Milpitas City Council
June 16, 2026

21 Resolution No. xxxx
b. Fire Apparatus Clearance: Fire apparatus access roads shall provide a minimum clear width of 26 feet. This requirement is for the use and function of a fire ladder apparatus. CFC, Appendix D, Sections D103.1 and D105.2, adopted and amended by Milpitas Municipal Code. MMC V-300-2.169 and 2.172
c. Fire Apparatus Proximity to the Building. One or more of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located not less than 15 feet and not greater than 30 feet from the building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official.

Fire review determined that the current building design, wherein approximately 65 to 75 percent of the roof fronting the fire access road is at or below 30 feet in height determined in accordance with the California Fire Code appendix D105.1, with only approximately 25 to 35 percent of the roof exceeding 30 feet (limited to roof gables), presents an acceptable condition for the fire department using ground ladder operation. The higher roofs are accessible by the fire department from the roof through permanent ladders positioned at the gable roofs as an additional access mitigation.

Therefore, the developer’s current design is allowed to deviate from the standard fire apparatus proximity to the building requirement, CFC Appendix D, Section D105.3, as adopted by Milpitas Municipal Code Section V-300-1.01. This modified compliance condition is Projectspecific and shall not be construed as a blanket waiver or precedent for other projects. Any future modifications to the building design, height, or site layout that alter the conditioned described herein shall require re-evaluation and approval by the Fire Code Official. d. Fire Apparatus Access Road(s) Required. For multi-family residential projects having more than 50 dwelling units shall be equipped throughout with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Section D106.1 of the CFC, adopted and amended by MMC V-300-

2.173
e. Timing of Installation and Serviceability of Fire Protection Elements.: When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction.

Combustible construction shall not begin until water mains and hydrants are operational and fire apparatus access roads are installed (paved). CFC Section 501.4 f. Fire Apparatus Access: Fire apparatus access shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of exterior walls of the building/structure per the California Fire Code Section 503.1.1. When there is a dead-end condition, means for fire apparatus turn-around shall be provided. g. Turning Radius: Fire apparatus access roads shall meet the Milpitas Fire Department turning radii guidelines and shall provide continuous apparatus travel. Turning radii for fire apparatus access roads shall be a minimum net clearance of 48 feet 6 inches for the outside radius and 28 feet 0 inches for the inside radius. The layout for the outside and the inside radius shall be from the same reference point (center). CFC Section 503.2.4

22 Resolution No. xxxx
h. Grade: The grade of the fire apparatus access road shall be within the limits established by the fire code official based on the fire department’s apparatus and shall not exceed 10 percent grade. CFC 503.2.7 and Appendix D103.2.
i. Angles of Approach and Departure: The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus access roads shall be within the limits established by the fire code official based on the fire department apparatus. CFC 503.2.8
j. Adjacent Access Rights: No source of access from lands adjoining a property to be developed shall be considered fire apparatus access roads, unless there is obtained the irrevocable and unobstructed rights and recorded as an ingress/egress access easement with the County of Santa Clara. CFC Section 503.7, added by MMC V-300-2.51 k. Fire Access Road Materials and Load Bearing Requirements: Fire access roads shall be paved (concrete and/or asphalt cement, or other concrete type pavement approved by the Fire Dept.). Fire apparatus access roads/lanes and emergency vehicle roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather capabilities. CFC Section 503.2.3
Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing up to 75,000 pounds.
l. Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA): EVA roads, when required, shall meet Fire Department site access requirements. CFC Section 503
Recommend entry to EVA shall be gates (swing type) for easy access. m. Obstruction of Fire Access: Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances established in Sections 500. 2.1 and 503.2.2 shall be maintained at all times. Ground structures (including landscape) and building projections shall not encroach or impede the fire apparatus access requirements.

CFC Section 503.4
The EVA shall not be obstructed other than the bollards. Chairs and tables are not allowed as shown on Sheet L7.01.
n. Marking of Fire Access Roads. The required access road shall be designated and clearly marked as a fire lane. The designated fire lane shall be identified as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the Vehicle Code. The designation shall be indicated (1) by a sign posted immediately adjacent to, and visible from, the designated place clearly stating in letters not less than one inch in height that the place is a fire lane, (2) by outlining or painting the place in red and, in contrasting color, marking the place with the words "FIRE LANE", which are clearly visible from a vehicle, or (3) by a red curb or red paint on the edge of the roadway upon which is clearly marked the words "FIRE LANE". CFC Section 503.3. Minimum marking shall be pole signage and red curb with “FIRE LANE” stencil. Signage and red curbs shall be done throughout and as needed to clearly identify the no parking zones.

23 Resolution No. xxxx
o. Site Design Changes: The Fire Department reserves the right to request site design changes as needed to meet the requirements of the CFC, and/or make the request for additional fire protection measures in conformance with the CFC.

47. Fire Protection Water Supply (Hydrants, On-site and Public): An approved water supply (hydrants onsite and/or public) capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided upon which facilities, buildings, or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. Water supply shall meet the Fire Code and the City of Milpitas Engineering Division water supply guidelines and the CFC Section 507, Appendix B and Appendix C, Milpitas Fire Code amendment. Note, the Civil drawings submitted under this Planning review are not approved for construction.

Per City direction, all onsite water systems will be public – no “main” backflow and fire sprinkler laterals are needed. The location of the FDC/PIV for each building has been shown on sheet TM-8.1.

Water System Calculations: Private fire service mains and appurtenances shall be designed and installed in accordance with the City of Milpitas Engineering design guideline requirements and NFPA

24. Design calculations and all the necessary design information for the water system to meet the domestic and fire flow requirements as per the City of Milpitas Engineer Division water design requirements shall be provided as part of the construction permit process. CFC Section 507. a. B105.2 Buildings other than one- and two-family dwellings. Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses. The minimum fire-flow and flow duration for buildings other than one- and twofamily dwellings, Group R-3 and R-4 buildings and townhouses shall be as specified in Tables B105.1(2) and B105.2.

Exceptions: [SFM] Group B, S-2 and U occupancies having a floor area not exceeding 1,000 square feet, primarily constructed of noncombustible exterior walls with wood or steel roof framing, having a Class A roof assembly, with uses limited to the following or similar uses:

1. California State Parks buildings of an accessory nature (restrooms).

2. Safety roadside rest areas (SRRA), public restrooms.

3. Truck inspection facilities (TIF), CHP office space and vehicle inspection bays.

4. Sand/salt storage buildings, storage of sand and salt.

The maximum fire flow reduction for all commercial buildings greater than 30,000 square feet and residential podium buildings shall not exceed 25 percent of the fire flow specified in Table B105.1(2). The maximum fire flow reduction for all other buildings shall not exceed 50 percent of the fire flow specified in Table B105.1(2).
b. Fire Hydrant Location: The location and quantity of hydrants will be evaluated during the construction permit process. CFC Section 507.5
c. Hydrant for Automatic Fire Sprinkler/Standpipe Systems: Buildings equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system and/or a standpipe system installed in accordance with Sections 903 and or 905 shall have a fire hydrant within 50 feet of the fire department connections. CFC Section 507.5.1.1, amended by MMC Section V-300-2.56
d. Private Hydrant Requirements: Private hydrants shall have the bottom 6 inches of the hydrant painted, with a weather resistive paint, white in color. CFC Section 507.5.7, added by MMC V300-2.57.

24 Resolution No. xxxx
e. No Parking in Front of Hydrants: No parking is permitted in front of fire hydrants. Hydrants located on streets (Public or Private Street) shall have an unobstructed clearance of not less than 30 feet per CA Vehicle Code 22514

48. Automatic Fire Sprinkler System for Structures:
a. Automatic Fire Sprinkler: The buildings shall be provided with an automatic fire sprinkler system in conformance with the NFPA 13 Standards. California Fire Code Section 903 b. Sprinkler Valves: All valves controlling the water supply for the automatic sprinkler system shall be electrically supervised by a listed fire alarm control unit. CFC 903.4 c. Sprinkler Monitoring: Alarm, supervisory and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved supervising station. CFC Section 903.4.1 d. Fire Riser Location: The fire sprinkler system riser shall not be located within electrical rooms or storage closets and shall be provided with clear access and working clearance. California Fire Code Section 903.3.5.3, added by MMC Section V-300-2.73. e. Sprinkler Design. Hydraulic design for the automatic fire sprinkler system shall provide a minimum of 20% safety margin. CFC Section 903.3.5.6, MMC V-300-2.76 f. Requirements for Fire Service Water Laterals for Building Sprinkler Systems: Each building shall have a fire service water laterals for the automatic fire sprinkler system and shall meet the California Fire Code requirements Chapter 9 and the NFPA applicable Standards. Note that the civil drawings provided are not reviewed nor approved for construction. CFC Section 912.1 g. FDC/PIV (Fire Department Connection/Post Indicating Valve) Location(s): The location of the fire department FDC’s/PIV’s shall be at a readily visible and accessible location off the fire access road and approved by the Fire Code Official. FDC’s/PIV’s shall not be located behind parking stalls, trees, landscape structures, nor behind any other obstruction. Final review for location for the FDC’s/PIV’s will be conducted during the construction permit process. CFC Section 912.2 All FDC’s and PIV’s shall have fire department approved locking connection caps/locks. Knox key caps shall be provided. CFC Section 912.4.1
h. Backflow Protection. Potable water supply to the automatic sprinkler and/or the standpipe systems shall be protected against backflow as required by the Health and Safety Code section 13114.7 and the City of Milpitas Utilities Engineering Division. CFC Section 912.6 i. Water Drainage: All new installations of sprinkler systems shall preclude sprinkler test and system drain water from discharging into the storm drain; provisions to direct water to the sanitary sewer or landscape or other approved means shall be provided. Sprinkler system design shall include the proposed method for drainage of sprinkler system discharge. Storm Water Pollution Regulations.

49. Fire Alarm System:

25 Resolution No. xxxx
a. R-2 Occupancy: Fire alarm system and smoke alarm shall be installed in Group R-2 occupancies as required in Sections 907.2.9.1 and 907.2.9.2. CFC Section 907.2.9 b. Manual Fire Alarm System: A manual fire alarm system that activated the occupant notification system in accordance with Section 907.5 shall be installed in Group R-2 occupancies. CFC 907.2.9.1
c. Smoke Alarm, R-2 Occupancy: Listed single and multiple-station smoke alarms complying with UL217 shall be installed in accordance with Sections 907.2.11.1 through 907.2.11.7 and the NFPA 72. CFC Section 907.2.11
d. Fire System Functions: Automatic fire detectors utilized for the purpose of performing fire safety functions shall be connected to the building’s fire alarm control unit where a fire alarm system is installed. CFC Section 907.3
e. Visual Alarm, R-2 Occupancy: In Group R-2 occupancies required by Section 907 to have a fire alarm system, all dwelling units and sleeping units shall be provide with the capability to support visible alarm notification appliances in accordance with NFPA 72. Such capability shall accommodate wired or wireless equipment. See the Code section for options. CFC 907.5.2.3.3 f. Fire Alarm Zones: Fire alarm system(s) shall be zoned as per the requirements of the CFC Sections 907.6.4.
g. Fire Alarm Panel: Fire alarm panel (or fire alarm annunciator panel) shall be located in a readily accessible location and shall be provided with the necessary access and working clearance as required by the CA Electrical Code. CFC Section 907.6.4.1.1 h. Fire Alarm Monitoring: Fire alarm monitoring (approved supervising station - UL, or FM approved). Fire alarm systems required by the Fire Code or by the California Building Code shall be monitored by an approved supervising station in accordance with the NFPA 72. CFC Section 907.6.6

50. Building/Structure Other Requirements:
a. Roof Stairs. When there are roof planes with vertical difference of more than 24” there shall be stairs or ship ladders (60 degrees max., approved by the fire dept.) for access between the different roof planes. The Fire Code Official shall determine the location for the stairs. CFC Section 102.9 Additional stairs at the roof were provided to provide firefighter access to the gable roofs. b. Premises Identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet letters and shall be consistent with Milpitas standardized addressing guidelines. CFC Section 505. The Fire Dept. may require the installation of address numbers at multiple building locations. CFC Section 102.9 Master building address shall also be provided with the units on fronting the main street and visible from all direction of the fire access roads.
c. Solar Electrical Panels: Solar photovoltaic systems shall meet and comply with the CFC Section 1205 requirements.
d. Address Illumination: All required addresses shall be illuminated. CFC Section 505.3, added by MMC V-300-2.55

26 Resolution No. xxxx
e. Fire Department Emergency Key Box (aka: Knox Box, Knox Locks, Knox Electric Switches, etc.):

The Fire Code Official is authorized to require a key box(es) to be installed in an approved location(s) if necessary for lifesaving or fire-fighting purposes. Quantity and location shall be as directed by the Fire Code Official. CFC Section 506. Locked mechanical closets, fire alarm closets, sprinkler riser closets, etc. will need a Fire Dept. approved lock or “Knox” key box.

Knox box location shall be by the FACU closet.
f. Access Control Devices: When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be approved by the fire code official. All access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking by the Fire Department. Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Egress. CFC Section 504.6, added to the CFC by MMC Section V-300-2.54
Means to deactivate the locking system shall be located in the fire command room or other location as directed by the Fire Department.

In addition, all door lock control systems shall meet the requirements of the CFC Sections 1010.2.10, 1010.2.11 and 1010.2.12.
g. Fire Equipment ID Signs: Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner.

Rooms containing controls for air-conditioning, systems, sprinkler risers and valves, or other fire detection, suppression or control elements hall be identified for the use of the Fire Department.

CA Fire Code Section 509
h. Portable Fire Extinguishers: Portable fire extinguishers shall be selected, installed and maintained in accordance with CFC Section 906.
i. Fire Protection Service (CFC Section 901.6): All fire alarm systems, fire detection systems, automatic sprinkler or extinguishing systems, communication systems, and all other equipment, material or systems required by these regulations shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times in accordance with this code and California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1.

Upon disruption or diminishment of the fire protective qualities of such equipment, material or systems, immediate action shall be instituted to effect a reestablishment of such equipment, material or systems to their original normal and operational condition. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, §1.14

51. Fire Safety: Fire safety during construction, alteration or demolition of the building shall meet the requirements of Chapter 33 of the California Fire Code and the Standards for Construction Site Fire Safety (un-024) by “unidocs” organization (http//:www.unidocs.org). A Construction Site Fire Safety plan shall be submitted to the Milpitas Fire Prevention Division for review and approval prior to the start of combustible construction. CFC Chapter 33

52. Landscape Sheets: Proposed landscaping may be impacted by the comments above and the requirements for fire access, fire systems and devices (such as apparatus access, hydrants, fire service lines, fire department connections valves, etc.). The Fire Dept. reserves the right to relocate, delete or change the proposed landscaping when in conflict with fire systems and devices. CFC 507.5.4.

27 Resolution No. xxxx

53. Plan Submittal: Complete plans and specifications for all aspects of fire protection systems shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to system installation. CFC Section 901.2

POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

TRAFFIC

54. Vehicles coming and leaving from the housing development only have road access from Valley Way.

Based on the current layout and architecture of the parking lot, ingress and egress on Valley Way do not appear to be of concern.

55. Police Department shall have access to the housing development from Heath Street, accessible by a removable bollard, for emergency response purposes.

56. Traffic signal lights are not utilized at Valley Way, and the approval of this housing project would not appear to change the need for such installation on this public roadway.

PARKING

57. Parking ratios will be designed to comply with the minimum requirements of the Milpitas Main St.

Gateway Specific Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. All 134 units will have 3-bedrooms or 4- bedrooms and will have two parking spaces available in a private garage for each unit, totaling 268 parking stalls The total number of outdoor guest parking spaces provided on-site will be 60 spaces.

58. Parking lot areas shall have postings with appropriate signs per 22658(a) CVC to assist in removing vehicles at the property owners’/managers’ request.

59. “No Trespassing/Loitering” signage should be posted at the entrances of parking lots in conspicuous areas. Signs should be at least 2’ x 1’ overall size, with a white background and black 2’’ high letters.

60. Parking lot project should allow circulation for police patrols (vehicles, foot, and bicycles) to prevent and reduce the likelihood of criminal activity occurring in the area.

ADDRESSING

61. Address numbers shall be illuminated during hours of darkness and should be strategically positioned as to be readily visible from the street. Address numbers should have a minimum height of 12 inches.

If numerous alarm zones are utilized then zone numbers should be clearly marked above appropriate common doorways (i.e. clubhouse, office, etc.). All other housing alarms shall be directly linked to specific housing unit (if installed).

LIGHTING

62. During hours of darkness, lighting of sufficient wattage shall be provided in parking lots and associated driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, alleys, and grounds contiguous to buildings to ensure that any person on or about the premises is clearly visible.

28 Resolution No. xxxx

VISIBILITY

63. Any other line of sight obstructions (including recessed doors, alcoves, etc.) should be avoided on building exterior walls and interior hallways. A building design that encourages visibility of potential crime locations and natural surveillance.

64. From a public safety perspective, the grounds and area surrounding the townhomes should have as much natural surveillance as possible and be exposed to public view. When natural surveillance is afforded, the likely occurrence of burglaries, robberies, etc., in that area is substantially reduced because the risk of detection and apprehension of the perpetrator increases. Seclusion is one of the main elements sought after by perpetrators of a crime.

65. Stairwells and elevators should be of open design whenever possible, making users open to visual scrutiny.

66. Any posters, material, and objects near common area exterior windows (i.e., clubhouse) should not block views in those common areas from the street.

ACCESSSIBILITY

67. All areas controlled by electronic security devices (i.e., access cards, keypads, etc.) should have Knox boxes installed near such access points, with the Knox boxes containing the appropriate security devices to gain entry. If keypads control access points, management should provide the Police Department with the needed code(s) and regularly update the Police Department if such code(s) change.

68. An up-to-date map of the interior of any building accessible to the public should be provided to the police department. The map should minimally identify entry/exit points, elevators/stairwells, storage areas, entry/exit points controlled by electronic security devices, locations of security cameras, maintenance areas, stairwells, recreation centers, etc.

NOISE

69. When residential and commercial areas are near each other, there may be an increase in noise complaints from residents, which may increase calls for service. Noise may be generated from nearby commercial establishments.

