, Chapter 213 of the City’s Municipal Code, which prohibits construction activities outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and weekends, and on holidays except during emergencies. As such, construction-related vibration would not disturb residences during sensitive nighttime hours. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Based on Table 3.13-8, construction equipment would reach a maximum of 0.011 PPV (in/sec) at 100 feet.

The building nearest the Project Site is the existing school building 165 feet south on Falcon Drive. These vibration levels would not exceed the most conservative 0.12 inch/sec PPV threshold for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage. As such, construction-related vibration impacts with respect to building damage would be less than significant.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-93 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The Project Site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan. The closest airport to the Project Site is the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport located approximately 5.4 miles southwest of the Project Site. Additionally, the Project Site is located outside of the Airport Influence Area of the Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan.54 Therefore, the Project would not expose residents at the Project Site to excessive airport-related noise levels.

No impact would occur in this regard.
54 Walter B. Windus PE, Aviation Consultant, Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Figure 8 “Airport Influence Area, November 16, 2016.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-94 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

14. Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less than Significant Impact. A Project could induce population growth in an area either directly, through the development of new businesses, or indirectly, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure.

The Project does not include the addition or removal of housing and thus would have no direct impact on population and housing forecasts for the area. Although the Project would increase the number of students and employees at the Project Site, it is anticipated that the future students and employees would primarily consist of existing residents in the Milpitas area. Estimating the number of families of future students and employees who may choose to relocate to the City would be highly speculative, since many factors influence personal housing location decisions (e.g., family income levels and the cost and availability of suitable housing in the local area). Nevertheless, in an effort to present a worst-case population growth scenario, this analysis assumes the Project would enroll a maximum of 500 students and employ 75 fulltime employees, all of whom would permanently relocate to the City.

Based on the City’s average household size of 3.13 persons, the Project could result in a maximum population increase of approximately 1,800 persons.55 As of 2023, the City has an estimated population of 81,067 persons.56 According to the City’s General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, the City’s 55 California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark.” May 2022. 56 California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit, “E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark.” May 2022.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-95 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
population is forecasted to reach an estimated 113,530 persons by the year 2040, representing a total increase of 31,933 persons.57 The Project’s potential maximum increase of 1,800 persons would represent approximately six percent of the City’s projected increase in population between the years 2023 and 2040 (32,463 persons). However, this conservative estimate is based on the assumption that the maximum number of students and employees would be new to the City. It is more likely that the majority of the students are currently in attendance in the existing lower division Stratford school campuses. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 11, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with its designated land use under the MMSP as a BPRD-R. Thus, the anticipated population generation has been accounted for in the City’s long-range planning documents. Therefore, the Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The Project would renovate an existing vacant office building into a new preparatory school and construct a new gymnasium and playfield. There are no existing residential facilities on-site. Thus, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 57 City of Milpitas. The City of Milpitas General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report, November 2020. Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1168/Draft-EIR-PDF?bidId=. Accessed January 2, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-96 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

15. Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 any of the public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Fire protection and other related services to the Project Site are provided by the Milpitas Fire Department (MFD). There are four fire stations in the City. The MFD offers fire protection and emergency services to the City, including fire suppression services, emergency medical services, rescue services, hazardous and toxic materials emergency response, coordination of City-wide disaster response efforts, enforcement of fire and life safety codes, enforcement of State and Federal hazardous materials regulations, and investigation of fire cause, arson and other emergency events for reason and origin.58 The closest fire station to the Project Site is Fire Station One, located approximately 0.68 miles northwest of the Project Site.

As discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the Project would not result in a substantive increase in population within the City, nor would it generate growth beyond what has been accounted for in the City’s long-range planning documents. Thus, the Project would not substantively increase the service population or demand for fire protection services. The Project would utilize the existing driveways along Great Mall Drive and Falcon Drive, which can accommodate emergency vehicles that are entering the Project Site. Additionally, a new fire service line would be installed and would connect to the existing water 58 City of Milpitas, “Fire,” Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/milpitas/departments/fire/, accessed January 11, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-97 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
mains located along Great Mall Drive. The proposed fire line and the overall Project design would be in accordance with the applicable design standards outlined in the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), Chapter 9, Fire Protection and Life Safety Systems. The Project would also be designed in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, Chapter 300 (Fire Code) which adopts by reference the 2022 editions of California Fire Code and the California Fire Code. The California Fire Code includes fire safety-related building standards for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and hydrants. As such, impacts on fire protection services and facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. Law enforcement protection services for the City of Milpitas are provided by the Milpitas Police Department (MPD). The MPD station is located 2.62 miles north of the Project Site at 1275 North Milpitas Boulevard.

Construction activities associated with the Project may create a temporary increase in demand for MPD services at the construction site. However, construction activities would be required to comply with the emergency site access requirements outlined in the 2022 CBC. Project implementation would result in an increase in individuals on-site, potentially resulting in increased calls for service and traffic and trafficrelated calls for the proposed school. However, as discussed in Section 14, Population and Housing, the Project would not result in a substantive increase in population within the City, nor would it generate growth beyond what has been accounted for in the City’s long-range planning documents. Thus, the Project would not substantively increase the service population or demand for police fire protection services. The Project would have a total of five pedestrian access gates to the school grounds, each equipped with security locks to minimize potential criminal activity on-site. Further, the Project Site is currently within the MPD’s service area and thus, the Project would not extend MPD’s resources and staffing beyond their existing service area. As such, impacts to police protection and services would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Schools?
No Impact. As stated, the projected indirect population growth in the City from the Project would be nominal. The Project would provide an additional secondary school and would not warrant additional schools in the area. As such, no impacts to school facilities would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-98 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
d) Parks?
No Impact. The closest public park to the Project Site is Parc Metro Clubhouse, located 0.58 miles north of the Project Site at 330 Curtis Avenue.
59 As stated, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in the City’s population and would not substantially increase the use of the City’s parks and recreational facilities. As such, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Other Public Facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The City of Milpitas is served by the Santa Clara County Public Library District (County Library District). The County Library includes eight branch libraries that provide services to Santa Clara County.60 The closest public library to the Project Site is the Milpitas Library (MPL), located approximately 1.46 miles northwest of the Project Site at 160 North Main Street.

As stated above, the Project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in population compared to existing conditions. Thus, the Project is not expected to result in an additional demand for library services.

Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 59 City of Milpitas, “Facilities.” Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/Facilities?clear=False, accessed January 4, 2023.
60 Santa Clara County Library District, “Library Locations.” Available online at:
https://sccl.bibliocommons.com/locations/?_ga=2.6142516.641854484.1668657211- 740783852.1665682817&_gl=1*1jk0cnn*_ga*NzQwNzgzODUyLjE2NjU2ODI4MTc.*_ga_G99DMMNG39*MTY2O DY1NzIxMS43LjEuMTY2ODY1NzI2Ny4wLjAuMA, accessed January 4, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-99 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

16. Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
No Impact. As stated in Section 15, Public Services, the nearest recreational facility to the Project Site is the Parc Metro Clubhouse, located 0.58 miles north of the Project Site. Further, as stated above, the Project would not result in a substantial increase in the City’s population and would not increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities. Accordingly, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The Project would involve the renovation of an existing vacant office building into a preparatory school. While the Project does include the construction of a playfield and gymnasium, the facilities are intended for the use of the private school and are not open to the general public. As stated above, the Project would not increase the use of existing recreational facilities and therefore would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-100 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

17. Transportation and Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with a plan, ordinance or policy addressing the performance of the circulation system, including
transit, roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths?
b. For a transportation project, would the project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c. Substantially increase geometric hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Off-site pedestrian facilities that surround the Project Site are limited to sidewalks located along Great Mall Drive and Great Mall Parkway. All intersections adjacent to the Project Site provide marked crosswalks and curb ramps on most approaches. Additionally, Great Mall Parkway is identified by the City of Milpitas as an existing Class II Bike Lane and as an existing trailway that is prioritized for improvement.61 Project construction would not disturb the surrounding pedestrian facilities as all associated construction activities/staging equipment would occur on-site. With respect to operations, the Project Site includes direct pedestrian connections to the nearby Milpitas BART Station (see Appendix D, Transportation Impact Analysis). The Project would install pedestrian/bike gates that would provide access for students walking along all adjacent roadways. Pedestrians and bicyclists travelling to/from the Milpitas BART station would 61 City of Milpitas, City of Milpitas Bicycle/Pedestrian & Trails Plan, Adopted May 2022. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4954/Trail-Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Master-Plan---AdoptedMay-2022-PDF?bidId=, accessed January 5, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-101 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
maintain access to the Project Site. As such, the Project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with the City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.

According to Appendix D, the volume of cyclists generated by the Project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing bike facilities surrounding the site, nor would Project implementation require additional bicycle facilities. Rather, the Project would provide bicycle parking spaces on-site for students and staff. Thus, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Trail, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan.

Transit Systems
The Project Site is surrounded by several stops for light rail and public transit lines provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC,) and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) (see Appendix D).62 The closest VTA bus stop is located approximately 275 feet southwest from the Project Site along Great Mall Parkway and 0.20 miles northwest at the intersection of Great Mall Parkway and McCandless Drive. Additionally, the Project Site is located less than

0.50 miles from the nearest major transit stop. The closest major transit stops include Milpitas BART Station and the VTA Great Mall/ Main Station. Thus, the Project Site is located within a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) area.63
The Project would introduce new students and staff to the Project area. Thus, the Project would generate additional transit trips in the Project area. However, according to Appendix D, the volume of transit trips generated by the Project is not expected to exceed the carrying capacity of the existing transit services to the site. The Project, by itself, would not require additional transit service to the area or improvements to existing transit service frequencies. Thus, the Project would not require conflict with existing or proposed transit projects or policies identified by the VTA.

In conclusion, the Project would not conflict with the plans or policies addressing the circulation system of the transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 62 Valley Transportation Authority, “Routes.” Available online at: https://www.vta.org/go/routes, accessed January 5, 2024.
63 A Transit-Oriented Development is defined by U.S. Department of Transportation as “projects within one-half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact”

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-102 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) provides considerations for evaluating a project’s transportation impacts. Land Use Projects (b)(1) are evaluated through vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Generally, projects within one-half miles of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact.64 Projects that decrease VMT in the project area compared to existing conditions should be presumed to have a less than significant transportation impact.

On May 18, 2021, the City of Milpitas adopted a local transportation policy analysis for VMT, the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis (dated March 2022), to comply with State law and provide established and consistent criteria for analyzing transportation impacts of development projects and long-range plans. The transportation policy is intended for evaluating potential transportation impacts of new developments to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City has established thresholds of significance for non-residential Projects that are in accordance with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). According to the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis, a project shall be presumed to have a lessthan-significant transportation impact of they meet any of the following screening criteria:
• Small Project Screening: Projects generating 110 daily trips or less. Examples: Single-family residential development of 12 units or fewer, multi-family residential development of 20 units or fewer, and office developments of 10,000 square feet or less.
• Retail projects that are local serving defined as 100ksf or less; • Local serving public projects such as fire stations, neighborhood parks, libraries, and community centers;
• Transit Supportive Project transit screening: All land-use projects located within one half mile of a major transit stop, or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor, pursuant to State definitions for such facilities and meet the following criteria;
− For Office/R&D projects, a minimum floor area ratio of 0.75 64 California Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, 2018.

Available online at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf, accessed February 2, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-103 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
− For Residential projects, a minimum density of 35 units/acre (40 units/acre in the Serra Center and 50 units/acre in the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan area); − No excess parking: the project does not include more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the Municipal Code; − No loss of affordable dwelling units: the project does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of affordable units, and any replacement units are at the same level of affordability; and
• Projects with restricted affordable housing.

Project Screening
Appendix D determined that the Project could potentially be screened out of the VMT Analysis, as the proposed school use would qualify the Project to be screened out of VMT Analysis under the following screening criteria identified in the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis:
• Local Serving Project: As stated above, the City of Milpitas Transportation Analysis Policy Guidelines (March 2022) presumes that local serving public projects would have a have a less-than-significant transportation impact. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory (December 2018) states that “By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-thansignificant transportation impact.” Appendix D states that school uses are similar to retail uses, in that, the more schools that are located within in a given area, the shorter the student trips between the school and other complementary land uses (such as employment or residential uses). • Prior Approvals: The Project Site is located within the MMSP planning area. The Project Site is designated as BPRD-R and educational uses are listed as an acceptable use in BPRD-R designated areas under the MMSP. Thus, the proposed educational use was contemplated as a potential development on-site under the MMSP. According to Appendix D, CEQA impacts related to traffic for projects that are consistent with the MMSP have been analyzed in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the MMSP. As such, the Project may qualify for a statutory exemption under CEQA.

