CityCouncil_RegularSession_Attachments_05_17_2022 — Milpitas City Council, May 17, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

Project Planner: Michael Fossati, Senior Planner
LAND USE:

General Plan Designation: Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP) Specific Plan Designation: Boulevard Very High-Density Mixed-Use (MXD3) Zoning District: Very High-Density Mixed-Use (MXD3)
ENVIRONMENTAL: The Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15195 (Residential Infill). As a separate and independent basis, the Project is also exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (Program EIR), Section 15182 (Projects pursuant to a Specific Plan), and Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Milpitas received an application from City Ventures (applicant) requesting a Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and Environmental Assessment to allow the development of a 56-unit townhome condominium subdivision, comprised of eight multi-family buildings up to 48 feet in height, 84 parking spaces, and associated site improvements on a 1.92-acre site located at 1752-1810 Houret Court in the Montague Corridor Subdistrict of the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) area. City Ventures applied under California Senate Bill 330, also known as the Housing Crisis Act of 2019.

The Project consists of 32 two-bedroom and 24 three-bedroom townhome condominium units. All 32 two-bedroom units will have an attached one-car garage, and all 24 three-bedroom units will have an attached two-car garage and a ground-floor, attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). All ADUs will be studio units. Eight of the affordable townhome condominiums (four two-bedroom and four three-bedroom townhomes) will be reserved for moderate-income households (below 80% Avg. Median Income), and the applicant proposes to pay the affordable housing in-lieu fee for the remaining balance (0.4) to fully comply with the City's Affordable Housing Ordinance.

Since the applicant is restricting the sale of more than 10% of the housing units to moderateincome residents, the Project qualifies for concessions, waivers, and parking reductions under the State Density Bonus Law.

The proposed Project requires approval of five entitlements, as follows:

1. Site Development Permit No. SD21-0004: To allow the development of eight multi-family buildings, up to four stories in height, with up to 56 townhouse condominiums and 24 accessory dwelling units on the 1.92-acre site; and

2. Conditional Use Permit No. UP21-0006: To allow for condominium use and associated subdivision; and

3. Vesting Tentative Map No. MT21-0002: To establish 56 residential condominium spaces, related common areas, and associated easements; and
286
Item # 17.

Page 3 of 24 ends

4. Density Bonus Permit No. DB21-0001: To ensure compliance with State Density Bonus law and regulations; and

5. Tree Removal Permit No. TR21-0035: To remove 17 ordinance-sized trees and replace them with approximately 50 new trees.

Although not an entitlement, Environmental Assessment No. EA21-0004 was prepared to establish CEQA compliance.

Staff has found the required entitlements comply with the policies, standards, and processes outlined in the State Density Bonus Law, the City of Milpitas 2040 General Plan, the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP), the Zoning Ordinance, and other provisions of the Milpitas Municipal Code (MMC), and recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA and adopt Resolution No. 22-005, recommending approval of the Project to the Milpitas City Council, subject to the conditions of approval. The balance of this report provides specific details regarding the Project.

BACKGROUND
History
Currently, the project site has two industrial buildings (one approximately 20,045-square feet and the other 17,800-square feet) and minimal landscaped areas. Commercial and light industrial uses have operated within these two buildings for approximately 40 years. However, in mid-2015, the surrounding neighborhood began transforming into multi-family residential uses, consistent with the transit-oriented vision established by the TASP.

The project site is located within the Montague Corridor subdistrict of the TASP, which generally includes all properties fronting Montague Expressway. This broad, high-volume thoroughfare will expand and experience greater traffic volume with full buildout of the TASP, and the TASP envisions redevelopment of the corridor as a grand boulevard that provides a distinct gateway and positive identity for the City.

In March 2020, the City initiated an update to the TASP and rebranded this effort as the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP). The MMSP will continue to manage the transformation of highdensity residential neighborhoods into vibrant transit-oriented communities with a mix of housing, retail, entertainment, and employment uses and a safe and attractive network of parks and trails.

The continued redevelopment of Houret Court is highlighted in the MMSP.

In November 2021, City Ventures submitted a preliminary application pursuant to California Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) for a 56-unit townhome subdivision. The development will also include 24 ground-floor accessory dwelling units (ADUs) In December 2021, City Ventures submitted a formal application for the same townhome housing development.

California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act)
California Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) is a statewide bill intended to reduce the time to approve housing developments in California. It became effective on January 1, 2020, and Senate Bill 8 (SB 8) recently extended the Act through January 1, 2030. Under SB 330, eligible projects receive enhanced streamlining and vesting opportunities by filing a preliminary application. Those benefits include:
287
Item # 17.

Page 4 of 24 ends

• Freezes the ability of local governments to downzone, adopt new development standards, or change land use in residential and mixed-use areas if the change results in less-intensive uses.
• Allows developers to request approval of housing developments that exceed density and design controls of the underlying zoning if the existing zoning conflicts with the General Plan or a Specific Plan.
• Expedites the permitting process for all housing development and limits the list of application materials that cities can review.

Through the Housing Accountability Act, the state requires a local jurisdiction to approve housing consistent with applicable, objective land use standards. Under the State Density Bonus Law, the state also requires a local jurisdiction to approve waivers and concessions for projects that meet certain affordability requirements. Consistent with state law, planning staff has determined that the Project is consistent with applicable, objective land use standards as provided under SB 330 and meets the requirements for waivers and incentives/concessions under the State Density Bonus Law. A local government agency can deny an eligible housing project only if there is strong evidence that denial is the only way to avoid an adverse impact on public health and safety.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Overview
The Project consists of 56 townhome condominium units, 24 attached accessory dwelling units, and associated site improvements, including private alleyways and outdoor amenity spaces. The townhomes will range from 1,044 to 2,136 square feet in size. All three-bedroom townhomes will include a 280 square foot attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The Project also provides 84 vehicle parking spaces (80 spaces within a garage, four surface spaces on-site for visitors). The applicant will also designate eight affordable townhomes and pay a partial in-lieu fractional fee to meet the City’s affordable housing requirement.

The Project is eligible for certain concessions, waivers, and parking incentives under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) because more than ten percent (10%) of the total townhome units will be reserved for moderate-income households, making the units affordable.

The “Project Analysis” section of this staff report includes a full discussion of the State Density Bonus provisions related to this Project.

Location and Context
The Project is located on a 2.25-acre site on the west side of Houret Drive between Montague Expressway and Houret Court. Figure 1 shows the location of the proposed Project in an aerial image:
288
Item # 17.

Page 5 of 24 ends

Figure 1 – 1752-1810 Houret Ct. (Aerial Image)
The property is located within the Transit Area Specific Plan (also known as the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan) area and zoned Very High-Density Mixed-Use (MXD3). Table 1 and Figure 2 below summarize the land use designation and surrounding uses of nearby properties:

Table 1: Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses
General Plan Zoning Existing Uses
Subject
Site
Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan
Very High-Density Mixed-use
(MXD3)
Non-conforming
Light Industrial
North Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential (R3) Townhomes
South Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential (R3) Townhomes
East Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan
Multi-family
High-Density Residential (R3)
Townhomes
West Milpitas Metro
Specific Plan
Very High-Density Mixed-use
(MXD3)
Non-conforming
Light Industrial
289
Item # 17.

Page 6 of 24 ends

Figure 2 – 1752-1810 Houret Ct. (Zoning Map)

PROJECT ANALYSIS
This section will evaluate elements of the proposed Project for conformance with the Milpitas 2040 General Plan, the 2008 Transit Area Specific Plan, the Zoning Ordinance, and other provisions of the Milpitas Municipal Code, Senate Bill 330, and State Density Bonus Law.

General Plan Conformance
The General Plan designation for the project site is Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (MMSP), but since City Council has not yet formally adopted the MMSP, the TASP development standards currently apply. The MMSP and TASP standards intend to facilitate the development of higher intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods near the Milpitas Transit Center and encourage walking, biking, and alternative modes of transportation for residents and employees in the immediate area.

The Project is in conformance with the applicable policies and standards in the City's General Plan, as outlined in Table 2:

Table 2: General Plan Consistency
Policy Conformance
Policy LU 1-4: Continue to provide for a
variety of housing types and densities that
meet the needs of individuals and families
and offer residents of all income levels, age
groups, and special needs sufficient housing
opportunities and choices for locating in
Milpitas.

Consistent. The Project provides townhome
condominiums and accessory dwelling units.

This variety of housing types will meet the
needs of individuals, families, and residents of
all demographics and income levels and is
marketed specifically to young families with
mixed incomes.
290
Item # 17.

Page 7 of 24 ends

Policy Conformance
Policy CD 6-5: Promote consistent
development patterns along streets
particularly by how buildings relate to the
street, to promote a sense of visual order, and
provide attractive streetscapes.

Consistent. The Project is consistent with
applicable design standards in the TASP and
continues the existing contemporary
architectural styles along Montague
Expressway. The proposed building heights,
up to 48 feet, are consistent with adjacent
townhome developments, and buildings facing
Montague Expressway have front doors that
open onto landscaped open space along the
street frontage. In addition, the site plan
includes separated sidewalks, small front
yards, and mature trees along the perimeter.

The addition of second and fourth-floor patios,
dark metal awnings and windows, and a
combination of stucco and horizontal paneling
along the front elevation provide consistency
with the Ellison Park Development to the east
and an attractive streetscape along Montague
Expressway.

Policy LU 5-3: Ensure new development is
consistent with specific height limits
established within the City's Zoning
Ordinance as applied through the zoning
district for all properties within the City.

Consistent. The Project meets the height
standards by proposing four-story buildings,
up to 48 feet in height, in a zoning district that
allows a maximum height of 150 feet. The
Project's height is consistent with the Ellison
Park Development, which has buildings up to
50 feet in height.

Transit Area Specific Plan Conformance
The TASP/MMSP land use designation for the Project is Very High-Density Mixed-Use. This designation provides for high-density residential uses within the Montague Corridor Subdistrict.

As demonstrated in Table 3, the Project is consistent with the applicable TASP/MMSP land use policies.
291
Item # 17.

Page 8 of 24 ends

Table 3: TASP/MMSP Consistency
Policy Conformance
Policy 3.4: Provide a variety of housing types for
different types of households, different income
levels, different age groups, and different lifestyles.

Consistent. The Project provides
townhome condominiums and accessory
dwelling units. This variety of housing
types will meet the needs of individuals,
families, and residents of all
demographics or income levels and is
marketed specifically to young families
with mixed incomes.

Policy 4.2 (MON): New curb cuts and auto access
onto Montague Expressway are strongly
discouraged, unless specifically indicated on the
Plan map
Consistent. The Project does not include
any new curb cuts or access driveways
onto Montague Expressway. Vehicular
access to the site is provided by two
driveways with access from the existing
Houret Court right-of-way.

Policy 3.3: Affordable housing should be
integrated into all residential projects.

Consistent. The Project will provide
affordable housing through inclusion and
design. The applicant will restrict eight
residential units for sale to moderateincome individuals or households and integrate accessory dwelling units into 24
townhome condominiums, providing
options in housing.

Policy 4.3 (MON): Parcels fronting Montague
Expressway are permitted to contain residential,
employment, or hotel uses.

Consistent. The Project includes
residential uses fronting onto Montague
Expressway.

Policy 4.5 (MON): New development along
Montague Expressway must dedicate land, such
that a total of 79 feet from the roadway centerline
is provided, to accommodate the future Montague
Expressway widening project.

Consistent. The applicant will dedicate

0.33 acres of land to local agencies to
accommodate the future expansion of
Montague Expressway. Due to land
dedication, the site area will be reduced
from 2.25 acres to 1.91 acres.

Zoning Conformance
The project site is in the MXD3 Very High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning District. As demonstrated in Tables 4 and 5, the Project complies with most of the objective standards for the MXD3 Zoning District and TASP/MMSP area. Where the project is not in compliance with objective standards, the State Density Bonus Law requires the City to grant appropriate concessions, waivers, and parking reductions for qualifying projects.
292
Item # 17.

Page 9 of 24 ends

Table 4: Summary of MXD3 Zoning District
Development
Standard
(MXD3)
Required Proposed Conformance
Density 41-60 dwelling units (du) /
gross acre (ac)

41.67 du/ac Yes
Front yard
Setback
45 feet at Major Street 31-34 feet No (Yes, with approval of a Density Bonus waiver)
Other Street
Facing Yard
Setback
12 feet (min.) - 20 feet
(max.) from the back of the
sidewalk
12 feet Yes
Side Yard
Setback
10 foot, 15 foot when
abutting residential use 20 feet Yes
Rear Yard
Setback
20 feet over three stories
when abutting residential use 10 feet No (Yes, with approve of a Density Bonus waiver) Height 12 stories (or 150 feet) Four Stories
(47.5 feet) Yes
In addition, projects located in the TASP/MMSP area must comply with the additional development and design standards outlined in Table 5:

Table 5: Additional Development Standards Applicable in the TASP/MMSP Standard Proposed Conformance
Projections into
Required Yards
Porches, stairs, balconies, bay
windows, and awnings may
project up to six feet into
required setbacks.

None Yes
293
Item # 17.

Page 10 of 24 ends

Standard Proposed Conformance
Building
Orientation and
Entrances
Building must face the street,
and primary building
entrances must be oriented
toward the street.

Buildings face
Montague
Expressway, which
is the Project's
primary street
frontage.

Yes
Vehicle Parking
Two-Bedroom – 51 spaces
Three-Bedroom – 38 spaces
Guest Parking – 18 spaces
Total – 107 spaces
(89 covered, 18 uncovered)
84 spaces
(80 covered, four
uncovered)
No (Yes, with
approval of a
Density Bonus
waiver)
Bicycle Parking
On-street guest racks
equivalent to five percent
(5%) of the parking
requirement.

Five bicycle parking spaces
Six bicycle parking
spaces
Yes
Parking
Location
Parking must be located so
that it is not visible from the
street.
56 private garage
entrances face the
interior drive aisle
Yes
Parking Garages
attached to
individual units
Garages may not occupy more
than 50% of Ground Level
Frontage facing street.

No parking garage
is facing the street
frontage.

Yes
Parking Access
and Curb Cuts
Maximum two curb cuts per
lot per street frontage
One curb cut along
Houret Court Yes
294
Item # 17.

Page 11 of 24 ends

Standard Proposed Conformance
Park Acreage
Requirements

0.09 acres (after payment of
TASP/MMSP fee) 0.42 acres Yes
State Density Bonus Law
To encourage affordable housing production, the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.) allows developers to receive a density bonus and other incentives, such as concessions, waivers, and parking reductions, when affordable housing is incorporated within a project. The Density Bonus is a state mandate, and any Project that meets the requirements of the state law is entitled to receive the incentives associated with it.

The applicant may request waivers and concessions under the State Density Bonus Law because the Project reserves more than 10 percent of total units as affordable units for moderate-income households. The Project includes eight affordable units, which is just under the 15 percent total units required under the City’s Affordable Housing Ordinance, and the applicant proposes to pay in-lieu fees for the remaining 0.4 units. The City must grant any waivers and concessions requested by the applicant for a qualifying project under the State Density Bonus Law. Table 6 outlines the waivers and parking reductions requested for the proposed Project.

Table 6: State Density Bonus – Concessions, Waivers, and Incentives Type of
Modification Standard Applicant Request Justification Discretion Waiver(s) Front and rear
yard setback
A request to
reduce the front
yard setback
from 35 feet to
24 feet and the
rear yard setback
from 15 feet to
10 feet.

Due to the 0.33-acre
reduction in the
overall site area to
accommodate future
widening of
Montague
Expressway, the
applicant requests a
reduction in the
required front setback
to meet the minimum
density requirement
in the R-3 zone.

This waiver is
allowed under
State Density
Bonus Law and
must be granted
by the City.
295
Item # 17.

Page 12 of 24 ends

Type of
Modification Standard Applicant Request Justification Discretion Parking
Waiver
Vehicle
Parking
Reduction
To provide 84
vehicle parking
spaces when 107
vehicle parking
spaces are
required per
MMC.

The State Density
Bonus Law provides
a reduction in the
minimum parking
requirements for
qualifying projects
A waiver of
minimum parking
standards is
allowed under
State Density
Bonus Law and
must be granted
by the City
Setback Areas Waivers
MXD3 zoning standards require a 45-foot setback from a major arterial, such as Montague Expressway (Montague), and a 15-foot setback for the rear yard (facing Houret Court). However, the applicant has proposed a 34-foot setback at Montague and a ten-foot setback at the rear. The setback encroachments are due to the reduction of site area to accommodate future widening of Montague Expressway along the entire frontage of the project.

Per City of Milpitas and Santa Clara County standards, any new development along Montague Expressway must dedicate land to accommodate the future Montague Expressway widening project. This means the applicant must dedicate over 0.30 acres of land to Santa Clara County along Montague, reducing the depth of the site by 29 feet and lessening the buildable area.

This dedicated land will allow Santa Clara County to widen Montague Expressway, which will be paid for with funds from Measure B, a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax devoted to enhancing transit, highways, expressways, and active transportation (bicycles, pedestrians, and complete streets) within Santa Clara County.

Parking Incentives
Under the State Density Bonus Law, an applicant who qualifies for a density bonus may propose reduced parking standards. Projects located in the TASP area typically require 1.6 to 2.0 vehicle parking spaces for each two- and three-bedroom unit. The project must also provide an additional 20% vehicle parking for guests. However, under State Density Bonus Law and upon a developer's request, the City must allow a reduction in vehicle parking, as shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Maximum Parking Requirements (under State Density Bonus Law) Type of Unit (or Guest Parking) Number of Vehicle Parking Spaces Accessory Dwelling Units Zero space (if within one-half mile of walking distance of public transit)
Studio and One Bedroom One space
Two-Bedroom and Three-Bedroom 1.5 spaces
Four-Bedroom 2.5 spaces
Guest Parking Zero spaces
296
Item # 17.

Page 13 of 24 ends

The applicant has requested reduced parking standards and has proposed to provide the following, as demonstrated in Table 8.

Table 8: Parking Analysis (under State Density Bonus Law) Land Use Unit
Count Rate Spaces Required
Spaces
Provided Notes
Two-bedroom 32 1.5 / unit 48 32
Three- bedroom 24 1.5 / unit 36 48
ADU 24 0 / unit 0 0
Guest Parking N/A 0 4
Included as part of the total
number of parking spaces
required under the State
Density Bonus Law
Total 84 84
As noted in the Project Description, each two-bedroom unit will include a single-car garage, and each three-bedroom unit will include a two-car garage. In addition, four additional surface parking spaces will be provided for guests near the vehicle access (from Houret Court), making a total of 84 vehicle spaces and consistent with the reduced parking standard under the State Density Bonus Law.

Subdivision Ordinance
The Project's form, content, and dedications of the proposed tract map have been reviewed by the City of Milpitas Engineering Department and deemed consistent with the provisions of MMC Section XI-1-4 (Tentative Maps), as outlined in Resolution No. 22-005. Tentative Maps require approval of a Resolution by the Planning Commission recommending final approval by the City Council.

Architectural Design
The Project's design concept includes four-story building heights consistent with existing and planned residential development along Montague Expressway. The contemporary design includes the following design accents and materials:
• Roof: Parapet
• Exterior: Stucco Finish with Fiber Cement Siding
• Accents: Metal Awnings, Board Form, and Metal Railings • Window/Door Trim: Fiber Cement Trim
• Entry Door: Decorative Front Entry Door
• Garage Door: Sectional Garage Door
The Project conforms to the Transit Area Specific Plan design guidelines, which require orientation of the building to the street, well-articulated exterior walls with consistent style and materials, muted colors for primary building walls with richer accent colors, and integrated parking. Furthermore, the Project has a similar architectural style to the Ellison Park development located across the street from Houret Drive. A rendering of the Project is shown in Figure 3. 297
Item # 17.