LANDSCAPING

70. Landscaping shall be of the type and situated in locations to maximize observation while providing the desired degree of aesthetics. Security planting materials are encouraged. Landscaping shall not conceal doors or windows from view, obstruct visibility of the parking lot from the street, nor hinder access to the roof if needed.

29 Resolution No. xxxx

SECURITY

71. A security camera system should be required for any location that is communal, such as the mail area, clubhouse, or any other recreational area. Additionally, the security camera system should cover the parking lot area, have the clarity necessary to identify an individual, vehicle, etc., and have a field of view to maximize the coverage area. The video/security system shall have the capacity to save/store footage for a minimum of thirty (30) days and have the capability to be downloaded. A copy of video/security footage shall be made available to law enforcement upon request for investigative purposes.

MISCELLANEOUS

72. If applicable, an HOA representative or designee shall file an emergency notification form with the police department so law enforcement can contact the HOA in the event of any major accident, emergency, or unforeseen circumstance.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS

PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN SUBMITTALS
The following conditions shall be met prior to any detailed construction plan check submittals (Building or Engineering, except demolition and rough grade plans), unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. City reserves the right to reject any plan check submittal if any of the following conditions are not met. (E)

73. Modifications: The Site Development Permit No. SD24-0005 Project Plans submitted for the 600 Valley Way Planning Entitlement, dated 03/17/2026, is subject to change during the plan check stage based upon City’s previous comments and conditions stated herein.

74. Solid Waste and Recycling Handling Plan: Permittee shall submit final Solid Waste and Recycling Handling Plan based upon City’s previous comments for City’s review and approval by the Solid Waste Program. The Plan shall show calculations of waste generation volumes and how materials will be transferred from the waste generation areas to the trash enclosure/external collection point; demonstrate how recycling, food waste, and yard trimmings shall have a separately maintained process from garbage handling; address other requirements such as waste generation and compactor sizing, chute shut-off and property management responsibility for bin management and litter control; outreach and education to tenants/occupants, and procure sufficient service frequency based upon waste generation calculation volumes.

75. Stormwater Control Plan: Permittee shall submit City approved final Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) that complies with the latest Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit, including Low Impact Development (LID) Section C3.c.i.(2)(b) measures for harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapo-transpiration, for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department.

76. Photometric Analysis: Permittee shall submit streetlight photometric analysis for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department along Valley Way that meets the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA), RP8, for roadway and sidewalk lighting standards and City standard design guidelines.

30 Resolution No. xxxx

77. Submittal Requirements: Permittee to ensure that all plan check submittals are in accordance with City’s submittal check list for each permit type, including but not limited to, payment of permit fees and/or fee deposit at the time of the submittal.

78. Project Job Account/Fee Deposit: Permittee shall open a new PJ account as a deposit to cover the costs for Engineering Department’s services for review and inspection of the Project. The amount shall be determined based on the approved City fee schedule at the time of application submittal.

79. Coordination with other Projects: Permittee shall coordinate designs with the proposed Food Truck project, located at 25 S. Abbott Avenue, in advance prior to any plan submittal.

PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL/RECORDATION
The following conditions shall be addressed during the final map plan check process and shall be met prior to any final approval/recordation (except demolition permit and rough grade permit), unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. (E)

80. Dedication on the Final Map: Permittee shall dedicate necessary emergency vehicle access easements, public service utility easements, street easements, public access easements, and other public easements deemed necessary for the Project.

81. Abandonment/Quitclaim Easements: Permittee shall abandon/quit claim existing easements that are in conflict with or unnecessary for the Project.

82. Easements on the Final Map: Permittee shall depict all existing easements to remain based upon current preliminary title report and depict new easements on the final map.

83. Concurrent Off-site Plan Reviews: Permittee shall submit separate off-site improvement plans for City’s review and approval by the Engineering Department.

84. Street Name Approval: Permittee shall obtain approval from the City Council for all new street names based upon recommendation from the Planning Commission and City guidelines.

85. Utility Company Approval: Permittee shall obtain approval letters from utility companies (PG&E, AT&T, Comcast) for abandonment of existing and dedication of new public service utilities easements.

86. Demolition of Existing Building: Permittee shall demolish existing buildings/facilities that are in conflict with new property lines.

87. Covenant, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs): Permittee shall provide CC&Rs for City’s review and approval for perpetual maintenance of private roadways, private utilities, stormwater management facilities in accordance with a separately recorded Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement.

88. Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Securities: Permittee shall execute a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and provide improvement securities in accordance with MMC Title XI, Section 17, and submit all other supplemental documents as stipulated in the Improvement Agreement (such as certificate of insurance).

31 Resolution No. xxxx

89. Annexation to the Community Facilities District: Permittee shall submit an executed petition affirmatively consenting to annex the subject property to the Community Facilities District (CFD) 2005-1, and agree to pay the special taxes levied by CFD 2005-1 for the purpose of maintaining the public services. The CFD annexation process shall be completed prior to final map approval. Permittee shall comply with all rules, regulations, policies and practices established by the State Law and/or by the City with respect to the CFD including, without limitation, requirements for notice and disclosure to future owners and/or residents. This condition of approval is non-severable from the Permit, and invalidation or limitation of this condition invalidates the Permit, condition 86 notwithstanding.

PRIOR TO OFF-SITE PLAN APPROVAL/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE The following conditions shall be addressed as part of the off-site improvement plan review and shall be met prior to encroachment permit issuance, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. (E)

90. Public Improvement Design Standards: All public improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with all applicable, mandatory, objective public improvement design standards, including but not limited to:
a. Milpitas Design Guidelines:
(https://www.milpitas.gov/317/Land-Development-Procedures-Guidelines); b. Standard Details and Specifications:
(https://www.milpitas.gov/333/Standard-Details-Specifications); c. Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan design guidelines:
(https://www.milpitasmainstreet.org/);
d. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements, where applicable.

91. Sanitary Sewer Calculations: Permittee shall submit a completed “Sewer Needs Questionnaire” form and sanitary sewer calculations to justify lateral size design, allocation of discharge for each of the lateral, and impact to the existing main. Permittee shall be responsible to implement any necessary improvements if there is any identified deficiency to the existing main as a result of the Project.

92. Storm Drain Design: Permittee shall submit storm drain hydrology and hydraulic calculations based upon a 10-year storm event to justify the size of the storm drain lateral flowing full, without surcharging the main line pipe, and to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.

93. Domestic Water and Fire Service Calculations: Permittee shall submit potable water and fire service calculations to confirm adequacy of lateral size, pressure and flow, to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department and Fire Department. Hydraulic modeling analysis by the City and paid by the Permittee may be required as needed. Permittee shall be responsible to implement any necessary improvements if there is any identified deficiency to the existing main as a result of the Project.

94. Specific Improvements: In addition to standard public improvements required under Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC) Title XI, Chapter 1, Section 7, Permittee shall install other specific improvements listed below including incidental improvements as required by the City as part of the encroachment permit.
a. Installation of public (City-maintained) water and sewer mains within the on-site private streets and public easements. All installations shall comply with the required horizontal and vertical separation standards in accordance with CCR Title 22 and City standards.

32 Resolution No. xxxx
b. The Project site contains an existing 8” water line that runs through the project site within the existing 15’ water pipeline easement, extending from the existing 8” water line in Valley Way to the north, to the existing 8” water line in Valley Way cul-de-sac to the south. The existing 8” water line shall be abandoned and capped up to the main line in Heath Street at the north end and prior to the Valley Way cul-de-sac at the south end. A new 10" water line shall be installed to the easterly side of the project through Alley 1, from the main line in Heath Street to the Valley Way cul-de-sac, which shall be located within the proposed P.S.U.E. This new waterline shall be installed and fully operational prior to the abandonment of the existing water line. The existing 15' water pipeline easement shall be vacated through the Final Map process. c. Installation of separate water service tap and meter for each of the following services:
residential, irrigation, and fire.
d. Installation of separate utility service lines (domestic water, fire service, sanitary sewer) for residential.
e. Installation of radio-transmitting water meters with built-in antennas; installation of wireless repeaters or transmitters with dedicated power sources, all at no cost to the City. These shall be installed at locations acceptable to the City to ensure accurate and timely radio reception of meter readings. Permittee shall execute and record a water service agreement which requires providing dedicated spaces, access rights and dedicated power sources for the City’s operation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of subject radio antennas. f. Construction of new street tree wells along the project frontage. The locations, spacing of tree wells and tree species shall be in compliance with applicable City standards and details. g. Provide lighting analysis for streetlights on Valley Way and on S. Abbott Avenue between Valley Way and W. Calaveras Boulevard. If the existing illumination levels do not meet the City’s lighting targets, upgrade luminaire and/or furnish and install new lighting. The locations and spacing of streetlights shall comply with the Illuminating Engineer Society of North America (IESNA), RP8, for roadway and sidewalk lighting standards and City standard design guidelines.
h. Install a minimum 2-inch grind and asphalt concrete overlay on Valley Way, from the cul-desac to the western crosswalk of the Abbott Avenue/Valley Way intersection. i. Construct concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter at the cul-de-sac of Valley Way, and install a new sidewalk to close the existing gap along the north side of Valley Way, as shown on the approved plans, to provide a continuous pedestrian pathway from the project site to the Abbott Avenue/Valley Way intersection.
j. All public and private driveways shall provide and maintain a clear vision triangle, subject to review and approval prior to issuance of site improvement plans.

95. Abandonment of Existing City Utilities: Permittee shall cap, abandon or remove any unused existing public utilities based upon City’s Abandonment Notes and to the City’s satisfaction.

96. Relocation and Adjustment of Existing Public Utilities: Permittee shall relocate and/or adjust existing public utilities as needed that are in conflict with the proposed improvements.

97. Water Service Agreement: Permittee shall complete a water service agreement to obtain water service.

98. Encroachment Permit: Prior to any work in the public right-of-way and/or public easement, obtain an encroachment permit with insurance requirements for all public improvements including a traffic

33 Resolution No. xxxx
control plan per the latest California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department.

99. Pothole Encroachment Permit: Due to multiple new utility service connections on Valley Way, Permittee shall pothole and verify all potential utility crossing conflict as part of the public improvement plan during the design stage.

PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE
The following conditions shall be addressed during the building plan check process and shall be met prior to any building permit issuance (except demolition permit and rough grade permit), unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer). (E) 100. Final Map Recordation: Permittee shall record the final map. 101.Easements on the Building Permit Plans: Permittee shall depict all existing easements to remain based upon current preliminary title report and depict new easements on applicable building permit plans. 102.Stormwater Facility Operation & Maintenance Plan: Permittee shall incorporate design details into applicable construction plans in accordance with City approved Storm Water Control Plan (SWCP).

Permittee shall also submit Stormwater Facility Operation & Maintenance Plan that describes operation and maintenance procedures needed to ensure that treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other storm water control measures continue to work as intended and do not create a nuisance (including vector control).
103.Stormwater Management Facilities O&M Agreement: Permittee shall execute and record a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement associated with the SWCP O&M Plan, including perpetual maintenance of treatment areas/units, as reviewed and accepted by the Engineering Department. The subject O&M Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&Rs, if applicable.
104.Water Supply and Force Majeure: The City reserves the right to suspend the issuance of building permits in case of an emergency declaration of water supply in the case of a major catastrophic event that restricts City’s assurance to provide water supply. 105.Water Efficient Landscapes: Permittee shall comply with Milpitas Municipal Code Title VIII, Chapter 5 Water Efficient Landscapes for landscape design, including but not limited to, providing separate water meters for domestic water service and irrigation service and providing applicable landscape documentation package.
106.Solid Waste and Recycling Facility Design: Permittee shall comply with all applicable, mandatory, objective City design guidelines/details associated with haul route, turning radius, vertical and horizontal clearance, trash enclosure, staging area, storage area, etc. 107.Recycling Report Prior to Demolition Permit Issuance: Permittee shall submit Part I of a Recycling Report on business letterhead to the Building Department, for forwarding to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The report shall describe the following resource recovery activities:
a. What materials will be salvaged.

34 Resolution No. xxxx
b. How materials will be processed during demolition.
c. Intended locations or businesses for reuse or recycling. d. Quantity estimates in tons (both recyclable and for landfill disposal). Estimates for recycling and disposal tonnage amounts by material type shall be included as separate items in all reports to the Building Division before demolition begins.

Permittee shall make every effort to salvage materials for reuse and recycling and shall comply with the City’s demolition and construction debris recycling ordinance. 108.Recycling Report Prior to Building Permit Issuance: Permittee shall submit Part II of the Recycling Report to the Building Department, for forwarding to the Engineering Department. Part II of the Recycling Report shall be supported by copies of weight tags and/or receipts of “end dumps.” Actual reuse, recycling and disposal tonnage amounts (and estimates for “end dumps”) shall be submitted to the Building Department for approval by the Engineering Department prior to inspection by the Building Department.
109. Flood Plain Management: This Project is partially located in Flood Zone AE (EL=19’) and AE (EL=18’), and partially located in Flood Zone X. Permittee shall comply with all applicable flood protection criteria as required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and MMC Title XI, Chapter 15. Permittee shall also submit a Flood Study for the Project demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that the proposed development has no adverse impact to the surrounding flood plain within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and to the flood carrying capacity of the area. The study should include cumulative effects of existing and proposed developments demonstrating the combined effects will not increase the water surface elevation of the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) more than one foot at any point. For the AO Flood Zone, the flood study is required to establish the BFE and set the building elevation accordingly. The flood study shall be consistent with the requirements in accordance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations by establishing a hydraulic model and HEC-RAS. The study shall clearly identify the lowest floor elevation as being either the bottom of garage, bottom of first floor residential units, bottom of elevator pit, etc. and shall be completely elevated out of the SFHA. 110.Development Fees: Permittee shall pay the following development fees. The information listed in items “a” through “g” are based upon current fee rates, per Engineering Fee Schedule FY 24-25. The fee rates are subject to change, unless otherwise exempted under SB 330. a) Storm water connection fee (Per Ord. No. 239.8): Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan Area:
• Impact Fee per Runoff Acre: $48,768.00. The runoff factor would be 0.4 runoff acre for residential, equating to a $19,507.00 impact fee per Runoff Acre. b) Water connection fee at $1,164/unit for residential based upon increased water usage. c) Sewer connection fee at $1,406/unit for residential based upon increased average wastewater flow.
d) Wastewater Treatment Plant fee per MMC VIII, Chapter 2, Section 7.04: $690/unit. e) Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact fee per Resolution No. 7894: $287.97/unit. f) 3.8% of applicable fees in accordance with City Resolution No. 8969 as Permitting Automation Fee.
g) FEMA Flood Zone Designation Letter fee in the amount of $100.00 each.

35 Resolution No. xxxx
111.Mailboxes: The Permittee shall coordinate with US Postal Services regarding placement of required mailboxes. Mailbox location shall not be on public street frontages and shall be approved by City and US Postal Services prior to building permit issuance. Mailbox locations shall be shown on the improvement plans and Permittee shall submit a letter to the City’s Land Development Engineering Section from the Post Master approving the location of the mailbox. Structures to protect mailboxes may require Building, Engineering and Planning Department review. 112.Hazard Assessment Report: For any new back flow device proposed to be installed on an irrigation, domestic or fire service, the Permittee and its qualified cross-connection specialist shall complete and submit a City of Milpitas Hazard Assessment Report (CMP Hazard Assessment Report (Fillable) 2026). An existing Hazard Assessment Report may be submitted if completed in the last six (6) months, or submission of a new assessment if any of the following conditions have occurred: 1) Initial site hazard assessment is older than six (6) months, 2) Account change; 3) New connection; 4) Change in onsite activities or materials that may affect water safety; 5) If there has been cross-connection incident in the last six (6) months or if this work is requirement of the State Water Resource Control Board. The Hazard Assessment Report shall be submitted for review and approval by the City’s Utility Engineering department prior to building permit issuance.

DURING CONSTRUCTION
The following conditions shall be complied with at all times during the construction phase of the Project, unless otherwise approved by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer. (E) 113.Dewatering: If dewatering is needed during construction, Permittee shall obtain a Short-Term Industrial Wastewater Permit from the San Jose/Santa Clara Water Pollution Control Plant for discharging the groundwater to a sanitary sewer system. 114.Prohibition of Potable Water Usage: Permittee shall use recycled water for construction purposes, including dust control and compaction. Permittee shall comply with MMC VIII-6-5.00 and 6-6.00 where potable water usage is prohibited, unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 115.Construction Staging and Employee Parking: Permittee shall place all construction related materials, equipment, and arrange construction workers parking on-site and not located in the public rights-ofway or public easements. 116.Water Shut-down Plan: Permittee shall provide a water shut-down plan at least seven days in advance of the shut-down in coordination with the Engineering Inspector and notify affected property owners/tenants when cut-in tee(s) is/are required.

PRIOR TO FIRST OCCUPANCY
The following conditions shall be met prior to first building occupancy on either lot, unless otherwise approved the Director of Engineering/City Engineer.
117.Completion of Public Improvements: Permittee shall complete all public improvements, including but not limited to, North and South of Valley Way, all that are shown on City approved plans. 118.Flood Plain Management: This property is shown on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood insurance rate map (FIRM) for Santa Clara County, California, Map No. 06085C0066J for Community No. 060344 (City of Milpitas), with an effective date of February 19, 2014, as being partially located in Flood Zone AE (EL=19’) and AE (EL=18’), and partially located in Flood Zone

36 Resolution No. xxxx
X. Permittee shall comply with all applicable flood protection criteria required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and MMC Title XI, Chapter 15. Permittee shall submit the FEMA approved LOMR-F, or if the LOMR-F process remains suspended by FEMA, equivalent documentation agreed upon through coordination with the City for each unit/building associated with the requested occupancy, if project is located in the SFHA. Lack of documentation will not preclude occupancy release.
119.Elevation and/or Flood Proofing Certificate: Permittee's civil engineer shall submit Elevation and/or Flood Proofing Certificates for the lowest finished floor elevation of each building for City records. 120.Landscape Certificate of Completion: Permittee shall submit a Certificate of Substantial Completion that complies with the Milpitas Municipal Code Water Efficient Landscapes Ordinance. 121.Record Drawings: Permittee shall submit record drawings in full-size hard copy, AutoCAD, Tiff, and PDF formats for City records. Project redlines shall be submitted to the City for review prior to final as-builts being submitted. Record drawings shall include all public improvements and approved site modifications during construction.
122.Private Job (PJ) Balance: Permittee shall pay for any remaining balance from the Private Job deposit.