Therefore, given the City’s screening criteria, prior finding regarding private school projects, and that the use for the site is already cleared environmentally, the impacts of the project on VMT are considered less than significant.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-104 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
VMT Analysis
The Project would implement a new school with a maximum student enrollment of 500 students and 75 employees. The VMT Analysis (Appendix D) determined that implementation of the Project would decrease the VMT per employee (VMT/employee) from 2,635 VMT/employee to 1,163 VMT/employee.

As a new secondary school for 6th through 12th graders, the Project would be the only Stratford secondary school for three existing lower division Stratford preparatory schools located within a three-mile distance from the Project Site. According to Appendix D, the Project would provide an alternate location for Stratford school students to continue their education without traveling to a more distant location, thus reducing VMT per capita from existing conditions. Thus, the Project’s overall impact on VMT would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The Project would not include any on-site or off-site roadway improvements.

The majority of the existing on-site circulation would be maintained with implementation of the Project.

The Project would utilize the two existing driveways off of Great Mall Drive and Falcon Drive. Visitors would use the existing driveway off of Great Mall Drive as the primary vehicular entry to the Project Site.

As illustrated in Figure 2.0-5, upon entering the school grounds, visitors may either turn right to park within the proposed 21 parking spaces located at the northwestern corner of the Project Site or turn left towards the remaining on-site parking spaces or towards the proposed drop-off and pick up-zone for students along the northern frontage of the school. As depicted, vehicles would then continue through the proposed egress route and exit the Project Site through the security gate along the southern perimeter of the site to the parking lot of the existing adjacent school, or through the existing driveway along Falcon Drive. The Project would be required to comply with all on-site circulation site access requirements imposed by the City and the Milpitas Fire Department (MFD). As such, Project plans would be subject to review by the City and the MFD. Upon approval, the Project would not include any geometric design features or incompatible uses that would substantially increase hazards. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-105 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities would remain on-site. The Project would utilize the existing driveways on-site for emergency access. The Project would incorporate all applicable design and safety standards and regulations outlined in Chapter 33 of the 2022 California Building Code, and Chapter 11 (Construction Requirements for Existing Buildings) of the California Fire Code. Furthermore, the Project would be subject to site plan review by the City and MFD to ensure that on-site emergency access points are sufficient. Upon site plan approval, and by adhering to applicable state requirements, impacts regarding emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-106 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

18. Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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
the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California Native
American tribe, and that is:
i. 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), or
ii. 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 Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.

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 the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resource Code section 5020.1(k)? No Impact. Impacts related to historical resources are evaluated in Section 5, Cultural Resources. As discussed, there are no buildings or structures within the Project Site that are eligible to be listed on the CRHR or the NRHP. The existing building on-site was constructed in 2002. As such, no impacts would occur.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-107 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) 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?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Appendix B, Cultural Resources Documentation, results of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) search report from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the Project Site were negative.

In compliance with AB 52, the City will distribute letters notifying each tribe that may have knowledge of cultural resources within the Project Area in coordination with the circulation of this MND.

Ground disturbing activities associated with the Project could result in the discovery of previously undiscovered cultural resources. This includes potential discovery of tribal cultural resources. In the event Native American resources are discovered, the City would consult with the Native American monitor and affected tribe(s). Additionally, as stated in Section 5, Cultural Resources, in the event that human remains are encountered, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would ensure that work in the immediate area of a potential archaeological find is halted until an archaeologist evaluates the find and determines appropriate subsequent procedures. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1, impacts to resources that are applicable under Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 would be reduced to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measures: See Mitigation Measure CUL-1.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-108 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

19. Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry
years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
d. 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?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Would the project:
a) 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 environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact.

Water
The City provides water services to the Project Site and receives water supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and Valley Water (formerly Santa Clara Valley Water District). The SFPUC is a regional wholesale water supplier that supplies predominantly snowmelt from the Sierra

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-109 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts.
65 Valley Water is a countywide wholesale water
and groundwater management agency, relies on local retailers (municipalities and private companies) to deliver water to homes and businesses throughout the county, including the City of Milpitas.66 Potable water is currently being conveyed to the Project Site with the existing underground waterlines that connect to a 12-inch water main along Great Mall Drive. The Project would continue to use the existing water lines on-site to receive potable water for the landscaping, restrooms, and kitchens. The proposed gymnasium would not include uses that need potable water. The Project Site is designated in the City’s General Plan as Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP), and in the MMSP, the Project Site is designated as Business Park Research & Development, Limited Residential (BPDR-R), which supports and allows educational uses. Therefore, the expected development intensity of the Project has been accounted for in the City’s long-range planning documents. As such, the Project would not require new or relocated or expanded water facilities.

Wastewater
The Project would include the construction of new bathrooms within the existing building, which would generate additional demand for wastewater treatment. No bathrooms are being proposed within the new gymnasium. Wastewater produced by the Project would be treated at the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility (RWF), located 1.23 miles southwest of the Project Site in the City of San Jose. The proposed school would construct a new 6-inch sewer lines to connect to the City’s 8-inch main and new 6- inch and 8-inch storm drains will collect water and then route to a detention basin, which will then drain into a private storm drain system along Great Mall Drive. A new Recycled Water system will need to be constructed in order to provide irrigation to the landscape areas. A connection to the existing 8-inch Recycled Water Main on Falcon Drive will be established.

The RWF has a total contracted peak flow capacity of 14.25 million gallons per day (mgd).67 The Project is anticipated to generate approximately 570 gallons per day.68,69 The anticipated wastewater generated by 65 City of Milpitas, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/_pdfs/Milpitas_2020_%20UWMP_FINAL.pdf, accessed January 11, 2024. 66 Valley Water, “Find My Water Retailer,” Available online at: https://www.valleywater.org/find-my-retailer, accessed January 10, 2024.
67 City of Milpitas, 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, 2021. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/_pdfs/Milpitas_2020_%20UWMP_FINAL.pdf, accessed January 11, 2024. 68 City of Milpitas, Sewer Master Plan Update, 2009. Available online:
https://www.milpitas.gov/_pdfs/eng_mp_sewer.pdf, accessed January 11, 2024. 69 The estimated wastewater generation is based on the land use designation for schools under the Sewer Master Plan Update (Public Facilities) and the acreage of the Project Site (See 7-6: Calibrated UF Factors of the Sewer Master Plan Update).

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-110 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
the Project would represent less than one percent of the City’s contracted peak flow for the RWF. As such, the existing wastewater treatment capacity is anticipated to be sufficient to accommodate the Project. The Project is consistent with the Project Site’s land use designation under the MMSP and therefore its development intensity and its wastewater generation have already been accounted for in the City’s long range planning documents. Thus, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and impacts related to wastewater conveyance would be less than significant.

Stormwater
Stormwater runoff from the Project Site is currently conveyed off-site by the City’s stormwater drainage system. Compared to existing conditions, the Project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces at the Project Site. However, the Project would implement a new stormwater system to offset the increase in stormwater resulting from the new gymnasium building. The Project would install new storm drain lines that would drain runoff into a new planter area and would act as a bioswale for treatment. The Project would also adhere to local regulations to ensure that stormwater pollution from the Project would be minimized. The proposed stormwater design features and adherence to applicable requirements would reduce the Project’s impacts to the City’s stormwater system to less than significant levels.

Electricity, Natural Gas, or Telecommunications
According to the MMSP, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electric services to properties within the planning area, including the Project Site. The Project would utilize the existing electricity, natural gas, and telecommunication lines and services at the Project Site. Payment of standard utility connection fees and ongoing user fees to PG&E would be required to ensure these utility services would be able to accommodate the proposed gymnasium. Payment of these standard fees would ensure that Project impacts to dry utility services would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. Valley Water provides treated water from its Penitencia and Santa Teresa treatment plant via its Milpitas Pipeline which terminates in the City. Although the City’s purchases are currently limited to surface water largely purchased by Valley Water from the State Water Project and Central Valley Project, Valley Water’s overall water supply comes from a variety of sources. Nearly half is from local groundwater aquifers, and more than half is imported from the Sierra Nevada through pumping

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-111 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
stations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Both groundwater and imported water are sold to retailers.

According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), the total storage of both the Penitencia and Santa Teresa treatment plant combined is 170,000 acre-feet (AF). Further, the City is projected to have a water demand and supply of 4,917-acre feet per year (AFY) by the year 2045 during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. According to Appendix A, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data, the Project would generate a water demand of approximately 2,648,705 gallons per year or 7,256 gallons per day (gpd) (or 8.12 AFY). Thus, the Project would represent less than one percent of both the City’s water demand and supply, as well as the treatment capacity of both the Penitencia and Santa Teresa treatment plant. As such, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above, the Project would not require the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities. The Project involves the renovation of an existing office building into a new preparatory school and the construction of a new gymnasium and turf playfield. As stated, the Project would result in an increase in demand for wastewater treatment compared to existing conditions. However, the Project is not anticipated to be a substantial source of wastewater.

Based on available data, it is anticipated that the RWF has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand for wastewater treatment. Therefore, the Project’s impacts to wastewater treatment would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) 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? Less than Significant Impact. Approximately 75 percent of total solid waste generated within the City is disposed at the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill and Monterey Peninsula Landfill.70 The Newby Island Landfill permits 4,000 tons of solid waste per day and a remaining capacity of 16,400,000 tons of solid 70 CalRecycle, “Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility.” Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility. Accessed January 11, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-112 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
waste.71 The Monterey Peninsula Landfill permits 3,500 tons of solid waste per day and a remaining capacity of 48,560,000 tons of solid waste.

Construction activities associated with the Project would generate approximately 221. 5 tons of debris, 153.5 tons of which would be recycled. However, the amount of waste generated by the Project would not exceed the amount of waste permitted or the capacities of the Newby Island Sanitary Landfill and Monterey Peninsula Landfill. Additionally, solid waste generation from the Project’s construction activities would be temporary and would cease upon completion of the Project. The Project would generate approximately

45.5 tons of waste per year (or 0.12 ton per day). Accordingly, the Project would represent less than one percent of the daily permitted and remaining capacities for solid waste for both landfills. Therefore, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less than Significant Impact. As stated above, the Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure. Furthermore, the Project would demonstrate compliance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939), which requires all California cities to “reduce, recycle, and re-use solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible.” AB 939 requires that at least 50 percent of waste produced is recycled, reduced, or composted. The Project would also comply with the 2022 CALGreen Code, which includes design and construction measures that help reduce construction-related waste through material conservation and other construction-related efficiency measures. Thus, less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 71 CalRecycle, “SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details- Newby Island Sanitary Landfill.” Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1362?siteID=3388, accessed January 11, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-113 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

20. Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. 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?
c. Require the 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?

d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

Would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) details the City’s incident management organization, compliance with relevant legal statutes, other relevant guidelines, whole community engagement, continuity of government focus, and critical components of the incident management structure in the event of a city-wide emergency or disaster.72 The Project Site is located within a predominately urbanized and developed area of the City. The Project does not propose any off-site improvements, and all construction activities, staging, and equipment would occur on-site. Additionally, the Project Site plans would be reviewed by the Milpitas Fire Department prior to approval. Thus, the Project would not interfere with the City’s EOP, and impacts would therefore be less than significant. 72 City of Milpitas, Emergency Operations Plan of Milpitas. August 2021. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1406/City-of-Milpitas-Emergency-Operations-Plan-PDF, accessed January 11, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-114 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) 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?
No Impact. Wildfires have the potential to occur not only in fire-prone undeveloped areas, but also in developed areas where existing transmission lines, lightning strikes, lawn equipment operated over dry grass, fireworks, and even arson may ignite a wildfire. Wildfires pose a significant public health risk due to their air quality impacts, particularly with regard to smoke and particulate matter exposure. This risk persists even after a wildfire is extinguished because particulate matter from fire ash can be picked up by winds.