Page 14 of 24 ends

Figure 3 – Proposed Project Facing South towards Montague Expressway The applicant has provided an exhibit with proposed colors and materials for review by City staff and the Planning Commission, as demonstrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – Color and Material Board
Tree Removal and Landscaping Requirements
The Project includes removing and replacing 17 protected trees to accommodate the construction of the public frontage improvements. Per the City's Tree Maintenance and Protection Ordinance, the Project proposes planting up to 50 replacement trees in various areas across the site. Other new landscaping will include various shrubs, grasses, and vines (New Zealand Flax, Indian Hawthorn, Coast Rosemary, and Creeping Fig). In addition, the applicant will install decorative paving in the alleyways of the private streets. The perimeter landscape area includes trees, shrubs, grasses, and a dog park with benches, as demonstrated in Figure 5 below. 298
Item # 17.

Page 15 of 24 ends

Figure 5 – Landscape Plan
Parkland and Open Space Requirements
The TASP requires all new developments to provide 3.5 acres of parkland for every 1,000 persons or payment of park in-lieu fees, as allowed by MMC Section XI-1-9 (Improvements: Dedication of Land or Payment of Fee or Both, for Recreational Purposes). The Parkland Fee is based upon the estimated number of persons expected to reside in the development (per U.S. Census definitions) and the estimated value of parkland in the City of Milpitas (currently $2,787,840 per acre).

The City estimates 2.49 people will occupy each unit. The Project proposes 56 units, resulting in an estimated population of 139 persons. Based on this population estimate, the applicant must provide 0.49 acres of parkland, equivalent to approximately $1,360,577.

All projects in the TASP area are required to pay a Transit Area Development Impact Fee (TADIF). A portion of that fee pays for parkland. The park portion of the TASP fee for this project is valued at $1,108,688, equivalent to 0.40 acres of parkland. This amount will be applied to the Project's parkland requirement, leaving a delta of 0.09 acres to be satisfied.

To satisfy the 0.09-acre delta, the applicant has incorporated 0.42 acres as private recreation space on-site, as permitted by MMC Section XI-1-9. For example, each townhome has private balconies totaling 10,600 square feet. In addition, the Project includes an additional 7,820 square feet of onsite public open space, including a dog park with benches. The parkland requirement is met by designing these elements into the project, as demonstrated in Table 9 below. 299
Item # 17.

Page 16 of 24 ends

Table 9: Parkland Requirements Analysis
City Ventures Townhomes Proposed 56
City Ventures Townhomes Population Estimate
(2.49 persons/unit per Census)
139 persons
TASP Parkland Requirement 3.5 acres/1,000 people or
equivalent fees-in-lieu
Total Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Required 0.49 acres / $1,360,577 Amount Satisfied Through TASP Fees (Acreage/Dollars) 0.40 acres / $1,108,688 Remaining Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Fee Required 0.09 acres / $251,889 Private Recreation/Open Space Included in the Project 0.42 acres Balance of Parkland Acreage or In-Lieu Feed Due 0.00 acres / $0 Accessory Dwelling Units
The Project includes 24 attached ADUs located on the ground floor of each three-bedroom townhome condominium. Each integrated ADU is designed as a studio unit with a living/sleeping area, bathroom, kitchenette, and separate front door entrance, as demonstrated in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 – Townhome/ADU Front Entry
Although the proposed ADUs are considered residential units (for density purposes), their inherent design limits the City’s ability to charge development fees (such as TADIF or Park-In Lieu Fees). 300
Item # 17.

Page 17 of 24 ends

Per Government Code Section 65852.2. (f)(3)(A), A local agency, special district, or water corporation shall not impose any impact fee upon the development of an accessory dwelling unit less than 750 square feet. The proposed ADUs will be approximately 280 square feet in size and thus qualify for the impact fee exception under State law.

Affordable Housing Ordinance
According to MMC Section XII-1-3.00 (Affordable Housing), the applicant must reserve fifteen percent (15%) of the total number of dwelling units within the development as affordable units.

The applicant proposes to meet the City’s affordable housing requirement by reserving eight units on-site for moderate-income households and paying a partial in-lieu fee, as demonstrated in Table

10. Table 10: Summary of MXD3 Zoning District
City Ventures Townhomes Proposed 56
Number of Townhomes that must be affordable (15% of 56) 8.4 Number of Townhomes proposed as affordable 8
Remaining Affordable Units 0.4
Affordable Housing in-lieu fee to be paid by City Ventures $161,503 Traffic and Access
Vehicular access to the project site will be provided via two driveways with direct ingress/egress from Houret Court. An internal private street grid will provide access to 56 private residential garages with a total of 80 vehicle parking spaces. In addition, four guest parking spaces will be provided next to the access driveway, including one ADA-compliant space and one electric vehicle (EV) parking space. The EV parking space will provide full charging facilities.

Grading
The proposed Project would result in the demolition of all existing structures, paving, and landscaping on the subject site. In addition, the applicant would import 500 cubic yards of fill to pad the site and increase the finish grade heights to meet flood zone requirements.

Utilities
The project site is located in an urban area and is currently served by existing utilities, including water, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, electricity, and telecommunications infrastructure. All public utilities will be provided to the Project site.

Climate Action Plan
The City of Milpitas Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted in 2013 and included Greenhouse Gas (GHG) reduction goals, policies, and actions for new and existing development projects. The Project would follow these goals and policies by locating future residents near public transportation, jobs, restaurants, and services. In addition, the Project would incorporate green 301
Item # 17.

Page 18 of 24 ends

building measures in compliance with CAL Green standard building measures for residential buildings and Title 24 requirements to reduce energy usage.

Development Fees
The Project is subject to the following impact fees:

TASP Impact Fee
The TASP impact fee is currently set at $44,009/unit for residential uses for the Fiscal Year 2021- 2022. Based on the development of 56 residential units, the estimated TASP impact fee for this Project is $2,464,504 ($44,009/unit x 56 units). This fee is automatically adjusted each fiscal year in conjunction with the City's annual budget process. The applicant must pay the fee before the issuance of building permits.

Parkland Impact Fee
A portion of the TASP impact fee includes a portion of the parkland in-lieu fee. Therefore, by paying the TASP impact fee and developing 0.42 acres of public and private open space, the applicant will meet the parkland fee requirement without paying additional parkland fees.

Public Art Fee
The Project will comply with the City's Public Art Requirements for Private Development, as set forth in Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-14. This fee is currently set at one-half of one percent of building development costs. The proposed Project will pay the fee based on the construction valuation at the building permit issuance.

Affordable Housing Fee
The Project will comply with the City's Affordable Housing Requirements by providing eight (8) affordable townhome units and pay any remaining fees into the Affordable Housing Fund.

FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
A finding is a statement of fact relating to the information that the Planning Commission has considered in making a decision. Findings shall identify the rationale behind the decision to take a certain action.

Vesting Tentative Map
To approve the Major Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, the following findings must be made pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-1-20.01:

1. The tentative subdivision map is consistent with the General Plan.

The General Plan designation for the project site references MMSP, but since City Council has not formally adopted the MMSP, the TASP development standards currently apply.

Both the MMSP and TASP standards intend to facilitate the development of higher intensity, mixed-use neighborhoods near the Milpitas Transit Center and encourage walking, biking, and alternative modes of transportation.

The TASP designates this project site as Boulevard Very High-Density Mixed-Use. This classification provides high-density housing, retail, and employment along Montague 302
Item # 17.

Page 19 of 24 ends

Expressway with a landscaped boulevard character. Projects may include a wholly residential or non-residential concept or a project that integrates residential and nonresidential uses vertically or horizontally and permits densities between 41 – 90 units per acre.

As this Project is a wholly residential development and proposes 41.67 dwelling units/acre, it is consistent with the intended land use of the General Plan and the relevant density requirement. In addition, the Housing Element does not identify the project site for yielding affordable housing units. Therefore, there is no net loss of affordable housing opportunities.

Furthermore, the Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan, as demonstrated and outlined in Table 2.

2. None of the conditions identified in California Government Code Section 66474 exist, to wit:

A. The proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code Section 65451.

As outlined above, the Project includes the development of 56 residential condominium units at a density of 41.67 dwelling units/acre. The General Plan and MMSP/TASP land use designation is Boulevard High-Density Mixed Use, which permits residential development at 41 to 90 dwelling units/acre densities. The Project is therefore consistent with the general and corresponding specific plans.

B. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

The Project proposes 41.67 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the 41 – 90 dwelling units per acre allowed by the general plan and corresponding specific plans.

Additionally, the Project is consistent with the policies associated with the MMSP/TASP, as identified in Tables 3 and 5, except for vehicle parking, which is allowed per State Density Bonus Law.

C. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

The site is surrounded by high-density, transit-oriented residential development under the City's General Plan. The zoning designation under the MMSP/TASP permits wholly residential development at the project site. In addition, this site is suitable for higher density development based on the location, physical attributes, existing infrastructure, and proposed improvements. Lastly, the site is relatively flat and has direct access to an adjacent public right-of-way (Houret Court) to accommodate the proposed type of development.

D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

The project site is within the MMSP/TASP specific plan designation of Boulevard High-Density Mixed-Use, permitting residential development at 41 to 90 dwelling 303
Item # 17.

Page 20 of 24 ends

units/acre. The design will physically suit the site by providing required utilities, sufficient open space, and adequate residential living facilities.

E. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The Project, including the subdivision and its associated improvements, is located in an urbanized area and was previously developed as two industrial buildings. Therefore, it will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

F. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.

The Project, including the subdivision and its associated improvements, has been designed in a manner that will not cause serious public health problems. The Project has been reviewed by Building, Fire, Land Development, Traffic, Water, and Solid Waste Departments. As a result, it has been determined that it can be adequately serviced to preserve public health and wellness.

G. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.

The Project is located on a private property site and has been designed to not conflict with any easements required by the public. In addition, the applicant will dedicate portions of the property to Santa Clara County Roads and Airports and the City of Milpitas to allow Montague Expressway widening. Furthermore, the City will require a partial vacation of a portion of the Houret Court cul-de-sac to the north to remain consistent with the MMSP/TASP future roadway network.

Site Development Permit
To approve the Site Development Permit, the following findings must be made pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-57.03(F):
a. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.

The site's layout and design of the proposed units are consistent with the modern, multistory townhomes surrounding the project site, such as the Ellison Park, Paragon, and Harmony residential developments. The contemporary designs of the buildings include flat top roofs with full parapets, dark metal canopies, stucco, horizontal siding, integrated gutters and downspouts, and vinyl windows with vertical and horizontal mullions. Colors are earth tone shades of browns and grays with portions of yellow stucco. The units will be accessed by entry doors that face public rights-of-way. In addition, future residents will access garages via private alleyways, similar to nearby residential developments. 304
Item # 17.

Page 21 of 24 ends

b. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance, as demonstrated in Table 4. The proposed multi-family residential building is permitted in the MXD3 Very High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning District. The project design conforms to the site and development standards of the MXD3 zone.

The Project also conforms to MMC Section XI-10-54.015 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Developments) and XI-10-57.05 (Density Bonus Permits). Where exceptions from the MXD3 standards are needed, the applicant has requested waivers and parking exceptions under the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.). The requested waivers and parking exception will support the development of affordable housing on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard.
c. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan, as demonstrated and outlined in Table 2.
d. The Project is consistent with the Transit Area Specific Plan.

The proposed Project is consistent with the applicable policies and design guidelines of the TASP/MMSP, as demonstrated in Tables 3 and 5. As the Project is an eligible housing project under the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915(p)(5), the Project is entitled to waivers and reduced parking requirements. The requested waivers and parking exception will support the development of affordable housing units on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard.

Conditional Use Permit
To approve the Conditional Use Permit, the following findings must be made pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-57.04(F):
a. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity nor to the public health, safety and general welfare.

The Project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or public health, safety, or general welfare. The Project is consistent with other multifamily residential projects within the TASP and conditioned to preserve the health and wellness of future residents. In addition, the condominium project creates housing opportunities and increases the diversity of housing types in the TASP area by utilizing accessory dwelling unit provisions.
b. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance, as demonstrated in Table 4. The proposed multi-family residential building is permitted in the MXD3 Very 305
Item # 17.

Page 22 of 24 ends

High-Density Mixed-Use Zoning District. The project design conforms to the site and development standards of the MXD3 zone. Therefore, a conditional use permit is required to allow the subdivision of the proposed townhome units.

The Project also conforms to MMC Section XI-10-54.015 (Density Bonus for Affordable Housing Developments) and XI-10-57.05 (Density Bonus Permits). Where exceptions from the MXD3 standards are needed, the applicant has requested waivers and parking exceptions pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code § 65915 et seq.). The requested waivers and parking exception will support the development of affordable housing on a site where it would not otherwise be possible through a strict application of the specified standard.
c. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.

The proposed Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan, as demonstrated and outlined in Table 2.
d. The Project is consistent with the Transit Area Specific Plan.

Furthermore, the City will require a partial vacation of a portion of the Houret Court culde-sac to the north to remain consistent with the Transit Area Specific Plan (Milpitas Metro Specific Plan) future roadway network.

Density Bonus Permit
To qualify for a Density Bonus Permit, the following standards must be met pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-54.15(D):

1. The maximum allowable base density specified in the General Plan, including any other permitted increases to density.

The proposed Project includes 56 townhome condominiums and 24 accessory dwelling units, equaling to 41.67 dwelling units per acre, meeting the General Plan density allowed in the immediate area.

2. All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project, shall contain on average the same number of bedrooms as the non-affordable units in the project, and shall be comparable with the non-affordable units in terms of appearance, materials and finished quality. The Planning Commission may recommend to the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency modifying the requirements as to unit size or type, if it is found that such a modification would better serve the affordable housing need of Milpitas. 306
Item # 17.

Page 23 of 24 ends

The applicant has proposed four two-bedroom and four three-bedroom affordable units reserved for moderate-income households, in order to meet the requirement to develop fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential units into affordable units, which equates to

8.4 units. The approximate locations for the proposed eight units have been identified and approved by the Housing Department as being adequately dispersed throughout the site.

Since the remaining 0.4 units cannot be physically developed, the applicant will pay an inlieu fee commensurate to the value of such a unit, as determined by the City of Milpitas Housing Department.

3. Prior to final building inspection and occupancy for a project containing affordable units, the applicant shall execute and record at the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office the City's Agreement Imposing Restrictions on Real Property, which Agreement shall explain the affordability requirements. The agreement shall be approved by the Milpitas City Attorney prior to recordation.

The Project has been conditioned to provide an agreement to the City of Milpitas explaining the affordability requirements, processes and procedures, to the satisfaction of the Milpitas City Attorney prior to the release of any Certificate of Occupancy.

4. Retaining Affordability. A developer shall agree to, and the City shall insure continued affordability of, all lower- or very low-income density bonus units for thirty (30) years or a longer period of time, if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program.

This standard is not applicable to the Project. The Project will provide for-sale affordable housing to families of moderate income.

5. Affordable Rents. Those units targeted for lower-income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed thirty (30%) of sixty (60%) percent of the Santa Clara County median income. Those units targeted for very low-income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code, shall be affordable at a rent that does not exceed thirty (30%) of fifty (50%) percent of County median income.

The standard is not applicable to the Project, as the Project is creating townhome condominiums for sale, rather than for rent. Affordability provisions will be assessed on the sale of the individual condominium.

6. Relation to Statute. Density bonus requirements not specified in these regulations shall be governed by the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code section 65915, et seq.

The developer has identified and requested bonus incentives held within the State Density Bonus Law, which the City has agreed to.
307
Item # 17.

Page 24 of 24 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An environmental assessment was conducted according to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended, and state and local guidelines implementing CEQA. The proposed project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15195 (Residential Infill). An exemption is the appropriate CEQA determination for the proposed project. Exhibit 2 of Exhibit A of the Resolution for the proposed Project is a memorandum demonstrating compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15195.

As a separate and independent basis, the project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) of the California Environmental Quality Act, which applies to projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review, except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.

Furthermore, the project is also exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15182 (Projects Consistent with a Specific Plan) because the project is a residential project that is generally consistent with Transit Area Specific Plan (Milpitas Metro Specific Plan.

Therefore, no further environmental review is required.

PUBLIC COMMENT/OUTREACH
Staff provided public notice of the application in accordance with City and State public noticing requirements. At the time of publishing this report, three public comments had been received (Attachment C). A notice was published in the Milpitas Post on April 15, 2022. In addition, notices were sent to all owners and occupants within 1000 feet of the project site. A public notice was also posted at the project site, on the City's Website, www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov, and at City Hall. Lastly, the project description, project plans, and CEQA exemption memo were posted to the City’s Website as an “Online Public Forum.”

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Open the Public Hearing to receive comments;

2. Close the Public Hearing;

3. Consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA; and

4. Adopt Resolution No. 22-005, recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD21-0012, Conditional Use Permit No. UP21-0006, Vesting Tentative Map MT21-0002, Density Bonus Permit No. DB21-0001, Tree Removal Permit No. TR21-0035 and Environmental Assessment No. EA21-0004, subject to the Conditions of Approval.

ATTACHMENTS
A: Resolution No. 22-005 with Conditions of Approval and CEQA Memorandum B: Project Plans
C: Public Comment, dated 4/21/22 & 4/22/22
308
Item # 17.

CITY OF MILPITAS
Planning Commission
April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1

MEETING MINUTES
7:00 PM
Wednesday, April 27, 2022

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
455 E CALAVERAS BLVD, MILPITAS, CA
and
via TELECONFERENCE (Zoom Webinar)
CALL TO ORDER Chair Chuan called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Medina-Ashby led the pledge of allegiance.

ROLL CALL Recording Secretary Elizabeth Medina called the roll.

PRESENT: Chair Chuan, Vice Chair Ciardella, Commissioners Albana, Galang, Medina-Ashby and Mohsin
ABSENT: Awasthi
STAFF: Ned Thomas, Michael Fossati, Martin de los Angeles, Albert Zamora, Steve Chan, Michael Mutalipassi, Elizabeth Medina

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DECLARATION
City Attorney Martin de los Angeles asked if any member of the Commission had any personal or financial conflict of interest related to any of the items on the agenda and there were none.

APPROVAL OF THE

MEETING AGENDA
By motion, approve the meeting agenda for April 27, 2022.

Motion/Second Mohsin/Medina-Ashby
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0

APPROVAL OF

MEETING MINUTES
By motion, approve the meeting minutes for March 23, 2022.

Motion/Second Medina-Ashby/Albana
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 4 ABSTAIN: 2 (Mohsin,Galang) ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Chair Ciardella shared that the Milpitas Rotary Club is hosting a golf tournament and dinner on May 7th – for more information contact the Rotary Club.

Chair Chuan welcomed everyone back to the City Hall Chambers after two-years.

Planning Director Thomas introduced new City Attorney Michael Mutalipassi who started yesterday. He also shared that beginning in June the Planning department will start issuing a quarterly newsletter with updates of activities in the department; to subscribe for newsletter visit the Planning website. Lastly, Planning Director Thomas wished Recording Secretary, Liz Medina a Happy Administrative Professional’s Day.
309
Item # 17.