LEGEND
P = Planning Department
B = Building Department
E = Engineering Department
F = Fire Department
H = Office of Housing
POL = Police Department
CAO = City Attorney’s Office
ALL = All Reviewing Department

37 Resolution No. xxxx

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST
The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees, dedication requirements, reservation requirements, and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest these fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), began on date of adoption of this resolution. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

AGREEMENT
Permittee/Property Owner
The undersigned agrees to each and every condition of approval and acknowledges the NOTICE OF RIGHT TO PROTEST and hereby agrees to use the Project property on the terms and conditions set forth in this resolution.

Dated: _________________ ______________________________________ Signature of Permittee

Environmental Checklist
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project
Prepared for:

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
March 2026

Environmental Checklist
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project
Prepared for:

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Contact:

Kristina Phung, AICP
Senior Planner
408.586.3278
Prepared by:

Ascent, DBA Ascent Environmental, Inc.
2054 University Ave, Suite 400
Berkeley, CA 94704
Contact:

George Dix
Project Manager
510.327.7751
March 2026
20230172.01

City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1 INTRODUCTION AND CEQA REGULATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Environmental Review Process .......................................................................................................................................1-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................................................................................2-1

2.1 Project Overview................................................................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Project Location and Existing Land Uses................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Project Objectives.............................................................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.4 Project Description........................................................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 Construction....................................................................................................................................................................... 2-9

2.6 Required Actions .............................................................................................................................................................. 2-9 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...............................................................................................................................................3-1 Approach to the Environmental Analysis................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Discussion and Mitigation Sections ............................................................................................................................................ 3-2

3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................................................ 3-3

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3-6

3.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 3-8

3.4 Biological Resources....................................................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................................................... 3-15

3.6 Energy................................................................................................................................................................................. 3-19

3.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 3-21

3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 3-25

3.9 Hazards .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3-27

3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................................................................... 3-31

3.11 Land Use and Planning................................................................................................................................................. 3-35

3.12 Mineral Resources.......................................................................................................................................................... 3-37

3.13 Noise................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-38

3.14 Population and Housing.............................................................................................................................................. 3-41

3.15 Public Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 3-43

3.16 Recreation......................................................................................................................................................................... 3-45

3.17 Transportation................................................................................................................................................................. 3-47

3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 3-50

3.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 3-53

3.20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................................................................... 3-57 4 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 4-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................................................................................5-1

Table of Contents Ascent
City of Milpitas
ii 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist Appendices
Appendix A Historic Resources Report
Appendix B Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist
Appendix C Floodplain Analysis
Appendix D Sewer and Water Flow Analysis
Figures
Figure 2-1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Conceptual Site Plan .......................................................................................................................................................2-5 Figure 2-3 Proposed Vesting Tentative Map ............................................................................................................................... 2-7

Ascent List of Abbreviations
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AD-BP Abbott District Business Park
APN Assessor Parcel Number
Basin Plan San Francisco Bay Basin
BMP best management practice
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP climate action plan
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CRHR California Register of Historic Resources
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agencies
DOSH California Division of Occupational Safety and Health DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ fire hazard severity zone
GHG greenhouse gases
GW-MU Gateway-Mixed Use
LD-MU Library District Mixed-Use
LID Low Impact Development
MFD Milpitas Fire Department
MGSP Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan
MS-MU Main Street Mixed-Use
NFIP National Flood Insurance Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
PRC Public Resources Code
Project 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project

List of Abbreviations Ascent
City of Milpitas
iv 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist RWQCB regional water quality control board
SCVHP Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
SCVURPPP Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program SEIR Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
TAC toxic air contaminant
UWMP urban water management plan
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WQMP water quality management plan
XR-MU Crossroads Mixed-Use

City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 1-1 1 INTRODUCTION AND CEQA REGULATIONS

1.1 INTRODUCTION
On October 28, 2025, the Milpitas City Council adopted the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP). The MGSP is a comprehensive update and rename of the Milpitas Midtown Specific Plan, which was originally adopted in 2002.

The MGSP reflects a greater focus on: 1) the historical significance of Main Street as a place for community members to gather and mingle; 2) the importance of Calaveras Boulevard as a primary gateway into central Milpitas; and 3) the Interstate 880 (I-880) freeway frontage along Abbott Avenue with opportunities for new mixed-use commercial and office development. The MGSP also prioritizes mixed-use development as a way to increase residential use and density in the MGSP plan area. The MGSP vision and strategies are organized into four focus areas or districts: (1) Crossroads, (2) Main Street, (3) Gateway, and (4) Abbott. The MGSP establishes several new zoning districts in the plan area, including:
 MS-MU (Main Street Mixed-Use)
 XR-MU (Crossroads Mixed-Use)
 GW-MU (Gateway Mixed-Use)
 LD-MU (Library District Mixed-Use)
 AD-BP (Abbott District Business Park)
The proposed 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project (Project) is located within the northwestern portion of the MGSP plan area. The Project site is designated in the GWSP and City’s General Plan as Gateway-Mixed Use (GWMU). The GW-MU designation is characterized by a community-serving commercial orientation along I-880 and Calaveras Boulevard (State Route 237), located south of the Project site, and a neighborhood-serving transition area adjacent to existing neighborhoods within the northern end of the Gateway District, where the Project site would be located. This designation permits medium- to high-density residential (18 to 65 dwelling units per acre). Building height in the GW-MU designation cannot exceed 65 feet and the maximum number of stories is five. The proposed Project would remove two existing office buildings and three multi-tenant industrial buildings and develop a new multifamily residential community. The Project would include 24 new three-story townhome buildings, totaling 134 units, including 14 adaptable units, as well as a one-story clubhouse located in the center of the Project site. Of the 134 townhomes, 15 percent, or 20 units, would be offered as below-market-rate ownership units at the moderateincome level. Non-buildable areas throughout the Project site would be designated as common areas to provide easements for private ingress and egress, emergency vehicle access, shared utilities, and private drainage. The Project is consistent with the MGSP except for minor deviations allowed by the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code 65915-65918) and is considered a subsequent project as part of the implementation of the MGSP.

1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The City certified a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the MGSP on October 28, 2025 (State Clearinghouse No. 2024070432). The SEIR provides an assessment of the reasonably foreseeable and potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the MGSP that may occur beyond what was evaluated in the City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan EIR. The SEIR for the MGSP was prepared at the program “first-tier” level of environmental review consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152 and 15168) for the overall MGSP area.

According to Section 15182 of the CEQA Guidelines, certain residential, commercial and mixed-use projects that are consistent with a specific plan adopted pursuant to Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8 of the Government Code are exempt from CEQA. Section 15182(c) of the CEQA Guidelines states that a residential project undertaken pursuant

Introduction Ascent
City of Milpitas
1-2 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist to and in conformity to a specific plan that included certification of an EIR are exempt from CEQA unless one of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 occur as a result of the project.

Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines lists the conditions that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration. These include the following:
 Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
 Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;  New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
 The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;  Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;  Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
 Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative
This environmental checklist document is intended to provide supporting information that none of the events outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 have occurred, that the Project is consistent with Section 15182 and the MGSP SEIR, and is therefore exempt from the provisions of CEQA.

City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 2-1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project (Project) would involve the demolition of five nonresidential buildings and the construction of a new 134-unit residential community on an approximately 7.22 acre site in the City of Milpitas. The Project would also include a vesting tentative map to combine the three existing site parcels into a single lot. The site is located within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan area.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND EXISTING LAND USES
The Project is located at 600 Valley Way in the western portion of the City of Milpitas, as shown in Figure 2-1. The Project site measures approximately 7.22-acres and consists of the parcels identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 222-80-25, 222-80-24, and 222-80-22. The Project site, located on generally flat paved land, currently contains 2 two-story office buildings and three single story multi-tenant industrial buildings. The existing buildings are currently vacant and total approximately 109,775 square feet, but were previously approximately 55 percent occupied with 35 of 64 units utilized. The Project site is currently bounded by residential uses to the north, commercial uses to the east, the I-880/State Route 237 interchange to the south, and I-880 to the west. The Project site contains an existing 8-inch public water main and an associated 15-foot waterline easement that runs through the middle of the Project site.

The Project is located within the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan (MGSP) area, which designates the site area as a Gateway Mixed-Use (GW-MU) zone. The GW-MU zone is characterized by a community-serving commercial orientation along I-880 and Calaveras Boulevard (State Route 237), located south of the Project site, and a neighborhood-serving transition area adjacent to existing neighborhoods within the northern end of the Gateway District, where the Project site would be located. The Project site is also identified as a “Rezone Site” for housing development in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The applicant’s objectives for the proposed Project includes:
 Deliver a mix of market-rate and below-market-rate high-quality housing that complements the existing residential neighborhood.
 Develop housing at a density that meets the City of Milpitas Gateway–Main Street Specific Plan requirements, ensuring marketability and a reasonable return on investment to attract both equity and construction financing.  Assist the City of Milpitas in meeting its regional housing needs allocation for market-rate and below-market-rate units, including 15 percent (20 units) of below-market-rate ownership housing at the moderate-income level.  Revitalize and redevelop a vacant, underutilized office site into a residential community compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
 Create a lively, walkable environment with a publicly accessible pedestrian pathway through the site, providing access for adjacent residents to surrounding community-serving retail and transit.  Enhance the neighborhood’s architectural and visual character through buildings designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential scale and character.

Project Description Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-2 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist Source: Adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-1 Project Location

Ascent Project Description
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 2-3

2.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project would involve the demolition of the existing two office buildings and three multi-tenant industrial buildings located on the current Project site. The Project would construct 24 new three-story townhome buildings, totaling 134 units, including 14 adaptable units, as well as one one-story clubhouse located in the center of the Project site, as shown in Figure 2-2. The proposed Project would total approximately 307,102 square feet of gross floor area, with a proposed density of 19 dwelling units per acre. Of the 134 townhomes, 15 percent, or 20 units, would be offered as below-market-rate ownership units at the moderate-income level. The remaining 114 units would be market-rate ownership units. Non-buildable areas throughout the Project site would be designated as common areas to provide easements for private ingress and egress, emergency vehicle access, shared utilities, and private drainage. The private streets would be covered by proposed 26-feet wide emergency vehicle access easements and typical 34-feet wide public services and utility easements. The proposed Project also includes a vesting tentative map that includes removal of existing property lines interior to the Project site and creation of easements for the townhome buildings, private streets, and common areas. The townhome units would ultimately be sold as condominiums, and the condominium units will be created in the Project’s final map. The proposed vesting tentative map is shown on Figure 2-3.

The Project would be generally consistent with the MGSP Design Standards, such as orienting the ground floor residential unit entries towards publicly accessible pathways, achieving setbacks, and providing street trees. The only deviations are minor in nature and excepted from Design Standard requirements by waivers and concessions pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code Section 65915).

2.4.1 Building Design
The townhome buildings would be constructed with a height of approximately 38 feet to the top of the roof and 45 feet to the tallest architectural element. The townhomes would incorporate various rooflines, balconies, and projections to create visual interest, along with a mixture of window sizes, decorative trim, and roof overhangs. The proposed clubhouse, which would be located at the approximate center of the Project site, would serve as the community hub, providing space for gatherings and a management office.

2.4.2 Parking and Vehicle Access
The townhomes would be built with a “tuck-under” style and include a private, two car garage per unit. The private garages would be accessed via the site’s internal street network. A total of 328 parking spaces for residents and visitors would be provided through a combination of private garages and outdoor parking. Each private 2-car garage includes one Level 2 EV Ready stall and one Level 1 EV Ready stall. For outdoor guest parking, 25 percent of stalls would be EV charging stations with Level 2 infrastructure, and 75 percent would be Low Power Level 2 EV Ready. The Project has two points of access from the public right-of-way. The first is via a cul-de-sac to Valley Way on the eastern edge of the Project site, which would act as the main ingress/egress to the site. This frontage would contain three driveways on the cul-de-sac bulb and a public sidewalk, which would be rebuilt as part of the Project. The second point of access is via a short segment of Valley Way to the north of the Project site which would act solely as an emergency vehicle access point, outfitted with a new driveway and removable bollards. Non-emergency vehicle access to the Project site, such as residents and guests, would be provided from Valley Way at cu-de-sac and connect to internal private streets. A total of 134 long-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided in private garages for each unit. Additionally, 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces would be provided outdoors on site.

2.4.3 Landscaping
Along with demolition of the existing five buildings, the proposed Project would also demolish approximately 147,000 square feet of the existing parking lot. New private pedestrian walkways would be constructed within the new residential community, providing access to the proposed townhouses for future residents. A central open space spine

Project Description Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-4 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist would provide connectivity to the adjacent single-family neighborhood and nearby commercial areas. A variety of activities and lounging spaces would be connected to the central open spine by paths that extend to all of the townhomes and surrounding neighborhood. Activities and facilities would include picnic areas, recreation areas, a dog run, and lounging areas with seating. While the Project would remove 115 trees protected by City Municipal Code Title 5, Chapter 2, Section 7, and 16 smaller trees, shrubs, and other vegetation as part of site preparation, landscaping would involve the installation of 341 new trees and the preservation of 7 protected trees to increase the overall site canopy. At least 75 percent of the landscaping would be drought tolerant, native species. Materials for the landscaping areas would include color concrete walks, accent paving, stucco walls, and wood trellises.

2.4.4 Utility Infrastructure
The Project site contains an existing 8-inch public water main and an associated 15-foot waterline easement that traverses through the approximate middle of the Project site, generally between Valley Way and the residential neighborhood north of the Project site. The water main would be abandoned and capped in place, and the associated easement would be vacated. A new 8-inch water pipeline would be routed through the new private streets. Associated water branch lines feeding the buildings would also be installed. Public storm and sewer mains would also be installed within the private streets.

The Project is expected to require eight new transformers within the private streets. Electricity would be provided from existing Pacific Gas and Electric facilities in the Project area. The proposed Project would be entirely electric with no natural gas connections. Each of the townhomes would be constructed to easily accommodate photovoltaic solar panels.

The proposed Project would increase impervious surface area on the Project site by approximately 40,982 square feet over existing conditions. However, in compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Plan (SCVURPPP), the proposed Project would add new on-site stormwater treatment that would allow all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on the site to be treated prior to leaving the site and entering the public stormwater system. On-site treatment would be through bioretention areas and flow-through planters. Additionally, the Project would utilize other low-impact development methods, such as pervious pavers to allow precipitation to infiltrate the ground rather than becoming runoff.

Proposed water and sewer facilities would be constructed per City of Milpitas standards and dedicated to the City.

The on-site water mains, sewer mains, water service laterals (up to and including the water meters), and sewer laterals (up to and excluding the sewer cleanouts) would be maintained by the City. Fire service facilities would be public up to the back flow prevention device and maintained by the City. The fire service line beyond the back flow prevention device would be private. All other surface and sub surface facilities within the would be maintained by the homeowners association, such as on-site storm drain facilities.

Ascent Project Description
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 2-5 Source: Image produced and provided by Studio T Square in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2025.

Figure 2-2 Conceptual Site Plan

Ascent Project Description
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 2-7 Source: Image produced and provided by Studio T Square in 2025; adapted by Ascent in 2026.

Figure 2-3 Proposed Vesting Tentative Map

Ascent Project Description
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 2-9

2.5 CONSTRUCTION
Based on the preliminary grading design for the proposed Project, there would be no export or import of cut and fill materials, respectively. Grading would be balanced on-site. The maximum excavation depth for utility trenching would be approximately 11 feet below existing ground surface, which is required for connection to the existing sewer main. Grading for surface improvements, such as building pads, would not extend more than approximately 5 feet below existing grade.

Project construction would begin with demolition of existing buildings on the Project site. Demolition would require approximately two months. Project construction would require approximately 30 months. All off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower would meet Tier 4 emission standards of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

2.6 REQUIRED ACTIONS
The Project would require the following actions by the City.  Approval for the new Project planning entitlements under the MGSP.  Architectural (i.e., design) review and a tree removal permit for removal of protected trees.  Approval of the vesting tentative map and lot line adjustments that reconfigures APNs 222-80-25, 222-80-24, and 222-80-22 into a single lot.

Other anticipated permits, approvals, and actions by the City associated with the Project includes the following:
 Issuance of demolition permits for removal of existing buildings and parking lots and building permits for construction of the new Project.
 Issuance of encroachment permits and on- and off-site improvement plans reviewed by the Department of Public Works.
 Approval of the State Density Bonus request and compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Project Description Ascent
City of Milpitas
2-10 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist This page is intentionally left blank.

City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The purpose of this checklist is to evaluate the Project in terms of any “changed condition” (i.e., changed circumstances, Project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in environmental impact significance conclusions more severe from those found in the MGSP SEIR. The row titles of the checklist include the full range of environmental topics, as presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The column titles of the checklist have been modified from the Appendix G presentation to help answer the questions to be addressed pursuant to CEQA Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact because it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the MGSP SEIR. For instance, the environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist because the impacts associated with the Project were adequately addressed in the MGSP SEIR, and the environmental impact significance conclusions of the MGSP SEIR remain applicable. The purpose of each column of the checklist is described below.

Where Impact was Analyzed
This column provides a cross-reference to the pages of the MGSP SEIR where information and analysis may be found relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic.

Do Proposed Changes Involve New Significant Impacts?
The significance of the environmental impacts of the Project-specific features not considered in the MGSP and its SEIR, is indicated in the columns to the right of the environmental issues.

Any New Circumstances Involving New or Substantially More Severe Significant Impacts?
Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether there have been changes to the Project site or the vicinity (circumstances under which the Project is undertaken) that have occurred subsequent to the prior environmental documents, which would result in the current Project having new significant environmental impacts that were not considered in the prior environmental documents or having substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant impacts.