The Project Site is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Zone (VHFHZ), nor does the Project Site contain vegetation that could contribute to the uncontrolled spread of wildfire.73 The nearest VHFHZ includes the open hillsides of Milpitas, located more than ten miles to the east of the Project Site.74 Therefore, given the urbanized location of the Project Site, the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would therefore result in no impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Require the 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? No Impact. The Project Site is urbanized and does not include wildlands or high fire terrain. The Project Site is surrounded by existing structures and infrastructure including roadways and interstate highways and would not require the installation or maintenance of roads, fuel breaks, emergency water or other sources that could exacerbate fire risk. Due to the urbanized nature of the Project Site and surrounding area, it is unlikely any fire would spread and would therefore result in no impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 73 County of Santa Clara, “Wildland Urban Interface.” Adopted February 24, 2009. Available online at:
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/WUIFA_Adopted_Map.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2023. 74 CalFire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Available online at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed on December 8, 2023.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-115 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? No Impact. In Northern California, intense rainfall may occur during the winter months, creating natural flooding events when the ground is saturated and water levels are high. This has the potential for flooding issues, and fire hazards may exacerbate such flooding and debris flows along waterways. Since debris flows may occur quickly and without warning, such flows can damage structures, block drainage or even sweep away vegetation resulting in tenuous post-fire slope stability. Fast moving debris flows can be one of the most dangerous post-fire hazards. The Project Site is generally flat and urbanized, is not in an area of wildfire risk, and would not be subject to any post fire slope instability or landslides. Therefore, there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-116 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

21. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the Project will not exceed regional emission thresholds. Furthermore, consistent with BAAQMD requirements, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to ensure impacts remain less than significant. As discussed in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions that would result in a significant impact on the environment, nor conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for reducing GHG emissions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would demonstrate the Project’s compliance with the Milpitas 2022 CAP Update; and ensure impacts are less than significant.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-117 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, the Project could potentially disturb and modify critical habitats that may be present on-site for special-status bird species. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that the impacts to the critical habitat of special-status bird species would be reduced to less than significant.

As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, Section 7, Geology and Soils, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, ground disturbing activities associated with the Project may potentially uncover cultural, archaeological, or paleontological resources. As such, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and GEO-1 would reduce these potential impacts to less than significant levels. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The Project generally would not contribute to potentially cumulatively considerable impacts. As indicated in the above analysis, with implementation of the required mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any unmitigated significant adverse impacts and/or cumulatively considerable impacts. Specifically, Mitigation Measures AQ-1, BIO-1, CUL1, GHG-1, and GEO-1, would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels. The Project does not include any unmitigated cumulatively considerable impacts when considered in connection with the effects of past, present and probable future projects. No further analysis is necessary. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As indicated in the above analysis, with implementation of the required mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any unmitigated significant adverse impacts. Thus, the Project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects on human beings.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-118 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
D. REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. “Low Carbon Fuel Standard.” Available online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about, accessed December 11, 2023.

California Department of Conservation. “California Important Farmland Finder.” Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/, Accessed December 8, 2023.

California Department of Conservation. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.” Available online at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/. Accessed December 18, 2023.

California Department of Conservation. “Landslide Inventory (Beta).” Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/lsi/, accessed December 13, 2023.

California Department of Conservation. “Mines Online.” Available online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mol/index.html, accessed December 15, 2023.

California Department of Conservation. “Los Angeles County Tsunami Hazard Areas.” Available online at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/los-angeles. Accessed January 2, 2024.

California Department of Conservation. The Williamson Act Status Report. 2022. Available online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Documents/stats_reports/2022%20WA%20Status%20Repor t.pdf, accessed December 8, 2023.

California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark. May 2022.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CAL FIRE). “Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer.” Available online at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed January 2, 2024.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). “California State Scenic Highways.” Available online at: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f 1aacaa, accessed December 12, 2023.

California Department of Conservation. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. 1996.

California Environmental Protection Agency. “Cortese List Data Resources.” Available online at:
https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/, accessed January 2, 2024.

California Office of Planning and Research. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. 2018. Available online at: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf.

California State Geoportal. Liquefaction Zones. Available online at:
https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/b70a766a60ad4c0688babdd47497dbad/about?layer=0, accessed December 13, 2023.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-119 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
CalFire, “FHSZ Viewer.” Available online at: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed on December 8, 2023.

CalRecycle. “Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility.” Available online at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFacility.

Accessed January 11, 2024.

CalRecycle. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details- Newby Island Sanitary Landfill. Available online at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1362?siteID=3388, accessed January 11, 2024.

City of Milpitas. City of Milpitas Bicycle/Pedestrian & Trails Plan. May 2022. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4954/Trail-Pedestrian-and-Bicycle-Master-Plan--- Adopted-May-2022-PDF?bidId=, accessed January 5, 2024.

City of Milpitas. City of Milpitas General Plan 2040. March 2021. Available online at:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57277b461d07c02f9c2f5c2c/t/60906e6349539311604cae70/1620078 198914/Milpitas+General+Plan_Final_online+version.pdf, accessed January 5,2024.

City of Milpitas. City of Milpitas General Plan Environment Impact Report. November 2020. Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1344/Draft-EIR-final-edits-PDF?bidId=, accessed December 12, 2023.

City of Milpitas. City of Milpitas Metro Specific Plan. February 2023. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3428/2023-Metro-Specific-Plan-PDF?bidId=, accessed January 5,2024.

City of Milpitas. Climate Action Plan. 2013. Available online at:
http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/Climate_ActionPlan.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2023.

City of Milpitas. Emergency Operations Plan of Milpitas. August 2021. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1406/City-of-Milpitas-Emergency-Operations-PlanPDF, accessed January 11, 2024 City of Milpitas. “Fire.” Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/milpitas/departments/fire/, accessed January 11, 2024.

City of Milpitas. “Facilities.” Available online at: https://www.milpitas.gov/Facilities?clear=False, accessed January 4, 2023.

City of Milpitas, Sewer Master Plan Update. 2009. Available online:
https://www.milpitas.gov/_pdfs/eng_mp_sewer.pdf, accessed January 11, 2024.

City of Milpitas. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. 2021. Available online at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/_pdfs/Milpitas_2020_%20UWMP_FINAL.pdf, accessed January 11, 2024.

County of Santa Clara, “Wildland Urban Interface.” Adopted February 24, 2009. Available online at:
https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/WUIFA_Adopted_Map.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2023.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-120 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Federal Emergency Management Agency. “Flood Map Service Center- National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette.” Available online at: https://msc.fema.gov/arcgis/rest/directories/arcgisjobs/nfhl_print/msc printb_gpserver/j3cc6c97f749e4c8d8fab0cff536ae375/scratch/FIRMETTE_938d2d6a-be69-4901-953f24b964930a42.pdf, accessed January 5, 2024.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. “Envirostor.” Available online at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/search.asp?cmd=search&reporttype=CORTESE&site_type =CSITES,OPEN,FUDS,CLOSE&status=ACT,BKLG,COM&reporttitle=HAZARDOUS+WASTE+AND+ SUBSTANCES+SITE+LIST. Accessed December 13, 2023.

Michigan Tech University. “Earthquake Magnitude Scale.” Available online at:
https://www.mtu.edu/geo/community/seismology/learn/earthquake-measure/magnitude/, accessed on December 13, 2023.

Office of Historic Preservation. “Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD).” Available online:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=30338, accessed January 23, 2024.

Santa Clara County Library District. “Library Locations.” Available online at:
https://sccl.bibliocommons.com/locations/?_ga=2.6142516.641854484.1668657211- 740783852.1665682817&_gl=1*1jk0cnn*_ga*NzQwNzgzODUyLjE2NjU2ODI4MTc.*_ga_G99DMMNG 39*MTY2ODY1NzIxMS43LjEuMTY2ODY1NzI2Ny4wLjAuMA, accessed January 4, 2024.

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, Figure 1-2, Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area. August 2012. Available online at: https://www.scvhabitatagency.org/178/Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan, accessed December 12, 2023.

State Water Resources Control Board. “Geotracker.” Available online at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed December 13, 2023.

United States Department of Agriculture. “Web Soil Survey.” Available online at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed December 13, 2023.

United States Geological Survey. “Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States.” Available online at: https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/faults. Accessed on December 13, 2023.

U.S. Geological Survey. “Areas of Land Subsidence in California.” Available online at:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html, accessed December 13, 2023.

United States Fish and Wildlife, “National Wetlands Inventory.” Available online at:
https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/. Accessed December 12, 2023.

Valley Transportation Authority. “Routes.” Available online at: https://www.vta.org/go/routes, accessed January 5, 2024.

Valley Water. “Find My Water Retailer.” Available online at: https://www.valleywater.org/find-myretailer, accessed January 10, 2024.

3.0 Environmental Checklist
Impact Sciences, Inc. 3.0-121 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024
Walter B. Windus PE, Aviation Consultant. Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Figure 8 “Airport Influence Area. November 16, 2016.

Yerba Buena Chapter-CNPS. “Northern Coastal Salt Marsh.” Available online at: http://cnpsyerbabuena.org/northern-coastal-salt-marsh/. Accessed January 8, 2024.

Impact Sciences, Inc. 4.0-1 Stratford Preparatory School Project 1451.002 May 2024

4.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
Persons directly involved in the review and preparation of this study include:

City of Milpitas Planning Department (Lead Agency)
Avery Stark, Acting Senior Planner
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Project Applicant
Stratford School
12930 Saratoga Avenue, Suite A-2
Saratoga, CA 95070
Architectural Consultant
Inhabit Design
255 S King Street, Suite 800
Seattle, WA 98104
Environmental Consultant
Impact Sciences, Inc.
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Contributors:

Jessica Kirchner, AICP, Associate Principal
Brett Pomeroy, Technical Director
Margaret Lin, Senior Project Manager
Eleni Getachew, ENV SP, Deputy Project Manager / Planner Annalie Sarrieddine, Planner
Amber Williams, Air Quality and Greenhouse Technical Specialist Kara Yates Hines, Publications Manager
Transportation Consultant
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Brett Walinski, Associate
5776 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 175
Pleasanton, CA 94588

APPENDIX A
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Data

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 1 / 21
Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 2 / 21

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 3 / 21

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 4 / 21

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated

5.18.2. Sequestration

5.18.2.1. Unmitigated

8. User Changes to Default Data

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 5 / 21

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 31.0
Location 37.411455, -121.895387
County Santa Clara
City Milpitas
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1903
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21

1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
High School 500 Student 1.52 51,740 0.00 0.00 — —

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 6 / 21

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.80 8.43 5.84 61.4 0.14 0.14 12.9 13.0 0.13 3.26 3.39 53.4 14,987 15,040 6.00 0.56 55.7 15,412 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 7.10 7.73 6.73 54.9 0.13 0.13 12.9 13.0 0.13 3.26 3.39 53.4 14,123 14,177 6.07 0.61 1.64 14,512 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 5.43 6.21 4.89 41.0 0.10 0.11 9.39 9.50 0.11 2.38 2.49 53.4 10,815 10,868 5.88 0.44 18.0 11,165 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.99 1.13 0.89 7.48 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 8.84 1,790 1,799 0.97 0.07 2.99 1,848

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

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 7 / 21
Mobile 7.34 6.77 5.25 58.7 0.14 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.26 3.35 — 14,160 14,160 0.57 0.54 55.5 14,392 Area 0.40 1.62 0.02 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.25 9.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 809 809 0.08 < 0.005 — 812 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 7.80 8.43 5.84 61.4 0.14 0.14 12.9 13.0 0.13 3.26 3.39 53.4 14,987 15,040 6.00 0.56 55.7 15,412 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 7.04 6.45 6.16 54.4 0.13 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.26 3.35 — 13,306 13,306 0.64 0.60 1.44 13,502 Area — 1.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 809 809 0.08 < 0.005 — 812 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 7.10 7.73 6.73 54.9 0.13 0.13 12.9 13.0 0.13 3.26 3.39 53.4 14,123 14,177 6.07 0.61 1.64 14,512 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.17 4.74 4.31 39.4 0.10 0.07 9.39 9.46 0.06 2.38 2.44 — 9,993 9,993 0.45 0.43 17.8 10,150 Area 0.20 1.44 0.01 1.11 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 4.56 4.56 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 4.58 Energy 0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 809 809 0.08 < 0.005 — 812 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total 5.43 6.21 4.89 41.0 0.10 0.11 9.39 9.50 0.11 2.38 2.49 53.4 10,815 10,868 5.88 0.44 18.0 11,165 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.94 0.87 0.79 7.19 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.73 0.01 0.43 0.45 — 1,654 1,654 0.07 0.07 2.95 1,680 Area 0.04 0.26 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 8 / 21
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.32 2.02 0.07 < 0.005 — 4.33 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 8.14 0.00 8.14 0.81 0.00 — 28.5 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total 0.99 1.13 0.89 7.48 0.02 0.02 1.71 1.73 0.02 0.43 0.45 8.84 1,790 1,799 0.97 0.07 2.99 1,848

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

7.34 6.77 5.25 58.7 0.14 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.26 3.35 — 14,160 14,160 0.57 0.54 55.5 14,392 Total 7.34 6.77 5.25 58.7 0.14 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.26 3.35 — 14,160 14,160 0.57 0.54 55.5 14,392 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School

7.04 6.45 6.16 54.4 0.13 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.26 3.35 — 13,306 13,306 0.64 0.60 1.44 13,502 Total 7.04 6.45 6.16 54.4 0.13 0.09 12.9 13.0 0.08 3.26 3.35 — 13,306 13,306 0.64 0.60 1.44 13,502 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School