April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 PUBLIC FORUM Chair Chuan invited members of the public to address the commission and there was none.

PUBLIC HEARING CITY VENTURES TOWNHOMES – 1752-1810 HOURET COURT – P-SD21- 0012, P-UP21-0006, P-MT21-0002, P-DB21-0001, P-TR21-0035, AND P-EA21- 0004: A Site Development Permit, Conditional Use Permit, Vesting Tentative Map, Density Bonus Permit, Tree Removal Permit, and Environmental Assessment to allow demolition of two industrial buildings, removal and replacement of 17 ordinance-size trees, and development of 56 townhome condominiums and 24 accessory dwelling units. The residential development will be comprised of eight multi-family residential buildings up to 48 feet in height (four stories), with 84 vehicle parking spaces and associated site improvements on a

1.92 acre site located in the MXD-3 Very High Density Mixed Use Zoning District at 1752-1810 Houret Court. The project is located within the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) area and submitted in accordance with California Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019). Project Planner: Michael Fossati, 408-586-3274, [email protected]
Project Planner Michael Fossati, City staff (Albert Zamora/Deputy Fire Chief and Steve Chan/Traffic and Transportation Manger), and applicant’s team [Samantha Hauser/City Ventures Project Manager, Kim Hankins/WHA Architect, Vince Rivero/ VER Consultants Planner, and Chris Fortunato/C2 Collaborative Landscape Architect] addressed commissioners’ clarifying questions regarding the ADUs attached to the townhome, the material/safety/height of the balcony on fourth floor, dog park cleanliness management, landscaping/size of plants/tree species, solar panels, walkways/bicycle lanes on project site, plans of a roadway from Montague to McCandless, guests/overflow parking, TASP EIR, which schools residents would be assigned, discussions with MUSD, price points for units (affordable vs. market rate), and locations of other City Ventures projects.

Chair Chuan invited members of the public to address the commission and the following community members made comments: JP Lanois (via zoom), Surya Dhamija, Parshva Timbadia, Nemil Timbadia, and Kinara Pardya.

Motion to close the Public Forum.

Motion/Second Mohsin/Albana
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open and close the public hearing, consider the exemptions in accordance with CEQA, and adopt Resolution No. 22-005, recommending that the City Council approve Site Development Permit No. SD21-0012, Conditional Use Permit No. UP21-0006, Vesting Tentative Map MT21-0002, Density Bonus Permit No. DB21-0001, Tree Removal Permit No. TR21-0035 and Environmental Assessment No. EA21-0004, subject to the Conditions of Approval.

Motion/Second Mohsin/Medina-Ashby
Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
NEW BUSINESS NO ITEMS.

ADJOURNMENT Chair Chuan adjourned the meeting at 8:48 pm Motion/Second Medina-Ashby/Albana
310
Item # 17.

April 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 Motion carried by a vote of AYES: 6 NOES: 0
Meeting Minutes submitted by
Planning Commission Secretary Elizabeth Medina
311
Item # 17.

City Ventures
Contact: Samantha Hauser
444 Spear Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94105
415.964.1097 | www.CityVentures.com
WHA. Architects . Planners . Designers .

Contact: Kimberly Hankins, AIA, LEED AP
680 Newport Center Drive, Suite 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.250.0607 | www.WHAinc.com
Project Overview....................................................................................1 Sustainable Features ..............................................................................2 Project Examples ...................................................................................3

ARCHITECTURE
Project Information.................................................................................SP.1 Conceptual Site Plan ..............................................................................SP.2 Site Distance Analysis ............................................................................SP.3 Building 100 | Conceptual Rendering ......................................................PR.1 Building 200 | Conceptual Rendering ......................................................PR.2 Building 100 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.1 Building 100 | Conceptual Elevations ......................................................A1.2 Building 200 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.3 Building 200 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.4 Building 200 | Conceptual Elevations ......................................................A1.5 Building 300 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.6 Building 300 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.7 Building 300 | Conceptual Elevations ......................................................A1.8 Building 400 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.9 Building 400 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.10 Building 400 | Conceptual Elevations ......................................................A1.11 Building 500 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.12 Building 500 | Conceptual Floor Plans ....................................................A1.13 Building 500 | Conceptual Elevations ......................................................A1.14 Building 100 & 200 | Conceptual Roof Plans ...........................................A1.15 SHEET LIST:

HOURET COURT SITE
Milpitas, CA
Collaborative
C2 Collaborative
Contact: Chris Fortunado
100 Avenida Miramar, San Clemente, CA 92672
949.366.6624 | www.c2collaborative.com
VER Consultants
Contact: Vince Rivero
1154 Park Ave, San Jose, Ca 95126
408.834.7889 | www.ver-consultants.com
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary.

Building 300, 400, & 500 | Conceptual Roof Plans ..................................A1.16 Color & Materials ...................................................................................CM.1

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Design Imagery......................................................................................L-1 Conceptual Illustrative Plan.....................................................................L-2 Planting Palette ......................................................................................L-3 Existing Tree Plan...................................................................................L-4 Conceptual Lighting Details.....................................................................L-5 Street Lighting Plan ................................................................................SL-1 CIVIL
Cover Sheet...........................................................................................TM 1.0 Vesting Tentative Map.............................................................................TM 2.0 Exisiting Conditions Plan and Demolition Plan ..........................................C1.0 Preliminary Grading Plan ........................................................................C2.0 Sections and Details...............................................................................C2.1 Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan .......................................................C3.0 Preliminary Stormwater Control Calculation .............................................C3.1 Preliminary Stormwater Control Details....................................................C3.2 Media Cartridge Filtration System Standard Specification..........................C3.3 Preliminary Utility Plan ...........................................................................C4.0 Preliminary Utility Plan ...........................................................................C4.1 Preliminary Utility Plan ...........................................................................C4.2 Solid Waste Handling Plan ......................................................................C5.0 3RD CITY SUBMITTAL
March 16, 2022
312
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 1 Project Overview

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
City Ventures is pleased to provide this project overview for the Houret Court Site. The Houret Court site consists of 2.25 acres in southern Milpitas. The site is located west of the Montague Expressway, a major (and expanding) transit corridor, and the site is surrounded to the west, east, and north by new apartment buildings and townhomes. The existing property consists of two industrial buildings and a surface parking lot, in keeping with the industrial land use to the south.

The site is zoned as Very High Density Mixed Use (MXD3), which allows for housing at 41-60 DUA. The project proposes 80 homes, including 56 solar all-electric towhnome-style condominiums and 24 ground floor ADU’s. The site design includes a strong streetwall, new separated sidewalks, large street trees, and front doors that open to Montague Expressway, all of which have been thoughtfully designed to create a comfortable experience for the pedestrian along the frontage street.

The target market for these homes would be first-time homebuyers and young families. The homes range in size between 1,044 sf and 2,136 sf, with 280 sf ADU’s. The townhomes provide great flexibility for different family sizes, with home ranging from 2 to 3 bedrooms with 1 bedroom ADU’s. Each home will come standard with solar, and other sustainable features, such as low flow water fixtures, nest thermostats, and electric vehicle charging. Well-designed internal streets and paseos will encourage a neighborhood feel. Fifteen percent of the new housing units will be made affordable to households with moderate incomes. Additionally, the ground level accessory dwelling units will add to the stock of rental housing within the community. Providing these diverse unit types within this development will encourage inherent affordability, and provide living opportunities for households at a variety of income levels and life stages.

EXISTING USE
The project site for the Houret Court site currently has two industrial buildings that have been in operation for the last four decades. In the years since the construction of these buildings, the neighborhood has developed in a residential direction. This development was driven by smart planning.

The City approved the Midtown Area Specific Plan in 2002 and then the Transit Area Specific Plan in 2008, where this site was identified for mixeduse development. There are ample job opportunities in the area as well as the construction of transit infrastructure (namely BART and VTA light rail connections). The Houret Court project is one of the few remaining sites that has yet to be redeveloped in the neighborhood. This project is the keystone in realizing a vibrant and integrated residential neighborhood in south Milpitas.

DESIGN GUIDELINES
The project design team consulted the City’s Design Guidelines to inform the project’s development. Major concepts that were incorporated into this project include:
• A range of housing options (rental and for-sale) to accommodate a diversity of households;
• Pedestrian activation and vibrancy along Montague Expressway, Houret Court, and Houret Drive
• Garages and surface parking are oriented away from the public street and out of view, while buildings provide front doors to the streets • An emphasis on outdoor engagement through patios, balconies, and greenspace
• Four-story building heights consistent with the neighboring developments along Montague Expressway
• A commitment to environmental sustainability, through the encouragement of public transit and pedestrian access, car charging, water conservation, and solar, all-electric homes.

City Ventures is very much looking forward to collaborating with the City of Milpitas to develop a project that will bring activation and affordability to the wider neighborhood.

TITLE SHEET INFORMATION
The project is comprised of two parcels, located at 1752 and 1810 Houret Court.

The APN numbers are 086-41-010 and 086-41-011.

Each parcel contains one multi-tenant industrial building. The existing use of the project site is light industrial use. The current tenants include auto, construction, and machining uses.

The proposed physical alterations are to redevelop the two existing buildings, remove the existing surface parking lot, and then to regrade the site. The proposed development also intends to ”right-size” the cul-de-sac at Houret Drive, reducing excess asphalt and replacing it with landscape areas.

The property is:
• Not located in a high fire hazard severity zone, wetlands, or hazardous waste site • Within a special flood hazard area, but will be removed through grading and a LOMR-F • Not located within a delineated earthquake fault zone • Not located near a stream or other resource that may be subject to a streambed alteration agreement.

No point sources of air or water polution are proposed.

There are no species of special concern known to occur on the property.

The two existing industrial buildings were built circe 1980, therefore there are no known historic or cultural resources existing on the property.

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS
Approximate square footage of each proposed building.
• Building 1 is 11,424 SF; Building 2 is 13,512 SF; Building 3 is 5,220 SF; Building 4 is 14,618 SF; Building 5 is 14,618 SF; Building 6 is 14,618 SF; Building 7 is 12,528 SF; Building 8 is 5,220 SF
Approximate square feet of proposed residential and nonresidential development. • There is no nonresidential development proposed for this site.

Proposed massing and building height.
• Building massing information can be found on pages A1.2 and A1.5.

Number of proposed residential units.
• There will be 80 total dwelling units. These are comprised of 32 two-bedroom townhomes and 24 three-bedroom townhomes with ground-floor accessory dwelling units.

Number of proposed parking spaces.
• This project proposes 84 total parking spaces, consistent with state law amounts required for projects with a density bonus. Four of those spaces will be on-street parking, whereas 80 of them will be covered spaces.

Number of proposed below market rate units and their affordability levels. • This project proposes 8 below market rate dwelling units. Four of these BMR dwelling units are in three three-bedroom townhomes with ground-floor ADUs and four BMR dwelling units are in two-bedroom townhomes. This project will be using a State Density Bonus.

Number of proposed bonus units requested pursuant to Government Code 65915 (Density Bonuses).
• No bonus units are requested pursuant to Government Code 65915 but Density Bonus waivers to setbacks and Density Bonus parking requirements are being proposed.

Number of existing residential units on the project site that will be demolished and whether each existing unit is occupied or unoccupied.
• There are no existing residential units on the project site to be demolished.

Development Statistics Allowed Proposed
Gross Lot Area* n/a 1.92 acres
Net Lot Area n/a n/a
Number of Stories 12 stories 4 stories
Front Setback 12' min. 20' max. State Density Bonus Waiver Rear Setback 15', 20' when abutting residential State Density Bonus Waiver Side Yard Setback(s) 10', 20' when abutting residential. State Density Bonus Waiver Open Space Calculation .49 acres .21 acres**
*The City of Milpitas uses gross acreage for the density calculation. Section XI-10-2.41-1.1 of the Municipal Code defines gross acreage as: “The total area within the boundaries of a legal lot or parcel, including any area proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public rightof-way. Adjacent lands already dedicated for public right-of-way, including public roadways, easements or other areas, shall not be included as part of the gross acreage.” The three regional roadways that traverse the TASP area will not be counted as part of gross acreage, because these roadways serve the region rather than the adjoining property. **This project will pay a fee for two of the 3.5 acres required per 1,000 people, pursuant to Municipal Code Section XI-10-6.02 - Mixed Use Regulations. The remaining acreage will be provided for through the use of private open space.

LAND USE ENTITLEMENT REQUESTS
In terms of the land use entitlements being sought, this project proposes to utilize the Density Bonus program to:
• Use the parking reduction pursuant to the Density Bonus. There will be 1.5 parking spaces for the 2 and 3-bedroom townhomes in the proposed project. • Use a waiver for setbacks on the site. This will be applied to Policy 5.2 from the Transit Area Specific Plan Development Standards and Design Guidelines, which states “for projects with frontage on Montague Expressway, dedication of right-of-way for the widening of Montague Expressway is required. In addition, a minimum setback of 45 ft. is required between the future curb (of the widened expressway) and buildings, for landscaping and sidewalk”. The waiver will also apply to the setback standards in Table 5-1 of the MMSP.

Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, this project will request a vesting tentative map for townhome-condominium purposes.

PARKING STATISTICS
Parking Statistics Required Proposed
Standard Spaces* 84 84
Compact Spaces 0 0
Percent Compact 0% 0%
Covered Spaces * 80
Uncovered Spaces * 4
Guest Spaces * 4
Handicapped Car Spaces * 0
Handicapped Van Spaces * 1
Motorcycle Spaces 0 0
Car Share Spaces 0 0
EV Spaces * 57
EV Handicapped Spaces * 0
Short Term Bicycle Parking 4 6
Long Term Bicycle Parking 80 80
*Pursuant to government Code 65915 (Density Bonuses), this project requires 1.5 spaces per 2 or 3-bedroom townhome unit, to cover both resident and guest parking. Milpitas does not require parking spaces for accessory dwelling units within a ½ mile of public bus stop or rail station.
313
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 2 Sustainable Features

THE ANNEX
Richmond, CA

PRELIMINAR
October

Y PACKAGE
20, 2020 DI-1

DEVELOPER INFORMATION
Solar All-Electric Advanced Technology Homes
This project will include solar-powered, all electric, energy efficient homes.

ALL INCLUSIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY - NO EXTRA COST:
• Exceeds national energy efficiency standards
• High-performance energy efficient appliances & materials • High-efficiency led lighting
• Dual glaze milgard windows with energy efficient ultraviolet coating • Water wise kohler” plumbing fixtures
• Advanced framing technology saves trees & keep our planet green • Energy efficient smart nest” thermostat
• Energy efficient radiant barrier roof sheathing
• All hvac systems are tested for optimal refrigerant charge & duct performance • QII Testing verifying consistent installation to ensure maximum installation • Duct leak testing verified by a 3rd party to optimize efficiency • Low to zero voc materials, paints, stains & adhesives

A SOLAR-POWERED LIFE INCLUDES ALL GREEN LIVING BENEFITS, PLUS • Advanced technology powers your entire home
• Eliminates your gas bill and reduces your electric bill • Pre-wired ready for electric vehicle chargers in garage • Energy efficient while living in comfort & style

THE ANNEX
Richmond, CA

PRELIMINAR
October

Y PACKAGE
20, 2020 DI-1
DEVELOPER INFORMATION 314
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 3 Project Examples
315
Item # 17.

MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY

H O U R E T D R I V E

H O U R E T C O U R T

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 SP.1
0 20 40 80
Project Information
316
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 SP.2
0 20 40 80
Conceptual Site Plan
317
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 SP.3
Site Distance Analysis

0.5 MILE0.5 MILE

0.25 MILE0.25 MILE

0.4 MILE WALKING DISTANCE0.4
MILE
WA
L
KIN
G

DISTANCE
318
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 PR.1
BUILDING 100 | Conceptual Rendering
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. 319
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 PR.2
BUILDING 200 | Conceptual Rendering
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. 320
Item # 17.
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
SH 50 60
21068 20 68
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
24 68
20 68
24 68
SH 50 60
21068 20 68
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
24 68
20 68
24 68

MASTER BEDROOM
M.C. 11'-7" X 11'-11"
MASTER
BATH
W/D
L
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
6'-6 CLEAR
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
80'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR
26 50 SH 36 30 SH
20 68
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
26 50 SH 36 30 SH
20 68
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
26 50 SH 36 30 SH
20 68
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

SH 30 36 SH 50 26
68 20
SL 50 60
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

BDRM 2
11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
5'-0"
20'-8"
DECK
15'-5" X 5'-0"

DNDNDNDN
80'-8"
16'-0"DN

AC UNIT
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
22'-8" 3'-0"
80'-8"
UP

KITCHEN / DINING
11'-9" X 7'-4"
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
UP
UP
UP
DN
8'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR
DNDNDN
UP
16'-0"
80'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR UP DN

THIRD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

FOURTH PLAN SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
2 BEDROOM

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

CODE ANALYSIS
BUILDING TYPE: FIVEPLEX
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 100
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16
NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES. 60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
SH 50 60
21068 20 68
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
24 68
20 68
24 68
SH 50 60
21068 20 68
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
24 68
20 68
24 68

SH 30 36 SH 50 26
68 20
SL 50 60
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

BDRM 2 11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
5'-0"
20'-8"
DECK 15'-5" X 5'-0"

DNDNDNDN
80'-8"
16'-0"DN

AC UNIT
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
22'-8" 3'-0"
80'-8"
UP

CEILING MOUNTED BIKE STORAGE
24 68
50 50 SH
36 30 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
26 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SH
36 30 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
26 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SH
36 30 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
26 50 SH
68 24
SH 50 50
SH 30 36
23 68
SH 50 26
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
SH 30 36
23 68
SH 50 26
SH 50 26
PDR
C
KITCHEN / DINING 11'-9" X 7'-4"
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
UP
UP
UP
DN
8'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR
DNDNDN
UP
16'-0"
80'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR UP DN

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

THIRD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

FOURTH PLAN SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
2 BEDROOM

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

TYPICAL CART DETAILS

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.1
BUILDING 100 | Conceptual Floor Plans
321
Item # 17.

FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING 100 - ELEVATIONS

BACK ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021022 | 07-29-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING 100 - ELEVATIONS

BACK ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION

MILPITAS

MILPITASCA
0 4 8 16

SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION

FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING 100 - ELEVATIONS

BACK ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION

MILPITAS

MILPITASCA
0 4 8 16

SIDE ELEVATION

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.2
BUILDING 100 | Conceptual Elevations

BUILDING MATERIAL
Roof: Parapet
Exterior: Stucco Finish, Fiber Cement Siding
Exterior Accents: Awning
Deck Accents: Board Form Railings
Window & Door Trim: Fiber Cement Trim
Entry Door: Decorative Front Entry Door
Garage Door: Sectional Garage Doors
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. Refer to Landscape Drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locations Right Rear
Left Front
+47'-6''
9'-1'' 9'-1'' 9'-1'' 9'-1''
T.O.P.

T.O.P.

HIGHEST PARAPET
F.F.

F.F.

F.F. F.G.
322
Item # 17.
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.

HYBRID
W/H
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4046 SL
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
30 SC 80
3068
2868
HYBRID
W/H
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
30682'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.

SL 46 40
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
30 SC 80
3068
2868
3668 PR.
3068
3668 PR.