Any New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to Section 15162(a)(3)(A-D) of the CEQA Guidelines, this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the MGSP SEIR was certified as complete, requiring an update to the analysis of the SEIR to verify that the environmental conclusions and mitigation measures remain valid. If the new information shows that:
(A) the Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the SEIR; or (B) that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the SEIR; or (C) that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects or the Project, but the Project proponents decline to adopt the Mitigation Measure or alternative; or (D) that mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponents decline to adopt

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-2 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist the Mitigation Measure or alternative, the question would be answered “yes” requiring the preparation of a CEQA document. However, if the additional analysis completed as part of this Environmental Checklist Review finds that the conclusions of the prior environmental documents remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified significant environmental impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, the question would be answered “no” and no additional CEQA documentation would be required (i.e., Project is exempt from CEQA).

Do Prior Environmental Documents Mitigations Address/Resolve Impacts?
This column indicates whether the MGSP SEIR and adopted CEQA Findings provide mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. In some cases, the mitigation measures have already been implemented. A “yes” response will be provided in either instance. If “NA” is indicated, this Environmental Checklist Review concludes that there was no impact, or the impact was less-than-significant and, therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
Discussion
A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category to clarify the answers.

The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the Project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented.

Mitigation Measures
Applicable mitigation measures from the prior environmental review that would apply to the Project are listed under each environmental category. New mitigation measures are included, if needed.

Conclusions
A discussion of the conclusion relating to the need for additional environmental documentation is contained in each section.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-3

3.1 AESTHETICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Where Impact
was Analyzed in
the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve New
or Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures
in the SEIRAddress/
Resolve Impacts,
Including Impacts That
Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
I. Aesthetics.
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista?
Pages 3.1-5
and 3.1-6 of
Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?

of Draft
SEIR
No No N/A
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially
degrade the existing visual character
or quality of public views of the site
and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage points.) If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
Pages 3.1-6
and 3.1-7 of
Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?

of the Draft
SEIR
No No N/A

3.1.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to aesthetics, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As described in the SEIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics, implementation of the MGSP would increase the level and potential height of development within the MGSP Plan Area. However, long distance views of and through the MGSP Plan Area are largely precluded by existing development, landscaping, and no expansive areas of open space would be removed as a result of Project implementation. Impacts related to scenic vistas as a result of the MGSP would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is consistent with the development density and type envisioned for the Project site in the MGSP. The townhome buildings would be constructed with a height of approximately 45 feet to the tallest architectural element. This is within the building heights envisioned for the Project site in the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on scenic vistas. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-4 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As described in the SEIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics, there are no designated or eligible Caltrans Designated Scenic Highways within or near the MGSP Plan Area. Therefore, implementation of the MGSP would not damage scenic resources in the vicinity of a scenic highway. The proposed Project is in Milpitas, and therefore, consistent with the MGSP, would also have no impact to state scenic highway resources. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
As described in the SEIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics, implementation of the MGSP would result in the construction and operation of development within the MGSP Plan Area and could result in alteration of views, primarily due to potential development of high-rise residential structures. However, the development envisioned in the MGSP are subject to the MGSP Objective Design Standards, which are consistent with General Plan policies regarding urban design. Additionally, individual projects within the MGSP Plan Area are required to adhere to local zoning and land use requirements as well as the MGSP Objective Design Standards, including maintenance of existing views and implementation of screening measures (e.g., landscaping and other design features, primarily along the base of the structures). For these reasons, the SEIR determined the MGSP would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the GW-MU land use designation of the Project site. For example, the GW-MU designation permits multi-family dwelling buildings with a maximum heigh of 65 feet. The proposed Project consists of multi-family dwelling buildings with a maximum heigh of 45 feet. The proposed Project would also be generally consistent with the MGSP Objective Design Standards. For example, ground-floor residential entries would be oriented towards the publicly accessible pathways, consistent with MGSP Design Standard 3.7.3. Consistent with Objective Design Standard 4.2.2.B, the facades of the proposed buildings would provide variations in building modulation, articulation, and fenestration. Consistent with MGSP Design Standard 3.6.4, the Project would include appropriately sized and spaced landscaping. Impacts would be less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
As described in the SEIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics, the MGSP would increase nighttime lighting within the MGSP Plan Area as a result of new light sources attributed to proposed residential and mixed-use development. The development envisioned in the MGSP is subject to the Milpitas General Plan 2040 policies and City lighting standards in the Municipal Code (Section XI-10-45.15-3) that address lighting and glare. The SEIR determined that impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would include outdoor lighting. Lighting would meet the requirements of the City of Milpitas Municipal Code, as well as the policies in the General Plan 2040, which are described in SEIR Section 3.1, Aesthetics.

Additionally, consistent with MGSP Objective Design Standard 3.8.1, the proposed location and position of outdoor lights would prevent nuisance light, or spillover of obtrusive light. Consistent with MGSP Urban Design Standard

4.2.3.A, the proposed Project would utilize vinyl windows, which have low reflectivity and glare. Accordingly, consistent with the MGSP, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts related to light and glare.

There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-5

3.1.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant aesthetic impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.1.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to aesthetics.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-6 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Where Impact
was Analyzed in
the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve New
or Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in the
SEIR Address/ Resolve Impacts,
Including Impacts That Would
Otherwise be New or
Substantially More Severe?
II. Agriculture and Forest Resources.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997, as updated) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.

In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the Project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources
Agency, to non-agricultural use?

the Draft
SEIR
No No N/A
b) Conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract?

the Draft
SEIR
No No N/A
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or
cause rezoning of, forest land (as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?

the Draft
SEIR
No No N/A
d) Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to nonforest use?

the Draft
SEIR
No No N/A
e) Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in
conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

the Draft
SEIR
No No N/A

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-7

3.2.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to agriculture or forestry resources has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. These resources are not present within the Project site. a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed in Section 1.3.1 of the SEIR, the MGSP Plan Area is fully developed and no agricultural, forestry, or timber resources exist on or adjacent to the Plan Area. In addition, the Plan Area is not zoned for agricultural or forestry uses. For this reason, the SEIR determined that development envisioned in the MGSP would have no impact to agriculture or forestry resources. The proposed Project is in the Plan Area and consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would also have no impact to agriculture or forestry resources.

3.2.2 Mitigation Measures
No impacts, including significant impacts to agriculture or forestry resources were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no impacts on agriculture or forestry resources. No mitigation is required.

3.2.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. Agriculture and forestry resources do not occur in the Project site, consistent with conditions described for these resources in the SEIR. Therefore, consistent with the MGSP, the proposed Project would have no impacts to agriculture or forestry resources.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-8 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.3 AIR QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve New
or Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances Involve
New or Substantially
More Severe
Significant Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
III. Air Quality.

Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied on to make the following determinations.

Are significance criteria established by the applicable air district available to rely on for significance determinations? Would the Project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Pages 3.2-15
through 3.2-17
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable
net increase of any criteria pollutant
for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
Pages 3.2-15
through 3.2-17
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.3.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to air quality, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? As discussed in SEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, the MGSP would be consistent with the General Plan policies and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (now known as Bay Area Air District) 2017 Clean Air Plan because the development envisioned in the MGSP would increase service population and decrease vehicle miles traveled (VMT), thus it would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and General Plan policies. Impacts of the MGSP were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project is consistent with the development type and density envisioned in the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan and General Plan policies pertaining to air quality.

Consistent with the MGSP, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-9 b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
As discussed in SEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, construction of the development envisioned in the MGSP would result in short-term temporary increases in criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors as a result of off and on road vehicle exhaust and dust emissions associated with earthwork and vehicular travel. The SEIR states that while the MGSP envisions more development in the MGSP Plan Area than the General Plan (prior to adoption of the MGSP), construction equipment fleets would continue to become cleaner over time, preventing a substantial increase in exhaust emissions. Additionally, the MGSP is consistent with General Plan policies CON 1-1, 1-4 through 1-6, CON 1-8, 7-2 through 7-7 which all pertain to air quality construction impacts and require future land use development to incorporate and adhere to dust control measures in accordance with Bay Area Air District’s Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control during construction. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that construction of the development envisioned in the MGSP would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the development density and building massing envisioned in the MGSP. Therefore, construction of the proposed Project would not increase the intensity or duration of construction beyond what was reasonably assumed in the SEIR. Construction of the Project would include typical activities, such as grading, trenching, and excavation, which are assumed construction activities in the MGSP. Additionally, the during Project construction, all off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower would meet US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4 emission standards, exceeding current typical construction practice. The use of Tier 4 equipment would be consistent with the assumption from the SEIR stated in the prior paragraph above regarding cleaner equipment fleets into the future. Additionally, because the Project would be consistent with the MGSP, the Bay Area Air District’s Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control during construction would be implemented during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantially different construction emissions than discussed for the MGSP in the SEIR. The construction impacts of the proposed Project would therefore be less than significant, consistent with the impacts of the MGSP.

As discussed in SEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, operational emissions per service population would decrease or stay the same for each criteria pollutant as a result of the MGSP. The SEIR states that this is due to increased residential densities and decreased non-residential development that would exist in the MGSP Plan Area after build out of the MGSP, including a reduction in VMT and associated vehicle emissions. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that operation of the development envisioned in the MGSP would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment, and operational impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use and density envisioned for the Project site in the MGSP.

The Project would remove five existing buildings and redevelop the site with 134 dwelling units, consistent with the analysis of operational impacts in the SEIR. Additionally, as discussed in SEIR Section 3.11, Transportation, the VMT generated by residential development associated with the MGSP would be below the applied significance threshold, which represents a decrease in VMT compared to existing conditions in the region. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in substantially different operation emissions than discussed for the MGSP in the SEIR. The operational impacts of the proposed Project would therefore be less than significant, consistent with the impacts of the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to criteria pollutants than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? As discussed in SEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, the development envisioned in the MGSP would not add new or additional sources of toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions. The SEIR determines that impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. However, SEIR Section 3.2 states that if future individual projects in the GWSP Plan Area may result in exposure to TACs, these future projects would be required to implement mitigation measures to reduce the impact to a less than significant level, consistent with Bay Area Air District requirements.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-10 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist As discussed in Section 2, Project Description, of this environmental checklist, the during construction of the proposed Project, all off-road construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower would meet EPA Tier 4 emission standards. Using EPA Tier 4 construction equipment can reduce exposure to toxic air contaminants during construction by substantially lowering emissions of diesel particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOX), and other harmful pollutants (EPA 2004). Tier 4 engines are equipped with advanced emission control technologies (CAPCOA 2024). These advanced emission control technologies capture and neutralize fine particulates and gaseous pollutants before they are released into the air. As a result, construction activities generate cleaner exhaust, improving air quality on and near the site and reducing potential health risks of exposure to substantial concentrations of TACs for workers and nearby communities. Therefore, the use of Tier 4 equipment at the Project site would reduce exposure to TACs for both Project construction workers and for residents in the existing neighborhood adjacent to the north of the Project site. In operation, the proposed Project would result in residential land uses with no substantial sources of TACs. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, including TACs. Consistent with the MGSP, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to substantial pollutant concentrations and sensitive receptors than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
As discussed in SEIR Section 3.2, Air Quality, construction of the development envisioned in the MGSP would generate odors that some may find objectionable, such as emissions generated by heavy-duty diesel equipment and the laying of fresh asphalt during future anticipated construction activities. These odors were determined to be less than substantial because they would be intermittent and temporary and would dissipate rapidly from the source of the emission. The SEIR determines that operation of the development in the MGSP would not introduce new sources of odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people. For these reasons the MGSP SEIR determined that impacts related to odors would be less than significant.

Diesel exhaust odor comes primarily from gaseous pollutants produced during incomplete combustion, such as unburned hydrocarbons, aldehydes, sulfur compounds, and nitrogen oxides (Cernansky 1983). As discussed in checklist item “c)” above, Tier 4 equipment would be used during construction of the proposed, which would reduce gaseous pollutants in diesel emissions. This would reduce the potency of the odors in diesel emissions. Additionally, as described in the MGSP SEIR, construction emissions would be temporary and intermittent. Asphalt and diesel emissions would generally be associated with the earlier stages of construction, including demolition and site preparation work. Framing and architectural finishing would not require substantial use of diesel equipment or asphalt work. In operation, the Project would consist of residential uses, typical of uses adjacent to north of the site where receptors are located. Residential uses are not associated with emissions of odors affecting a substantial number of people. Therefore, consistent with the MGSP, the impacts of the Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to adverse odor than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR

3.3.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant air quality impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.3.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred, nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to air quality.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-11

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
IV. Biological Resources.

Would the Project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Pages 3.3-22
through 3.3-28 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Pages 3.3-28
through 3.3-29 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Pages 3.3-30
through 3.3-31 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
Pages 3.3-29
through 3.3-30 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
Pages 3.3-31
through 3.3-32 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-12 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.4.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to biological resources, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As described in the SEIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, implementation of the MGSP could result in the disturbance to several special-status plant species and special-status wildlife species if present in or near the project area. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for special-status species by requiring preconstruction surveys, implementation of mitigation measures identified by a qualified biologist, and training for contractors and sub-contractors to identify and avoid protected species and habitat. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project site is located on land identified as developed and non-native forest and does not contain any aquatic resources on the Project site. The SEIR identified nine special-status plants in the MGSP Area, however, these identified plant species are typically found in wetland habitats. As mentioned, the Project site does not contain any aquatic resources, thus the proposed Project would not create new significant or substantially more severe impacts on special-status plant species. However, nine special-status wildlife species located within the MGSP Area have the potential to occur on the Project site. The proposed Project includes the removal of existing trees and vegetation, ground disturbance, staging, or heavy equipment operation which may result in the direct loss of special-status species. However, the proposed Project would be required to adhere to General Action Plan CON-3b which would reduce impacts. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? As described in the SEIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, implementation of the MGSP could result in the degradation or loss of riparian habitat, other sensitive natural communities, or the reduction in the function of these habitats, if present. Adherence to General Plan Action CON-3b would provide protection for riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities by requiring protective barriers, reducing soil compaction, and providing preconstruction training for contractors and sub-contractors. Additional Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, CON 3-5, and Actions CON-3c through CON-3h form the General Plan would minimize impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project site is located on land identified as developed and non-native forest and does not contain any aquatic resources on the Project site. The Project is not located on any riparian habitat or any sensitive natural community. Thus, the proposed Project would have no impact, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
As described in SEIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, implementation of the MGSP may include ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and land development, which could result in adverse effects to water quality, or in fill or discharge into wetlands, Penitencia Creek, and Wrigley Ford Creek if present within or adjacent to the development.

However, implementation of existing federal, state, and local regulations and General Plan actions such as Policies CON 3-1, CON 3-2, CON 3-3, CON 3-5, and CON 3-7 and Actions CON-3c, CON-3d, CON-3f, and CON-3j of the

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-13 General Plan minimize impacts on aquatic habitat in the MGSP Plan Area and protect state and federally protected wetlands and waters. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

As mentioned above under b), the Project site is located on lands identified as developed and non-native forest and does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands or waters. Thus, the proposed Project would not have impacts to state or federally protected wetlands and waters, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
As discussed in Section 3.3.3 in Section 3.2, Biological Resources of the SEIR, the MGSP Plan Area does not contain any portion of a modeled Essential Connectivity Area or natural landscape block. The MGSP Plan Area contains little natural habitat and is surrounded by urban development that limits wildlife movement within the region surrounding the Plan Area. Furthermore, the MGSP Plan Area is adjacent to I-880 to the west and I-680 is to the east, which are a significant barrier to wildlife movement in the project area. For this reason, the SEIR determined that wildlife movement corridors would not be discussed further in the SEIR.

As described in the SEIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, implementation of the MGSP would result in the construction of new buildings or infrastructure that could adversely affect potential bat roosting sites. However, future development would adhere to policies and actions in the General Plan Update, which would minimize impacts on bat roosts by preventing removal of large, mature trees, as well as the MGSP Objective Design Standards, which ensures that a minimum of 20 percent of open space area shall be planted with native trees. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is in the Plan Area and consistent with the MGSP and would not have effects on any wildlife movement corridors. However, the proposed Project would result in the demolition of five non-residential buildings and the removal of existing trees, which may affect bat roosts. However, the proposed Project would comply with MGSP Design Standard 4.3.4.A by providing street trees. Additionally, the existing buildings that would be demolished are occupied and not dilapidated or in disrepair, minimizing their suitability for bat roosts. Accordingly, consistent with the MGSP, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts to native wildlife nursery sites, as trees would provide potential bat roosting habitat. Thus, the proposed Project would not have significant impacts to wildlife corridors or wildlife nursey sites and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As described in the SEIR Section 3.3, Biological Resources, implementation of the MGSP could result in the removal of trees, which would conflict with the City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations. Future development would comply with MGSP Objective Design Standards related to removal of trees, and the measures outlined in the General Plan Update, therefore, they will inherently comply with local ordinance codes and policies, including City of Milpitas Tree Protection Regulations. Thus, the SEIR determined that impact would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in the demolition of existing non-residential buildings and construction of 24 new townhome buildings, which may result in the removal of existing trees. However, the Project would be generally consistent with the MGSP Design Standards, including MGSP Design Standard 4.3.4.A which requires street trees to be included with landscape design. While the Project would remove approximately 115 trees protected by the City’s Tree Protection and Heritage Tree Program, as well as 16 smaller trees, shrubs, and other vegetation, landscaping associated with the Project would involve the installation of 341 new trees and the preservation of 7 protected trees.

Per the City’s Tree Protection and Heritage Program, permits for removal of these trees would be required as well as a replacement tree planting ratio of 2:1. Through compliance of the Tree Protection and Heritage Program and installation of 341 new trees to replace the 131 proposed to be removed, the Project would not conflict any local

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-14 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Accordingly, consistent with the MGSP, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact. Thus, the proposed Project would not have significant impacts to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
As described in Section 3.3.3 in Section 3.3, Biological Resources of the SEIR, the MGSP Plan Area is within the Expanded Study Area for burrowing owl conservation in the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (SCVHP) (County of Santa Clara et al. 2012). The geographical area of the primary SCVHP Study Area was determined inefficient to adequately mitigate and contribute to the recovery of western burrowing owl, thus areas outside of the primary SCVHP Study Area, which includes the City of Milpitas, were included to help meet the goals of the SCVHP. However, projects or actions initiated by other jurisdictions not listed as Permittees in the SCVHP are excluded from this coverage. Because the City of Milpitas is not listed as a Permittee under the SCVHP, the MGSP Plan Area would include conservation measures for western burrowing owls consistent with the SCVHP’s conservation strategies for this species. Therefore, it was determined in the SEIR that this issue would not be evaluated further. The proposed Project is in the Plan Area and would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would also have no impacts on conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan.