0.94 0.87 0.79 7.19 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.73 0.01 0.43 0.45 — 1,654 1,654 0.07 0.07 2.95 1,680 Total 0.94 0.87 0.79 7.19 0.02 0.01 1.71 1.73 0.01 0.43 0.45 — 1,654 1,654 0.07 0.07 2.95 1,680

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 9 / 21

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.02 < 0.005 — 130
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.02 < 0.005 — 130 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.02 < 0.005 — 130
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 128 128 0.02 < 0.005 — 130 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 21.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.5 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 21.2 21.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 21.5

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

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 10 / 21
High 0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 681 681 0.06 < 0.005 — 683 School
Total 0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 681 681 0.06 < 0.005 — 683 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School

0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 681 681 0.06 < 0.005 — 683 Total 0.06 0.03 0.57 0.48 < 0.005 0.04 — 0.04 0.04 — 0.04 — 681 681 0.06 < 0.005 — 683 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School

0.01 0.01 0.10 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113 Total 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.09 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 113 113 0.01 < 0.005 — 113

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.40 0.37 0.02 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.25 9.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29 Total 0.40 1.62 0.02 2.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 9.25 9.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.29

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 11 / 21
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 1.11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.15 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 1.26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.20 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.04 0.03 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76 Total 0.04 0.26 < 0.005 0.20 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.76 0.76 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.76

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 12 / 21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.22 7.97 12.2 0.43 0.01 — 26.2 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.32 2.02 0.07 < 0.005 — 4.33 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.70 1.32 2.02 0.07 < 0.005 — 4.33

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 49.2 0.00 49.2 4.92 0.00 — 172 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 13 / 21
High — — — — — — — — — — — 8.14 0.00 8.14 0.81 0.00 — 28.5 School
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 8.14 0.00 8.14 0.81 0.00 — 28.5

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.20 0.20
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
High
School
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.03 0.03

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 14 / 21
Equipme
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 15 / 21

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 16 / 21
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

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

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 17 / 21
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 18 / 21

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year High School 1,965 290 125 533,943 18,254 2,694 1,161 4,960,064

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 77,610 25,870 —

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) High School 229,593 204 0.0330 0.0040 2,124,489

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 19 / 21

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) High School 2,202,480 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
High School 91.3 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced High School Household refrigerators
and/or freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.02 0.60 0.00 1.00
High School Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
High School Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 < 0.005 1.00 0.00 1.00
High School Walk-in refrigerators
and freezers
R-404A 3,922 < 0.005 7.50 7.50 20.0

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 20 / 21
Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor

5.16. Stationary Sources

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

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

5.18. Vegetation

5.18.1. Land Use Change

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

5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type

5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres

5.18.2. Sequestration

Stratford Preparatory School - School Building Custom Report, 1/10/2024 21 / 21

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

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Land Use Existing building is 51,740 square feet and will accommodate 500 students.

Operations: Vehicle Data According to the traffic operations analysis prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., the Project will generate 1,965 daily trips.

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 1 / 38
Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report
Table of Contents

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information

1.2. Land Use Types

1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated

3. Construction Emissions Details

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 2 / 38

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

4.1.1. Unmitigated

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

4.3.1. Unmitigated

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

4.5.1. Unmitigated

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

4.6.1. Unmitigated

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 3 / 38

4.7.1. Unmitigated

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

4.8.1. Unmitigated

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated

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

4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 4 / 38

5.5. Architectural Coatings

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies

5.7. Construction Paving

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings

5.10.3. Landscape Equipment

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 5 / 38

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

5.15.1. Unmitigated

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

5.16.2. Process Boilers

5.17. User Defined

8. User Changes to Default Data

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 6 / 38

1. Basic Project Information

1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium
Construction Start Date 7/1/2024
Operational Year 2025
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.00
Precipitation (days) 31.0
Location 37.411455, -121.895387
County Santa Clara
City Milpitas
Air District Bay Area AQMD
Air Basin San Francisco Bay Area
TAZ 1903
EDFZ 1
Electric Utility Pacific Gas & Electric Company
Gas Utility Pacific Gas & Electric
App Version 2022.1.1.21

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

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 7 / 38
Health Club 7.88 1000sqft 0.18 7,883 0.00 — — —
Parking Lot 8.00 Space 0.07 0.00 0.00 — — —

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

2. Emissions Summary

2.1. Construction Emissions Compared Against Thresholds Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 1.46 5.20 11.4 14.3 0.02 0.53 2.13 2.67 0.49 1.02 1.51 — 2,481 2,481 0.10 0.08 1.26 2,493 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.68 0.57 5.66 7.12 0.01 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.24 0.01 0.24 — 1,367 1,367 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,373 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.28 0.46 2.26 3.01 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.05 0.14 — 566 566 0.02 0.01 0.05 569 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.05 0.08 0.41 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 93.7 93.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 94.2

2.2. Construction Emissions by Year, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Year TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 8 / 38
Daily -
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 1.44 1.21 11.4 11.1 0.02 0.53 2.13 2.67 0.49 1.02 1.51 — 1,779 1,779 0.07 0.08 1.26 1,786 2025 1.46 5.20 10.5 14.3 0.02 0.44 0.19 0.63 0.40 0.04 0.45 — 2,481 2,481 0.10 0.03 0.82 2,493 Daily -
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.68 0.57 5.66 7.12 0.01 0.26 0.04 0.29 0.24 0.01 0.24 — 1,367 1,367 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,373 2025 0.63 0.53 5.20 7.08 0.01 0.22 0.04 0.25 0.20 0.01 0.21 — 1,366 1,366 0.06 0.02 0.01 1,372 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.28 0.23 2.26 2.70 < 0.005 0.10 0.11 0.21 0.09 0.05 0.14 — 508 508 0.02 0.01 0.05 511 2025 0.28 0.46 2.22 3.01 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.11 0.09 0.01 0.09 — 566 566 0.02 0.01 0.05 569 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
2024 0.05 0.04 0.41 0.49 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.03 — 84.2 84.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 84.6 2025 0.05 0.08 0.40 0.55 < 0.005 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 0.02 < 0.005 0.02 — 93.7 93.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 94.2

2.4. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.07 0.25 0.10 0.42 < 0.005 — — — — — — 25.1 163 188 2.53 < 0.005 0.04 253 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.20 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 — — — — — — 25.1 162 187 2.53 < 0.005 0.04 251

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 9 / 38
Average — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily
(Max)
Unmit. 0.04 0.22 0.09 0.25 < 0.005 — — — — — — 25.1 163 188 2.53 < 0.005 0.04 252 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05 < 0.005 — — — — — — 4.16 26.9 31.1 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 41.7

2.5. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.06 0.25 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.41 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 160 160 0.02 < 0.005 — 161 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Vegetatio
n
— — — — — NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN — — — — — — —
Total 0.07 0.25 0.10 0.42 < 0.005 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 25.1 163 188 2.53 < 0.005 0.04 253 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area — 0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 160 160 0.02 < 0.005 — 161 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 10 / 38
Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Vegetatio
n
— — — — — NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 0.20 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 25.1 162 187 2.53 < 0.005 0.04 251 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.03 0.22 < 0.005 0.17 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.70 0.70 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.70 Energy 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 160 160 0.02 < 0.005 — 161 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Vegetatio
n
— — — — — NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN — — — — — — —
Total 0.04 0.22 0.09 0.25 < 0.005 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 25.1 163 188 2.53 < 0.005 0.04 252 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Area 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 Energy < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 26.5 26.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 26.7 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.28 0.43 0.02 < 0.005 — 0.92 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 4.01 0.00 4.01 0.40 0.00 — 14.0 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Vegetatio
n
— — — — — NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN — — — — — — —
Total 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.05 < 0.005 NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN 4.16 26.9 31.1 0.42 < 0.005 0.01 41.7

3. Construction Emissions Details

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 11 / 38

3.1. Demolition (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.61 0.51 4.69 5.79 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.17 — 0.17 — 852 852 0.03 0.01 — 855 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.31 0.31 — 0.05 0.05 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.02 0.01 0.13 0.16 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 23.3 23.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 23.4 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — 0.01 0.01 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 3.87 3.87 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 3.88 Demolitio
n
— — — — — — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — — — — — — — Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 12 / 38
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.02 — 87.4 87.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.37 88.8 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.04 0.01 0.52 0.25 < 0.005 0.01 0.10 0.11 < 0.005 0.03 0.03 — 409 409 0.03 0.07 0.88 430 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.24 2.24 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.28 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.2 11.2 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 11.8 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.37 0.37 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.38 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.85 1.85 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.95

3.3. Grading (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

1.41 1.19 11.4 10.7 0.02 0.53 — 0.53 0.49 — 0.49 — 1,713 1,713 0.07 0.01 — 1,719

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 13 / 38
Dust — — — — — — 2.07 2.07 — 1.00 1.00 — — — — — — —
From
Material
Movement
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.06 0.05 0.47 0.44 < 0.005 0.02 — 0.02 0.02 — 0.02 — 70.4 70.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 70.6 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.09 0.09 — 0.04 0.04 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 11.7 11.7 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 11.7 Dust
From
Material
Movement
— — — — — — 0.02 0.02 — 0.01 0.01 — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 65.6 65.6 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.28 66.6 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 14 / 38
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.52 2.52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.56 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.42 0.42 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.42 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5. Building Construction (2024) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 0.56 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.67 0.56 5.60 6.98 0.01 0.26 — 0.26 0.23 — 0.23 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 15 / 38
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.19 0.16 1.63 2.03 < 0.005 0.07 — 0.07 0.07 — 0.07 — 380 380 0.02 < 0.005 — 382 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.30 0.37 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 63.0 63.0 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 63.2 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.9 28.9 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.12 29.4 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.4 35.4 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 37.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.8 26.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 27.2 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 35.4 35.4 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 37.1 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.90 7.90 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 8.02 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 10.3 10.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 10.8 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.31 1.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.33

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 16 / 38
Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.71 1.71 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.79 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.7. Building Construction (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.62 0.52 5.14 6.94 0.01 0.22 — 0.22 0.20 — 0.20 — 1,305 1,305 0.05 0.01 — 1,309 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.23 0.19 1.89 2.55 < 0.005 0.08 — 0.08 0.07 — 0.07 — 480 480 0.02 < 0.005 — 482 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.04 0.03 0.35 0.47 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 79.5 79.5 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 79.7 Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 17 / 38
Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 28.4 28.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.11 28.8 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.9 34.9 < 0.005 0.01 0.09 36.5 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 — 26.3 26.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 26.6 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 0.02 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 34.9 34.9 < 0.005 0.01 < 0.005 36.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 9.78 9.78 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 9.92 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 12.8 12.8 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 13.4 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.62 1.62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.64 Vendor < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 2.12 2.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 2.22 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.9. Paving (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 18 / 38
Off-Road
Equipment

0.61 0.51 4.37 5.31 0.01 0.19 — 0.19 0.18 — 0.18 — 823 823 0.03 0.01 — 826 Paving — 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.03 0.03 0.25 0.31 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 47.4 47.4 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 47.5 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.06 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.84 7.84 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.87 Paving — < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.03 0.03 — 150 150 < 0.005 0.01 0.59 152 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 19 / 38
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.08 8.08 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 8.20 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.34 1.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 1.36 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.11. Architectural Coating (2025) - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Location TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Onsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.15 0.13 0.88 1.14 < 0.005 0.03 — 0.03 0.03 — 0.03 — 134 134 0.01 < 0.005 — 134 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 3.96 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.07 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 7.68 7.68 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 7.71 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.23 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 20 / 38
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Off-Road
Equipment
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.01 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.27 1.27 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.28 Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Onsite
truck

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Offsite — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 5.67 5.67 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 5.76 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.31 0.31 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.31 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Worker < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.00 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.05 0.05 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.05 Vendor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 21 / 38

4. Operations Emissions Details

4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use

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

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 22 / 38

4.2. Energy

4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 48.1 48.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 48.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.55 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.6 49.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 50.1 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 48.1 48.1 0.01 < 0.005 — 48.5
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 1.54 1.54 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.55 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 49.6 49.6 0.01 < 0.005 — 50.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — 7.96 7.96 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.04 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — — 0.25 0.25 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.26 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 8.21 8.21 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 8.29

4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 23 / 38
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club

0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.08 < 0.005 0.01 — 0.01 0.01 — 0.01 — 111 111 0.01 < 0.005 — 111 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
< 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.4 Parking
Lot

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00 Total < 0.005 < 0.005 0.02 0.01 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 18.3 18.3 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 18.4

4.3. Area Emissions by Source

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

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 24 / 38
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Consum
er
Products
— 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.06 0.06 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.41 Total 0.06 0.25 < 0.005 0.34 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 1.41 1.41 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 1.41 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — 0.19 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Consum
er
Products
— 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coatings
— < 0.005 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipme
nt