ADU
12'-10" X 16'-4"
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
UP
BATH
C
PDR
6'-101
2 " 19'-111
2 "
11'-2" 6'-10"
44'-10"
ADU
12'-10" X 16'-4"

RECYCLE
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
TRASH
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
BATH
C
UP
ENTRY

ENTRY ENTRY
ENTRY

CEILING MOUNTED BIKE STORAGE CEILING MOUNTED BIKE STORAGE 50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
SL 46 50
21 68
SL 50 50
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
68 24
FX 50 30
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
37'-1"
LIVING
13'-0" X 15'-6"

KITCHEN
PDR
DECK
13'-0" X 12'-3"
DINING
14'-3" X 8'-0" C
4'-8" 4'-7"
46'-4"
W/D
P
DN
UP
LIVING
13'-0" X 15'-6"

KITCHEN
PDR
DECK
13'-0" X 12'-3"
DINING
14'-3" X 8'-0" C
W/D
P
DN
UP

FIRST FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 2 - TYPICAL
2,136 SF TH / LIVING
280 SF ADU
456 SF GARAGE
339 SF DECK
3 BEDROOM + BONUS
2 BATH + 2 PDR
2-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

ADU SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERNAL WALL.

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 200

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 2 - END UNITS (ADA)
2,197 SF TH / LIVING
280 SF ADU
456 SF GARAGE
339 SF DECK
3 BEDROOM + BONUS
2 BATH + 2 PDR
2-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

ADU SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR PERIMETER OF THE EXTERNAL WALL.

SECOND FLOOR
NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

Note: Planning & Building
to approve the electrical
receptacles needed
for appliances in ADU
kitchenettes
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
60 50 SH
21068 20 68 26 50 SH 36 30 SH
24 68
20 68
24 68
SH 50 60
21068 20 68
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
24 68
20 68
24 68
SH 50 60
21068 20 68
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
24 68
20 68
24 68

SH 30 36 SH 50 26
68 20
SL 50 60
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

BDRM 2 11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
5'-0"
20'-8"
DECK 15'-5" X 5'-0"

DNDNDNDN
80'-8"
16'-0"DN

AC UNIT
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
22'-8" 3'-0"
80'-8"
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

THIRD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

FOURTH PLAN SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
2 BEDROOM

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

TYPICAL CART DETAILS

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.3
BUILDING 200 | Conceptual Floor Plans
323
Item # 17.
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
41'-9"
37'-1"
UP
BATH
7'-5" 13'-7" 13'-7" 7'-5"
C

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-0" X 13'-6"
7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7"
24 68
40 68 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
24 68
40 68 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
24 68
4068 BI-PASS
5068 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
24 68
40 68 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
24 68
4068 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
68 24
BI-PASS 68 40
BI-PASS 68 50
17R
UP
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
68 26
68 24
68 24 24 68
4'-8"
DN
BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2 10'-0" X 10'-0"
10'-0" X 11'-7"
MASTER
BATH L
30 50 SH 30 50 SH
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH 30 50 SH 30 50 SH DN17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH 30 50 SH 30 50 SH DN17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH 30 50 SH 30 50 SH DN17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH 30 50 SH 30 50 SH DN17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH SH 50 30 SH 50 30
17R
DN
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
SL 50 60
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.

SH 50 30
24 68
SH 50 30
21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7" 7'-5" 13'-7" 13'-7" 7'-5" DN
DECK
13'-0" X 13'-9"
PDR
BONUS
20'-5" X 27'-0"
41'-9"
37'-1" 4'-8"

AC UNIT

THIRD FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16
BUILDING 200

FOURTH FLOOR
NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.4
BUILDING 200 | Conceptual Floor Plans
324
Item # 17.

FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING 200 - ELEVATIONS

BACK ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021022 | 07-29-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

SIDE ELEVATION

FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING 200 - ELEVATIONS

BACK ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION

MILPITAS

MILPITASCA
0 4 8 16

SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION

FRONT ELEVATION
BUILDING 200 - ELEVATIONS

BACK ELEVATION

SIDE ELEVATION

MILPITAS
0 4 8 16

SIDE ELEVATION

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.5
BUILDING 200 | Conceptual Elevations

BUILDING MATERIAL
Roof: Parapet
Exterior: Stucco Finish, Fiber Cement Siding
Exterior Accents: Awning
Deck Accents: Board Form Railings, Metal Railings
Window & Door Trim: Fiber Cement Trim
Entry Door: Decorative Front Entry Door
Garage Door: Sectional Garage Doors
Right Rear
Left Front
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. Refer to Landscape Drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locations +46'-6''
9'-1'' 9'-1'' 9'-1'' 9'-1''
T.O.P.

T.O.P.

HIGHEST PARAPET
F.F.

F.F.

F.F. F.G.
325
Item # 17.

W/H
28 SC 68
30 68SC
26 68 PR.36 68 PR.30 68 PR.

W/H
28 SC 68
30 68SC
28 SC 68 30 SC 80
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4046 SL
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
3046 SL
28 SC 68 30 SC 80
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.

SL 46 40
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
3046 SL
W/H
28 SC 68
30 68SC
W/H
28 SC 68
30 68SC
28 SC 68 30 SC 80
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4046 SL
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
3046 SL
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
89'-2"
5'-5" 20'-3" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
21'-9"
10'-2"
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
SL 46 50
21 68
SL 50 50
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
68 24
FX 50 30
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
SL 46 50
21 68
SL 50 50
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
68 24
FX 50 30
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
89'-2"
25'-8" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"

FIRST FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 2 - TYPICAL
2,136 SF TH / LIVING
280 SF ADU
456 SF GARAGE
339 SF DECK
3 BEDROOM + BONUS
2 BATH + 2 PDR
2-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

ADU SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERNAL WALL.

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 300

SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
1 BEDROOM + DEN

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

MASTER BEDROOM
M.C. 11'-7" X 11'-11"
MASTER
BATH
W/D
L
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
6'-6 CLEAR
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
80'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

SL 50 60
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

BDRM 2 11'-11" X 10'-2"
25'-8"
20 DECK 15'-5" X 5'-0"

AC UNIT
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
22'-8" 3'-0"
80'-8"
UP

CEILING MOUNTED BIKE STORAGE
50 50 SH26 50 SH50 50 SH26 50 SH50 50 SH26 50 SH
SH 50 50SH 50 26SH 50 50SH 50 26
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
25'-8"
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

THIRD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

FOURTH PLAN SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
2 BEDROOM

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

TYPICAL CART DETAILS

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.6
BUILDING 300 | Conceptual Floor Plans
326
Item # 17.

UP
BATH
C

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-0" X 13'-6"
DN
BEDROOM 2
BEDROOM 2 10'-0" X 10'-0"
10'-0" X 11'-7"
MASTER
BATH L
60 50 SH
SH 50 30
68 24
SL 50 50
SH 50 30
BI-PASS 68 40
BI-PASS 68 50
17R
UP
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
68 26
68 24
68 24 24 68
30 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SL
30 50 SH
40 68 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
60 50 SH 60 50 SH 60 50 SH
SH 50 30
68 24
SL 50 50
SH 50 30
BI-PASS 68 40
BI-PASS 68 50
17R
UP
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
68 26
68 24
68 24 24 68
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
89'-2"
25'-8" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"

MASTER BEDROOM
11'-7" X 11'-11"
M.C.

MASTER
BATH
W/D L
7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
60 50 SL 60 50 SL 60 50 SL 60 50 SL
30 50 SH 30 50 SH
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH SH 50 30 SH 50 30
17R
DN
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
SL 50 60
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.

SH 50 30
24 68
SH 50 30 SH 50 30 SH 50 30
17R
DN
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
SL 50 60
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.

SH 50 30
24 68
SH 50 30
DN
DECK
13'-0" X 13'-9"
PDR
BONUS
20'-5" X 27'-0"
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
89'-2"
25'-8" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0"
DEN
11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
DECK
15'-5" X 5'-0"
DN

THIRD FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 2 - TYPICAL
2,136 SF TH / LIVING
280 SF ADU
456 SF GARAGE
339 SF DECK
3 BEDROOM + BONUS
2 BATH + 2 PDR
2-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

ADU SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERNAL WALL.

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 300

FOURTH FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
1 BEDROOM + DEN

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.7
BUILDING 300 | Conceptual Floor Plans
327
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.8
BUILDING 300 | Conceptual Elevations
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. Refer to Landscape Drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locations Right Rear
Left Front
328
Item # 17.

W/H
28 SC 68
SC 68 30
26 68 PR.36 68 PR.30 68 PR.

W/H
28 SC 68
SC 68 30
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
28 SC 68 30 SC 80
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.

SL 46 40
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
3046 SL
28 SC 68 30 SC 80
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.

SL 46 40
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
3046 SL
28 SC 68 30 SC 80
16'-0" x 7'-0" SECT. GAR. DOOR
EVSE
3068
2'-6" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4046 SL
4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
4'-0" CLR. 4'-0" CLR.
2'-6" CLR.
2668
3046 SL
W/H
28 SC 68
SC 68 30
W/H
28 SC 68
SC 68 30
ADU
12'-10" X 16'-4"
BATH
C
UP
ENTRY
ENTRY
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
ENTRY
121'-0"
16'-0" 16'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 20'-3" 2'-5"
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
68 24
SH 50 50
SH 30 36
23 68
SH 50 26
SH 50 26
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
50 46 SL
21 68
50 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
24 68
30 50 FX
SL 46 50
21 68
SL 50 50
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
24 68
UP
DN17R
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 68
68 24
FX 50 30
68 24
SH 50 50
SH 30 36
23 68
SH 50 26
SH 50 26
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
LIVING
13'-0" X 15'-6"

KITCHEN
PDR
DECK
13'-0" X 12'-3"
DINING
14'-3" X 8'-0" C
W/D
P
DN
UP
PDR
C

KITCHEN / DINING
11'-9" X 7'-4"
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
8'-0" CLEAR
UP
7'-0" CLEAR
DN
TRASH
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
9'-0" CLEAR 7'-8" CLEAR
121'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 25'-8"
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"

FIRST FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 2 - TYPICAL
2,136 SF TH / LIVING
280 SF ADU
456 SF GARAGE
339 SF DECK
3 BEDROOM + BONUS
2 BATH + 2 PDR
2-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

ADU SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERNAL WALL.

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 400

SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
1 BEDROOM + DEN

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

SL 50 60
24 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

BDRM 2 11'-11" X 10'-2"
2 DECK 15'-5" X 5'-0"

AC UNIT
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
22'-8" 3'-0"
80'-8"
UP

CEILING MOUNTED BIKE STORAGE
50 50 SH26 50 SH50 50 SH26 50 SH50 50 SH26 50 SH
SH 50 50SH 50 26SH 50 50SH 50 26
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
2 UP
UP
UP
UP
UP
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

THIRD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

FOURTH PLAN SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
2 BEDROOM

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

TYPICAL CART DETAILS

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.9
BUILDING 400 | Conceptual Floor Plans
329
Item # 17.
60 50 SH
30 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SL
30 50 SH
40 68 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
30 50 SH
24 68
50 50 SL
30 50 SH
4068 BI-PASS
50 68 BI-PASS
UP
17R
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
26 68
24 68
24 68 24 68
SH 50 30
68 24
SL 50 50
SH 50 30
BI-PASS 68 40
BI-PASS 68 50
17R
UP
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
28 80
26 68
68 26
68 24
68 24 24 68
60 50 SH 60 50 SH 60 50 SH
SH 50 60
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
SH 50 60
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
UP
BATH
C

MASTER BEDROOM
13'-0" X 13'-6"
DN
BEDROOM 2
10'-0" X 10'-0" BEDROOM 2
10'-0" X 11'-7"
MASTER
BATH L

MASTER BEDROOM
11'-7" X 11'-11" M.C.

MASTER
BATH
W/D
L 7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
121'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 25'-8"
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
60 50 SL
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
SL 50 60
SH 30 36 SH 50 26
SL 50 60
60 50 SL 60 50 SL 60 50 SL
30 50 SH 30 50 SH
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH SH 50 30 SH 50 30
17R
DN
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
SL 50 60
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.

SH 50 30
24 68
30 50 SH 30 50 SH SH 50 30
DN
17R
HEAD CLR.
+/-7'-2"
60 50 SL
26 80
FR. DOOR
T.G.
30 50 SH
24 68
30 50 SH
DN
DECK
13'-0" X 13'-9"
PDR
BONUS
20'-5" X 27'-0"
DEN
11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
DECK
15'-5" X 5'-0" DN
121'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 21'-0" 25'-8"
64'-6"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"

THIRD FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 2 - TYPICAL
2,136 SF TH / LIVING
280 SF ADU
456 SF GARAGE
339 SF DECK
3 BEDROOM + BONUS
2 BATH + 2 PDR
2-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

ADU SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATED MEASURED FROM EXTERIOR
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERNAL WALL.

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 400

FOURTH FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
1 BEDROOM + DEN

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.10
BUILDING 400 | Conceptual Floor Plans
330
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.11
BUILDING 400 | Conceptual Elevations
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. Refer to Landscape Drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locations Right Rear
Left Front
331
Item # 17.

W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
26 68 PR.
36 68 PR.
30 68 PR.

W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
26 68 PR.
36 68 PR.
30 68 PR.

W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68 W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
ENTRY
45'-6"
2'-5" 40'-8" 2'-5"
96'-10"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
24 68
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
68 24
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
PDR
C

KITCHEN / DINING
11'-9" X 7'-4"
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
8'-0" CLEAR
UP
7'-0" CLEAR
DN
TRASH
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
51'-6"
9'-0" CLEAR 7'-8" CLEAR
96'-10"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"

FIRST FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 500

SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
1 BEDROOM + DEN

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

MASTER BEDROOM
M.C. 11'-7" X 11'-11"
MASTER
BATH
W/D
L
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
25'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
6'-6 CLEAR
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
80'-8"
7'-0" CLEAR
20 68
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
20 68
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
20 68
60 50 SL
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
68 20
SL 50 60
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.
68 20
SL 50 60
24 68
24 68
28 68
210 68
FR. DOOR T.G.

BDRM 2 11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
25'-8"
5 20'-8"
DECK 15'-5" X 5'-0"

DNDNDNDNDN

AC UNIT
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
3668 PR.
3068 PR.
3068
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
W/H
28 SC 68
30 SC 68
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
10'-2"
21'-9"
UP

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
UP
7'-8" CLEAR
6'-6" CLEAR
9'-0" CLEAR
16'-0"
25'-8"
22'-8" 3'-0"
80'-8"
UP

CEILING MOUNTED BIKE STORAGE
50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH50 50 SH
23 68
26 50 SH
SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26SH 50 50
23 68
SH 50 26
C
KITCHEN / DINING 11'-9" X 7'-4"
LIVING
15'-5" X 9'-7"
25'-8"
UP
UP
UP
DN
UP
DN
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR
DNDNDN
UP
7'-0" CLEAR 7'-0" CLEAR UP DN

FIBER &

PLASTICS/

METALS/GLASS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

GARBAGE &

FOOD SCRAPS
96 GA

25.1"X34.3"X44.5"

THIRD FLOOR FIRST FLOOR

FOURTH PLAN SECOND FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
2 BEDROOM

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

TYPICAL CART DETAILS

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.12
BUILDING 500 | Conceptual Floor Plans
332
Item # 17.

SH 50 60 SH 50 60 SH 50 60 SH 50 60 60 50 SH
SH 50 60 SH 50 60 SH 50 60 SH 50 60 60 50 SH
SH 50 60
SH 50 60

MASTER BEDROOM
11'-7" X 11'-11" M.C.

MASTER
BATH
W/D
L 7'-0" CLEAR
UP
DN
51'-6"
96'-10"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"
SL 50 60 SL 50 60 SL 50 60 SL 50 60 60 50 SL
SL 50 60 SL 50 60 SL 50 60 SL 50 60 60 50 SL
SL 50 60
SL 50 60
DEN
11'-11" X 10'-2"
BATH
DECK
15'-5" X 5'-0" DN
51'-6"
96'-10"
16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0" 16'-0"

THIRD FLOOR
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

CODE ANALYSIS
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VA
OCCUPANCY: R2
COMMON WALL DWELLING UNIT SEPARATION: 1HR
SPRINKLER SYSTEM: FULL 13
BUILDING 500

FOURTH FLOOR

UNIT ANALYSIS
UNIT PLAN 1 - TYPICAL
1,044 SF LIVING
283 SF GARAGE
77 SF DECK
1 BEDROOM + DEN

2.5 BATH
1-CAR GARAGE

AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION MEASURED FROM INSIDE
PERIMETER OF THE EXTERIOR WALL. EXCLUDED STAIR AT FOURTH LEVEL.

NOTE: FOUNDATION PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (WHICH

WILL INCLUDE A VAPOR BARRIER AND PASSIVE VENTING TO

BE INSTALLED AT TIME OF FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION AS
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY MILPITAS BUILDING DEPARTMENT).

NOTE: WINDOWS AND DOORS TO MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
PER 11-24-21 ACOUSTICAL STUDY BY VENEKLASEN ASSOCIATES.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.13
BUILDING 500 | Conceptual Floor Plans
333
Item # 17.

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.14
BUILDING 500 | Conceptual Elevations
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary. Refer to Landscape Drawings for wall, tree, and shrub locations Right Rear
Left Front
334
Item # 17.

SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS

SOLAR PANEL LOCATIONS
BUILDING 100
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

ROOF PLANS
BUILDING 200

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.15
BUILDING 100 & 200 | Conceptual Roof Plans
335
Item # 17.

BUILDING 500
C 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. dba WHA. | 2021228 | 11-08-21

MILPITAS

MILPITAS, CA
0 4 8 16

ROOF PLANS
BUILDING 300 BUILDING 400

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA
0 2 4 8

CITY SUBMITTAL
© 2022 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 03-16-22 A1.16
BUILDING 300, 400, & 500 | Conceptual Roof Plans
336
Item # 17.

CONCEPTUAL

EXTERIOR COLOR

DESIGN & SPECIFI
MAY 5, 2017
Revision 2 - 05/18/17

THE ORCHARD

SAN JOSE, CA

HOURET COURT SITE

MILPITAS, CA PLANNING SUBMITTAL
© 2021 WILLIAM HEZMALHALCH ARCHITECTS, INC. DBA WHA. | 2021228 | 10-29-21 Color & Materials
Note: Artist’s Conception; Colors, Materials and Application May Vary.

CM.1 REVISION 2, CONCEPTUAL - MAY 18, 2017 | 11
© Copyright - AT Design Consulting Inc.
www.atdesignconsulting.com

EXTERIOR COLOR/MATERIAL DESIGN THE ORCHARD
Exterior Color/Material Specifications
HYBRID BUILDING (same as Gear Residential)

ITEM MANUFACTURER COLOR & NAME
Body 1 Sherwin Williams 7566, Westhighland White
Body 2 Sherwin Williams 9163, Tin Lizzie
Body 3 Sherwin Williams 7615, Sea Surpent
Entry Door 1 Sherwin Williams 6697, Nugget
Entry Door 2 Sherwin Williams 6487, Cloudburst
Metal Awnings & Railings Sherwin Williams 6992, Inkwell Gutters & Downspouts Sherwin Williams Paint to match adjacent body color
Windows Milgard: Montecito Espresso
Garage Door Clopay White
Stone Creative Mines:

Craft Inner Piece Imagine
Stone Mortar Orco VPJG, Grey
Conceptual Exterior Color/Material Specifications
Note: Specifications shown are conceptual. Manufacturer will be as proposed or equal. 337
Item # 17.