3.4.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant biological resources impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required beyond measures pursuant to the MGSP SEIR.

3.4.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to biological resources.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-15

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
V. Cultural Resources.

Would the Project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of a historical
resource pursuant to Section
15064.5?
Pages 3.4-16
through 3.4-17 of
the Draft SEIR
No No Yes
b) Cause a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
Pages 3.4-17
through 3.4-19 of
the Draft SEIR
No No Yes
c) Substantially disturb human remains,
including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?

Draft SEIR
No No Yes

3.5.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to cultural resources, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
As described in SEIR Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, implementation of the MGSP could result in demolition of historical resources through the increase in density for development. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a and 3.4-1b would reduce potentially significant impacts on historic resources because actions would be taken to evaluate historic age buildings and record those that are determined to be historical resources under CEQA. However, because the potential for permanent loss of a historic resource or its integrity cannot be precluded, the SEIR determined that impacts on historical resources would be significant and unavoidable.

Based on past aerial photographs, several of the existing buildings on the Project site date to at least 50 years in age.

Fifty years is generally when buildings can be considered for historic eligibility. The Project would involve demolition of these existing buildings, which may result in the loss of a historic resource if applicable to one or more of the existing buildings. However, a historical report was prepared for the proposed Project which concluded that the existing buildings located on the Project site are not considered to be a historical resource (see Appendix A). Thus, the proposed Project would have no impact on historical resources, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
As described in SEIR Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, implementation of the MGSP could result in discovery or damage of yet undiscovered archaeological resources. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measures 3.4- 2a, 3.4-2b, 3.4-2c, 3.4-2d, and 3.4-2e would reduce potentially significant impacts on archaeological resources

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-16 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist because workers awareness training would be required and monitoring within 100 feet from known resources.

However, some archaeological resources may not be avoided during future projects. Therefore, the SEIR determined that impacts on archaeological resources would be significant and unavoidable.

While the proposed Project is located on previously disturbed and developed land, the proposed Project would require subsurface construction work, such as grading, trenching, and excavation, which may result in the loss of an archaeological resource. One precontact archaeological site is known to be located within 100 feet of the Project site.

Therefore, the proposed Project would comply with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-2a through 3.4-2e, as described in the MGSP SEIR, to reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources. Due to the known resource and general sensitivity of the area, some archaeological resources may not be able to be fully avoided. Thus, impacts would be significant and unavoidable, consistent with the MGSP, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. c) Substantially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
As described in SEIR Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, implementation of the MGSP could result in the disturbance of human remains, as un-marked, previously unknown human remains are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the MGSP Area. However, future development would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097, which would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. Therefore, the SEIR determined that impacts on human remains would be less than significant.

As mentioned above under a) and b), the Project is located on previously disturbed and developed land and would result in activities that may uncover unmarked, previously unknown human remains. Human remains are known to be located within the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The proposed Project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097 which would require that if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the County coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American origin or affiliation, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified within 24 hours and the guidelines of the Native American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Accordingly, consistent with the MGSP, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts to human remains.

3.5.2 Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measures were identified in the MGSP SEIR and would continue to remain applicable if the Project were approved.

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

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b: Identify and Protect Unknown Archaeological Resources During project-specific environmental review of development under the Specific Plan for any projects that include ground disturbance, the project applicant shall hire a qualified archaeologist to determine the potential for the project to result in significant impacts. At a minimum, the effort shall include the following steps:

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-17

1. Records search – The qualified archaeologist shall request a record’s search of the entire project area plus a onehalf mile buffer from the Northwest Information Center at Sonoma State University.

2. Surface survey exposed soil – The qualified archaeologist shall complete a pedestrian survey of any exposed soils on the project site.

3. Reporting – The qualified archaeologist shall complete a report/memo that summarizes the results of the record search and pedestrian survey as well as provides recommendations for additional study and/or mitigation measures to protect and/or reduce significant impacts to archaeological resources, as needed. If indigenous materials are identified, the associated tribe(s) will be contacted by the City and will be given the opportunity to review the report and provide input for consideration.

4. Preservation in place – The project applicant shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to consider means of avoiding or reducing ground disturbance within the archaeological site boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape modification, the placement of protective fill (capping), the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that will avoid or substantially preserve the resource in place. If avoidance or substantial preservation in place is not possible, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-2(e).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c: Identify and Protect Known Unique Archaeological Resources During project-specific environmental review of development under the Specific Plan for any projects that include ground disturbance, the project applicant shall define each project’s area of effect for archaeological resources. The project applicant shall determine the potential for the project to result in cultural resources impacts, based on the extent of ground disturbance and site modification anticipated for the project. The project applicant shall implement the following steps where it has been determined under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2b(iv) that avoidance or preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City, and Native American tribe(s) as applicable, shall:

1. Retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a subsurface investigation of the archaeological site, to ascertain whether buried archaeological materials are present and, if so, the extent of the deposit relative to the project’s area of effects. The project applicant shall be responsible for facilitating access to the archaeological site if it is paved at the moment of testing. If an archaeological deposit is discovered, the archaeologist shall prepare a site record and a written report of the results of investigations and filed with the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. The archaeological resource shall be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist, who shall determine whether it qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

2. If the resource does not meet the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, then it shall be noted in the environmental document and no further mitigation is required unless there is a discovery during construction. In the event of a discovery Mitigation Measure 3.4-2e below shall be implemented. However, the archaeological resource may be identified as a tribal cultural resource regardless even if it is determined that it is not a unique archaeological resource (See Mitigation Measures 3.4-3b and 3.4-3c below for further information).

3. If archaeological material within the project’s area of effects is determined to qualify as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource (as defined by CEQA), the project applicant shall consult with the qualified archaeologist to prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the recovery that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant and implement the data recovery plan prior to or during development of the site. The archaeologist shall prepare a written report of the results of the data recovery and filed with the appropriate Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System.

4. If, in the opinion of the qualified archaeologist and tribe(s) as applicable and in light of the data available, the significance of the site is such that data recovery cannot capture the values of the resource, the project applicant shall reconsider project plans in light of the high value of the resource, and implement more substantial modifications to the project that would allow the site to be preserved intact, such as project redesign, placement

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-18 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist of fill, or project relocation or abandonment. If no such measures are feasible, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4 2d.

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

Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered archaeological resource. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant.

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

3.5.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP, including MGSP SEIR mitigation measures. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to cultural resources.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-19

3.6 ENERGY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
VI. Energy.

Would the Project:
a) Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources,
during project construction or
operation?
Pages 3.5-8
through 3.5-11 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or
local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Pages 3.5-11
through 3.5-12 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.6.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to energy, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.5, Energy, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
As discussed in SEIR 3.5, Energy, implementation of the MGSP would be consistent with relevant federal, state, and local regulations and would not result in any significant adverse impacts related to project energy requirements, energy use inefficiencies, and/or the energy intensiveness of materials by amount and fuel type for during buildout of the MGSP, including during construction, operations, maintenance, and/or removal. Thus, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with the same relevant federal, state, and local regulations, including General Plan policies CD 11-2, CD 11-5, CD 11-11, CON 1-1 through CON 1-6, CON 1-9, and CON 7-13, which pertain to the use of building materials that conserve energy and material resources, the encouragement of alternative energy, fuel-efficient vehicles and equipment, and site planning and building techniques that promote energy conservation, renewable energy sources, building best management practices, energy efficiency practices and materials, and the promotion of green energy initiatives. For example, each residential building would be “photovoltaic ready,” which means the buildings would easily accommodate a future solar panel array on the rooftops. Additionally, of the 328 the parking spaces proposed, approximately 285 of these spaces would be either designated for electric vehicles or have electric vehicle charging equipment. The Project would also include bicycle parking to encourage active transportation modes instead of vehicle use, reducing the consumption of fuel. Through compliance with the relevant energy related regulations, the proposed Project would be required to implement energy efficient measures and would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Thus, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-20 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
As discussed in SEIR 3.5, Energy, implementation of the MGSP would be required to comply with General Plan policies, the Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update (CAP) (City of Milpitas 2022), and Appendix D of the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022) to expand renewable energy and energy efficiency in the MGSP Area. Thus, because the MGSP would be consistent with each of these documents, the MGSP would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and this impact was determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project is within the MGSP Area and would comply with the General Plan policies, CD 11-2, 11-5, 11-11, CON 1-1 through 1-6, 1-9, 7-13, UCS 1-3 and 6-1. Additionally, as shown in Appendix B the proposed Project would be consistent with measures in the Milpitas CAP, including measures BE-1.1 through 1.3 and BE-2.1 through 2.4, which pertain to the City achieving 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030, facilitating innovative approaches to energy generation distribution and storage, strengthening community awareness of energy efficiency, conservation, electrification, and clean energy, adopting updated “reach” building codes to accelerate all-electric new development.

For example, the Project would not include natural gas and instead would be all electric, consistent with the CAP measure to accelerate all-electric development. The Project would also be consistent with Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan. Consistent with the MGSP, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.6.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant energy impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.6.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to energy.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-21

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
VII. Geology and Soils.

Would the Project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

Draft SEIR No No N/A
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? (Refer to California Geological
Survey Special Publication 42.)
⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯
iv) Landslides? ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994, as updated), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life
or property?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or
unique geologic feature?

the Draft SEIR
⎯ ⎯ ⎯

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-22 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.7.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to geology and soils resources has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides?
As discussed in Section 1.3.2 of the SEIR, there are known active faults located in the region of the MGSP Area.

Additionally, an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, the Hayward Fault Zone, traverses the city, east of the MGSP Area. All projects would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), the General Plan, and other regulations to reduce potential geologic hazards, at-risk buildings and infrastructure is evaluated for potential risks, and site-specific studies are completed for area subject to liquefaction. The SEIR determined that new development would not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards, because limited ground disturbance would not alter seismic and fault conditions in the region. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils were determined to be less than significant in the SEIR, and this impact was not discussed further.

As mentioned, the Hayward Fault Zone traverses the City of Milpitas, and is located approximately 2 miles northeast of the proposed Project site (DOC 2025). However, the Project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the probability of ground surface rupture is considered to be very low. A geotechnical report was prepared for the Project, which identified the Calaveras and Mount Diablo Thrust faults as other major active faults in the area of the Project site. While ground shaking from earthquakes on other faults in the region would be felt in the region, including at the Project site, the seismicity of the site is governed by the activity of the Hayward Fault. Due to the location of the Project site within a seismically active region, the geotechnical report determined that strong ground shaking could occur at the Project site. Additionally, the Project is located within a liquefaction zone (DOC 2024).

However, the environmental impact analyses under CEQA generally are not required to analyze the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project’s future users or residents unless the proposed project might cause or risk exacerbating environmental hazards or conditions that already exist (State CEQA Guidelines, section 15126.2(a)). In those specific instances, it is the project’s impact on the environment and not the environment’s impact on the project that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users may be affected by exacerbated conditions (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [2015] 62 Cal.4th 369). The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and therefore not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards.

The Project’s geotechnical report provides recommendations on building design and construction to reduce existing seismic-related risks at the site and in the larger region, such as liquefaction and strong seismic shaking during earthquakes. The geotechnical report anticipates that the foundation level of the proposed buildings would be supported by stiffened shallow foundations underlain be relatively dense/stiff soil that has moderate strength and relatively low compressibility which would reduce potential liquefaction impacts. The geotechnical report also identified that the proposed Project is not located within an earthquake-induced landslide zone. Ultimately the geotechnical report concluded that the site could be developed as planned, provided the recommendations provided in the report are incorporated into Project plans and specifications and implemented during construction (Rockridge Geotechnical 2025).

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-23 The proposed Project is compliant with CBSC as a geotechnical report and investigation was prepared for the Project.

The Project would be required to comply with additional CBSC requirements such as engineered improvements to address potential seismic and ground failure issues and the use of earthquake-resistant construction techniques to address potential earthquake loads when constructing the proposed buildings and improvements. The proposed Project would comply with General Plan policies and actions to reduce potential impacts. Because the Project would not exacerbate seismic-related risks, and would be constructed compliant with the CBSC, as well as incorporate the recommendations listed in the geotechnical report prepared for the Project site, impacts would be less than significant and consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? As discussed in Section 1.3.4 of the SEIR, new development would be required to comply with all existing regulatory requirements associated that manage water quality. These requirements would include new development to obtain approval from the regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs)for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, other discharge permits, water quality management plans (WQMPs), a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and to implement best management practices (BMPs). Through mandatory compliance with all existing regulatory requirements, the SEIR determined that impacts to water quality and erosion would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is located on predeveloped and disturbed land, and would result in demolition, grading, and excavation construction activities. These activities would remove vegetation and impervious surfaces and loosen underlying soils, increasing the potential for soil erosion. However, because the Project site exceeds 1 acre, the Project must implement a SWPPP. A SWPPP must include BMPs to prevent soil erosion and loss. Examples of typical BMPs which could be implemented include silt fencing, straw bales, covering existing storm drains during construction, and covering soil stockpiles. The site would be stabilized with landscaping or impervious surfaces (i.e., circulation roads, buildings) during operation, which would prevent erosion of the underlying soils. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that new development would not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards, because limited ground disturbance would not alter seismic and fault conditions in the region. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is not located within a landslide zone and would not involve grading that create steep slopes or substantial elevation changes. However, the proposed Project is located within a liquefaction zone. As mentioned under a), the geotechnical report prepared for the Project, indicated that there are interbedded layers of medium dense sand below a depth of 4 feet below ground surface that are susceptible to liquefaction during a major earthquake at the Project site. The geotechnical report anticipates that the foundation level of the proposed buildings would be supported by stiffened shallow foundations underlain be relatively dense/stiff soil that has moderate strength and relatively low compressibility, which would reduce potential liquefaction impacts. The geotechnical report also concluded that the risk of lateral spreading is very low for the proposed Project, as the potentially liquefiable layers underneath the Project site are not continuous. Ultimately the geotechnical report concluded that the site could be developed as planned, provided the recommendations provided in the report are incorporated into Project plans and specifications and implemented during construction (Rockridge Geotechnical 2025). Through compliance with all CBSC requirements, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code, the proposed Project would ensure that potential geologic hazards are addressed. and the Project would not result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. This impact would be considered less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-24 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

See analyses under item a) and c) above. The proposed Project would be required to be consistent with all CBSC requirements, the General Plan, and the Municipal Code. This impact would be considered less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that new development would not create new seismic events or exacerbate existing seismic hazards, because limited ground disturbance would not alter seismic and fault conditions in the region. Therefore, impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would use the City’s existing wastewater conveyance and treatment systems. Septic systems would not be required and therefore no impact pertaining to alterative wastewater disposal would occur. The proposed Project would result in no impact. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The SEIR does not address impacts related to unique paleontological resources or geologic feature. However, as mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that impacts related to geology and soils would be less than significant.

As described above under Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources”, the proposed Project would be compliant with PRC Section 5097, which states that no personal shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Additionally, the proposed Project would comply with Action CON-4b of the City’s General Plan, which requires that all construction or grading activity within 100 feet of the discovery of unique paleontological resources shall cease, the Planning Department shall be notified, and the resource shall be examined by a qualified paleontologist for appropriate protection and preservation measures. Through compliance with PRC Section 5097 and General Plan Action CON-4b, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. The proposed Project would also be compliant with all applicable regulations and policies related to geologic units. Thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with the SEIR and impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.7.2 Mitigation Measures
No impacts, including significant impacts to geology and soils were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.7.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to geology and soils.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-25

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Would the Project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment?
Pages 3.6-9
through 3.6-11 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Pages 3.6-11
through 3.6-12
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.8.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025.
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
As described in SEIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, implementation of the MGSP would include activities that emit GHG emissions over the short and long term. Short-term generation of GHG emissions would occur during construction from construction equipment and worker and haul trips to and from the MGSP Area during construction, and long-term generation of GHG emissions would occur from vehicle trips throughout the Plan Area and the use of on-site natural gas and electric to power residential uses. However, the MGSP would align with policies in the Milpitas CAP (City of Milpitas 2022) and General Plan policies to decrease this impact. Short-term impacts would be consistent with Milpitas CAP Measure OT-1.2 and General Plan Policy CON 7-13, which reduce construction-related emissions by requiring projects to reduce idling of construction vehicles and equipment, prohibit the use of fossil fuel-powered generators at construction sites, and require construction projects to use renewable diesel in diesel-powered construction equipment. Compared to build out of the General Plan, the long-term GHG emissions from VMT would be reduced from implementation of the MGSP. This is because the MGSP would lead to higher density, shorter commutes, and less VMT per service population. Additionally, future development would utilize green or low-carbon building materials when feasible and recycled or reclaimed materials that can reduce emissions associated with manufacturing new building material. While the MGSP would increase population, VMT would be reduced and overall GHG emissions would be decreased as well. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that MGSP impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in of the types of GHG emissions described in the MGSP SEIR, such as from construction and operational activities. The proposed development density would be consistent with the MGSP, and therefore the construction-related GHG emissions of the Project would be within the GHG emissions estimated for the MGSP. Additionally, the Project would comply with Milpitas CAP Measure OT-1.2 and General Plan Policy CON 7-13, which would reduce short-term GHG emissions from construction of the proposed Project. The new residential development would contribute to an increase in population in the MGSP Area, which would result in corresponding

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-26 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist long-term GHG emissions. However, the Project would be consistent with the residential use and density envisioned in the MGSP, and therefore not increase the estimated GHG emissions of the MGSP, as presented in the MGSP SEIR.