0.01 0.01 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12 Total 0.01 0.04 < 0.005 0.03 < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 < 0.005 — < 0.005 — 0.12 0.12 < 0.005 < 0.005 — 0.12

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 25 / 38

4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use

4.4.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.89 1.69 2.58 0.09 < 0.005 — 5.54 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.28 0.43 0.02 < 0.005 — 0.92 Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 0.15 0.28 0.43 0.02 < 0.005 — 0.92

4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 26 / 38

4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 24.2 0.00 24.2 2.42 0.00 — 84.7 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — 4.01 0.00 4.01 0.40 0.00 — 14.0
Parking
Lot
— — — — — — — — — — — 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 — 0.00
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 4.01 0.00 4.01 0.40 0.00 — 14.0

4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use

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

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 27 / 38
Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.04 0.04
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Health
Club
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.01 0.01

4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type

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

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 28 / 38
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type

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

4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type

4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipme
nt
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 29 / 38
Daily, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Summer
(Max)
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type

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

4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual)

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 30 / 38
Land TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Use
Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

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

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 31 / 38
———————————————————
Total————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
undefine d————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Subtotal————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
undefine d————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Subtotal————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
———————————————————
Total————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Annual——————————————————
Avoided——————————————————
undefine d————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Subtotal————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————
Sequest
ered
——————————————————
Subtotal——————————————————
Remove d——————————————————
undefine d————— NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN———————

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 32 / 38
Subtotal — — — — — NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN — — — — — — —

5. Activity Data

5.1. Construction Schedule
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Days Per Week Work Days per Phase Phase Description Demolition Demolition 7/1/2024 7/12/2024 5.00 10.0 —
Grading Grading 7/15/2024 8/2/2024 5.00 15.0 —
Building Construction Building Construction 8/5/2024 7/7/2025 5.00 241 — Paving Paving 6/7/2025 7/7/2025 5.00 21.0 —
Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 6/7/2025 7/7/2025 5.00 21.0 —

5.2. Off-Road Equipment

5.2.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Equipment Type Fuel Type Engine Tier Number per Day Hours Per Day Horsepower Load Factor Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 84.0 0.37
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 1.00 367 0.40 Demolition Concrete/Industrial
Saws
Diesel Average 1.00 8.00 33.0 0.73
Grading Graders Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 148 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 367 0.40 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Building Construction Cranes Diesel Average 1.00 4.00 367 0.29

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 33 / 38
Building Construction Forklifts Diesel Average 2.00 6.00 82.0 0.20 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 2.00 8.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backh
oes
Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 84.0 0.37
Paving Cement and Mortar
Mixers
Diesel Average 4.00 6.00 10.0 0.56
Paving Pavers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 81.0 0.42
Paving Rollers Diesel Average 1.00 7.00 36.0 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors Diesel Average 1.00 6.00 37.0 0.48

5.3. Construction Vehicles

5.3.1. Unmitigated
Phase Name Trip Type One-Way Trips per Day Miles per Trip Vehicle Mix Demolition — — — —
Demolition Worker 10.0 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Demolition Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Demolition Hauling 5.60 20.0 HHDT
Demolition Onsite truck — — HHDT
Grading — — — —
Grading Worker 7.50 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Grading Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Grading Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Grading Onsite truck — — HHDT
Building Construction — — — —
Building Construction Worker 3.31 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Building Construction Vendor 1.29 8.40 HHDT,MHDT

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 34 / 38
Building Construction Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Building Construction Onsite truck — — HHDT
Paving — — — —
Paving Worker 17.5 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Paving Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Paving Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Paving Onsite truck — — HHDT
Architectural Coating — — — —
Architectural Coating Worker 0.66 11.7 LDA,LDT1,LDT2
Architectural Coating Vendor — 8.40 HHDT,MHDT
Architectural Coating Hauling 0.00 20.0 HHDT
Architectural Coating Onsite truck — — HHDT

5.4. Vehicles

5.4.1. Construction Vehicle Control Strategies
Non-applicable. No control strategies activated by user.

5.5. Architectural Coatings
Phase Name Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
Architectural Coating 0.00 0.00 11,825 3,942 188

5.6. Dust Mitigation

5.6.1. Construction Earthmoving Activities
Phase Name Material Imported (cy) Material Exported (cy) Acres Graded (acres) Material Demolished (Ton of Debris)
Acres Paved (acres)
Demolition 0.00 0.00 0.00 222 —

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 35 / 38
Grading — — 11.3 0.00 —
Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07

5.6.2. Construction Earthmoving Control Strategies
Control Strategies Applied Frequency (per day) PM10 Reduction PM2.5 Reduction Water Exposed Area 2 61% 61%
Water Demolished Area 2 36% 36%

5.7. Construction Paving
Land Use Area Paved (acres) % Asphalt
Health Club 0.00 0%
Parking Lot 0.07 100%

5.8. Construction Electricity Consumption and Emissions Factors kWh per Year and Emission Factor (lb/MWh)
Year kWh per Year CO2 CH4 N2O
2024 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005
2025 0.00 204 0.03 < 0.005

5.9. Operational Mobile Sources

5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Health Club 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 36 / 38

5.10. Operational Area Sources

5.10.1. Hearths

5.10.1.1. Unmitigated

5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft) Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq ft) Non-Residential Interior Area Coated (sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
0 0.00 11,825 3,942 188

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

5.11. Operational Energy Consumption

5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Health Club 86,005 204 0.0330 0.0040 345,190
Parking Lot 2,747 204 0.0330 0.0040 0.00

5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption

5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year)

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 37 / 38
Health Club 466,225 0.00
Parking Lot 0.00 0.00

5.13. Operational Waste Generation

5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Health Club 44.9 —
Parking Lot 0.00 —

5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment

5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Health Club Other commercial A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088 < 0.005 4.00 4.00 18.0
Health Club Stand-alone retail
refrigerators and
freezers
R-134a 1,430 0.04 1.00 0.00 1.00

5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment

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

5.16. Stationary Sources

5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps

Stratford Preparatory School - Gymnasium Custom Report, 1/10/2024 38 / 38
Equipment Type Fuel Type Number per Day Hours per Day Hours per Year Horsepower Load Factor

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

5.17. User Defined
Equipment Type Fuel Type

8. User Changes to Default Data
Screen Justification
Construction: Construction Phases Paving and architectural coating will take place concurrently with the final month of building construction.

Operations: Vehicle Data This model run is for the construction and non-mobile source operations of the gymnasium, which does not generate trips. See separate CalEEMod run for the motor vehicle emissions.

APPENDIX B
Cultural Resources Documentation

1 811 West 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90017
www.impactsciences.com
Sent via email on January 10, 2024 to: [email protected]

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Environmental and Cultural Department
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916) 373-3710
Information Below is Required for a Sacred Lands File Search Project: Stratford Preparatory School Project
County: Santa Clara
USGS Quadrangle Name: Milpitas, California
Township: 6 South Range: 1 East
Company/Firm/Agency: Impact Sciences, Inc.

Contact Person: Eleni Getachew
Street Address: 811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
City: Los Angeles Zip: 90017
Phone: (805) 453-2862
Email: [email protected]

PROJECT LOCATION
The Project is located at 1323 Great Mall Drive in the southern portion of the City of Milpitas (Project Site) (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 086-24-046). The Project Site is located approximately

0.70 west of Interstate 680 (I-680), 0.90 miles west of I-880, and 428 feet north of Montague Expressway (see Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Project Site).

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Stratford Preparatory School Project (Project) proposes to redevelop the existing building on-site into a new preparatory school. The Project would also demolish the existing surface parking lot to construct a new 7,883 square foot gymnasium building that would be located west of the remodeled existing building. Supporting rooms for the gymnasium, such as locker rooms, gymnasium storage, a gymnasium office, and restrooms will be located in the southwestern corner of the existing building. The Project would accommodate students from the existing Stratford School facility located south of the Project Site. The Project would be equipped with 41 classrooms (general/biochemistry/art/physical engineering), eight offices, four media common rooms, a library, and a theater. Additionally, the Project would include supporting components, such as a new trash enclosure and a 14,695 square foot artificial turf playfield located to the west of the new gymnasium building (see Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

We appreciate your assistance in responding to this query. Your response will help ensure that our analysis is accurate and complete. To ensure a timely completion of our analysis, please provide your response (via mail, or email) no later than February 10, 2024.

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact me at (805) 453- 2862 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
____________________________________
Eleni Getachew
Planner
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
[email protected]

3 Attachments:

Figure 1 – Regional Location Map
Figure 2 – Project Site
Figure 3 - Conceptual Site Plan

Ɛƌŝ͕ E^͕
E'͕ h^'^͕
Project Site
Regional Location
FIGURE1
1451.002•12/23
SOURCE: Esri, 2023

^ĂŶďŽƌŶ
DĂƉ
*UHDW
0DOO 'U
&HQWUH 3RLQWH 'U
*DW
H
V '
U
0DUNHW 6 W
%RQG 6 W
'ULYH $ 'ULYH 
%
'ULYH &
*UHDW 0DOO
3NZ\
*UHDW 0DOO 3NZ\
0RQWDJXH ([S\ 0RQWDJXH ([S\
&KLSRWOH
0F'RQDOG
V 7RZQHSODFH
6XLWHV0LOSLWDV
2OLYH *DUGHQ
0DUVKDOOV
6DNV )LIWK
$YHQXH 2))
7+
3LSHU 'U
0\UWOH /Q
)DOFRQ
'
U
1LJKWVKDGH 5G
%RUGHU
:D\
*DUG
HQ 6
W
( &DSLWRO $YH
0R
QWDJXH
(
[
S\
0RQW
D
JXH ([
S\
%$570LOSLWDV
&2857<$5'0LOSLWDV
¯
   
86)HHW WƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŝƚĞ
Project Site
FIGURE
2 1451.002•12/23
SOURCE: Esri, 2023

  


 


 


  
   








 
 



 



 


 
 




       
     
        
      
      
         
 
 
        
  
   




 




  
 


























 






    

































   
   
   


  
 













 
 
 
 










 
 

 
  
 

    





 












   




              
   





 












 
 
 
 














           
Conceptual Site Plan
FIGURE 3
1451.002•12/23
SOURCE:Inhabit Designs 2023

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

January 26, 2024
Eleni Getachew
Impact Sciences, Inc.

Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Stratford Preparatory School Project, Santa Clara County To Whom It May Concern:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

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

Sincerely,
Cody Campagne
Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

VICE-CHAIRPERSON
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

PARLIAMENTARIAN
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
Laurena Bolden
Serrano

COMMISSIONER
Reid Milanovich
Cahuilla

COMMISSIONER
Vacant

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok, Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 935-1901
www.impactsciences.com
SENT VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
January 10, 2024
Northwest Information Center
Sonoma State University,
1400 Valley House Drive, Suite 210,
Rohnert Park, CA 94928-3609
RE: – Request for Service Information-Stratford Preparatory School Project To Whom it May Concern,
Impact Sciences, Inc. is preparing an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Stratford Preparatory School Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

As such, we are requesting an historical and archaeological resources records search. Below you will find a brief description of the project location and description. Maps depicting the project location and site plan are included.

Project Location
The Stratford Preparatory School Project (Project)proposes improvements to an adjacent property located at 1323 Great Mall Drive(Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 086-24-046) in the southern perimeter of the City of Milpitas (Project Site). Adjacent roadways to the Project include Great Mall Drive, Falcon Drive, and Great Mall Parkway The Project Site is located approximately 0.70 west of Interstate 680 (I-680), 0.90 miles west of I-880, and 428 feet north of Montague Expressway (see Figure 1, Regional Location and Figure 2, Project Site).

The legal description is:

California, Mt. Diablo Meridian T06S,R01E
The 7.5 minute series topographic maps for that area:

Newark Niles La Costa Valley
Mountain View Milpitas Calaveras
Reservoir
Cupertino San Jose West San Jose East
Project Description
The Project would remodel the existing building on-site into a new preparatory school. The Project would also demolish the existing surface parking lot to construct a new 7,883 square foot gymnasium building that would be located west of the remodeled existing building. Supporting rooms for the gymnasium, such

Stratford Preparatory School Project
January, 2024

as locker rooms, gymnasium storage, a gymnasium office, and restrooms will be located in the southwestern corner of the existing building. The Project would accommodate students from the existing Stratford School facility located south of the Project Site. The Project would be equipped with 41 classrooms (general/biochemistry/art/physical engineering), eight offices, four media common rooms, a library, and a theater. Additionally, the Project would include supporting components, such as a new trash enclosure and a 14,695 square foot artificial turf playfield located to the west of the new gymnasium building (see Figure 3, Conceptual Site Plan).