03.16.22 MILPITAS, CA
L-1

HOURET COURT SITE -
Collaborative
0 5’ 10’ 20’
DESIGN IMAGERY Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
338
Item # 17.
1 2
3 10 11 7
12 4
4 4
6 4
9 13 8
5 MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY

H O U R E T D R I V E

H O U R E T C O U R T
LEGEND
Micro Dog Park with Benches
Seating are with Turf
Shadeed seating with Barbecue
Patio
Decorative paving in alley
Turf block in EVA
EV and ADA Parking
Concrete walk
Right-of-way
Turf area
Short term bike parking [6 spaces]
Mailboxes
Future Bus Stop
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 4
3 2
1 03.16.22

MILPITAS, CA
L-2

HOURET COURT SITE -
Collaborative
0 5’ 10’ 20’
CONCEPTUAL ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
339
Item # 17.

03.16.22 MILPITAS, CA
L-3

HOURET COURT SITE -
Collaborative

PLANTING PALETTE
TREES

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Acer spp. Maple
Albizia julibrissin Silk Tree/Mimosa
Arbutus ‘Marina’ Marina Strawberry Tree
Arbutus menziesii Madrone
Betula pedula ‘Dalecaslica’ Cutleaf Weeping Birch
Betula utilis var. jacquemonlii Himalayan Birch
Callistemon citrinus Lemon Bottle Brush
Cercis canadensis Eastern Rosebud
Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow
Cinnamomum camphor Camphor Tree
Cornus florida ‘Rubra’ Pink Flowering Dogwood
Cornus nuttallii Pacific Dogwood
Fraxinus spp Ash
Fremontodendron californicum Flannel Bush
Ginko biloba ‘Autumn Gold’ Autumn Gold Maindenhair Tree Gledilsia triacanthos ‘Moraine’ Moraine Honeylocust
Gleditsia tricanthos ‘Rubylace’ Red Honey Locust
Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree
Koelreuteria panicaulata Golden Rain Tree
Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle
Lagerstroemia lndica ‘Tuscarora Red’ Tuscarora Crape Myrlie Laurus nobi/is Bay Laurel
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree
Magnolia spp. Magnolia spp.

Olea ssp. Olive
Pinus spp. Pine
Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache
Platanus racemosa Sycamore
Populus nigra ‘Italica’ Lombardi Cottonwood
Prunus sp. Cherry
Punica granatum Pomegranate
Pyrus calleryana ‘Bradford’ Callery Pear
Pyrus kawakamii Evergreen Pear
Quercus spp. Oak
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box
Ulmus spp. Elm
Zelkova serrata Japanese Zelkova

CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE

SHRUBS, GRASSES, AND GROUNDCOVER

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Abelia grandifl ora sp. Sherwood Abelia
Achillia millifolium Yarrow
Agrotis pallens Diego Bent Grass
Arctostaphylos spp. Manzanita
Buxus microphylla Boxwood
Buxus japonica ‘Green Beauty’ Green Beauty Japanese Boxwood Carex glauca Blue Sedge
Carex tumulicola Foothill Sedge
Cistus salviifolius ‘Prostratus’ Sageleaf Rockrose
Cistus ‘Sunset’ Magenta Rockrose
Cornus sericea Creek Dogwood
Cornus sericea ssp. Occidentails Western Dogwood
Cotoneaster dammeri ‘Lowfosf Bearberry Cotoneaster
Dianella sp. Flax Lily
Dietes bicolor Fortnight Lily
Euonymus ssp. Euonymus
Festuca mairei Atlas Fescue
Helidotrichon sempervirens ‘Sapphire’ Saphire Blue Oat Grass Hemerocallis sp. Daylily
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca
Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon
Iris douglasiana Douglas’ Iris
Juncus patens California Gray Rush
Lantana montevidensis Trailing Lantana
Lavandula ssp. Lavender
Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince’ Canyon Prince Wild Rye Leymus glaucus Creeping Wildrye
Ligustrum japonicum ‘T exanum’ Waxleaf Privet
Lomandra sp. Dwarf Mat Rush
Lonicera ssp. Honeysuckle
Muhlenbergia ssp. Deer Grass
Myoporum p. ‘Putah Creek’ Creeping Myoporum
Nasella pulchura Purple Needle Grass
Olea europaea ‘Little Ollie’ Little Ollie Dwarf Olive

VINE AND ESPALIER

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Ficus pumila Creeping fig
Jasminum po/yanthum Pink Jasmine
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Phormium sp. New Zealand Flax
Pittosporum sp. Pittosporum
Podocarpus elongatus ‘lcee Blue’ lcee Blue Yellow-wood
Prunus caroliniana ‘Bright n Tighf Bright N Tight Carolina Laurel Rhaphiolepis sp. Indian Hawthorn
Rosa spp. Rose
Rosmarinus offi cinalis Rosemary
Salvia spp. Sage
Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine
Westringia sp. Coast Rosemary
Turf Grass
340
Item # 17.

MONTAGUE EXPRESSWAY

H O U R E T D R I V E

H O U R E T C O U R T
LEGEND
Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry) [44” DBH]
Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry) [72” DBH]
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [62” DBH]
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [39.5” DBH]
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [65” DBH]
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [56.5” DBH]
Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry) [74” DBH]
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [54” DBH]
Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [45” DBH]
Populous fremomtii (Western Cottonwood) [74” DBH]
Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet Gum) [42” DBH]
Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet Gum) [28” DBH]
Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet Gum) [21” DBH]
Celtis occidentalis (Common Hackberry) [57” DBH]
Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) [73” DBH]
Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet Gum) [28” DBH]
Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet Gum) [21” DBH]
Liquidamber styraciflua (Sweet Gum) [28” DBH]
5 Cinnamomum camphora (Camphor Tree) [48” DBH]
15 6
16 7
17 8
18 9
19 10
4 14
3 13
2 12
1 11
1 14
12 13
2 11 10
9 8
7 6 5
4 3
19 18
17 16
15 03.16.22

MILPITAS, CA
L-4

HOURET COURT SITE -
Collaborative
0 5’ 10’ 20’
EXISTING TREE PLAN Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
341
Item # 17.

CONCEPTUAL POLE LIGHT [OR EQUAL]
SCALE: NTS
CONCEPTUAL BOLLARD LIGHT [OR EQUAL]
SCALE: NTS
Pole top luminaires with symmetrical light distribution Housing/fitter: Die-cast aluminum construction with a spun aluminum cap. The fixture slip fits a 3" O.D. pole top or tenon and is secured by four (4) socket head stainless steel set screws threaded into stainless steel inserts. Die castings are marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy.

Enclosure: Molded 1/8" clear high impact acrylic lens with white, aluminum louver stack.

Electrical: 23.4W LED luminaire, 27 total system watts, -30°C start temperature. Integral 120V through 277V electronic LED driver, 0-10V dimming. Standard LED color temperature is 4000K with a >80 CRI.

Available in 3000K (>80 CRI); add suffix K3 to order.

Note: Due to the dynamic nature of LED technology, LED luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA-US. For the most current technical data, please refer to www.bega-us.com.

Finish: All BEGA standard finishes are polyester powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. Available in four standard BEGA colors: Black (BLK); White (WHT); Bronze (BRZ); Silver (SLV). To specify, add appropriate suffix to catalog number. Custom colors supplied on special order.

UL listed for US and Canadian Standards, suitable for wet locations.

Protection class: IP65.

Weight: 22.0 lbs.

EPA (Effective projection area): 1.3 sq. ft.

Luminaire Lumens: 1697
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Voltage:

Color:

Options:

Modified:

A
B
Lamp A B
77 142 23.4W LED 255⁄8 235⁄8
*recommended for use with 8' to 12' poles
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 FAX (805) 566-9474 www.bega-us .com ©copyright BEGA 2019 Updated 01/18/2019
APTOS™ BOLLARD

PRODUCT DATA TECH BRIEF PRODUCT DATA
APTOS™ BOLLARD
page 2 of 3 | Rev. 12-10-20
T 800.451.0410 | www.forms-surfaces.com
© 2020 Forms+Surfaces® | All dimensions are nominal. Specifications and pricing subject to change without notice. For the most current version of this document, please refer to our website at www.forms-surfaces.com.

LIGHT ENGINE DESCRIPTION - HARDWIRED BOLLARD
LAMPS DESCRIPTION LUMINAIRE LUMENS* B.U.G. RATINGS
3000K LED 40W custom LED light engine 205 B0-U1-G0
4000K LED 40W custom LED light engine 220 B0-U1-G0

LIGHT ENGINE DESCRIPTION - SOLAR BOLLARD
LAMPS DESCRIPTION LUMINAIRE LUMENS* B.U.G. RATINGS
3000K LED Custom LED light engine 49 B0-U1-G0
4000K LED Custom LED light engine 53 B0-U1-G0
*Luminaire lumens represents the absolute photometry for the luminaire, and indicates the lumens out of the entire fixture.

NOTE: Polar candela and isofootcandle plots can be found on the Aptos Bollard product page on our website.

CERTIFICATION
• Hardwired Aptos Bollard is ETL and C-ETL listed for wet locations.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
• Please refer to the Aptos Bollard Environmental Data Sheets for detailed environmental impact information. • Metal components have a long life cycle and are 100% recyclable. • Standard powdercoat finishes are no-VOC; non-standard powdercoat finishes are no- or low-VOC, depending on color. • Low maintenance.

NOMINAL DIMENSIONS - HARDWIRED BOLLARD BASE PLATE MOUNTING DETAIL

5.1" base

36.5"

4.9"

6.4"

3.5" bolt mounting circle

1.8" conduit opening

03.16.22 MILPITAS, CA
L-5

HOURET COURT SITE -
Collaborative
0 5’ 10’ 20’
CONCEPTUAL LIGHTING DETAILS Scale: 1”= 10’-0”
342
Item # 17.

SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SD SD SD

SS SS SS

SD SD SD SD SD SD

SS SS SS SS SS SS

WT WT WT WT WT
SD
SD

SD SD SD
WT
SD

WT WT WT WT WT WT

SS SS SS SS SS

SD SD SD SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT
WT WT
WT WT

WT WT WT WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT WT
WT WT
WT
WT

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS SS SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
SD
SD
SD
SD
WT
WT
WT
WT
SD SD

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

WT WT WT WT
WT
WT
WT WT
WT
WT
WT WT
WT
WT
WT
SD
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT

WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT WT
WT

WT WT WT
SS
WT
WT
WT WT
WT WT
SS
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
EV
SVC
SVC
SVC
SVC
SVC
JT
JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
SVC
SVC
SVC
EUG
EUG
EUG
EUG
EUG

EX SD

EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD EX SD

EX SD

EX SS

EX SD

EX SS

EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT

EX WT

EX JT

EX JT EX JT EX JT

EX JT

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY
SECTION W1
1 1
343
Item # 17.
344
Item # 17.
345
Item # 17.
346
Item # 17.
347
Item # 17.
348
Item # 17.
349
Item # 17.
350
Item # 17.
351
Item # 17.
352
Item # 17.
353
Item # 17.
354
Item # 17.
355
Item # 17.
356
Item # 17.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Adopt a Resolution to Adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update and Adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (Staff Contact: Steve Erickson, Engineering Director/City Engineer, 408-586-3301, Steve Chan, Transportation and Traffic Manager, 408-586- 3324)
Category: Public Hearings-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 5/17/2022
Recommendation: (1) Open the public hearing for comments and move to close the hearing; (2) Adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; (3) Adopt a Resolution to Adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update; and (4) Authorize the Engineering Director/City Engineer to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15075.

BACKGROUND:

The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update, Project No. 3448, is an approved project in the 2022- 2026 Capital Improvement Program (Project). This Project provides an update to the existing Trails Master Plan and City’s Bikeway & Pedestrian Master Plan that were completed in June 1997 and 2009 respectively.

The Trail Master Plan update is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan and provides recommendations for improved connectivity to major local destinations such as the Milpitas Transit Station and Great Mall of the Bay Area. The update identifies gaps in the City’s trail system, includes recommendations for safety and accessibility, supports economic development by providing active modes of transportation to and from commercial areas, and enhances the quality of life for Milpitas residents.

The update to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan identifies enhancements and development of existing bikeway and pedestrian networks for safety and accessibility. Proposed network improvements could include enhanced sidewalks, expansion of green bike lanes, and installation of buffered/separated bike lanes. These improvements would address the needs of commuters and recreational pedestrians and bicyclists and provide access to transit hubs, work locations, recreational opportunities, and retail destinations.

Community Engagement
The update to the Master Plans was coordinated with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions such as Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), City of Fremont, City of San Jose, Open Space Authority, and County of Santa Clara to provide a cohesive network of proposed trial, bike, and pedestrian facility improvements.

Staff completed data collection and analysis of existing conditions and conducted six community outreach meetings including presentations to City Commissions, community engagement meetings, and provided information at various City events. Additionally, an interactive online map was created to capture the community’s interest, comments, and the priority for improvements.

These outreach efforts were carried out to encourage and maximize public participation. Roughly 2,000 comments were received through the public engagement process. The public draft plan was presented to the 357
Item # 18.

City Council on February 2, 2021 and open for public review and comment from February 2, 2021 through April 25, 2021.

A condensed virtual version of the draft Master Plan update was made public and included infographics and capabilities to allow submission of questions, and a means to respond to polls and surveys. Due to the COVID19 pandemic and associated shelter in place orders, the project team held a virtual open house meeting to present the draft plan update to the public on March 24, 2021. During this virtual open house, the project team conducted additional surveys and polls in real time to further obtain the Milpitas communities interests and priorities.

ANALYSIS:

Staff has updated the draft to the Trails, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan (Attachment 2) based on City Council and community feedback obtained during the extensive public outreach process. The revised Plan provides a vision and action plan for the improvement of safe and convenient travel by walking and bicycling.

Specifically, this plan update seeks to support connectivity and access to destinations, such as the Milpitas Transit Center, and increase access to recreational opportunities. Today, fewer than 2% of residents walk or bike to work. As the population and employment opportunities in Milpitas continue to grow, it is important to expand upon options for how people travel and encourage travel modes other than by motor vehicles.

The updated Master Plan provides:
• A plan for the development of a comprehensive and cohesive active transportation network that is suitable for all ages and abilities.
• Recommendations for five miles of new trails that have been assessed for construction feasibility, access points, and amenities to encourage usage.
• Pedestrian infrastructure improvements that focus on comfort of use and safety and maximize access to transit, schools, parks, and commercial centers. • Focuses on improving the existing bike facilities to create 13 miles of low-stress bike network. • Bikeway improvements that include high visibility pavement markings and signage, roadway widening, barriers between vehicles and bike lanes.
• Recommendation for amenities to support pedestrian and bicycle travel to the Milpitas Transit Center.
• Recommended guidelines and best practices for use of bike share and scooter share which are relatively new travel concepts that have gained popularity.

The total estimated cost associated with all proposed improvements in the updated Master Plan is $294 million. Implementation of projects will be dependent on available funding and staff resources, and implementation would span over many years. Funding for recommended improvements would be from a culmination of sources including the Street Fund, which receives contributions from various local and State sources, grants and the General Government CIP Fund. Local, regional, and state sources that could be used toward the completion of these improvements include SB-1, Measure B sales tax, Gas Tax, Vehicle Registration Fee, and TDA article 3 funds. However, it is important to note that the improvements in the Master Plan compete with other citywide needs such as street resurfacing. As part of the development of the annual capital improvement program, staff will recommend allocation of available funds to the highest priority needs.

The Trails, Pedestrian, and Bikeway Master Plan update is consistent with the goals and policies in the newly adopted General Plan (March 2021). This update builds upon on the goals and objectives outlined in the Circulation Element of the General Plan that efficiently, equitably, and effectively supports the City’s land use vision, minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enhances connectivity of the existing network, and supports the use of all modes of transportation. Increased walking and bicycling activity for transportation can also reduce vehicle emissions, resulting in improved air quality. This not only helps improve the quality of life for those vulnerable to asthma and other respiratory conditions, but it helps reduce the city’s contribution to climate change.
358
Item # 18.

The following are several actions from the General Plan that are consistent with the Trails, Pedestrian, and Bikeway Master Plan update:
 Action CIR-4a: Prioritize, fund, and implement a comprehensive system of sidewalks, bikeways, and off- street trails that connects all parts of the City as identified in the Bikeway and Pedestrian Master Plan and Trails Master Plan and in accordance with the City of Milpitas Municipal Code.  Action PROS-1h: Implement recommendations in the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Master Plan that safely link trails and open space to neighborhoods and special areas and regional trail networks.  Action PROS-1i: Update the Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Master Plan to identify new trail opportunities and trail connections throughout the community.  Action CD-10b: Continue to apply and expand the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to reflect the tenets of pedestrian and bicycle-oriented design.

Conclusion:

The update to the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan is now complete and ready for adoption. Staff recommends the City Council approve resolutions (Attachment 1 and Attachment 8) to adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan IS/MND and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and the Trails, Pedestrian, and Bikeway Master Plan document.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative: Do not adopt the Resolution adopting the IS/MND for the Project and the Trails, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update.

Pros: None
Cons: The Trails, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan provides guidance and shows support to various active transportation projects. A document of support is required for various types of grant funding requests. A denial would delay this project and potentially miss any deadlines for grant opportunities.

Reason for Not Recommending: The current Trails Master Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan were adopted in 1997 and 2009, respectively. Milpitas has changed dramatically with new housing and commercial, regional transit center, and other points of interest. The City also adopted a new General Plan in March 2021. An update to the Trails, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan will reflect these changes and make recommendations to implement the General Plan and provide improved access to points of interests through active modes of transportation such as walking and biking. An updated plan is needed to support continued growth and improvement of the City’s trails, pedestrian, and bicycle network.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the Negative Declaration/Initial Study and the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Document. However, $294 million funding is required to implement all proposed recommendations, goals, and improvements as shown in the updated Master Plan. The following is a breakdown of improvement cost by type:

Improvement Type Improvement Examples Planning Level Cost Pedestrian Improvements Signal upgrade and sidewalk $121.2 million Bike Improvements Separated bikeway and Green Bike lane $108.2 million Bike Spot Improvements Bike lane connectivity $2.5 million Trail Improvements Linear trail $13.5 million
Trail Spot Improvements Trailhead and trail access improvements $48.6 million Total $294.0 million
The Plan identifies potential funding opportunities from local, regional, and state sources that could be used toward the completion of these improvements. Specifically, SB-1, Measure B sales tax, Gas Tax, Vehicle Registration Fee, and TDA article 3 are annual regional and state allocation funds that may be used for this 359
Item # 18.
purpose. However, it is important to note that the improvements in the Master Plan compete with other citywide needs such as street resurfacing. As part of the development of the annual capital improvement program, staff will recommend allocation of available funds to the highest priority needs.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The City of Milpitas, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) (Attachment 3), Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) (Attachment 4) and the Notice of Determination (Attachment 7) for the Trails, Pedestrian, and Bikeway Master Plan Update (“Project”) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended.

The IS/MND document analyzes the Project at a programmatic level in accordance with Sections 15371 and 15071 of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §15000 et. seq.) and applicable General Plan policies and Milpitas Municipal Code regulations. Adoption of the proposed Plan will establish a long-term program for the future construction of active transportation facilities; however, adoption in itself will not directly involve the construction of such projects. Thus, the IS/MND evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the Plan at a programmatic level and provides programmatic-level mitigation measures.