Additionally, per the SEIR, because the Project would be residential, the Project would decrease VMT, which would reduce mobile-source GHG emissions and be consistent with CAP Measure TR-1.1. The Project would also be consistent with other measures in the Milpitas CAP, such as Measure BE-2.1, because the proposed buildings would not have natural gas connections and instead be electric. The Milpitas CAP consistency checklist for the Project is provided as Appendix B. Through compliance with General Plan policies and Milpitas CAP measures, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact, consistent with the impacts of the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to GHG emissions than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
As described in SEIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, implementation of the MGSP would be consistent and implement all applicable CAP GHG reduction strategies. As mentioned in Impact 3.6-1, the MGSP would reduce VMT and operational-generated GHG emissions, being consistent with the Milpitas 2022 CAP. While the MGSP would reduce VMT throughout the MGSP Area, Mitigation Measures 3.11-2 through 3.11-2f, as discussed in SEIR Section 3.11, Transportation, to further reduce VMT per employee, further reducing VMT and aligning with the Plan Bay Area 2050 goals and themes. The SEIR determined that the MGSP would align with the local GHG reduction strategies and plans and would have a less than significant impact.

As mentioned above under a), the proposed Project would result in short term and long term GHG emissions but would ultimately comply with General Plan policies and the Milpitas CAP to reduce overall GHG emissions. A Milpitas CAP consistency checklist was prepared for the Project and is provided as Appendix B. Through the reduction of VMT, all-electric buildings, electric vehicle charging, and consistency with other measures of the Milpitas CAP, the proposed Project would align with GHG reduction strategies and plans, including the California Air Resources Board’s 2022 Scoping Plan (CARB 2022) resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.8.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant GHG emission impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.8.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to GHG emissions.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-27

3.9 HAZARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.

Would the Project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and/or accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Be located on a site which is included on
a list of hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
e) For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the project area?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
f) Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
g) Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving
wildland fires?
Pages 1-3
through 1-4 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-28 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.9.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to hazards and hazardous materials has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
As discussed in Section 1.3.3 of the SEIR, the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated and monitored by local fire departments, Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPA), the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) consistent with the requirements of Federal, State, and local regulations and policies. All future projects under the MGSP would be required to comply with the provisions of Federal, State, and local requirements related to hazardous materials.

Additionally, the General Plan includes policies and actions that would ensure that potential hazards are identified on a project site and that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures. Therefore, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant, and this impact was not discussed further.

The proposed Project would result in construction, demolition, and landscaping activities that would require the transport, use, and disposal of various building materials, including some hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, fuels, demolition materials, asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides.) The transport, use, and disposal of such materials could pose a potential hazard to the public and the environment if not properly transported, used, stored, and disposed. However, the MGSP SEIR determined that hazardous materials that may be associated with future development or redevelopment under the MGSP, including the proposed Project, would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations during construction and operation. Additionally, the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would be regulated and monitored by the Milpitas Fire Department (MFD), CUPA, DOSH, and DTSC. The proposed Project would be consistent with the land use type and density envisioned for the site in the MGSP, and would not require unusual quantities or types of hazardous materials compared to what was assumed in the SEIR. With mandatory compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that through compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements and regulations related to hazardous materials, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant.

As described above under a), the Project would include construction, demolition, and landscaping activities that could result in the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was prepared for the proposed Project which did not identify any recognized environmental conditions. However, the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment noted that existing older buildings constructed in the late 1970s could contain lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials. During demolition, these materials could become mobilized as dust, potentially exposing construction workers and other people nearby. However, the proposed Project would be mandated to comply with existing regulations regarding these materials, such as California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 8, which would prevent exposure to lead and asbestos. Additionally, the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would be regulated and monitored by the MFD, CUPA, DOSH, and DTSC. As stated in the MGSP SEIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures to respond in the event of an accidental release of a hazardous substance. With mandatory compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-29 would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that through compliance with all Federal, State, and local requirements and regulations related to hazardous materials, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant.

The nearest school to the proposed Project site is located approximately 0.07 miles northeast of the Project site, within the surrounding adjacent neighborhoods. However, as stated above under a) and b), the use, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials would be regulated and monitored by the MFD, CUPA, DOSH, and DTSC, and the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations regarding hazardous materials. As stated in the MGSP SEIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures to respond int the event of an accidental release of a hazardous substance. With continued compliance with all federal, state, and local regulations related to hazardous materials, this impact would remain less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that through compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements and regulations related to hazardous materials, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project is not located on a known hazardous materials release site. While the proposed Project is not located on a known hazardous materials release site, there are three active sites located approximately 0.5 mile southeast, 0.5 mile southeast, and 0.5 miles northeast of the Project site (SWRCB 2025, DTSC 2025). Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to listed hazardous materials sites. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
The nearest airport, the San Jose Mineta International Airport, is not located within the MGSP and is located approximately 3.8 miles southwest of the proposed Project site. The MGSP Area is outside the San Jose Mineta International Airport’s influence area and safety zones, and there are no private airstrips near the MGSP Area. For this reason, impacts related to airport or private airfield safety were not discussed in the MGSP SEIR. No new airports have been developed near the Project area. Thus, the Project would have no impact. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
As mentioned above under a), the SEIR determined that through compliance with all federal, state, and local requirements and regulations related to hazardous materials, impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials were determined to be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations during construction and operation to reduce the potential risk of accidental release of hazardous materials, which could

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-30 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist trigger an emergency response. Additionally, hazardous materials would be regulated and monitored by the MFD, CUPA, DOSH, and DTSC. As stated in the MGSP SEIR, the General Plan includes policies and actions to ensure that the City has adequate emergency response plans and measures to respond int the event of an accidental release of a hazardous substance. The Project site is at the end of a cul-de-sac, which is not a through street or part of an emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the Project would not impair the implementation of emergency plans, and this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to emergency plans than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As discussed in Section 1.3.6 of the SEIR, the MGSP is surrounded by urban uses and is less prone to wildfire. The City of Milpitas, including the MGSP Area, is located within a local responsibility area, served by MFD. The City of Milpitas is not categorized as a “Very High” fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). There are additionally, no State Responsibility areas within the city limits, however areas east of the city are designated as “high” FHSZ by CAL FIRE. New construction associated with the MGSP is subject to the City Municipal Code and California Fire Code which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Consistent with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, because the MGSP is not located within a “high” or “Very High” FHSZ, the MGSP would have no impact related to wildfire risk. The proposed Project is in the Plan Area and is consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would also have no impact to wildfire.

3.9.2 Mitigation Measures
No impacts, including significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.9.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-31

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
X. Hydrology and Water Quality.

Would the Project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or groundwater quality?
Pages 1-4
through 1-5 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Pages 1-4
through 1-5 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition
of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:

Pages 1-4
through 1-5 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite
erosion or siltation;
   
ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
   
iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
   
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?    
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
Pages 1-4
through 1-5 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Pages 1-4
through 1-5 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-32 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.10.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to hydrology and water quality has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
As discussed in Section 1.3.4 of the SEIR, existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality, and implement the WQMP for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan) (San Francisco Bay RWQCB 2024) include requirements to obtain approval from the RWQCBs for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, WQMPs, SWPPPs, and to implement BMPs. Compliance with these regulatory requirements are intended to ensure that water quality does not degrade to levels that would violate water quality standards. Through mandatory compliance with these regulatory requirements, the SEIR determined that impacts to water quality, and overall hydrology and water quality impacts, would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all existing regulatory requirements that manage water quality and implement the Basin Plan, which would require the Project to obtain approval from the regional water quality control boards for NPDES permits, other discharge permits, and SWPPP, including BMPs. These BMPs would prevent soil erosion and siltation of surface waters during construction. Additionally, in compliance with the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on the site would be treated prior to leaving the site and entering the public stormwater system. Through compliance with applicable regulations, the proposed Project would not violate water quality standards, resulting in a less than significant impact, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
As discussed in Section 1.3.4 of the SEIR, implementation of the MGSP would result in new impervious surfaces which could reduce groundwater recharge. However, the MGSP Area is largely developed with urban uses and all new development would be subject to stormwater quality requirements and implementation of Low Impact Development (LID) measures to reduce impervious surfaces and promote the use of infiltration in drainage improvements.

Additionally, implementation of the MGSP would not appreciably add to the volume of impervious surfaces when compared to the overall size of the regional groundwater basin recharge area. Through compliance with stormwater quality requirements and LID measures, the SEIR determined that this impact would be less than significant, and this impact was not discussed further in the SEIR.

The proposed Project would result in approximately 306,942 square feet of impervious surfaces, which would be an increase of approximately 40,982 square feet compared with existing conditions. However, the proposed Project would utilize LID methods, such as pervious pavers to allow precipitation to infiltrate the ground rather than becoming runoff. Additionally, the Project would comply with SCVURPPP, all stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces on the site would be treated prior to leaving the site and entering the public stormwater system. The proposed Project would also not appreciably add to the volume of impervious surfaces when compared to the overall size of the regional groundwater basin recharge area, and a portion of the site is currently impervious surface. Thus, through compliance with LID measures, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to hazardous materials than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-33 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
As discussed in Section 1.3.4 of the SEIR, implementation of the MGSP would contain standards to reduce impacts associated with flooding, and comply with regulations stipulated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), as well as require new development within a FEMAdesignated flood hazard zone to follow the City’s construction standards for such areas as laid out in the Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-15 (Floodplain Management Regulations). The MGSP contains standards to reduce impacts associated with stormwater and drainage, including standards to provide storm drain infrastructure that is designated to serve new development and meet city standards, construct the improvements within the MGSP Area that were identified in the 2021 Storm Drainage Master Plan, and upgrade and expand the storm drain system in accordance with the Storm Drain Master Plan. Through compliance with existing standards, the SEIR determined that this impact would be less than significant, and this impact was not discussed further in the SEIR.

As discussed above in item a), the proposed Project requires development and implementation of the SWPPP. The SWPPP includes BMPs that prevent soil erosion, which in turn reduced the potential for siltation. With mandatory implementation of the SWPPP for the Project site, the proposed Project would not result in substantial erosion or siltation. Additionally, the proposed Project would introduce onsite stormwater treatment through bioretention areas and flow-through planters, as well as other LID methods such as pervious pavers, which are not currently present at the Project site. The stormwater treatment would improve water quality for the Project site compared to existing conditions, as stormwater runoff would be treated on-site prior to discharging into the public stormwater system.

A 100-year floodplain analysis was completed for the proposed Project and stated that the proposed Project is located in a FEMA special flood hazard area AE, indicating a 100-year base flood elevation of between 18 and 19 feet across the site. However, the floodplain analysis determined that 100-year floodwater would not reach the Project site, but FEMA has suspended changes to flood maps (see Appendix C). Regardless, the City of Milpitas Municipal Code requires that residential finish floor elevations be 1 foot above the base flood elevation within an AE zone.

Based on the preliminary grading plan for the Project, the finish floor elevations of the proposed buildings would be no less than 1 foot above the base flood elevation. Because the floodplain analysis determined that 100-year flood events would not reach the Project site, the Project would not impede or redirect flood flows.

The proposed Project would also be required to comply with the Municipal Code’s Floodplain Management Regulations, which contain standards to reduce impacts associated with stormwater and drainage. A technical memo was prepared for the proposed Project that provided a preliminary estimate of the anticipated sewer and waterflow, including hydrology/hydraulic analysis for the storm drain system (see Appendix C). The technical memo concluded that the proposed Project would not increase storm water runoff flow and would not impact the existing storm drain infrastructure that is located within the Project site. Through compliance with existing standards, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related siltation and flooding than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-34 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As discussed in Section 1.3.4 of the SEIR, the MGSP contains standards to reduce impacts associated with flooding including standards to minimize damage associated with flooding events and comply with regulations stipulated by FEMA and the NFIP and require that new development within a FEMA-designated flood hazard zone to follow the City’s construction standards for such areas as laid out in the Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-15 (Floodplain Management Regulations). The City is a participant in the NFIP, which provides property owners and renters with federally backed flood insurance, reduces flood damage through a mandatory local floodplain management ordinance, and identifies and maps flood hazards. The NFIP requires the City to maintain a flood management ordinance based upon current FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps, which is met through the implementation of Floodplain Management Regulations specified in Section XI Chapter 15 of the Milpitas Municipal Code. Through compliance with the Federal, State, and existing regulations, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant, and this impact was not discussed further.

As mentioned above under c), a 100-year floodplain analysis was completed for the proposed Project, which stated that the proposed Project is located in a FEMA special flood hazard area AE (see Appendix C). The floodplain analysis indicates that floodwaters would not reach the Project site during a 100-year flood event, thereby reducing the potential for inundation. Additionally, the Project is residential and would not involve the onsite storage of large quantities of hazardous materials that could be released from inundation. Therefore, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to release of hazardous materials from inundation than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed in Section 1.3.4 of the SEIR, the MGSP would be compliant with all mandatory federal and state regulations, existing City standards and regulations for the SCVURPPP, the City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan (City of Milpitas 2021), General Plan policies, and the Milpitas Municipal Code requirements. Through compliance, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant, and this impact was not discussed further.

The proposed Project would be required to be compliance with all mandatory federal, state, and local regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Act, Milpitas Municipal Code, and standards and regulations from the SCVURPPP. Through mandatory compliance with these regulations, and given the residential use of the proposed Project, the Project would not obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan, which is the applicant water quality control plan. Accordingly, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to obstructing water quality and management plans than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.10.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant hydrology and water quality impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.10.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or Project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to hydrology and water quality.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-35

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
XI. Land Use and Planning.

Would the Project:
a) Physically divide an established
community?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Pages 3.7-10
through 3.7-21
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.11.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to land use and planning, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.7, Land Use and Planning, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Physically divide an established community?
As described in SEIR Section 3.7, Land Use and Planning, implementation of the MGSP would not physically divide an established community as the MGSP aims to foster growth within targeted areas. All future development would be developed on existing parcels within the City’s current land use pattern and future roadways are envisioned to be built to connect to existing roadways to improve transportation mobility and would not extend into new, undeveloped areas of the City that could physically divide or isolate other areas of the City. For these reasons, the SEIR determined that MGSP impacts would be less than significant.

The existing Project site is currently developed with two, two-story office buildings and three single-story multi-tenant industrial buildings. While the existing internal circulation road on the site is a private street, it is possible that residents from the existing residential neighborhood located directly north of the Project site walk through the Project site to reach commercial areas east of the Project site. Although the Project would demolish existing roads and sidewalks, the proposed Project would include a central open space spine that would provide connectivity to the adjacent single-family neighborhood and nearby commercial areas and would not result in the division of the existing neighborhood north of the Project site. Because the proposed Project would add new residential buildings in the MGSP Area and would not affect the surrounding residential communities, the proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and this impact would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. Thus, the proposed Project would not have significant impacts related to dividing an established community, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
As described in SEIR Section 3.7, Land Use and Planning, implementation of the MGSP would be generally consistent with the ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050 and Milpitas 2040 General Plan but would be inconsistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance until the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update is adopted. However, no environmental impacts would occur due to this inconsistency. The SEIR determined that the MGSP would not cause a significant environmental

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-36 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist impact due to an inconsistency with an applicable State, regional, or local plan, policy, or ordinance. Thus, the SEIR determined that the impact would be less than significant.

As mentioned, the proposed Project is located within the MGSP, which designated the site areas as a GW-MU zone.

The site would result in 24 new townhome buildings and a clubhouse. The proposed Project would not conflict with the MGSP, as multi-family residential uses are permitted within the GW-MU zone. Additionally, because the Project site is located within the MGSP Area, which would not conflict with any land use plans, policies, or regulations that avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, the proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP, and this impact would be less than significant. Thus, there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.11.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant land use and planning impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.11.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to land use and planning.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-37

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be
New or Substantially More
Severe?
XII. Mineral Resources.

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?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A
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?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.12.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to mineral resources has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. These resources are not present within the Project site. 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? As discussed in Section 1.3.5 of the SEIR, there are no active mines, areas with mineral deposits, or mineral or aggregate resource areas of statewide importance located within the City. For this reason, the SEIR determined that development envisioned in the MGSP would have no impact to mineral resources. The proposed Project is in the Plan Area and consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would also have no impact to mineral resources.

3.12.2 Mitigation Measures
No impacts, including significant impacts to mineral resources were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no impacts on mineral resources. No mitigation is required.

3.12.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. Mineral resources do not occur in the Project site, consistent with conditions described for these resources in the SEIR. Therefore, consistent with the MGSP, the proposed Project would have no impacts to mineral resources.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-38 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.13 NOISE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XIII. Noise.