Thank you for your assistance in responding to this query. Your responses will help us ensure that our analysis is accurate and complete. In order to ensure a timely completion of our analysis, please provide your response (via mail, or email) no later than February 10, 2023.

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please call me at 213.935.1901 ext. 323.

You may also reach me by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Eleni Getachew
Planner
811 W. 7th Street, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90017
o: 213.935.1901 Ext. 323 | c: 805.453.2862
[email protected]
Attachments:

Figure 1 – Regional Location Map
Figure 2 – Project Site
Figure 3 - Conceptual Site Plan

Ɛƌŝ͕ E^͕
E'͕ h^'^͕
Project Site
Regional Location
FIGURE1
1451.002•12/23
SOURCE: Esri, 2023

^ĂŶďŽƌŶ
DĂƉ
*UHDW
0DOO 'U
&HQWUH 3RLQWH 'U
*DW
H
V '
U
0DUNHW 6 W
%RQG 6 W
'ULYH $ 'ULYH 
%
'ULYH &
*UHDW 0DOO
3NZ\
*UHDW 0DOO 3NZ\
0RQWDJXH ([S\ 0RQWDJXH ([S\
&KLSRWOH
0F'RQDOG
V 7RZQHSODFH
6XLWHV0LOSLWDV
2OLYH *DUGHQ
0DUVKDOOV
6DNV )LIWK
$YHQXH 2))
7+
3LSHU 'U
0\UWOH /Q
)DOFRQ
'
U
1LJKWVKDGH 5G
%RUGHU
:D\
*DUG
HQ 6
W
( &DSLWRO $YH
0R
QWDJXH
(
[
S\
0RQW
D
JXH ([
S\
%$570LOSLWDV
&2857<$5'0LOSLWDV
¯
   
86)HHW WƌŽũĞĐƚ^ŝƚĞ
Project Site
FIGURE
2 1451.002•12/23
SOURCE: Esri, 2023

  


 


 


  
   








 
 



 



 


 
 




       
     
        
      
      
         
 
 
        
  
   




 




  
 


























 






    

































   
   
   


  
 













 
 
 
 










 
 

 
  
 

    





 












   




              
   





 












 
 
 
 














           
Conceptual Site Plan
FIGURE 3
1451.002•12/23
SOURCE:Inhabit Designs 2023

APPENDIX C
Noise Data

NOISE MONITORING FIELD REPORT
Project Name: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project
Monitoring location: f.t_ o ..... _,_ ( 0,,,,, -�)
Date: , J../ 11'/t 1 Site Number: /
Measured By: Annalie Sarrieddine
Measurement Start nme: 1.-J r �
Measurement End Time: ?-.- 5 -z ,q,._,
Total Measurement Time: 15 min.

Noise Meter Model: Larson Davis Soundtrack LxT
Meter Setting: A-Weighted Sound Level (SLOW)
Session File Name: l.-j _ J;)--,t_,_ Z�J'J
Site Map
Calibration: 94.0 (dBA)
Data Summary Other Noise Sources During Monitoring
Noise Noise Level
Scale (dBA)
leq ?�.?,
Lmax ff/. g
Lmin c;-17..

Additional Notes:

IMPACT�

SCIENCES

1. c"'-'" µ,.,. Time:

2. nme:

3. Time:

4. Time:

5. Time:
'r:JJ-4

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.298.s Computer's File Name LxT_0005667-20231214 073723-LxT_Data.298.ldbin Meter LxT1 0005667 Firmware 2.302
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-12-14 07:37:23 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-12-14 07:52:23 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-12-14 07:16:27 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 64.6 dB
LAE 94.1 dB SEA --- dB
EA 288.4 µPa²h
EA8 9.2 mPa²h
EA40 46.1 mPa²h
LApeak 93.7 dB 2023-12-14 07:44:13
LASmax 81.0 dB 2023-12-14 07:44:13
LASmin 57.2 dB 2023-12-14 07:43:10
LAeq 64.6 dB
LCeq 74.5 dB LCeq - LAeq 9.9 dB
LAIeq 66.1 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.5 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 64.6 dB 74.5 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 81.0 dB 2023-12-14 07:44:13 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 57.2 dB 2023-12-14 07:43:10 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 93.7 dB 2023-12-14 07:44:13 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 10.0 67.4 dB
LAS 33.3 64.2 dB
LAS 66.7 61.7 dB
LAS 90.0 59.7 dB

NOISE MONITORING FIELD REPORT
Project Name: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project
Monitoring location: .F:,,t_ 9,.,--.. ( /4K -L11""')
Date: / 2 / I "I I z. J Site Number: /
Measured By: Annalie Sarrieddine
Measurement Start Time: 'j : o 2. p M
Measurement End Time: s '. t 1- ?M
Total Measurement Time: 15 min.

Noise Meter Model: Larson Davis Soundtrack LxT
Meter Setting: A-Weighted Sound Level (SLOW)
Session File Name: �j...- C)....A--,,.. . so $ sSite Map Calibration: 94.0 (dBA)
Primary Noise Sources: f'HJ� >&'-o/ � .-fP vd.Jc.f<. m-,(+.·c- 1 CA/ �on\L..:"j J ('c-'Jr.._; I v "'-o-.J c. lc. �r��, c:.

Data Summary
Noise Noise Level
Scale (dBAt
L?q ',.1
lmax r'f. sLmin fl/. sAdditional Notes:

IMPACT

SCIENCES
Other Noise Sources During Monitoring

1. --�kf#.c..:;_
""'_--=�.::.-ec;;....;h:........::c....,,,, __________ nme: 3 : 16

2. V<,A.,c,lc., � ... k.:CT � /l•vcJrc,--, Time: 7: I J;

3. __________________ Time: ___ _

4. __________________ Time: ___ _

5. __________________ Time: ___ _

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.303.s Computer's File Name LxT_0005667-20231214 150202-LxT_Data.303.ldbin Meter LxT1 0005667 Firmware 2.302
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-12-14 15:02:02 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-12-14 15:17:02 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-12-14 07:16:27 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 66.1 dB
LAE 95.6 dB SEA --- dB
EA 407.4 µPa²h
EA8 13.0 mPa²h
EA40 65.2 mPa²h
LApeak 92.6 dB 2023-12-14 15:08:46
LASmax 79.5 dB 2023-12-14 15:09:15
LASmin 54.5 dB 2023-12-14 15:04:00
LAeq 66.1 dB
LCeq 76.2 dB LCeq - LAeq 10.1 dB
LAIeq 67.6 dB LAIeq - LAeq 1.5 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 66.1 dB 76.2 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 79.5 dB 2023-12-14 15:09:15 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 54.5 dB 2023-12-14 15:04:00 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 92.6 dB 2023-12-14 15:08:46 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 10.0 69.5 dB
LAS 33.3 64.5 dB
LAS 66.7 61.0 dB
LAS 90.0 58.3 dB

NOISE MONITORING FIELD REPORT
Project Name: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project
Monitoring Location: (:T-.q / � l'1 "' o/V( IJ
,-;..,...__
Date: J 1/ It.I /z-s Site Number: .;J_
Measured By: Annalie Sarrieddine
Measurement Start nme:

Measurement End Time:

Total Measurement Time: 15 min.

Site Map
Noise Meter Model: Larson Davis Soundtrack LxT Calibration: 94.0 (dBA) Meter Setting: A-Weighted Sound Level (SLOW)
Session File Name: L-1- I-_ Z)__+,,._ . 2. <; <f . .s
Primary Noise Sources: /'f11,,,.1,.1 f/✓,4.-..£. �i" ..# �-, Data Summary
Noise Noise Level
Scale (dBA)
leq �q, 7-
I.max 7-9-�
lmin s
--
1-. 7-
Additional Notes:

IMPACT�

SCIENCES
Other Noise Sources During Monitoring

1. __________________ Time: ___ _

2. __________________ Time: ___ _

3. __________________ Time: ___ _

4. __________________ Time: ___ _

5. __________________ Time: ___ _

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.299.s Computer's File Name LxT_0005667-20231214 075701-LxT_Data.299.ldbin Meter LxT1 0005667 Firmware 2.302
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-12-14 07:57:01 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-12-14 08:12:01 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-12-14 07:16:27 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 64.7 dB
LAE 94.2 dB SEA --- dB
EA 295.1 µPa²h
EA8 9.4 mPa²h
EA40 47.2 mPa²h
LApeak 100.5 dB 2023-12-14 08:00:43
LASmax 79.6 dB 2023-12-14 08:00:45
LASmin 57.7 dB 2023-12-14 08:08:41
LAeq 64.7 dB
LCeq 73.0 dB LCeq - LAeq 8.3 dB
LAIeq 67.1 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.4 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 64.7 dB 73.0 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 79.6 dB 2023-12-14 08:00:45 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 57.7 dB 2023-12-14 08:08:41 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 100.5 dB 2023-12-14 08:00:43 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 10.0 67.0 dB
LAS 33.3 64.8 dB
LAS 66.7 62.2 dB
LAS 90.0 59.7 dB

NOISE MONITORING FIELD REPORT
Project Name: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project
Monitoring Location: /Jn 1-i w,:, J )- f:,.":,J<')-J, Jot Date: /;.//'I /Z � Site Number: >
Measured By: Annalie Sarrieddine
Measurement Start Time: 5', /;, ,,.,.,..,
Measurement End Time: i: 3 I ,,. n
Total Measurement Time: 15 min.

Noise Meter Model: Larson Davis Soundtrack LxT
Meter Setting: A-Weighted Sound Level (SLOW)
Session File Name: L-,, 1-. D...A-, . "?0 o.r
Primary Noise Sources: I/ ¢..·GI<.

Site Map
Calibration: 94.0 (dBA)
Data Summary Other Noise Sources During Monitoring
Noise Noise Level
Scale (dBA)
leq ?J.¥
Lmax M.J
Lmin s-1. ()
Additional Notes:

IMPACT

SCIENCES

1. __________________ Time: ___ _

2. __________________ Time: ___ _

3. __________________ Time: ___ _

4. __________________ Time: ___ _

5. __________________ Time: ___ _

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.300.s Computer's File Name LxT_0005667-20231214 081653-LxT_Data.300.ldbin Meter LxT1 0005667 Firmware 2.302
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-12-14 08:16:53 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-12-14 08:31:53 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-12-14 07:16:27 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 63.8 dB
LAE 93.3 dB SEA --- dB
EA 239.9 µPa²h
EA8 7.7 mPa²h
EA40 38.4 mPa²h
LApeak 91.2 dB 2023-12-14 08:20:14
LASmax 79.3 dB 2023-12-14 08:20:14
LASmin 59.0 dB 2023-12-14 08:24:26
LAeq 63.8 dB
LCeq 74.1 dB LCeq - LAeq 10.3 dB
LAIeq 64.6 dB LAIeq - LAeq 0.8 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 63.8 dB 74.1 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 79.3 dB 2023-12-14 08:20:14 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 59.0 dB 2023-12-14 08:24:26 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 91.2 dB 2023-12-14 08:20:14 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 10.0 64.5 dB
LAS 33.3 62.2 dB
LAS 66.7 61.1 dB
LAS 90.0 60.3 dB

NOISE MONITORING FIELD REPORT
Project Name: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project
Monitoring Location: (_..1-.,<- 7,.,_1,. D,. A,. .. �
Date: I 21 I "fl r..J Site Number: �
Measured By: Annalie Sarrieddine
Measurement Start Time: 9'; 4 '+ ,.,, M
Measurement End Time: � ....,.. ,, : � ·, �M ..

Total Measurement Time: 15 min.

Site Map
Noise Meter Model: Larson Davis Soundtrack LxT Calibration: 94.0 (dBA) Meter Setting: A-Weighted Sound Level (SLOW)
SessionFileName: t_-,,,}-_ 'I)....,J-,s._ ;?d/s
Primary Noise Sources: /41-G,f� l (u,. �,,.,,/ /2c.J, .,./';' / � •e./.. r;..._/✓- 'c.