The IS/MND document concludes that the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts on the environment. The IS/MND document (Attachment 3) identifies mitigation measures for the following areas where the Project may result in potentially significant impacts on the environment:
 Air Quality
 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Tribal Cultural Resources
The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a negative declaration was published in accordance with the City and State noticing requirements. The Notice was posted at Milpitas City Hall, on the City of Milpitas and project webpages, at the Milpitas Library, and in the Milpitas Post newspaper. In addition, the IS/MND was posted at the State CEQA Clearinghouse on March 18, 2022 (SCH No. 2022030515).

The publication of the initial study for the required 30-day public review and comment period began on March 18th, 2022 and ended on April 18th, 2022. During this period, the IS/MND document was made available to local, state, federal agencies and to other interested organizations and individuals for review. The City received responses from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). Their comment letters are attached as (Attachment 5) and (Attachment 6), respectively, and a summary of these comments is outlined below. Additional coordination with these agencies will be required during implementation of specific projects identified in the Plan.

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
 SFPUC parcels that are included in the plan must be evaluated to determine if the proposed trail would interfere with SFPUC’s access and use of its ROW land for utility operations by submitting proposals through SFPUC’s Project Review process
 SFPUC noted that it should be identified as a responsible agency that would require SFPUC to draft findings pursuant to CEQA.
 The Hetch Hetchy Trail which could potentially connect City of Milpitas to the City of Fremont have been identified in both trails plans. SFPUC stated that these plans are conceptual, and further review will be required before SFPUC can provide support for proposed trails.  SFPUC requires the City of Milpitas to prominently state in all public documents that any proposed use of SFPUC’s ROW is subject to review and approval by the City and County of San Francisco through its SFPUC.

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
360
Item # 18.
 DTSC recommends a requirement for advance notification and approval of the lead regulatory agency Project Manager prior to any ground disturbance at any sites for which the lead regulatory agency provides regulatory oversight.
 DTSC recommends soil sampling and site evaluation, etc., when performing excavation and/or demolition activities.

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Open the public hearing for comments and move to close the hearing.

2. Adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

3. Adopt a Resolution to Adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update

4. Authorize the Engineering Director/City Engineer to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15075.

Attachment(s):

1. Resolution to Adopt IS/MND and MMRP

2. Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update

3. Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4. Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

5. Comment Letter from San Francisco Public Utilities Commission

6. Comment Letter from Department of Toxic Substances Control

7. Notice of Determination

8. Resolution to Adopt Master Plan
361
Item # 18.

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS ADOPTING THE

MILPITAS TRAILS, PEDESTRIAN, AND BIKEWAY MASTER PLAN UPDATE INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION, PROJECT NO. 3448
WHEREAS, Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update, No. 3448 (Master Plan Update) is included in the approved 2022-2026 Capital Improvement Program. The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update includes an analysis of the conditions of City trails, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, recommendations and estimated costs for improvements, maintenance practices, as well as program recommendations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, as the Lead Agency, has prepared an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update (Project) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended. The IS/MND and MMRP analyzes the Project at a programmatic level in accordance with Sections 15371 and 15071 or the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §15000 et. seq.) and applicable General Plan policies and Municipal Code regulations of the City of Milpitas.

WHEREAS, the ISMND concludes that the proposed Project, while not exempt from CEQA, will have less than significant effect on the environment and therefore does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

WHEREAS, the Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a negative declaration was publicized in accordance with the City and State noticing requirements, and was publish on March 18th, 2022 WHEREAS, the Notice was posted at Milpitas City Hall, on the City of Milpitas and project webpages, at the Milpitas Library, and in the Milpitas Post newspaper., In addition, the IS/MND was posted at the State CEQA Clearinghouse for public comments commenced on March 18th, 2022 and ended on April 18th, 2022. The City received comments from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on the initial study from public during the 30-day public comment period.

WHEREAS, the City acknowledges receipt of these comments and recommends further coordination and review when projects are in preliminary phases.

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

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

2. The City Council hereby adopts a resolution to adopt the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan Update Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration and its associated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Project No. 3448

3. A Notice of Determination shall be filed with the County of Santa Clara within five (5) working days of the final Project’s approval.
362
Item # 18.
2 Resolution No. ____
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of May 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutallipassi, City Attorney
363
Item # 18.

THE CITY OF MILPITAS
Trail, Pedestrian,
and Bicycle
Master Plan
May 2022
364
Item # 18.

B THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Acknowledgments
City Council
Rich Tran, Mayor
Carmen Montano, Vice Mayor
Evelyn Chua, Councilmember
Karina R. Dominguez, Councilmember
Anthony Phan, Councilmember
City of Milpitas
Fanny Yu, Associate Civil Engineer
Steve Erickson, City Engineer / Engineering Director
Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager
Steve Chan, Traffic & Transportation Manager
Ned Thomas, Planning Director
Jay Lee, Principal Planner
Jessica Garner, Planning Manager
Renee Lorentzen, Director of Recreation and
Community Services
Lyhak Eam, Associate Civil Engineer
Raza Ahmad, Special Projects Associate
Steven McHarris, City Manager
Stakeholders
Lauren Ledbetter, VTA
Lola Torney, VTA
Ellen Talbo, County of Santa Clara
Alica Kawaguchi, Santa Clara County Public Health
Jennifer Hooper, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Teri Rogoway, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority
Errol Gabrielsen, Santa Clara Valley Water District
Ramses Madou, City of San Jose
Ryan Smith, City of San Jose
John Brazil, City of San Jose
Yves Zsutty, City of San Jose
Nick Danty, City of San Jose
Cheryl Jordan, MUSD Superintendent
Scott Forstner, MUSD Communications Specialist
Rene Dalton, City of Fremont
John Cordes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
Consultant Team
Alta Planning + Design
Brett Hondorp, Principal-in-Charge
Erin David, Project Manager
Charlie Simpson, Planner
365
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS C Executive Summary
Introduction
Existing Conditions
Community Context
Transportation Overview
Programs Review
Needs Analysis
Overview and Purpose
Safety Analysis
Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
Connectivity Analysis
Summary
Outreach
Overview of Outreach Strategy
Phase 1
Phase 2
Vision, Goals,
and Policies
Recommendations
Pedestrian Network
Bicycle Network
Trail Network
Programs Recommendations
Scooter/Bikeshare
Assessment
System Recommendations
Implementation
Prioritization
Project Lists
Funding Opportunities
Appendices
A. Existing Conditions
B. Needs Analysis
C. Prioritization
D. Bike and Scooter Share
E. Design Guidelines
F. Cost Estimates
Contents
366
Item # 18.

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
367
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 2 The Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle
Master Plan provides a vision and action plan
for the city to improve safe and convenient
travel by active modes in Milpitas. Specifically,
this plan seeks to:
• Support connectivity and access to
destinations;
• Improve safety for all modes;
• Create an all ages and abilities active
transportation network that supports all
users, including vulnerable and historically
disadvantaged populations;
• Integrate active transportation networks with
BART and other transit options; and
• Increase access to recreational opportunities.

Today, fewer than 2% of residents walk or
bike to work.1 However, as the population
continues to grow along with employment
in the city, it is important to expand options
for how people travel in and around the
city. The recently-opened BART station has
the potential to dramatically change the
transportation landscape for Milpitas, providing
new opportunities to access the region without
relying on a personal vehicle. Safer bicycle and
pedestrian connections to the BART station and
other transit options are particularly important
to better serve the growing number of jobs in
the city.

Network Needs
Network needs and opportunities for
improvement were identified through
consideration of the existing network, the
location of destinations and services in the city,
evaluation of collision data, and public input.

The Needs Analysis reveals several key
considerations for creating a complete and
connected active transportation network in
Milpitas:

High-speed roadways, rail lines, creeks,
and highways are barriers for continuous,
connected travel among destinations and
neighborhoods. Specifically, travel east and
west across the city is restricted by highways.

The few crossing opportunities available
provide access for all modes, resulting in
complex shared traffic conditions.

Collisions, particularly those resulting in
serious injuries or fatalities, disprorportionately
impact people walking or bicyciling, as shown
in the figure below. Serious injury or fatal
collisions involving people walking or bicyling
also primarily occured on major roadways,
further emphasizing the barriers created by
these roads.
1 2018 ACS 5-year estimate

REPORTED CRASHES IN
MILPITAS, 2014-2018
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
TOTAL

COLLISIONS
SEVERE

INJURIES

FATALITIES
Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
368
Item # 18.
3 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Finally, a complete and connected network
should support people of all ages and abilities.

As the population continues to grow, it is
important to consider how people connect to
not only jobs but also schools, parks, services,
transit, and regional destinations. Today's
conditions support varied levels of access to
these destinations; this is explored further in
the Needs Analysis Chapter.

Public Engagement
Throughout the planning process, Milpitas
residents and visitors were invited to share
about their current travel experiences,
provide input on the types and locations of
recommended improvements, and share
feedback about the plan. Input opportunities
included both in-person workshops, open
houses, and public meetings as well as online
tools, such as interactive input maps, plan
comment tools, and a Virtual Open House.

Throughout the planning process—and despite
the challenges created by the COVID-19
panedmic—Milpitas residents and visitors
shared more than 2,000 points of feedback.

Results of public engagement reflected themes
similar to the findings ofthe Needs Analysis.

Comments most frequently supported the need
for improved safety for all people and modes;
improved connections to schools and transit;
improved access across major barriers; and
increased connectivity both locally and with
neighboring cities.

As a result, this plan prioritizes bicycle
and pedestrian travel in the city to make
these modes an attractive travel option.

Recommendations focus on development of
a low-stress active transportation system that
prioritizes separation from motor vehicles along
and across roadways.

In spring 2021, milpitas residents and visitors
were invited to review the draft trail,
pedestrian, and bicycle master plan. a virtual
open house provided an overview of the
planning process and key recommendations,
while the draft plan was made available for
comment.

Review the Draft Plan
+ provide feedback at:
https://milpitasplanreview.altaplanning.site/#/
Learn more about the
planning process + review
recommendations at:
https://milpitasopenhouse.altago.site/
Two Ways to Get Involved:

The City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and
Bicycle Master Plan
is the City’s vision and action plan for creating a safer, more comfortable active transportation network.

Review the draft plan
+ share your feedback
by April 26, 2021
369
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 4 Recommendations
The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
provides network recommendations based
on both corridor (or linear) improvements
as well as intersection (or point) locations.

These improvements seek to create complete
and connected networks, with an emphasis
on low-stress travel opportunities. Further,
these recommendations seek to maximize
use of existing right-of-way and prioritize
improvements with high levels of feasibility and
advance plan goals and objectives.

Pedestrian Recommendations identify both
area-based improvements as well as specific
locations for new or improved crossings,
expansion of the sidewalk network, and closing
network gaps.

Bicycle Recommendations include both
on-street connections, such as new bicycle
boulevards or separated bike lanes, and
intersection improvements that improve
network connectivity.

Trail Recommendations identify new shareduse paths, trail access points, and trailheads that support low-stress travel along separated
routes.

Projects for Further Study include projects that
will advance network objectives but require
additional consideration due to the high level
of complexity and coordination required. These
projects, including crossings of highways and
rail, were identified through other planning
efforts, public comment, and network analysis.

Table 1 Summary of Plan Recommendations
recommendation Type proposed
Number /
mileage
Pedestrian Spot
Improvements
60 crossings
Bicycle Spot
Improvements
30 crossings
Linear Bikeway
Improvements
40 miles
Trail Spot Improvements 19 access points
Linear Trail Improvements 9 miles
Together, the improvements identified as part
of this plan seek to create a comprehensive
active transportation network that supports
people of all ages and abilities.

When completed, the City of Milpitas will have
over 50 miles of low-stress faciities, including
35 miles of new low-stress facilities.
370
Item # 18.
5 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK

VICTORIA DR

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Pedestrian Improvements
Commercial Pedestrian Priority Areas and the Neighborhood Pedestrian Priority Areas are focused locations for improved pedestrian facilities and amenities. Recommendations include elements such as improved sidewalks, direct routes through street end connections, safer roadway crossings, and lighting, wayfinding, and street trees. These improvements and others seek to improve safety and comfort of the pedestrian environment in Milpitas.

In addition to area-based recommendations, over 50 locations are highlighted for specific crossing improvements and gap closure. Although the Milpitas sidewalk network is relatively complete, wide roadways, high traffic speeds and volumes, and limited crossing opportunities affect safe and comfortable travel by foot or with use of a mobility device. Prioritized pedestrian spot improvements are shown in the map above.
¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK

VICTORIA DR

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
371
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 6 Table 2 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Project type* Location Cross street
Commercial Signalized Milpitas Blvd Dixon Landing Rd
Commercial Signalized Abel Street Milpitas Blvd
Neighborhood Unsignalized Yosemite Dr S Temple Dr
Neighborhood Unsignalized Arizona Avenue Washington Drive Neighborhood Unsignalized Milpitas Blvd Tramway Dr
Commercial Signalized Jacklin Rd. Park Victoria Dr
Commercial Signalized Main St Cedar Way
Commercial Unsignalized Jacklin Rd Foothills Square
Commercial Signalized Abel St Serra Way
Neighborhood Signalized Milpitas Blvd Washington Dr
Commercial Unsignalized Dixon Rd Hetch Hetchy Trail
Neighborhood Unsignalized Yosemite Dr Roswell Dr
Neighborhood Unsignalized Abbott Avenue Valley Way
Neighborhood Signalized S Park Victoria Yosemite Dr
Neighborhood Unsignalized Capitol Ave Fallen Leaf Way
Commercial Signalized Calaveras Blvd Serra Way
Commercial Signalized Jacklin Rd Escuela Parkway
Neighborhood Signalized Abel St Redwood Ave
Neighborhood Signalized Abel St Marilynn Dr
Neighborhood Signalized Abel St Penitencia St
Commercial Unsignalized Main St Corning Ave
Commercial Unsignalized Abel St Machado Ave
Commercial Signalized Main St Curtis Ave
Commercial Signalized Abel St Main St
Neighborhood Signalized Landess Ave Yellowstone Ave
Neighborhood Unsignalized Edsel Dr Temple Dr
Neighborhood Signalized Park Victoria Dr Edsel Dr
Sidewalk Gap Milpitas Blvd Montague Expwy to Los Coches St 372
Item # 18.
7 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 PARK

VICTORIA DR

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY

LINEAR BIKEWAY

IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY N LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
PARK

VICTORIA DR

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY

LINEAR BIKEWAY

IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

PRIORITY BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY N LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Bicycle Network Improvements
This plan proposes a complete and connected low-stress bicycle network that supports travel to, from, and around major destinations in Milpitas. Shared-use paths, explored in more detail below, provide the foundation for the network and connect to bike boulevards and cycle tracks to link people to where they want to go. On-street bike lanes and buffered bike lanes support more confident bicyclists in locations with limited right-of-way. The proposed network includes 35 miles of new low-stress bikeways. The priority bike network is shown in the map above. 373
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 8 Table 3 Priority Bikeway Recommendations: Short Term Improvements PROJECT TYPE Roadway LOCATION
Class IV Abel Street Milpitas Blvd to Redwood Ave
Class IIB Abel Street Redwood Ave to Calaveras Blvd
Class II Evans Road S Park Victoria Dr to Kennedy Dr
Class IIB S Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Blvd to Landess Ave Class IIB S Park Victoria Dr Jacklin Rd to Calaveras Blvd Class IV Milpitas Blvd City Limit to Jacklin Rd
Class IV Jacklin Rd Milpitas Blvd to S Park Victoria Dr Class IV Milpitas Blvd Jacklin Rd to Calaveras Blvd
Class IIIB Yosemite Dr S Park Victoria Dr to Piedmont Rd Class IV Yosemite Dr Milpitas Blvd to S Park Victoria Dr Class IIIB Arizona Avenue Buskirk St to Jacklin Rd
Class IIIB Yellowstone Ave S Park Victoria Dr to Landess Ave Class IIIB Washington Dr Milpitas Blvd to Escuela Parkway Class IV Dixon Land Rd Milpitas Blvd to Hetch Hetchy Trail Class IV Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Blvd to Yosemite Dr
Class IV Milpitas Blvd Yosemite Dr to Landess Ave
Class IIIB Tahoe Dr Sinnott Park to Yellowstone Ave
Class IIB Evans Road Kennedy Dr to Calaveras Blvd
374
Item # 18.
9 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 ¥880
¥680
Ã237

PARK VICTORIA DR

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY BICYCLE

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY BIKE SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
Bicycle Spot Improvements
Intersection improvements support safe bicycle travel and a complete and connected network.

Intersection improvements presented in this plan include near-term and longer-term improvements that support safer travel across the network. Prioritized bicycle spot improvements are shown in the map above.

Near term improvements including completing bike lane striping through the approach to an intersection where bike lane markings currently drop prior to intersections. Longer-term improvements seek to enhance safety and connectivity across major barriers, such as I-680 and I-880, that require more significant intervention.
¥880
¥680
Ã237

PARK VICTORIA DR

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY BICYCLE

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY BIKE SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
375
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 10 Table 4 Priority Bike Spot Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Project type ROADWAY LOCATION
Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Jacklin Road
Bike Lane Connectivity Dixon Landing Rd Milpitas Blvd
Bike Lane Connectivity Jacklin Road Arizona Avenue
Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Calaveras Boulevard Bike Lane Connectivity Abel Street Marilynn Drive
Bike Lane Connectivity Montague Expressway E Capitol Avenue Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Blvd Washington Dr
Bike Lane Connectivity Jacklin Road Escuela Parkway
Bike Lane Connectivity Jacklin Road Park Victoria Drive Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Calaveras Boulevard Bike Lane Connectivity Abel Street Redwood Avenue
Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Edsel Drive
Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Yosemite Drive Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Montague Expressway Bike Lane Connectivity Main Street Great Mall Parkway
Bike Lane Connectivity Tasman Drive McCarthy Boulevard
Bike Lane Connectivity Abel St Main St
376
Item # 18.
11 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek

PARKVICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY TRAIL

IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITIZED TRAIL

RECOMMENDATIONS

EXISTING TRAILS
Existing
Unpaved Trails
Bike/Ped Bridge

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
Trail Improvements
The existing trail network in Milpitas is primarily comprised of paved shared use paths. The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan seeks to expand the existing network to provide a foundation of direct, separated routes for people walking and biking. While the trail network builds on previously-proposed path alignments, shifting conditions, updated standards, and changing development patterns have impacted the path alignments recommended here. However, it is important to consider the proposed paths in conjunction with the on-street network and sidewalk recommendations that support a more complete, better connected network. Priority trail alignments are shown in the map above.

Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek

PARKVICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY TRAIL

IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITIZED TRAIL

RECOMMENDATIONS

EXISTING TRAILS
Existing
Unpaved Trails
Bike/Ped Bridge

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
377
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 12 Table 5 Priority Trail Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Type* Location Cross Street
Paved Shared Use Path Penitencia Creek San Andreas Dr to Calaveras Blvd Paved Shared Use Path Calera Creek Milpitas Blvd to Hillview Dr Paved Shared Use Path Escuela Pkwy Russell Ln to Roger St Paved Shared Use Path Hillview Dr / Los Coches St Berryessa Creek 378
Item # 18.
13 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek

PARKVICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY TRAIL

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITIZED TRAIL

SPOT RECOMMENDATIONS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
TRAILS
Existing
Proposed
Unpaved Trails
Bike/Ped Bridge
Trail Spot Improvements
Trail spot improvements, when implemented in conjunction with the paved shared use path network, increases access to paths throughout the city while also support navigation through wayfinding improvements, new access points, and trailheads. Improved access points expand integration of the trail network with on-street improvements, expand connections to destinations across the city, and increase recreational opportunities. The map above represents proposed and prioritized spot improvements along the paved shared use path network.

Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek

PARKVICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD

MAIN ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE

EVANS RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLVD

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE

ZANKER RD

MC CARTHY BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

PRIORITY TRAIL

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITIZED TRAIL

SPOT RECOMMENDATIONS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
TRAILS
Existing
Proposed
Unpaved Trails
Bike/Ped Bridge
379
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 14 Table 6 Priority Trail Spot Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Type* Location Cross Street
Trail Access Improvements Berryessa Creek Yosemite Dr
Trail Access Improvements Berryessa Creek N Milpitas Blvd Trailhead Improvements Hetch Hetchy Trail Oliver W. Jones Park Trailhead Improvements Robert E. Browne Park Yellowstone Ave Trailhead Improvements Hetch Hetchy Trail Paseo Refugio Trail Access Improvements S Hillview Dr Los Coches St
Trail Access Improvements Tom Evatt Park S Abel St
380
Item # 18.
15 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Shared Micromobility
As Milpitas expands active transportation
infrastructure, the City should consider
opportunities for shared mobility programs
that support travel options for Milpitas
residents, visitors, and employees. Neighboring
jurisdictions and other communities in
the region have implemented a shared
micromobility program, including both
bicycle and scooter share programs. It is
recommended that the City of Milpitas explore
similar opportunities, including opportunities to
coordination or partnership with neighboring
cities.

Specifically, this plan recommends a
preliminary strategy for integrating shared
bicycle and scooter programs through a oneyear pilot program in select areas of the city.

This program should include elements such as
designated parking areas, equitable access to
shared vehicles, and close coordination with
neighboring jurisdictions. Evaluation of the
program, following the one-year pilot study,
should consider opportunities to expand the
program beyond the recommended pilot areas.

Policies and Programs
To supplement infrastructure investments,
Milpitasshould also implement education
and encouragement programs, such as
Safe Routes to School, employer-based
encouragement programs, and adult cycling
classes. Wayfinding sign systems and bicycle
parking programs can further support residents
and visitors traveling by active modes, while
a comprehensive data collection program
and maintenance policy can support greater
understanding and preservation of the City's
infrastructure investments. Finally, the City
should adopt Vision Zero and Complete Streets
policies to support a safer, more balanced
transportation system.

Project Implementation
Recommended projects were prioritized
based on community feedback, plan goals,
and results of the network needs analysis.

Criteria considered both need and feasibility.

This approach prioritizes connections that
provide access to destinations, improve high
stress corridors, address a history of bicycleand pedestrian-involved collisions, and are identified as a need by the community. Further,
it considers the potential investment and
complexity associated with the project; near
term improvements are those that are both
high need and can be completed by the City
of Milpitas within the existing right-of-way.

The resulting project list is an action plan for
implementation.

In addition to prioritized projects, potential
funding opportunities were identified from
local, regional, and state sources to help
guide the implementation of the plan's
recommendations.

Designated parking areas for bike share and
scooter share encourage compliance with
parking requirements, including providing
locations to lock bikes and scooters.
381
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 16 COVID-19 Impacts
This plan reflects an adjusted planning process
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beginning with the California Governor’s March
2020 Stay at Home Order, planned outreach
activities and the associated scheduled
were modified to comply with public health
guidelines in effect throughout the remainder
of 2020 and early 2021. This includes extended
public comment periods, shift to virtual
outreach activities, and extension of the overall
plan timeline.

During phase 2 of public outreach, over 1,500 people visited the virtual open house, which provided residents the opportunity to review the planning process, comment on the proposed priority projects, and share feedback about the plan.
382
Item # 18.
17 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022

INTRODUCTION
383
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 18 The Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master
Plan provides a vision and action plan for the City
to create a complete and connected network of
bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Through improved
sidewalks, bikeways, and paved shared use paths,
the resulting network seeks to support residents
and visitors of all ages and abilities. This plan
serves as an update to the previously-adopted Trail
Master Plan (1997) and Bikeway Master Plan Update
(2009). It focuses on supporting safer travel in and
around Milpitas while maintaining and expanding
connections with neighboring jurisdictions.

An improved active transportation network will
support a growing city whose increasing population
and employment demands more options for how to
get around and connect to the region. Supported
by a network of paved shared use paths, onstreet bicycle facilities, and enhanced pedestrian facilities, Milpitas has the opportunity to expand
transportation choice while helping meet the needs
of people of all ages and abilities.
384
Item # 18.
19 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Chapter 1, Introduction, outlines the purpose
of this plan and considers the benefits of active
transportation.

Chapter 2, Existing Conditions, considers
the broader context of this plan, including
demographic and development trends, the
transportation system, and the current state
of the active transportation network, including
bicycle, pedestrian, and trail facilities in the city.

Chapter 3, Needs Analysis, describes the
needs of the active transportation network in
the city, including ways to support low-stress
travel to community destinations and recreation
opportunities.

Chapter 4, Outreach, summarizes the
engagement activities and findings conducted
as part of this plan.

Chapter 5, Vision and Goals, defines the
vision for the active transportation network and
identifies the supporting Comprehensive Plan
goals that the proposed bicycle, pedestrian,
and trail systems supports.

Chapter 6, Recommendations, describes
the proposed active transportation network,
including recommendations for both corridor
and spot improvements. This chapter also
includes recommendations for programs
and policy to support an expanded active
transportation system.

Chapter 7, Shared Mobility, describes
the recommended strategy for e-bike and
e-scooter share implementation.

Chapter 8, Implementation, prioritizes
recommended active transportation
improvements and summarizes potential
funding sources.

Plan Contents Relationship to
Other Plans
The Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle
Master Plan aims to create a complete,
interconnected system of paved shared-use
paths, on-street bikeways, and pedestrian
improvements to support residents as they
recreate and travel in and around the city.

Local and regional planning documents,
specifically those aimed at improving walking
and biking, informed development of the
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan.

Recommendations put forth in this plan
incorporate previous planning efforts, while
acknowledging changing conditions in the City
influencing the growth of active transportation
networks.

Local plans reviewed include the Circulation
Element of the Milpitas General Plan, the
Milpitas Bikeway Master Plan (2009), the
Milpitas Community-Based Transportation Plan
(2009), the Milpitas Trail Master Plan (1997), as
well as specific area plans such as the Milpitas
Transit Area Specific Plan (Amended in 2011),
and the Midtown Specific Plan (2002). Regional
plans, including the Santa Clara County
Bicycle Plan (2018), the Santa Clara County
Countywide Trails Master Plan (1995), and
plans from neighboring jurisdictions, were also
reviewed.

The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
builds on the goals and objectives outlined
in the Circulation Element of the forthcoming
Milpitas General Plan. The related goals
and objectives are included in Chapter 5.

The General Plan will guide the long-term
physical development of the city, while the
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
Update will guide the city's implementation of
recommendations that support the city’s vision
for improved multi-modal connectivity.
385
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 20 Benefits of Active
Transportation
Investment in active transportation
infrastructure—including bikeways, sidewalks,
and trails—supports residents, employees, and
visitors as they travel in and around Milpitas.

Active transportation can support a more
active lifestyle; support people as they connect
to recreation, employment, or educational
opportunities; and for many, serve as the
primary way to travel.

The benefits of active transportation are welldocumented and broad-reaching, including environmental, economic, and health benefits.

Key befits includes:

SAFETY
Addressing network gaps, improving existing
infrastructure, and supporting continued
education and enforcement can reduce
potential conflicts among people walking,
bicycling, and driving. Well-designed roadways
and active transportation facilities can improve
safety for all roadway users through increased
predictability and increased separation from
motor vehicles.

HEALTH AND EQUITY
A connected active transportation network
can provide safer and more comfortable ways
to travel for all ages and abilities. Low-stress
networks can expand access to schools, jobs,
homes, and parks—connecting residents
to economic, education, and recreational
opportunities. Active transportation supports
those who cannot drive, choose not to drive, or
cannot afford to own a car.

Further, active transportation supports mental
and physical well-being through reduced
stress, reduced anxiety, and numerous health
benefits associated with higher levels of
activity. For example, students who walk or
bike to school are more likely to show up ready
to learn.

ENVIRONMENTAL
Increased walking and bicycling activity
for transportation can reduce vehicle miles
traveled and reduce vehicle emissions,
resulting in improved air quality. This not only
helps improve the quality of life for those
vulnerable to asthma and other respiratory
conditions, but it also helps reduce the city’s
contribution to climate change. For more
information, see the next chapter.

QUALITY OF LIFE
Active transportation provides residents with
more choices for how they can get around
safely. Not only does improved infrastructure
increase the comfort of a route for those
walking or bicycling, it can also encourage
more people to use active modes of travel for
short trips. Residents can more easily connect
with educational, economic, and recreational
opportunities, supporting an improved quality
of life for residents who may otherwise be stuck
in traffic.
386
Item # 18.
21 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Improved active transportation networks
also support environmental goals through
increased transportation choice. With
more options to walk, bike, or access
transit, Milpitas has the opportunity
to reduce reliance on motor vehicles.

This has direct effects for advancing
environmental protection goals locally
and in the state.

According to California's Air Resource
Board, the use of motor vehicles to
transport people and good contributes to
39% of total climate change emissions.2
Reducing trips through improved active
and public transportation systems can
shift Milpitas's impact on the environment
while simultaneously supporting health,
safety, and equity focused goals.

The recommendations developed as
part of the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle
Master Plan seek to establish a more
complete, better connected active
transportation network. The following
section summarizes environmental
benefits related to improved active
transportation networks.

Consideration of
Environmental
Factors
Reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
More options for walking, biking, or taking
transit can mean less reliance on motor
vehicles for daily trips, particularly for short
distance trips. Fewer vehicle miles traveled
on city roadways support a variety of
benefits, including reduced environmental
impact, improved cost efficiency for roadway
maintenance, and improved safety.

Reduced VMT is associated with improved air
quality, reduced impact to water quality and
aquatic habitats, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, and reduced fuel consumption.

Reduced VMT is also consistent with goals
established through the Milpitas General Plan
and is consistent with statewide congestion
management guidance.

Improved Air Quality
Reduction in motor vehicle trips can improve air
quality. Vehicle emissions include CO2, nitrous
oxide, sulfur oxide, and other gases associated
with asthma attacks and cardiovascular
disease. According the EPA, improved air
quality can be associated with prevention of
premature deaths, avoided hospitalizations,
and reducing work days lost.3
2 California Air Resources Board, "California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2018"
3 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Air Pollution:

Current and Future Challenges"
387
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 22 Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
Reducing motor vehicle trips results in reduced
greenhouse gas emissions. According to the
EPA, transportation was responsible for 28%
of GHG emissions in 2018.4 GHG emissions
contribute to climate change, the effects of
which include increased weather severity,
drought, and wildfire. Increased walking and
biking can support reduction in CO2 emissions
and help Milpitas combat climate change
Related Benefits
In addition to the benefits outlined above,
reduced demand for driving also provides
savings in the form of reduced maintenance
needs for roadways, reduced collisions, and
reduced collision-related costs.

Project Implementation
While the environmental benefits of active
transportation are well-documented,
consideration of environmental impacts
for specific projects should be considered
at the time of project implementation. The
recommendations outlined in the following
chapters of this plan are described at a
conceptual level for planning purposes
only. Implementation of individual projects
will require obtaining project funding and
conducting further study, including any
environmental review required under CEQA.
4 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions"
388
Item # 18.
23 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022

EXISTING

CONDITIONS
389
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 24 The City of Milpitas is
located in Santa Clara
County at the southern
extent of the San Francisco
Bay. It is situated directly
north of San Jose and
is located southeast of
Fremont, covering over 13
square miles. A new BART
station and supporting
regional transportation
investments are setting the
stage for new opportunities
in this rapidly-growing city.

Sonoma
San Francisco
Marin
Napa
Solano
Contra Costa
Santa Clara
Alameda

MILPITAS
San Mateo
390
Item # 18.
25 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Milpitas residents represent a diverse and
growing population. Since 2010, the population
of Milpitas has grown by 16%.As of January
2019, there were an estimated 76,231 people
living within Milpitas city limits.2 More than 70%
of households speak a language other than
English, and Asian populations represent over
60% of Milpitas residents.

The population is also well-educated, with over
50% of residents having a Bachelor’s degree
or higher. Further, the area median income
is approximately 1.5 times higher than that of
State of California and 10% higher than the
surrounding area.3 However, the city also has
a higher poverty rate than surrounding areas,
with approximately 8% of households living at
or below the federal poverty level.
2 California Department of Finance
3 2017 ACS 1-year estimate
Households with limited income may rely
on walking, bicycling, or transit more often
to reach jobs, services, and basic needs.

Further, navigating the city regardless of
mode may be more difficult for residents
who do not speak English. Transportation
improvements should not only help people
connect to destinations through active
modes but also support navigation through
wayfinding, education, and encouragement.

Community
Context
On an average weekday, the daytime
population nearly doubles as people travel from
across the region to several major employers
in the city. As the population has grown, so
has the number of jobs, with an estimated
38% increase in jobs from 2010 to 2017. 4
With a growing number of people living and/
or working in Milpitas, there will be a greater
demand on the roadway network, including
increased congestion. Expansion of travel
options, including improved walking and biking
network and connections to transit, can help
alleviate traffic congestion and expand choice
for how Milpitas residents and visitors travel.

In addition to traveling to reach employment
opportunities, Milpitas residents are also
traveling to reach basic services or educational
opportunities. Approximately 25% of the
population is under the age of 18, while 10%
are age 65 or older.5 Although this represents
a small proportion of the total population,
residents in these age brackets are often the
most vulnerable road users, and opportunities
to provide safe routes to access schools,
services, and other destinations should be a
priority.
4 LEHD
5 2017 ACS 1-year estimate
391
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 26 Development patterns in Milpitas respond to
primary through-ways, such as the rail lines,
I-680, and I-880, which run north-south across
the city, and State Route 237, running eastwest through much of the city. In addition to influencing land use patterns, these routes
create barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel,
restricting safe, convenient access across the
city and support an over-reliance on motor
vehicles for easy travel.

Milpitas is predominantly residential, with
single-family homes comprising approximately
75% of all housing units. However, residential
land uses are separated from other uses, with
multi-family uses located on the edge of single
family zones. This suburban development
pattern includes a series of winding roadways
and cul-de-sacs that limit connectivity within
and among neighborhoods. Figure 1 depicts the
city’s existing land use condition.

Economic centers, found in commercial and
industrial zones, are typically located in
the south and west of the city along major
roadways. These locations are separated from
residential uses and typically located on larger
parcels with limited points of access and large
parking lots. These qualities lend to reliance on
a motor vehicle, even for short trips.

Across the city, increasing connectivity—
such as by connecting street ends, providing
dedicated paths across larger parcels,
increasing access to trails and paved shared
use paths, and improving crossings at major
roadways—can increase the availability of
lower-stress travel options for bicyclists and
pedestrians, creating opportunity for greater
access for all.

Additionally, the natural landscape in Milpitas
provides an advantage for improving bicycle
and pedestrian travel options. Milpitas benefits
from a relatively flat terrain, which provides
for more accessible bicycle and pedestrian
travel as compared to locations with steep hills.

Further, the creeks that run throughout the
city provide a unique opportunity for trails and
shared use paths alongside the creeks, where
feasible.

Land Use &
Development
392
Item # 18.
27 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 1

EXISTING LAND USE BACKGROUND
Streets
Bike/Ped Bridge
Railroad
PublicParks
Water

EXISTING LAND USE
Commercial
Highway Services
Industrial
Institutional
Mixed Use
Multi Family Residential
Park Open Space
Single Family Residential
Town Center
Transportation
Waterways

SAN JOSE

FREMONT
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Fig. 1 Existing Land Use
393
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 28 12%

3.6% 0.7% 0.7% 3.4% 1.3%

78.3%

DRIVE ALONE

CARPOOL
PUBLIC

TRANSPORTATION
WALK

BICYCLE

WORK AT HOME
OTHER
Transportation
Overview
Transportation options in Milpitas are varied and
include bicycle facilities, sidewalks and shared
use paths, bus lines, light rail, and regional rail.

Despite the wide range of modes available, 78%
of individuals commute to work by driving alone.

The roadway network in Milpitas supports local
travel and includes several major routes that are
regionally significant. State Route 237, Montague
Expressway, and Great Mall Parkway support
trips into and out of Milpitas, particularly providing
access to employment centers in the southern
area of Milpitas. I-680 and I-880 also support
regional trips. Each of these routes, however,
impacts safe and comfortable travel by active
modes in the city. Improvements should consider
the regional role of these roadways while seeking
to improve access and comfort for active modes.

While over 80% of households in Milpitas have
access to two or more motor vehicles, nearly 2%
of households do not have access to a motor
vehicle. Those without a motor vehicle often
rely on transit, walking, and bicycling to meet
daily needs. A high quality active transportation
network that connects destinations and provides
access to transit not only provides mobility
options for those without motor vehicle access
but can also increase options available to
those relying on motor vehicles today. This is
particularly important for connecting areas in the
southern area of the city, including employment
centers and regional transit.

MEANS OF

TRANSPORTATION

TO WORK
Source: 2018 ACS 5-year estimate
394
Item # 18.
29 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Public Transportation
Only 3.6% of the working population commutes
via public transportation today. The network
is supported by bus and light rail service, with
routes connecting across the city and into
neighboring jurisdictions. The Milpitas BART
station, which opened in June 2020 in the
southern part of the city, is projected to have
20,000 daily passengers by the year 2030 and
is expected to significantly alter transportation
in the region. This station will be a major
transportation hub in the city and connects
Milpitas with the region; not only will residents
have improved access to nearby cities, but
those traveling to Milpitas will need ways to
get around without a motor vehicle when they
reach the city. Bicycle, pedestrian, and trail
improvements should provide connections to
this new hub to support resident access to the
region, support employee access to employers
in Milpitas, and limit reliance on motor vehicles
to access transit.

Providing safe and convenient routes to
access transit can support residents in
getting around without a motor vehicle,
support transit ridership, encourage
improved health outcomes, reduce
congestion, and improve air quality. Walking,
rolling, and bicycling help close the last mile
gap.

The Milpitas station Began service in June 2020,
expanding transit options for residents and
visitors. Photo source: BART Silicon Valley
Bus and light rail in Milpitas are primarily
operated by the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA), although
several bus lines providing service in the city
are operated by AC Transit. Frequent bus
service is limited across the city; existing routes
run north-south through the city, enabling
access between the northern neighborhoods
and the Great Mall light rail station.

The Alum Rock – Santa Teresa light rail line
includes stops in the southern area of Milpitas.

Stops are located along E Tasman Drive and
E Capitol Avenue, with three stops within
Milpitas city boundaries. The I-880 Milpitas
Station and the Great Mall/Main Station have
park and ride lots available; the Montague
station is located near the recently opened
BART stop. Opportunities to increase bicycle
and pedestrian connectivity to transit through
improved infrastructure and implementation of
Transit Demand Management (TDM) strategies
envisioned in the Transit Area Specific Plan,
should be explored.