Would the Project result in:
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, or a
substantial temporary or permanent
increase in noise levels above existing
ambient levels that could result in an
adverse effect on humans?
Pages 3.8-14
through 3.8-16 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Pages 3.8-17
through 3.8-17 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
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?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.13.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to noise, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.8, Noise, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. 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, or a substantial temporary or permanent increase in noise levels above existing ambient levels that could result in an adverse effect on humans?
As discussed in the SEIR Section 3.8, Noise, implementation of the MGSP would result in short-term construction noise and long-term transportation and operational noise. Future development under the MGSP would be required to comply with General Plan Policy N 1-8 and Actions N-1c and N-1d, which require developers to create and implement construction noise reduction plans that define BMPs to avoid adverse noise impacts. Additionally, Actions N-1c and N-1d include measures to address temporary noise impacts and avoid excessive noise levels that could generate public health impacts. The SEIR determined that short-term construction noise would result in a less-thanPage 1169 of 1482 Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-39 significant impact. Additionally, while implementation of the MGSP would result in future development that would create new stationary noise sources, compliance with General Plan Policies N 1-11 through N 1-14 and Actions N-1a and N-1b would reduce noise associated with stationary sources by requiring the preparation of acoustical studies for proposed projects in the vicinity of sensitive noise receptors, and requiring project-specific mitigation in the form of noise attenuation to comply with noise standards. The SEIR determined that long-term stationary operational noise associated with the MGSP would result in a less-than-significant impact. However, implementation of the MGSP would allow for additional residential development and a reduction of nonresidential development, which would result in an overall reduction in average daily traffic volumes and an associated increase in traffic noise levels along the roadway network surrounding the Plan Area. The General Plan Update EIR concluded that transportation noise increases as a result of General Plan implementation would be excessive and exceed noise standards, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact. The MGSP would not result in an increase in traffic noise impacts beyond what was evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR, thus, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of the Project would result in temporary construction noise and long-term transportation and stationary operational noise. Project construction activities would occur over approximately 30 months, with demolition activities requiring approximately 2 months. An existing residential neighborhood is located north, directly adjacent to the Project site. While construction noise associated with the proposed Project may impact the surrounding residences, construction activities would be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. daily, except holidays per the City of Milpitas Municipal Code Chapter 10 Section 11. Limiting construction to these hours causes construction noise to occur when most people are away from home at work and school, or otherwise not especially sensitive to noise, such as when sleeping later at night. The Milpitas Municipal Code also includes that all construction equipment shall be acoustically muffled to reduce noise in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications. With compliance of the Municipal Code, short-term construction impacts associated with development of the proposed Project would reduce noise impacts on sensitive receptors and would be consistent with the MGSP, resulting in less than significant impact. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to short-term noise than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Because the proposed Project would result in new residential development, the proposed Project would result in long-term stationary operational noise. Operational noise would be typical of a residential neighborhood, including lawn maintenance, people talking, children playing, etc. These types of noises are consistent with the types of ambient noise already present in the residential neighborhood adjacent to the Project site. Additionally, the existing uses on the Project site also generate similar noises, such as landscape maintenance and people talking. Likewise, the vehicle noise associated with trips generated from the Project would be similar to vehicle noise associated with existing on-site uses, as existing trips would be offset by new trips in the context of noise. Therefore, the Project would not introduce new sources of substantial operational noise compared to existing conditions or compared to conditions envisioned for the Project site in the SEIR. The Project would be consistent with the MGSP and result in a less-than-significant impact. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts related to longterm stationary operational noise than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? As discussed in SEIR, Section 3.8, “Noise”, long-term or permanent ground vibration such as commercial railways or passenger rail transit lines are not proposed by the MGSP, therefore the MGSP would not result in long-term ground vibration. However, through construction of future development under the MGSP, short-term vibrations impacts would occur. This construction vibration is not anticipated to exceed Federal Transit Administration threshold of 85 vibration decibels at 50 feet. Additionally, the majority of construction equipment would not result in peak particle velocity (inches per second) in excess of Caltrans thresholds, even at 50 feet. The Milpitas Municipal Code also restricts construction activities between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and weekends to mitigate temporary noise impacts, including ground borne vibration impacts. The MGSP would be required to implement General Plan Policy N 2-3 and Action N-2b that include measures to address temporary vibration impacts and avoid excessive vibrations that could generate public health impacts. Thus, the SEIR determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-40 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist The proposed Project would result in the demolition of existing non-residential buildings and the construction of new residential buildings, consistent with what is envisioned for the Project site in the MGSP. Demolition and construction activities may include construction equipment that cause ground vibrations. However, these construction equipment would not exceed Federal Transit Administration thresholds or Caltrans thresholds related to vibration decibels and peak particle velocity. Additionally, the Project would be required to comply with construction hours stated in the City’s Municipal Code to avoid excessive vibration impacts during the hours when receptors would be most sensitive to vibration. The Project does not propose any development that would result in permanent ground vibrations such as commercial railways or passenger rail transit lines. Thus, the proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and result in less than significant impacts related to short-term groundborne vibration or noise levels. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. 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?
As discussed in SEIR Section 3.8, “Noise”, the nearest airport, the San Jose Mineta International Airport, does not have noise contours that extend into the MGSP Area. Implementation of the MGSP would not result in substantial population growth that would alter the operations of the San Jose Mineta International Airport to an extent that would increase aircraft traffic that would expand noise contours. The SEI determined that there would be no significant impact and this impact was not discussed further. The proposed Project is in the MGSP Area and consistent with the MGSP, and therefore would also have no impact.

3.13.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant noise impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.13.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to noise.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-41

3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XIV. Population and Housing.

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)?
Pages 3.9-4
through 3.9-5 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.14.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to population and housing, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.9, Population and Housing, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. 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)?
As described in SEIR Section 3.9, Population and Housing, implementation of the MGSP would accommodate up to 5,176 new dwelling units, resulting in a population of 16,384 residents. This growth would exceed projections assumed under the City’s General Plan for the MGSP Area, however, it would not exceed population projections for the City of Milpitas as a whole. Additionally, implementation of the MGSP would result in the reduction in nonresidential development, resulting in 2,357 fewer jobs than the General Plan at buildout. Therefore, the SEIR determined that there would be no unplanned population growth or residential development and this impact would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in 24 three-story townhome buildings, totaling 134 units. While development of the proposed Project would increase the amount of residential units and in turn, increase the population within the MGSP, the proposed Project would not result in an increase of residential units and residents further than what was projected under the MGSP and City’s General Plan. The proposed Project would also demolish existing two office buildings and three multi-tenant industrial buildings, thus resulting in fewer jobs within the MGSP Area. Additionally, in the City of Milpitas Housing Element 2023-2031, the Project site is identified as a “Rezone Site” for housing development. Within the MGSP, 31 acres of land are identified as “Rezone Sites” that could accommodate a total of approximately 809 units. The proposed Project encompasses approximately 7.22 acres, and as mentioned above, would accommodate 134 units. The proposed Project would not exceed the amount of proposed units available for accommodation within these “Rezone Sites” in the MGSP Area. Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would utilize construction workers from the local and surrounding areas, and given the temporary nature of construction, would not attract new residents to move to the MGSP Area, or City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and the proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-42 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist substantially more severe significant impacts related to unplanned population growth than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed in the SEIR Section 3.9, “Population and Housing”, implementation of the MGSP would result in up to 5,176 new dwelling units and support the development of increased densities and intensities of mixed uses, that would increase the housing supply in the City. The MGSP focusses on infill development in vacant and underutilized areas in Milpitas. Thus, the SEIR determined that impacts related to the displacement of people or housing would be less than significant.

The proposed Project does not include the demolition of existing residential buildings that would displace existing residents or housing. The Project includes the demolition of non-residential buildings and the construction of 24 new townhome buildings that would accommodate a total of 134 units. Of the 134 townhome units, 15 percent, or 20 units, would be offered as below-market-rate ownership units at the moderate-income level. The remaining 114 units would be market-rate ownership units. The proposed Project would increase the number of dwelling units in the MGSP and provide housing to serve the needs of the community at various socioeconomic levels. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.14.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant population and housing impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.14.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe significant impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to population and housing.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-43

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XV. Public Services.

Would the Project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the 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:

Pages 3.10-9
through 3.10-12
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
Fire protection?    
Police protection?    
Schools?    
Parks?    
Other public facilities?    

3.15.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to public services, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.10, Public Services and Recreation, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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:

Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-44 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist As discussed in SEIR Section 3.10, Public Services and Recreation, implementation of the MGSP would alter the level of development within the Plan Area, including providing additional housing opportunities that would increase the population of the area. All new development would be required to comply with Milpitas Fire Department (MFD) standards and code requirements and contribute appropriate fees to the City’s General Fund for any potential of staffing or facilities. Growth associated with the MGSP would not result in an expansion of the overall service area for the MFD or Milpitas Police Department, thus not exceeding the demand of fire or police stations already anticipated within the General Plan Update EIR. While implementation of the MGSP would result in an increase in population, which may trigger the need for new public facilities, the MGSP would not generate more students than those calculated by the Milpitas Unified School District student generation rates. All future development would contribute appropriate funds towards facilities improvements. Any additional public facilities constructed by the City would be proposed by the City at the time they are needed and would undergo separate environmental review. Therefore, the SEIR determined that impacts associated with the provision of new fire, police, and school facilities are less then significant. Impacts related to parks and other public facilities are discussed below in Section 3.16, “Recreation.” As mentioned, the proposed Project would result in a new residential development that would increase the population in the MGSP Area. However, the population increase would not be greater than anticipated within the MGSP and City and would thus not result in the need for expanding the service area of the MFD or Milpitas Police Department. While the proposed Project may result in the MFD or Milpitas Police Department needing to hire more officers if calls for service increase, the proposed Project would be required to contribute appropriate fees to the City’s General Fund and contribute applicable school fees for any facilities. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP, resulting in less than significant impacts. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.15.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant public services impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.15.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to public services.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-45

3.16 RECREATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XVI. Recreation.

Would the Project:
a) 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?
Pages 3.10-12
through 3.10-13
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities that might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Pages 3.10-12
through 3.10-13
of the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.16.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to recreation, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.10, Public Services and Recreation, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) 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) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? As described in SEIR Section 3.10, Public Services and Recreation, implementation of the MGSP would result in an increase in the population in the area, which would result in an increased demand for recreation facilities. However, all development would be required to comply with General Plan Policies PROS 1-3 and 1-3, which requires provision of or submittal of in-lieu fees for park and recreational facilities in order to maintain acceptable parkland ratios. The SEIR determined that impacts related to parks and recreation would be less than significant.

The proposed Project is located within the MGSP and would result in a population increase in the area through the development of the residential uses. The Project would include on-site recreational facilities for residents, including picnic areas, recreation areas, and lounging areas with seating, as shown in Figure 2-2 above. Additionally, the proposed Project would be required to dedicate parkland or pay in-lieu fees at the time of building permit issuance.

Thus, the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to recreation, consistent with the MGSP, and there would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.16.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant recreation impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-46 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.16.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to recreation.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-47

3.17 TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XVII. Transportation.

Would the Project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian
facilities?
Pages 3.11-18
through 3.11-19 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Pages 3.11-20
through 3.11-23 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
Pages 3.11-23
through 3.11-24 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access?
Pages 3.11-24
through 3.11-24 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.17.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to transportation, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.11, Transportation, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025. a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? As described in SEIR Section 3.11, Transportation, implementation of the MGSP would develop a transportation network for users of all modes of transportation, including the construction of enhanced transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities. The standards and policies proposed under the MGSP would be consistent with policies and standards in relevant transportation plans and would not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system. As a result, the MGSP would result in a less-than-significant impact.

The proposed Project would likely increase the demand for public transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities through the projected population increase from the proposed Project. However, implementation of the MGSP would include the construction of enhanced circulation system facilities to serve the Project, as well as surrounding future developments proposed under the MGSP. Additionally, the Project would provide a network of internal circulation roads, sidewalks and other pedestrian walkways to connect to the larger transportation network in the MGSP Area and City. Additionally, the proposed Project would include a new short segment of sidewalk on the cul-de-sac bulb of Valley Way, providing more pedestrian connectivity. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with transportation plans, programs, and policies, and impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-48 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? As described in SEIR Section 3.11, Transportation, implementation of the MGSP would result in increased residential development and decreased non-residential development across the MGSP plan area. Implementation of the MGSP would not exceed the significance thresholds of 25.40 VMT per service population, or 11.87 VMT per resident.

However, employment-based development proposed by the MGSP across the plan area—while not proposed for the Project site—would globally exceed the threshold of 14.31 VMT per employee. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.11-2a through 3.11-2f for non-residential development elsewhere in the plan area would aid in reducing VMT from employee commutes, however, it cannot be guaranteed how effective these measures would be. While the SEIR concluded that the MGSP would improve overall VMT conditions compared to the land use scenario envisioned in the City’s General Plan, as discussed in SEIR Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change, the SEIR determined that effectiveness of the Mitigation Measures above is unknown at this time. Thus, the SEIR determined that this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The proposed Project would result in the reduction of non-residential buildings, as the existing non-residential buildings would be demolished to construct the residences. The proposed Project would not result in employmentbased development. As the Project would be residential, consistent with the land use envisioned for the site in the MGSP, the resulting VMT would be below the significance threshold of 11.87 VMT per resident, consistent with the SEIR. Therefore, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? As described in SEIR Section 3.11, Transportation, implementation of the MGSP would improve multimodal circulation and access and minimize the potential for transportation hazards. Future development would be designed in accordance with applicable design and safety standards and subject to review by City staff. The SEIR determined that this impact would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in two points of access from the public right-of-way. The first would be via a culde-sac to Valley Way on the eastern edge of the Project site, acting as the main ingress/egress to the site. This frontage would contain three driveways on the cul-de-sac bulb and a public sidewalk. The second point of access would be via a short segment of Valley Way to the north of the Project site, which would solely act as an emergency access point, outfitted with a new driveway and removable bollards. Non-emergency vehicle access to the Project site, such as residents and guests, would be provided only from Valley Way and connect to internal private streets. These roadway improvements would be designed according to applicable City design and safety standards and would also require to be reviewed by the City. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
As described in the SEIR, Section 3.11, Transportation, implementation of the MGSP proposed streetscape improvements designed to support a variety of mobility options including vehicles, bicycles, transit, and pedestrians.

These improvements would be developed in coordination with the MFD and in adherence to the California Fire Code to ensure future development provide adequate emergency access. The SEIR determined that the MGSP would result in less-than-significant impacts related to emergency access.

As mentioned above under a), the proposed Project would result in two points of access, one being via a short segment of Heath Street to the north of the Project site, which would act solely as an emergency vehicle access point.

The other point of access would be via a cul-de-sac to Valley Way on the eastern edge of the Project site. The proposed Project would be required to coordinate with MFD. For example, the Project application and conceptual plan set has been distributed to the MFD for their review and feedback. The MFD must provide their approval of the Project design before a building permit is issued. Additionally, the Project must comply with the California Fire Code to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Based on the preliminary plans submitted by the applicant,

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-49 there would be sufficient turning radius on internal circulation streets for fire trucks to maneuver and reach proposed townhomes or fire hydrants capable of reaching each of the proposed 134 units. Therefore, the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.17.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant transportation impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.17.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to transportation.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-50 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Where Impact was
Analyzed in the
SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.

Has a California Native American Tribe
requested consultation in accordance with
Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1(b)?
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:

Pages 3.4-19
through

3.4-22 of the
Draft SEIR
No No Yes
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 Resources
Code section 5020.1(k)?
   
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 Resource
Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native American
tribe?
   

3.18.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to tribal cultural resources, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025.
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 Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-51 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 Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? As described in SEIR Section 3.4, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, implementation of the MGSP would result in construction activities associated with future development that may disturb or destroy any previously undisturbed and significant tribal cultural resources or deposits. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measures 3.4-3a through 3.4- 3e would reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources because it would require: tribal cultural awareness; steps to protect known an unknown tribal cultural resources; tribal monitoring; and stop work in case of a discovery. However, because some resources may not be able to be avoided during development of future projects, the MGSP would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

While the proposed Project is located on previously disturbed and developed land, the Project would involve grading and excavation which may result in the loss of a tribal resource. One precontact archaeological site, which may also qualify as a tribal cultural resource, is known to be located within 100 feet of the Project site. The proposed Project must comply with adopted Mitigation Measures 3.4-3a through 3.4-3e, as described in the MGSP SEIR, to reduce potential impacts to tribal resources. However, the MGSP Area is a highly sensitive area for tribal cultural resources.

Due to the sensitivity of the area, it may not be possible to fully avoid all tribal cultural resources during Project development. Thus, impacts could potentially be significant and unavoidable, consistent with the impacts described in the MGSP EIR. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impacts than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.18.2 Mitigation Measures
The following adopted mitigation measures were identified in the MGSP SEIR and would continue to remain applicable if the Project were approved.

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

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

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-52 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 2) If avoidance or substantial preservation in place of tribal cultural resources is not possible, the project lead shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.4-3(c).
3) For projects that require subsurface testing of archaeological sites that contain indigenous materials, the project applicant shall retain the Native American tribe(s) to monitor the subsurface testing of the project area that is required under Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c. The type of subsurface testing (e.g., ground-penetrating radar, core, forensic dogs, excavation) shall be coordinated with the consulting tribe(s).

Mitigation Measure 3.4-3c: Identify and Protect Known Tribal Cultural Resources If the City determines that avoidance or preservation in place of a tribal cultural resource is not feasible and ground disturbance cannot be avoided, the project lead and Native American tribe(s) as applicable, shall develop a treatment plan. The treatment plan shall include, but not be limited to testing, excavation strategy, research design, resource significance assessment methods, a burial treatment agreement (if applicable), reporting requirements and health and safety procedures. The burial treatment agreement (if applicable) shall include a discussion of reburial options, locations, and potential easements, considering tribal preferences. This may be developed in conjunction with Mitigation Measure 3.4-2c.

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

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

3.18.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-53

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems.

Would the Project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of which
could cause significant environmental
effects?
Pages 3.12-21
through 3.12-23 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
b) Have insufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
Pages 3.12-23
through 3.12-25 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider that
serves or may serve the project that it
has inadequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand, in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?

the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
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?
Pages 3.12-27
through 3.12-29 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A
e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
Pages 3.12-27
through 3.12-29 of
the Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.19.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to utilities and service systems, described in the MGSP SEIR Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-54 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
As described in SEIR Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the MGSP could include retention of existing infrastructure as well as installation of new utility lines and infrastructure. Implementation of the MGSP itself would not trigger construction of new or expanded offsite utilities to serve the project’s demand that are not planned under the City’s infrastructure master plans. The MGSP includes several standards intended to ensure that water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure would be able to support future growth in the MGSP Area. Therefore, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant, The Project site contains an existing 8-inch public water main and an associated 15-foot waterline easement that runs through the approximate middle of the Project site. The water main would be abandoned and capped in place, and the associated easement would be vacated. A new 8-inch water line would be routed through the new private streets.

Associated water branch lines feeding the buildings would also be installed. Public storm and sewer mains would also be installed within the private streets, as well as eight new transformers. While the Project proposes new water lines, storm and sewer mains, and transformers, these utility lines would be minor lateral connections to existing infrastructure and would not result in the need for relocation or construction of new or expanded facilities that could create significant environmental impacts. Thus, the Project would be consistent with the MGSP, resulting in a lessthan-significant impact. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.
b) Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? As described in SEIR Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the MGSP would decrease water demand by 105,875 gallons per day as compared to buildout under the General Plan. However, implementation of the MGSP would contribute to water supply shortages that would potentially trigger the need to construct additional groundwater wells, the construction and operation of which could result in significant environmental impacts. The City is implementing drought contingency measures identified in the urban water management plan (UWMP) through the construction of additional groundwater wells to offset water supply shortages identified for 2030 and 2045 under certain hydrologic conditions, such as consecutive multiple dry years. Therefore, the SEIR determined that there would be sufficient water supply to serve the MGSP Area and reasonable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. This impact was determined to be less than significant.