Data Summary Other Noise Sources During Monitoring
Noise Noise Level 1. __________________ Time: ___ _
Scale (dBA)
leq '='3. 7-
lmax 7-7-. ¥
lmin s7. 1
Additional Notes:
c,,y;/
IMPACT

SCIENCES

2. __________________ Time: ___ _

3. __________________ Time: ___ _

4. __________________ Time: ___ _

5. __________________ Time: ___ _
..,&, .s
I /

Measurement Report
Report Summary
Meter's File Name LxT_Data.301.s Computer's File Name LxT_0005667-20231214 084429-LxT_Data.301.ldbin Meter LxT1 0005667 Firmware 2.302
User Location
Job Description
Note
Start Time 2023-12-14 08:44:29 Duration 0:15:00.0
End Time 2023-12-14 08:59:29 Run Time 0:15:00.0 Pause Time 0:00:00.0 Pre-Calibration 2023-12-14 07:16:27 Post-Calibration None Calibration Deviation --- Results
Overall Metrics
LAeq 63.7 dB
LAE 93.2 dB SEA --- dB
EA 234.4 µPa²h
EA8 7.5 mPa²h
EA40 37.5 mPa²h
LApeak 94.6 dB 2023-12-14 08:51:40
LASmax 77.8 dB 2023-12-14 08:54:10
LASmin 51.9 dB 2023-12-14 08:58:08
LAeq 63.7 dB
LCeq 70.5 dB LCeq - LAeq 6.8 dB
LAIeq 66.1 dB LAIeq - LAeq 2.4 dB
Exceedances Count Duration
LAS > 85.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LAS > 115.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 135.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 137.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
LApk > 140.0 dB 0 0:00:00.0
Community Noise LDN LDay LNight
--- dB --- dB 0.0 dB
LDEN LDay LEve LNight
--- dB --- dB --- dB --- dB
Any Data A C Z
Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp Level Time Stamp
L
eq 63.7 dB 70.5 dB --- dB
Ls(max) 77.8 dB 2023-12-14 08:54:10 --- dB None --- dB None LS(min) 51.9 dB 2023-12-14 08:58:08 --- dB None --- dB None LPeak(max) 94.6 dB 2023-12-14 08:51:40 --- dB None --- dB None Overloads Count Duration OBA Count OBA Duration
0 0:00:00.0 0 0:00:00.0
Statistics
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 0.0 --- dB
LAS 10.0 66.8 dB
LAS 33.3 57.1 dB
LAS 66.7 55.0 dB
LAS 90.0 54.0 dB

Hour of Day dBA Leq With Ldn Penalty
12:00 AM 66.1 76.1
1:00 AM 66.1 76.1
2:00 AM 66.1 76.1
3:00 AM 66.1 76.1
4:00 AM 66.1 76.1
5:00 AM 66.1 76.1
6:00 AM 66.1 76.1
7:00 AM 66.1 66.1
8:00 AM 66.1 66.1
9:00 AM 66.1 66.1
10:00 AM 66.1 66.1
11:00 AM 66.1 66.1
12:00 PM 66.1 66.1
1:00 PM 66.1 66.1
2:00 PM 66.1 66.1
3:00 PM 66.1 66.1
4:00 PM 66.1 66.1
5:00 PM 66.1 66.1
6:00 PM 66.1 66.1
7:00 PM 66.1 66.1
8:00 PM 66.1 66.1
9:00 PM 66.1 66.1
10:00 PM 66.1 76.1
11:00 PM 66.1 76.1

72.5 Daytime Hours: 7:00 AM - 10:00 PM
Nighttime Hours: 10:00 PM - 7:00 AM
Project Site Noise Level (Ldn) (Location 1)
Calculated Ldn:

Note: Ldn based on measurement data collected at Location 1. See noise monitoring data.

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 1/30/2024
Case Description: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project (Construction) ---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 511 0
Crane No 16 80.6 511 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Tractor 63.8 59.8
Crane 60.4 52.4
Total 63.8 60.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 645 0
Crane No 16 80.6 645 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Tractor 61.8 57.8
Crane 58.3 50.4
Total 61.8 58.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 551 0
Crane No 16 80.6 551 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Tractor 63.2 59.2
Crane 59.7 51.7
Total 63.2 59.9
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Existing Stratford School Commercial 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Tractor No 40 84 165 0
Crane No 16 80.6 165 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Tractor 73.6 69.7
Crane 70.2 62.2
Total 73.6 70.4
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Under Construction
Apartments
Capitol Apartments
Centre Pointe Dr
Apartments

Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM),Version 1.1
Report date: 1/30/2024
Case Description: 1323 Great Mall Drive Project (Demo)
---- Receptor #1 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 511 0
Crane No 16 80.6 511 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 63.8 59.8
Crane 60.4 52.4
Total 63.8 60.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #2 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 645 0
Crane No 16 80.6 645 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 61.8 57.8
Crane 58.3 50.4
Total 61.8 58.5
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #3 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Residential 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 551 0
Crane No 16 80.6 551 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 68.7 61.7
Crane 59.7 51.7
Total 68.7 62.2
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.
---- Receptor #4 ----
Baselines (dBA)
Description Land Use Daytime Evening Night
Commercial 60 60 60
Equipment
Spec Actual Receptor Estimated
Impact Lmax Lmax Distance Shielding
Description Device Usage(%) (dBA) (dBA) (feet) (dBA)
Concrete Saw No 20 89.6 165 0
Crane No 16 80.6 165 0
Results
Calculated (dBA)
Equipment *Lmax Leq
Concrete Saw 79.2 72.2
Crane 70.2 62.2
Total 79.2 72.6
*Calculated Lmax is the Loudest value.

Centre Pointe Dr
Apartments
Capitol Apartments
Under Construction
Apartments
Existing Stratford
School

TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Project Name: 1323 Great Mall Drive Milpitas
Background Information
Model Description: FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model with California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) Emission Levels.

Analysis Scenario(s): Existing, Existing Plus Project
Source of Traffic Volumes: Transportation Analysis (1323 Great Mall, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, January 8, 2024) Community Noise Descriptor: X
(Ldn) (CNEL)
Assumed 24-Hour Traffic Distribution: Day Evening Night Total ADT Volumes 77.70% 12.70% 9.60%
Medium-Duty Trucks 87.43% 5.05% 7.52%
Heavy-Duty Trucks 89.10% 2.84% 8.06%
Traffic Noise Levels
Analysis Condition Peak Design Dist. from Barrier Vehicle Mix Peak Hour 24-Hour Roadway Name Median Hour ADT Speed Center to Alpha Attn. Medium Heavy dB(A) dB(A) Roadway Segment Lanes Width Volume Volume (mph) Receptor1Factor dB(A) Trucks Trucks Leq Ldn Existing Traffic Noise
Falcon Drive
Between Montague Exp and Site Driveway 2 10 903 9,030 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.2 61.0 Between Site Driveway and Great Mall Drive 2 10 903 9,030 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.2 61.0 Great Mall Drive
Between Mustang Drive and Site Driveway 2 0 702 7,015 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.0 59.9 Between Site Driveway and Falcon Drive 2 0 697 6,970 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 61.0 59.8 Existing Plus Project Traffic Noise
Falcon Drive
Between Montague Exp and Site Driveway 2 10 1,068 10,680 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.9 61.8 Between Site Driveway and Great Mall Drive 2 10 1,226 12,260 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.5 62.4 Great Mall Drive
Between Mustang Drive and Site Driveway 2 0 1,197 11,965 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 63.3 62.2 Between Site Driveway and Falcon Drive 2 0 1,020 10,200 25 50 0 0 1.8% 0.7% 62.6 61.5 1 Distance in feet from the roadway centerline to nearest receptor location. 1323 Great Mall Drive January 2024

APPENDIX D
Transportation Impact Analysis

Memorandum
Date: May 28, 2024
To: Mr. Roberto Alanzo, City of Milpitas
From: Brett Walinski
Trisha Dudala
Subject: Transportation CEQA Analysis for the Stratford Preparatory School at 1323 Great Mall Drive in Milpitas, California
The purpose of this report is to analyze the transportation-related impacts of the proposed Stratford School located at 1323 Great Mall Drive in Milpitas, California, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project proposes a new preparatory school for 500 students in grades 6 to 12 to be located on the site of an existing office building. The site is located just north of the existing Stratford school with grades pre-kindergarden to 8. The project would renovate the existing 51,740 square-foot office building for school use and modify the existing site, which currently consists mostly of paved surface parking areas, into a campus with 14,965 square feet of synthetic turf (play field) and a new gym building of 7,883 square feet. Initial enrollment for the proposed school may begin in grades 6 to 12 with the intent to transition to Grades 9 to 12.

It is also an in-fill project and further completes the urban fabric of the city without requiring the expansion of services to unincorporated areas. The project falls within the boundaries of the recently adopted Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP) and is within the Great Mall District sub-area.

Its land use classification in the MMSP is “Business Park Research & Development Limited Residential (BPRD-R).” The BPRD-R land use classification specifically identifies “educational uses” as allowed uses.

The implementation section of the MMSP states that “Property owners in the Great Mall District have expressed interest in developing a mix of land uses that may occur over time rather than immediately. The plan aims to be responsive to developer needs while ensuring that the development of the parcel results in a high-quality, well-integrated, pedestrian-accessible urban node.”
This report includes an analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT); potential impacts to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities; and emergency access.

VMT Analysis
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) requires local jurisdictions to use Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) instead of Level of Service (LOS) to analyze transportation impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City staff developed a new citywide VMT policy to comply with State law and provide established criteria for analyzing transportation impacts of development projects and long-range plans. The Milpitas City Council adopted the VMT policy on May 18, 2021, which establishes VMT as the methodology for measuring potential transportation environmental impacts and provides significance thresholds for CEQA analysis of future projects. The VMT policy aligns with the goals

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 2
and policies of the General Plan and adopted plans, and supports new development in suitable areas near transit, mixed-use neighborhoods, and other amenities.

VMT Policy
According to the City VMT policy, projects shall be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact if they meet any of the following screening criteria:
• Projects generating 110 daily trips or less. Examples are single-family residential development of 12 units or fewer, multi-family residential development of 20 units or fewer, and office developments of 10,000 square feet or less.
• Retail projects that are local serving defined as 100,000 square feet or less. • Local serving public projects such as fire stations, neighborhood parks, libraries, and community centers.
• All land use projects located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, or a stop along a high-quality transit corridor (pursuant to State definitions for such facilities) and meet the following criteria:
o A minimum floor area ratio of 0.75; or for residential projects, a minimum density of 35 units/acre (40 units/acre in the Serra Center and 50 units/acre in the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan area).
o The project does not include more parking than required by City Code for use by residents, customers, or employees.
o The project does not replace affordable residential units with a smaller number of affordable units, and any replacement units are at the same levels of affordability. o The project is consistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
• Projects with restricted affordable housing (as described in the policy).

In addition, the City policy establishes the following:
• The Santa Clara County areawide average VMT shall be the regional baseline. • For residential, office and industrial projects, a project will have a less than significant impact if the project results in a 15% VMT reduction compared to the baseline. For industrial projects, the 15% threshold applies to the employee commute trip only. • Retail projects which result in a net increase in total VMT shall constitute a significant impact; however, retail projects determined by the city to be local serving are exempt from VMT analysis. In all cases, retail projects larger than 100,000 square feet may be considered regional-serving and would be subject to the retail threshold of significance. • Each land use within a mixed-use project, and all other project types, shall be evaluated independently by applying the most appropriate threshold of significance to each land use type being proposed.

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 3
• Projects that are currently approved will not require any supplemental VMT environmental review unless the “Project” requires supplemental environmental review not covered by an addendum.
• For projects such as regional retail, hospitals, stadium, sports complexes, or schools not regulated by a public-school district or that require permits from local jurisdiction, a net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.

The City VMT policy does not directly address how redevelopment projects are to be treated. The State criteria does. The state guidance is as follows: “Where a project replaces existing VMTgenerating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact.” Project VMT Screening
The proposed school project could potentially be screened out based on the “Local Serving” and “Prior Approvals” criteria as described below.

Local Serving
The project would be less than 100,000 square feet and its trip generation characteristics would be similar to local-serving retail. Based on data provided by the project applicant, approximately 80% of the student population would reside within 5-miles of the project site. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Technical Advisory dated December 2018 states that “By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, localserving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact.” School uses are similar to retail uses, in that, the more schools that are located within in a given area, the shorter the student trips between the school and other complementary land uses (such as employment or residential uses). Student trips to and from schools are analogous to customer trips to and from retail uses. Both land uses (retail and schools) are supported by growth in employment and housing, which are the main drivers of trip-making activity. Thus, applying the same reasoning OPR uses for retail projects, the proposed school could be screened-out based on the local-serving criteria. A similar finding was reached by the City of Milpitas for the proposed Stratford School located at 125 North Milpitas Boulevard, which was screened using local serving criteria. However, the supporting analysis for this finding was prepared in April of 2021, which pre-dates the adoption of the City’s formal VMT policy. Although there is reasonable evidence to support a finding that the project could be screened out based on current City policy, a detailed analysis of the VMT generated by the project was prepared to confirm this finding.