The Project site is located within the MGSP Area, which is covered in the City’s 2020 UWMP. While there is adequate water to serve the City, and Project site, during normal hydrologic conditions, the City is projected to experience water supply shortages during dry year conditions as buildout continues in future years. However, the City is implementing drought contingency measures identified in the UWMP through the construction of additional groundwater wells that would offset the UWMP project dry year conditions through the year 2040. Buildout of the MGSP Area, specifically, would occur over many years rather than all at once, which would incrementally increase water demand. Thus, there would be sufficient water supply for the proposed Project upon completion of Project construction, and with wells established in advance of buildout of the MGSP, there would be sufficient supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years for buildout across the City. The proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-55 c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? As described in the SEIR Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the MGSP would result in a decrease in water demand by 105,875 gallons per day. Assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of water consumption to wastewater generation, the MGSP would result in a corresponding decrease in wastewater of 105,875 gallons per day. The MGSP includes provisions intended to ensure that sewer infrastructure is able to support future growth in the MGSP Area.

As a result, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

A technical memo was prepared for the proposed Project that provided a preliminary estimate of the anticipated sewer and waterflow, including hydrology/hydraulic analysis for the storm drain system (see Appendix D). According to the memo, the proposed Project would result in a net increase of approximately 29,796 gallons of wastewater per day, accounting for removal of wastewater from existing onsite uses. The technical memo concluded that the existing 8-inch sanitary sewer pipe located within the Project site would have adequate capacity to accept the additional flow resulting from the Project. Furthermore, because the Project is consistent with the MGSP, it would contribute the overall decrease of 105,875 gallons of wastewater per day on a citywide basis that is anticipated from development of the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact, consistent with the MGSP.

There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. 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? As discussed in the SEIR Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the MGSP would result in construction and demolition activities associated with future development that would generate solid waste, including metals, plastics, wood, concrete, and other building materials. Future construction activities would be required to comply with CALGreen Divisions 4.4 and 5.4, which requires a minimum of 65 percent of all non-hazardous construction and demolition waste to be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse. The MGSP would generate approximately 8.3 fewer tons of operation-related solid waste per day and 3,037 fewer tons of operation-related solid waste per year compared to what was identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Kirby Canyon Landfill, where nonrecyclable or reusable materials would be disposed at, would have sufficient capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from buildout of the MGSP. Thus, the SEIR determined that impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would result in both construction and demolition activities that would generate solid waste, including during operation of the proposed Project. Because the Kirby Canyon Landfill would have enough capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from the MGSP and the proposed Project is consistent with the MGSP, the landfill would accommodate solid waste from the Project. With compliance of all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations, the Project would reduce the amount of operation-related solid waste that would be disposed of at Kirby Canyon Landfill. The proposed Project would also be required to comply with CALGreen code requirements to reduce the amount of construction-related solid wastes disposed of at Kirby Canyon Landfill. Thus, the proposed Project would result in less than significant impacts, consistent with the MGSP.

There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR. e) Fail to comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As discussed in the SEIR Section 3.12, Utilities and Service Systems, implementation of the MGSP would be required to comply with all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste, including AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and the Milpitas Municipal Code, which would reduce the amount of operation-related solid waste that would be disposed of at Kirby Canyon Landfill. Additionally, the MGSP includes several provisions intended to ensure that solid waste facilities would be able to support future growth in the MGSP Area and that waste continues to be collected and disposed of safely. The SEIR determined that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-56 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist As described above under d), the proposed Project would result in activities that would generate solid waste during construction and operation activities. However, the proposed Project would be required to comply with CALGreen code requirements, all applicable state and local management and reduction statutes and regulations, the Milpitas Municipal Code, and MGSP provisions to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed or, ensure that solid waste facilities would be able to support the Project, and ensure that waste is continued to be collected and disposed of safely. Thus, through compliance, impacts would be less than significant, consistent with the MGSP. There would be no new or substantially more severe significant impact than previously identified in the MGSP SEIR.

3.19.2 Mitigation Measures
No significant utilities and service system impacts were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no new significant impacts. No mitigation is required.

3.19.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the Project would not result in new or substantially more severe significant impacts to utilities and service systems.

Ascent Environmental Analysis
City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 3-57

3.20 WILDFIRE
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Where Impact was
Analyzed in the SEIR
Do Proposed
Changes Involve
New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Any New
Circumstances
Involve New or
Substantially More
Severe Significant
Impacts?
Do Mitigation Measures in
the SEIR Address/ Resolve
Impacts, Including Impacts
That Would Otherwise be New
or Substantially More
Severe?
XX. Wildfire.

Is the Project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? 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?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A
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?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A
c) Require the installation 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?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including downslope
or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, postfire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Draft SEIR
No No N/A

3.20.1 Discussion
No substantial change in the environmental and regulatory settings related to wildfire has occurred since certification of the SEIR in October 2025.
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?

Environmental Analysis Ascent
City of Milpitas
3-58 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist c) Require the installation 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?
As discussed in Section 1.3.6 of the SEIR, the MGSP is surrounded by urban uses and is less prone to wildfire. The City of Milpitas, including the MGSP Area, is located within a local responsibility area, served by MFD. The City of Milpitas is not categorized as a “Very High” FHSZ by CAL FIRE. There are additionally, no State Responsibility areas within the city limits, however areas east of the city are designated as “high” FHSZ by CAL FIRE. New construction associated with the MGSP is subject to the City Municipal Code and California Fire Code which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire. Because the MGSP is not located within a “High” or “Very High” FHSZ, the MGSP would have no impact related to wildfire risk. The proposed Project is in the Plan Area and is consistent with the MGSP, and CAL FIRE has not adopted new fire hazard severity zone mapping since adoption of the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would also have no impact to wildfire.

3.20.2 Mitigation Measures
No impacts, including significant impacts to wildfire were identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP and have no impacts on wildfire. No mitigation is required.

3.20.3 Conclusion
No new circumstances or project changes have occurred nor has any new information been found that would result in new significant or substantially more severe impacts than those identified in the MGSP SEIR. The proposed Project would be consistent with the MGSP. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts to wildfire.

City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 4-1 4 REFERENCES

3.4 Air Quality
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2024. Non-Vehicular Diesel Engine Risk Assessment Guidance.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, California Air Resources Board. Retrieved on November 5, 2025. Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/ab2588/2024%20DICE%20Screening%20Risk%20Guidelines. pdf.

CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.

Cernansky, N.P. 1983. Diesel Exhaust Odor and Irritants: A Review. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 33:2, 97-104, DOI:

EPA. See US Environmental Protection Agency.

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Final Rule for Control of Emissions of Air Pollution From Nonroad Diesel Engines and Fuel. Federal Register, Volume 69, No. 124: June 29, 2004

3.5 Biological Resources
County of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Morgan Hill, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Valley Water District, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. 2012. Final Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. Adopted by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency August 2012. Morgan Hill, CA.

3.7 Energy
California Air Resources Board. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Adopted by the California Air Resources Board November 16, 2022. Sacramento, CA.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

City of Milpitas. 2022. Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update. Adopted by Milpitas City Council August 9, 2022. Milpitas, CA.

3.8 Geology and Soils
California Department of Conservation. 2024. CGS Seismic Hazard Program: Liquefaction Zones. Available:
https://maps-cnra-cadoc.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cadoc::cgs-seismic-hazards-program-liquefactionzones/explore?location=37.427371%2C-121.910910%2C16.13. Accessed November 18, 2025.

California Department of Conservation. 2025. Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation. Available:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/. Accessed November 18, 2025.

DOC. See California Department of Conservation.

Rockridge Geotechnical. 2025 (June). Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Development 600 Valley Way, Milpitas, California.

3.9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
California Air Resources Board. 2022. 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality. Adopted by the California Air Resources Board November 16, 2022. Sacramento, CA.

CARB. See California Air Resources Board.

City of Milpitas. 2022. Milpitas Climate Action Plan Update. Adopted by Milpitas City Council August 9, 2022. Milpitas, CA.

References Ascent
City of Milpitas
4-2 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist

3.10 Hazards
California State Water Resources Control Board. 2025. GeoTracker. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Sacramento.

Accessed November 21, 2025.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2025. EnviroStor. Available:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=60002678. Accessed November 21, 2025.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

SWRCB. See California State Water Resources Control Board.

3.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
City of Milpitas. 2021. City of Milpitas Storm Drain Master Plan. Available at:
https://www.milpitas.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3432/2021-Storm-Drain-Master-Plan-PDF?bidId=. Accessed December 3, 2025.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board. 2024. Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin. Last amended and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board July 22, 2024. San Francisco, CA.

San Francisco Bay RWQCB. See San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board.

City of Milpitas
600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist 5-1 5 LIST OF PREPARERS
City of Milpitas (Lead Agency)
Kristina Phung, AICP...................................................................................................................................................................Senior Planner Ascent, Inc. (CEQA Compliance)
Pat Angell ...................................................................................................................................................................................................Principal George Dix .................................................................................................................................................. Project Manager/Senior Planner Jacklyn Bottomley.................................................................................................................................Assistant Project Manager/Planner Michele Mattei ...................................................................................................................................................................Publishing Specialist Corey Alling .............................................................................................................................................................................Graphic Specialist

List of Preparers Ascent
City of Milpitas
5-2 600 Valley Way Residential Development Project Environmental Checklist This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A
Historic Resources Report

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________
Other Listings _______________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date ________________ P1. Other Identifier: Sobrato Milpitas Center; 600 Valley Way *P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted
*a. County: Santa Clara
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad Milpitas Date: 2021 Township: 6S; Range: 1W c. Address: 461-606 Valley Way City: Milpitas Zip: 95035 d. UTM: Zone 10 S, 594026 mE / 4143327 mN
e. Other Locational Data: APN 022-28-022; 022-28-024; 022-28-025 *P3a. Description:

See field “D3. Detailed Description” of the attached District Record form. *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP6. 1-3 story commercial building *P4.Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Description of Photo:

Aerial overview of the Calaveras Business
Center, view northeast (imagery ©2023,
Google Maps)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 Historic  Prehistoric  Both
1977 (Buildings No. 1 and 2); 1978
(Buildings No. 3 and 4); 1985 (Building No.
5) (County Assessor)
*P7. Owner and Address:

The Sobrato Organization
599 Castro Street, Suite 400
Mountain View, CA 94041

*P8. Recorded by:

Architectural Resources Group
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA, 94111
*P9. Date Recorded: April 25, 2023
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: None
*Attachments:  NONE  Location Map  Continuation Sheet  Building, Structure, and Object Record  Archaeological Record  District Record  Linear Feature Record  Milling Station Record  Rock Art Record  Artifact Record  Photograph Record  Other (List): Sketch Map P5a. Photograph or Drawing

*Resource Name or # Calaveras Business Center
D1. Historic Name: Calaveras Business Center D2. Common Name: Sobrato Milpitas Center

DPR 523D (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial __________________________________________________________ *D3. Detailed Description: (Discuss overall coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.)
The Sobrato Milpitas Center, originally known as the Calaveras Business Center, is an office park located in western Milpitas in Santa Clara County. The complex includes five commercial office buildings across three adjoining parcels (APNs 022-28-022, 022- 28-024, and 022-28-025), which together form a roughly triangular property bordered by single-family residential development to the north, commercial development to the east, and the interchange of Interstate 880 (the Nimitz Freeway) and Calaveras Road (California State Route 237, or SR 237) to the west. (See continuation sheet.) *D4. Boundary Description:

The boundary of the recorded resource, the Calaveras Business Center, encompasses the three legal parcels that contain the fivebuilding complex: APNs 022-28-022, 022-28-024, and 022-28-025. The southern and western boundary generally follows the California Department of Transportation right-of-way along the interchange of Interstate 880 and Calaveras Road for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet. The boundary then turns in a southeasterly direction and leads approximately 750 feet along the edge of an adjacent residential tract. It then leads approximately 200 feet south along the western boundary of an adjacent commercial parcel, before turning southwest and leading approximately 450 feet back to the right-of-way along the freeway interchange. This boundary is depicted on the location and sketch maps presented on the following sheets in this DPR form set. *D5. Boundary Justification:

ARG selected the boundary of the recorded resource because it corresponds to the three legal parcels acquired by Orosel-Russo to develop the Calaveras Business Center, which includes five buildings constructed in three phases between 1978 and 1985. The boundary encompasses those buildings that have a shared development history and related architectural character, as well as the associated landscaping, drives and walkways, and surface parking.

D6. Significance: Theme: N/A Area: N/A
Period of Significance: N/A Applicable Criteria: N/A
The earliest inhabitants of the Santa Clara Valley, including the present city of Milpitas, were members of the Ohlone or Costanoan linguistic subgroup. The Ohlone group consisted of eight distinct and politically autonomous linguistic subgroups who populated the area from the San Francisco Peninsula to northern Monterey County. Members of the Tamien (or Tamyen) subgroup settled in the vicinity of present-day Milpitas, establishing at least one village within the city’s current boundaries. The Ohlone also built numerous large burials, called shellmounds, at several places in the city. (See continuation sheet.) *D7. References:

See continuation sheet.
*D8. Evaluator: Caitlyn Ewers and Jon Rusch Date: May 19, 2023 Affiliation and Address:

Architectural Resources Group (ARG)
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, CA 94111

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ LOCATION MAP Trinomial __________________________________________________________ Map Name: Calaveras Business Center Location Map Scale: 1:24,000 Date: April 19, 2023

DPR 523K (9/2013) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ SKETCH MAP Trinomial __________________________________________________________ *Drawn by: Morgan Quirk, Architectural Resources Group *Date of map: April 28, 2023 Sketch map of the Calaveras Business Center with the red outline denoting the boundary (ESRI World Topographic Map, 2021).

*Recorded by: Architectural Resources Group *Date: May 19, 2023  Continuation  Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ State of California – The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________________ *D3. Detailed Description (continued):

Access to the Calavera Business Center is from Abbot Avenue via Valley Way, which terminates in a cul-de-sac at the southeastern edge of the complex. Wide curb cuts in the sidewalk lining the cul-de-sac give way to asphalt-paved vehicular drives flanked by surface parking stalls; in combination with a series of intermittent concrete-paved walkways, these drives facilitate vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout the site among the five buildings.

The buildings, which are evenly dispersed across the park, include Building 1 (461-495 Valley Way), Building 2 (501-533 Valley Way), Building 3 (500-538 Valley Way), Building 4 (540-580 Valley Way), and Building 5 (600-606 Valley Way). Buildings 1 and 2, which were constructed in 1977, are located at the eastern side of the site on one legal parcel (APN: 022-28-022); Buildings 3 and 4, which were constructed in 1978, are located along the southwestern boundary on a second legal parcel (APN: 022-28-024); and Building 5, which was constructed in 1985, is located at the northwestern corner on a third legal parcel (APN: 022-28-025).

The buildings are one or two stories in height with flat roofs and low parapets, and they feature Spanish Revival-style details including textured stucco cladding, segmental arched openings over some doors and walkways, and shed roofs with clay barrel tile. Tiled roofs are specifically located over the entrance projections at Buildings 1 and 2, the second-story walkways at Buildings 3 and 4, and the east façade of Building 5. Though constructed at different times, the buildings’ design and materials generally convey a cohesive architectural character. More detailed descriptions of the individual buildings are presented on separate Department of Parks and Recreation 523A forms that are included in this form set.

Numerous planting beds lined by concrete curbs are clustered around each of the buildings and line the perimeter of the complex. The beds contain a combination of low manicured shrubs, flowers, and ivy or other ground cover, as well as mature deciduous trees. Near the western side of the complex, the area between Buildings 3 and 4 is landscaped with shade trees and a grass lawn cut through by a concrete walkway and a concrete pad with tables and benches. Trash enclosures consisting of poured concrete pads encircled by chain-link fencing with privacy slats are located at intervals around the perimeter of the property and off the south side of Building 2.

Minor features in the Calavera Business Center include signage, lighting, and utilities. A large monument sign with a map of the site and a list of tenants in each of the five buildings is located at the edge of the Valley Way cul-de-sac, near the southern corner of Building 1, and small metal signposts denoting parking restrictions and building numbers are interspersed throughout the site.

Metal bollard lights line some walkways and illuminate building entrances, and pad-mounted transformers, water shut-off valve access panels, and fire hydrants are located near each of the five buildings.

D6. Significance (continued):

Archaeological evidence gathered from these sites reveals that the Ohlone living in present-day Milpitas were part of a rich trade network spanning Sacramento to Monterey.1 Spanish colonization of the Santa Clara Valley in the late eighteenth century led to the decimation of the Ohlone and the establishment of numerous Catholic missions, which were part of a larger colonization strategy that also included civilian settlements and military outposts (presidios). Milpitas is located at the crossroads of two of these missions: the Mission Santa Clara de Asis in present-day Santa Clara, established in 1777, and Mission San José in presentday Fremont, established in 1797. Following Mexico’s victory in the Mexican War of Independence, the land around the missions was secularized and divided into large, private land grants called ranchos. Present-day Milpitas includes land from three ranchos granted by the Mexican government between 1835 and 1839. The Calaveras Business Center is located on land within Rancho Tularcitos, which was granted to José Higuera in 1839 and originally contained 4,394 acres.2 In 1848, following the end of the Mexican-American War, Mexico ceded present-day California to the United States. Over the next several decades, large numbers of Americans arrived to farm the fertile lands of the Santa Clara Valley. Milpitas developed as an agricultural community, an important shipping point for agricultural goods, and a popular rest stop for travelers. Freight 1 “A brief history of Milpitas, California,” Milpitas Community Museum, accessed May 10, 2023, at http://www.milpitashistory.org/home/; The Ervin Consulting Group, Milpitas Redevelopment Amendments: Thirteenth Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Milpitas Project Area No. 1, Sixth Amendment to the Great Mall Redevelopment Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2009092025 (prepared for the Milpitas Redevelopment Agency, December 2009), 6.3-2. 2 Robert Burrill, Images of America: Milpitas (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004), 16; The Ervin Consulting Group, Milpitas Redevelopment Amendments, 6.3-4.