Prior Approvals
The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan Project (MMSP) supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was prepared in April, 2022. The MMSP is a long-term planning document that updates the original 2008 Milpitas Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) and vision for the area. The changes between the TASP and MMSP included:

1. Expansion of the original 437-acre TASP Plan Area by approximately 73 additional acres, for a total of 510 acres, in order to facilitate the development of an Innovation District east of the Milpitas Transit Center and to promote opportunities for housing development along South Main Street. In addition, the Metro Plan redefines the five Districts, such that they are

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 4
bounded by major streets and include a mix of land uses, development densities, parks, street grids, and pedestrian connections.

2. Changes to the land use classifications and policies.

3. Additional residential and non-residential density, and related population and employment growth.

4. Extension of the Metro Plan horizon year by 10 years (from 2030 to 2040), compared to the TASP.

The current zoning for the project site is C2 Commercial, which will be updated with the adoption of the Phase 1 Zoning Code update to establish BPRD Zoning Districts. The proposed project is located within the MMSP area and its land use designation is BPRD-R (Business Park R&D, Limited Residential). This land use classification supports research and development activities, offices, high tech, hotels, retail services, and education uses.

The proposed educational use was contemplated as a potential development on the project site in the MMSP and therefore its CEQA impacts have been addressed in the MMSP EIR which was prepared as a supplemental EIR to the TASP. Although the Metro Plan would result in an increase in VMT compared to the TASP because of more intensive development, the MMSP draft SEIR concluded that the Metro Plan (2040 Cumulative Plus Project) scenario is estimated to substantially lower VMT per service population, per capita, and per employee relative to both the 2040 Santa Clara countywide average and the Milpitas 2040 General Plan (2040 Cumulative No Project) scenario.

Individual projects consistent with the MMSP may qualify for a statutory exemption under CEQA.

Once consistency is determined, no additional CEQA review is required though projects will still need to be reviewed by the City’s Engineering and Planning Departments for non-CEQA related site-specific measures.

The MMSP envisions continued investments in essential infrastructure, including mobility/transportation to serve new development. Investments in new infrastructure and improvements expected to serve the MMSP are expected to be primarily funded through:

1. The Transit Area Development Impact Fee (TADIF) – The TADIF will continue to be levied upon new development within the MMSP area to ensure that new development pays its appropriate and proportionate share of new infrastructure and other improvements.

2. Citywide Fees/Exactions – New and existing infrastructure investments will serve new development in both the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan and other areas of the city. This could include new public safety facilities. A portion of the new funding for these improvements will likely come from other city funding sources, including fees on new development outside of the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan.

3. Grants – The City has successfully pursued grant funding for a range of improvements since TASP adoption. Grant funding helps cover potions of new public infrastructure and improvement costs that cannot be allocated to new development.

The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan requires all new development projects to implement a travel demand management program (TDM), with a goal of reducing VMT by 15 percent or more below the regional baseline per employee or per resident and efficiently provide parking that meets the needs of employees and visitors. TDM is typically categorized as a set of strategies aimed at

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 5
encouraging transit use, walking, biking, and carpooling while reducing single occupant vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and parking demand. Possible TDM measures for the proposed project include:
• Marketing/education
• Provision of bicycle parking spaces
• Fully subsidized transit passes (e. g. VTA, BART, Caltrain). At a minimum the transit subsidy should be equivalent to the cost of a monthly VTA pass
• Carpooling
Although the project use was previously included in the MMSP and prior CEQA documentation, this report includes a detailed analysis of Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) to ensure the project would not create additional impacts over and above what has previously been identified.

Detailed VMT Analysis
The detailed VMT analysis must consider the trip-making activity of the employment component of the project (school staff), the students, as well as the VMT generated by the existing office use it would replace. This is described in the following sections.

School Employee VMT Analysis
Because school employees would have similar trip-making characteristics (origin/destination and length of trips) as typical office employees, the total employee VMT for the existing office building was compared to the total employee VMT for the proposed Stratford school (see Table 1). Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Travel Demand Forecast (TDF) model assumptions were used to estimate the number of employees that could be expected to occupy the existing vacant office use.

The conversion rate from office square footage to employees was 3.3 jobs per 1,000 square feet.

Thus, for an office building size of 51,740 square feet, approximately 170 employees could be expected. Based on the Santa Clara County VMT Estimation Tool, the VMT per employee for the zone within which the project is located would be 15.5. The total employee VMT for the existing office building would therefore be 2,635 (170 x 15.5). The proposed school is expected to have a maximum of 75 employees on any given day. Using a VMT per employee of 15.5, the proposed project would generate a total employee VMT of 1,163 (75 x 15.5), which would be less than the total employee VMT for the existing office building. Thus, the proposed project would result in a decrease in the total employee VMT from the site.

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 6
Table 1
Employee VMT Analysis
Student VMT Analysis
For common land uses such as residential, employment, and retail, quantitative methods are frequently used to determine VMT. However, for unique land uses for which models are not readily available, such as private schools, OPR guidelines allow for qualitative analysis of VMT impacts.

This section evaluates, qualitatively, whether the proposed school would increase the travel distances of students, given the relative location of complementary land uses and other Stratford schools in the area.

There are currently three Stratford schools in Milpitas. These lower division schools are all located less than 3 miles from the proposed Stratford high school, including:
• 341 Great Mall Parkway - grades pre-kindergarten to 8th • 25 Corning Avenue - grades kindergarten to 5th
• 125 N Milpitas Boulevard - grades preschool to 2nd
Based on the analysis of student zip code data provided by Stratford for students currently enrolled in all of the Milpitas Stratford Schools (Pre-K to 8th grade, 1410 students including siblings), 80% of the students reside within a 5-mile distance and 92% of the students reside within a 10-mile distance from the proposed school. There is currently only one Stratford high school in the south bay region, and it is located at 3800 Blackford Avenue in San Jose. Thus, in the absence of the proposed Stratford High School in Milpitas, to continue their high school education at Stratford School, Milpitas Stratford students would attend the San Jose Blackford Avenue campus, that is located 11 to 15 miles from the proposed high school at 1323 Great Mall Drive. Stratford anticipates that the student population for the proposed high school at full enrollment will resemble the demographics of all pre-school to 8th grade students at the existing Milpitas campuses. By providing a high school in Milpitas in close proximity to the existing lower division Stratford schools, the project would shorten trips and reduce VMT by providing an opportunity for students to attend high school locally, instead of travelling to the neighborhood city. The proposed project would also result in shorter travel distances for students coming from Alum Rock and Fremont, which are all located within a 5-to-10-mile radius of the proposed project. Thus, lower grade students from these communities who wish to continue high school with Stratford would have shorter travel distances to the proposed high school at 1323 Great Mall Parkway compared to travelling to the San Jose Blackford Avenue campus. Furthermore, the project would be located in close proximity to the # of
Employees
VMT/
Employee 3
Total
Employee VMT
Existing Office 1 170 15.5 2,635
Proposed Stratford School 2 75 15.5 1,163
Difference -1,473
Notes:
1 Based on the VTA Travel Demand Model, 3.3 jobs per 1,000 sq. ft. was assumed. 2 Based on information provided by Stratford School.
3 Based on Santa Clara County VMT Estimation Tool, for the zone that the project is located in.

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 7
Milpitas Transit Center, which provides access to BART, light rail, and several bus routes. Given that the project would primarily serve older, high school-age students, the proximity of these facilities would increase the probability of transit trips to and from the project site, further reducing VMT. Last, as previously mentioned, school uses are similar to retail uses, in that, the more private schools that are located in a given area, the shorter the student trips between the school and other complementary land uses (such as employment or residential uses). Schools are primarily supporting uses for residential and employment uses, which are the main drivers of trip-making activity. Thus, by providing additional private schools in accessible and centralized locations, the private school student VMT per capita could be expected to decrease.

VMT Conclusions
The proposed project meets two of the criteria outlined in the City VMT guidelines for project screening. First, the project would constitute a local serving use, as it would primarily serve the surrounding residents, act as a feeder school for existing Stratford schools within the City, and would be less than 100,000 square feet. This is consistent with a prior finding from the City that the Stratford Schol at 125 North Milpitas Boulevard was determined to be local serving. Second, the project is consistent with the approved land use for the site identified in the MMSP, which includes educational uses and was cleared environmentally by the City’s MMSP SEIR. The transportation impacts of the MMSP have already been identified and mitigated to the extent feasible. The project would be required to implement a TDM program and other types of fees adopted by the City.

Therefore, given the City’s screening criteria, prior finding regarding private school projects, and that the use for the site is already cleared environmentally, the impacts of the project on VMT are considered less than significant.

Because the City guidelines state that school projects may require detailed analysis of VMT impacts, further analysis was conducted to confirm the results of the VMT screening assessment.

The VMT impacts of the proposed project were evaluated in terms of its effects on staff and student VMT. For staff, the employment VMT from the site would be reduced by approximately 1,473 vehicle-miles per day relative to the existing use. For students, the proposed project would provide an alternate location for Stratford school students to continue their education without traveling to a more distant location, thus reducing VMT per capita at Stratford schools. This effect is similar to what occurs when local-serving retail projects are constructed, which are presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT. Thus, the detailed VMT analysis supports the finding that project’s overall impact to VMT is considered less than significant.

Pedestrians, Bicycles and Transit
Pedestrian Facilities
Sidewalks are provided on most of the roadways surrounding the project site. There are existing sidewalks on the east side of Great Mall Parkway, both sides of Mustang Drive, south side of Great Mall Drive, east side of Falcon Drive and the north side of Montague Expressway. The signalized intersections at Great Mall Parkway/Mustang Drive and Great Mall Parkway/Montague Expressway provide crosswalks, curb ramps, and pedestrian-actuated pedestrian-crossing phases on all approaches. The unsignalized intersections surrounding the project site have a marked crosswalk on at least one of the approaches. There is also an existing pedestrian pathway that runs parallel to and south of Mustang Drive along the northwestern boundary of the project site connecting Great Mall Parkway to Great Mall Drive. Although there is no existing sidewalk on the west side of Falcon Drive, there would be direct pedestrian connections between the project site and the nearby BART/LRT stations. The project would install a pedestrian/bike gate that would provide a direct link

1323 Great Mall Drive – Transportation CEQA Analysis May 28, 2024 Page | 8
for students to access the sidewalk along Great Mall Parkway, adjacent to the new artificial turf field, between the proposed school and the existing school to the south. Pedestrians and cyclists to/from the Great Mall/Main LRT station could access the project site via the existing sidewalk along the east side of Great Mall Parkway and the pedestrian bridge near South Main Street.

Alternatively, they could access the South Milpitas LRT station via sidewalks on Great Mall Parkway and the at-grade signalized pedestrian crossing at South Milpitas Boulevard. Pedestrians and cyclists to/from the Milpitas BART station could access the project site via either the pedestrian bridge at Piper Drive and the sidewalk along the north side of Montague Expressway or use the signalized crosswalk across Montague Expressway at Great Mall Parkway. The preferred route to/from the BART station would be to use the pedestrian bridge near Piper Drive, as it would not require students to cross the busy signalized intersection of Great Mall Drive/Montague Expressway.

Recommendation: The school should provide educational material to students and staff on safe routes to/from the LRT and BART stations, discouraging them from using the drive aisles of the existing school to the south and from jaywalking across Falcon Drive.

It is anticipated that the volume of pedestrians generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing sidewalks and crosswalks on streets surrounding the site. The project would not remove any pedestrian facilities, nor would it conflict with the City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Accordingly, the project would have no significant impact on pedestrian facilities.

Bicycle Facilities
Near the project site, Class II bike lanes are located on both sides along Great Mall Parkway, McCandless Drive, and on South Milpitas Boulevard. The project would provide a total of 96 onsite bicycle parking spaces between the proposed project site and the existing Stratford school to the south, so that they can be used by students and staff of both schools. It is anticipated that the volume of cyclists generated by the project would not exceed the carrying capacity of the existing bike facilities surrounding the site. In addition, the project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with the City’s Trail, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Thus, the project would have no significant impact on bicycle facilities.

Transit Facilities
The project would be located in close proximity to the Milpitas Transit Center, which provides access to BART, light rail, and several bus routes. Given that the project would primarily serve older, high school-age students, the project would generate some transit trips made by students and staff. However, the volume of transit trips generated by the project is not expected to exceed the carrying capacity of the existing transit services to the site. The project, by itself, would not require additional transit service to the area or improvements to existing transit service frequencies.

Nor would the project preclude, modify, or otherwise affect existing or proposed transit projects or policies identified by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Therefore, the proposed project would not create an adverse impact to transit services in the area.

Emergency Access
The proposed project would not reroute or change any of the City streets in its vicinity that would impact emergency vehicle access to properties in the area. In addition, the proposed project would maintain the site’s existing driveways, which would accommodate emergency vehicles. Thus, the project would not result in a significant impact to emergency vehicle access.