Source: bart.gov
395
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 30 PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD

MC CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 2
PUBLIC

TRANSPORTATION

BACKGROUND
Schools
PublicParks
Streets
Railroad
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
BART Station
Light Rail Station
N Frequent Service Bus Stop
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 2 Public Transportation
396
Item # 18.
31 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Pedestrian Network
A comprehensive pedestrian network supports
residents and visitors in reaching the places
they want and need to go, including utilitarian
trips and recreational activities. Pedestrians
are those who walk or roll. The term roll reflects
those who might use a wheelchair or other
assistive mobility devices. Sidewalks form
the foundation of the pedestrian network
and connect students to their schools; transit
riders to their buses; and families to their
neighborhood parks.

The sidewalk network in Milpitas is supported
by sidewalks, trails, park paths, and other
informal connections. The pedestrian network
also includes curb ramps, crosswalks, crossing
signals, pedestrian signal heads, and other
features that support the safety and comfort of
people walking and rolling.

Although data specifying pedestrian
infrastructure locations throughout the city
was not available, review of aerial imagery and
local knowledge indicate that the sidewalk
network is relatively complete across the city.

Street Design Guidelines for the city specify
that streets shall include sidewalks with curb
ramps. While this requirement supports people
walking, it is important to note that cul-de-sacs,
high speed arterials, limited access highways,
and larger parcels limit the connectivity and
directness of pedestrian routes. On- and offramps for highways also create safety concerns for pedestrians, and opportunities to cross
the highways are limited. Opportunities to
enhance pedestrian safety and connectivity
to destinations such as transit, schools, parks,
and commercial services should be explored.

For more information on types of pedestrian
infrastructure, see the Pedestrian Improvement
Toolbox beginning on page 89.

Suggested Walking Routes to
School
The Milpitas School District is comprised of
14 schools, representing an enrollment of
over 10,000 students. For 11 of these schools,
the City has designated Suggested Walking
Routes along nearly 45 miles of roadways.

These routes are shown in Figure 3. Through
designating these routes, the City has not
only identified priority routes for safety
improvements, but have also signaled to
families looking to walk to school that their trip
may best be supported by these routes.

The Suggested Walking Routes typically
follow neighborhood roadways, which are
lower speed and lower volume, or include
segments of paved shared use paths. However,
several segments are located along higher
speed roadways, such as Abel Street, and
encounter difficult crossings. With children
comprising approximately one-quarter of the
total population in Milpitas, and children often
being more vulnerable to crashes than adults,
these routes and other connections to school
should provide an all ages and abilities route.

Improvements to the active transportation
network should consider connections to
schools specifically and opportunities to
support some of the most vulnerable roadway
users in Milpitas.

Children, representing one-quarter of
the population in Milpitas, are often
more vulnerable to crashes than adults.

Improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian
network should consider connections to
schools specifically and opportunities to
support vulnerable roadway users in Milpitas.

397
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 32 PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 3

SUGGESTED

WALKING ROUTES

BACKGROUND
Streets
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

SUGGESTED WALKING

ROUTES TO SCHOOL
Suggested Route
Schools
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 3 Suggested Walking Routes
398
Item # 18.
33 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Bicycle Network
The existing bicycle network includes nearly
50 miles of bicycle lanes, designated bicycle
routes, and paved shared use paths. While
there are 15 miles of designated bike routes, as
shown in Table 7, most of these routes do not
have signage or pavement markings to support
bicyclists. On-street bikeways, including bike
lanes and designated bike routes, are primarily
located along major roadways with higher
posted travel speeds and traffic volumes; many
are also designated as freight routes.

Paved shared use paths provide low-stress,
off-street bicycle and pedestrian connections.

However, the existing paved shared use path
network is incomplete due to network gaps
and varying levels of surface quality. This
limits continuous travel among destinations.

While paved shared use paths are an integral
component of the bicycle network, for the
purposes of this plan, they are discussed in
more detail as part of the existing trail network
beginning on page 37.

Milpitas does not currently have other bikeway
types, such as buffered bike lanes, bike
boulevards, or cycle tracks; these facility types
are discussed in greater detail beginning
on page 35. The existing network generally
supports travel north-south through many
areas of Milpitas; however, opportunities for
travel east-west across the city are limited. In
all directions, on- and off-ramps for highways
create safety concerns for those traveling by
bike, and opportunities to cross the highways
are limited. Where crossings do exist, they
typically require navigating shared conditions
with high speed motor vehicles.

Table 7 Existing Bikeways
Facility type LENGTH
Class I: Paved
Shared Use Path
8 miles
Class II: Bike Lane 25 miles
Class III: Designated
Bike Route
15 miles
TOTAL 48 miles
Within neighborhoods, residential streets
support lower-stress travel options for people
bicycling. Lower posted speeds, fewer motor
vehicles, and narrower rights-of-way contribute
to more comfortable bicycling conditions
with connections to schools, parks, and other
neighborhood-based destinations. However,
frequent major roadway crossings, indirect
routes, and limited connectivity of low-stress
routes reduce connectivity to other destinations
across the city.

Opportunities to connect residential roadways
with paved shared use paths, protected
crossings, and improved bikeways along major
roadways can support more trips by bike to
more places across Milpitas and the region.

A description of bikeway types are included on
page 35, and existing bikeways are shown in
Figure 5.
399
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 34 Fig. 4 VTA Cross-County Bikeway Corridors
Five Wounds Trl
Page Mill Trl
De Anza UPRR Trl
Blaney Channel Trl
W. Valley Trl
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trl
Stevens Creek Trl
Guadalupe River Trl
£¤101
Tully Rd
Clayton Rd
E San Antonio St
E Julian St
McKee Rd
E Maude Ave
San Antonio Rd
Silver Creek Rd
Yerba Buena Rd
N Foothill B vl d
Mary Ave
W Homestead Rd
Blossom Hill Rd
Coleman Ave
Tasman Dr
Jacklin Rd
Benton St
Curtner Ave
Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd
S Milpitas Blvd
Homestead Rd
N Capitol Ave
E Hedding St
Ross Ave
De la Cruz Blvd
Los Gatos Blvd
Bollinger Rd
Monroe St
CabrilloAve
Pruneridge Ave
Carl Rd
N McCarthy B vl d
E Middlefield Rd
Winchester Blvd
Walsh Ave
Story Rd
Goodyear St
Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd
N Shorel ni e Blvd
Gifford Ave
N King Rd
Fremont Ave
N Borregas Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Branham Ln
E Charleston Rd
W Middlefield Rd
Lawrence Expy
San Tomas Expy
Central Expy
Guadalupe River/Creek Trail-Los Alamitos Trail
Foothill Expy
S King Rd
Arastradero Rd
Trade Zone Blvd
E Capitol Expy
Geng Rd
Charmeran Ave
W Evelyn Ave
E Arques Ave
Oakland Rd
Mabury Rd Park Ave
Lundy Ave
Reed Ave
Ranch Dr
Via Ventura
Quito Rd
Los Gatos Almaden Rd
Almanor Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
Union Ave
Berryessa Rd
California St
N Mary Ave
Scott Blvd
Park Blvd
Fullerton Dr
W Hedding St
N TantauAve
Calabazas Blvd
Bush St
Airport Blvd
Saratoga Los Gatos Rd
Great Mall Pkwy
Castilleja Ave
River Oaks Pkwy
SR 237 Bike Path
Overture Ct
Spruance St
Prospect Rd
Dunford Way
Channing Ave
Ewert Rd
Erin Way
S 17th St
Williams Rd
Twilight Dr
Kirwin Ln
E Saint John St
Coyote Creek Trail
Lakedale Way
Cristo Rey Dr
Shasta Dr
Holmes Ave
Harwood Rd
Bryant St
UPRR Trail
Hetch Hetchy Trail
Three Creeks Trail
Los Gatos Creek Trail
US 101 Corridor
Stevens Creek Trail
B al ney/Sunnyvale East Channel Corridor
San Francisco Bay Trail
Logue Ave
Matadero Ave / Margarita Ave
S Bascom Ave
|}þ17
|}þ87
|}þ237
|}þ85
!"#680
!"#880
!"#280
Campbell
Cupertino
Los Altos Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
San Jose State University
Stanford University
Santa Clara University
Mission College
Foothill College
San Jose City College
Evergreen Valley Comm College
West Valley College
De Anza College
£¤101
W. Valley Trl
E 10th St
E Dunne Ave
Llagas Trail
Uvas Rd Monterey Rd
Day Rd
Hecker Pass Rd
Hale Ave
Buena Vista Ave
Church St
New Ave
E Dunne Ave
Oak Glen Ave
Santa Teresa Blvd
Watsonville Rd
De Witt Ave
Gilroy
Morgan Hill
Alameda County
San Mateo County
Santa Cruz County
Bicyclists are permitted on all expressways. However, due to high motor vehicle volumes and speeds, expressways do not currently provide an environment that is comfortable for most riders. The County recommends that bicyclists exercise caution, and recommends that only advanced bicyclists use expressways.

CCBCs
Priority CCBCs
All Other CCBCs
Passenger Railway
Santa Clara County
Light-Rail Transit Stop
Planned BART Station
Caltrain Stop
0 1 2 3 Miles
Data Source:

TomTom Centerline Data, VTA.

Date: May, 2018
!
Future CCBC connection through Moffett Field could be developed with land use changes Priority CCBCs
Five Wounds Trl
De Anza UPRR Trl
Blaney
Channel Trl
San Tomas Aquino Creek Trl
Stevens Creek Trl
Guadalupe River Trl
Tully R
E San Antonio St
E Julian St
McKee Rd
E Maude Ave
N Foothill B vl d
Mary Ave
W Homestead Rd
Coleman Ave
Tasman Dr
Jacklin Rd
Benton St
Curtner Ave
Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd
S Milpitas Blvd
Homestead Rd
N Capitol Ave
E Hedding St
Ross Ave
De la Cruz Blvd
lvd
Bollinger Rd
Monroe St
CabrilloAve
Pruneridge Ave
Carl Rd
N
McCarthy B vl d
E Middlefield Rd
Winchester Blvd
Walsh Ave
Goodyear St
Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd
N Shorel ni e Blvd
Gifford
Ave
N King Rd
Fremont Ave
N
Borregas Ave
Branham Ln
dlefield Rd
Lawrence Expy
San Tomas Expy
Central Expy
Trade Zone Blvd
E Ca
Charmeran Ave
W Evelyn Ave
E Arques Ave
Oakland Rd
Mabury Rd
Park Ave
Lundy Ave
Reed Ave
Ranch Dr
Via Ventura
Quito Rd
Los Gatos Almaden Rd
Almanor Ave
Stevens Creek Blvd
Union Ave
Berryessa Rd
California St
N Mary Ave
Scott Blvd
W Hedding St
N TantauAve
Calabazas Blvd
Bush St
Airport Blvd
Saratoga Los Gatos Rd
Great Mall Pkwy
River Oaks Pkwy
SR 237 Bike Path
Overture Ct
Spruance St
Prospect Rd
Dunford Way
Ewert Rd
Erin Way
S 17th St
Williams Rd
Twilight Dr
Kirwin Ln
E Saint John St
Lakedale Way
Cristo Rey Dr
Holmes Ave
UPRR Trail
Hetch Hetchy Trail
Three Creeks Trail
Los Gatos Creek Trail
US 101 Corridor
Stevens Creek Trail
B al ney/Sunnyvale East Channel Corridor
San Francisco Bay Trail
Logue Ave
S Bascom
Ave
|}þ17
|}þ87
|}þ237
!"#680
!"#880
Campbell
Cupertino
os Altos
Milpitas
untain View
San Jos
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
San Jose State University
Santa Clara University
Mission College
San Jose City College
West Valley College
De Anza College
Alameda County
!
Future CCBC connection through Moffett Field could be developed with land use changes Regional Bicycle Network
With connection to the San Francisco Bay Trail,
San Jose, and Fremont, Milpitas is an integral
part of the regional bicycle network. The Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) has
established a vision for Cross-County Bikeway
Corridors (CCBC) that connect residents,
employees, and visitors across Santa Clara
County. The 2018 County-wide Bicycle Master
Plan identified nearly 950 miles of bikeways,
as shown in Figure 4. Priority projects (shown
in green) include Milpitas Boulevard, McCarthy
Boulevard, Dixon Landing Road, and Great
Mall Parkway. In addition to the VTA plan, the
Santa Clara County Countywide Trails Master
Plan also proposed a bicycle route along Dixon
Landing Road, Jacklin Road, Evans Road, and
Old Calaveras Road that connects the Coyote
Creek Trail to Ed Levin County Park.

The on-street bike routes identified in the
VTA plan and the Countywide Trails Plan are
important corridors in Milpitas for connecting
people across highway and rail barriers,
supporting trips to destinations and transit,
and linking people to regional recreational
opportunities. Currently most of these corridors
have designated bike lanes or are designated
bicycle routes. Improvements should be
considered to improve safety and comfort
along these routes for Milpitas residents and
support the Santa Clara County bikeway vision.
400
Item # 18.
35 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Class III: Designated Bike Route
• Signed routes where people bicycling share the
lane with motor vehicles
• Often designated with pavement marking,
typically only comfortable for confident cyclists
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
• Completely separated from the roadway
• Typically shared with bicyclists and pedestrians
• Comfortable for people of all ages and abilities
Class IIIB: Bike Boulevard
• Calm, local roadways that prioritize bicycle
travel through traffic calming features such as
traffic diverters and speed humps
• Comfortable for a wide range of ages and
abilities
Class II: Bike Lane
• Dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to
traffic and in the right-of-way
• Separated from motor vehicles by a painted
white line
Class IV: Cycle Track
• On-street bikeway separated from motor
vehicles by a curb, median, planters, or other
physical barrier
Class IIB: Buffered Bike Lane
• Dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to
traffic and in the right-of-way
• A painted buffer separates bicyclists from motor
vehicles to provide additional comfort and
operating space
Bikeway Types
401
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 36 PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 5

EXISTING BIKEWAYS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Streets
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
Class II: Bike Lane
Class IIB: Buffered Bike Lane
Class III: Bike Route
Unpaved Trails Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 5 Existing Bikeways
402
Item # 18.
37 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Trail Network
Unpaved trails and paved shared use paths are
vital components of Milpitas’s transportation
system and recreation opportunities. The
existing network is primarily comprised of
paved shared use paths. However, the trail
network also includes unpaved paths and/
or soft surface trails, located primarily within
parks; this is shown in Figure 6. Paved paths
are present along portions of Penitencia and
Berryessa Creeks, and the Hetch Hetchy trail
leads north from Peter Gill Memorial Park
toward Fremont. While these paths have
expanded over time, they are intermittent and
limited in their utility as part of a connected
system. Further, existing segments may be in
need of repair and other routine maintenance,
such as regular clearing of debris and
vegetation. Completing these paths, with a
focus on connecting segments, improving the
quality of existing routes, and reaching major
destinations, can support the city’s vision for a
complete and connected low-stress system.

In addition to local trails and paths, two regional
recreational destinations are also located near
Milpitas. First, the Coyote Creek Trail, which
includes both a paved path and soft surface
trail, is a designated segment of the San
Francisco Bay Trail.

The San Francisco Bay Trail is an effort to
establish walking and bicycling facilities around
approximately 500 miles of the San Francisco
Bay, with the goal of connecting communities
to parks, schools, and transit. It is comprised
of a series of on-street, paved off-street, and
unpaved off-street segments.

To date, 350 of the 500 miles are designated
and available for use; the trail miles not yet
available for use are proposed, with alignments
dependent on jurisdiction coordination,
funding availability, and construction. Proposed
segments in Fremont and San Jose will improve
connectivity among these cities and create
opportunities for greater connectivity with
Milpitas.

Second, Ed R. Levin County Park to the east
of Milpitas offers over 20 miles of unpaved
trails. This park provides for recreational
opportunities for hiking, walking, and in some
locations, biking. Unpaved sections of trail are
also available along Coyote Creek to the west
of Milpitas. Direct connections to both of these
recreation areas is currently limited by active
modes and rely heavily on motor vehicle use to
access these valued resources.

Berryessa Creek, Penitencia Creek, and
Calera Creek provide opportunities for
connected and continuous trails in Milpitas
that help residents connect to transit,
regional recreation, and commercial centers.

Future trails along these creek corridors,
however, are dependent on their feasibility.

The creek system in Milpitas is managed
by Valley Water, who are a key partner in
implementation of Milpitas’s proposed trail
system.
403
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 38 Fig. 6 Existing Trails
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 6

EXISTING TRAILS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Streets
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

EXISTING TRAILS
Class I: Paved Shared Use Paths
Unpaved Trails
West side of creek
East/North side of creek
West side of creek
East side of creek
East side of creek
North side of creek
East/North side of creek
M
C
C
ARTHY
BLVD

TASMAN DR

RIVER OAKS PKWY
ZANKER
RD
1ST
ST

LANDING RD

MILPITAS BLV
D

ESCUELAPKWY
PARK

VICTORIA DR
EVANS
RD

CALAVERAS RD

YOSEMITE DR

LANDESS AVE

PIEDMONT
RD

CROPLEY AVE

MORRILL AVE

HOSTETTER RD

SIERRA RD

BERRYESSA RD

CAPITOL AVE

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD
GREAT

MALL PKWY
MAIN
ST

ABEL ST

JACKLIN RD
DIXON
Berryessa Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
Calera Creek
Hetch Hetchy Trail
Highway 237 Bikeway
Penitencia Creek Trail
Berryessa Creek Trail
Coyote Creek Trail
Bike/Ped Bridge
404
Item # 18.

Milpitas hosts bike to work stations each
year in may to celebrate bike commuters.
stations are set up across the city and
region.
39 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Education and Encouragement
Programs
Bicycle and pedestrian focused programs
provide education and encouragement for
residents to use existing bicycle, sidewalk,
and trail networks. Programs complement
quality infrastructure and are a vital component
of a comprehensive approach to active
transportation in Milpitas.

Programs may be offered by the City, agency
partners, or other organizations. Interviews
with City partners revealed that there are
limited existing programs in Milpitas today;
however, there are significant opportunities
to expand these options for residents. New
program opportunities are explored in the
Recommendations Chapter.

Safe Routes to School: There is not currently
a Safe Routes to School program in place;
however, previous efforts have identified
suggested routes to area elementary schools.

Maps are available through the school district
to help families plan their route to school.

Not only do these routes provide insight into
where infrastructure improvements may be
most needed, they also provide the foundation
for additional education and outreach efforts.

Milpitas should coordinate with VTA, Santa
Clara County, and the Milpitas School District
to explore options for Safe Routes to School
Programs, including opportunities to utilize
Measure B funding.

Bike to Work Day: Bike to Work Day is a
national celebration, encouraging people to
bike to work for the first time and celebrating
those who bike to work regularly. Milpitas
participates in the May event and campaign
annually, as part of the Bay Area Bike to
Work celebration. In coordination with Silicon
Valley Bicycle Coalition, Santa Clara County,
and VTA, the City hosts Energizer Stations at
locations around Milpitas. In 2019, 4 stations
were available to commuters to stop for
encouragement, pick up small incentives, and
learn more about biking to work.
405
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 40

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
406
Item # 18.
41 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 NEEDS

ANALYSIS
407
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 42 The following chapter summarizes network
needs and identifies gaps in the existing network.

The needs analysis considers network safety,
network connectivity, and access to destinations.

This information provides additional insight to
the challenges and opportunities for active
transportation and informs opportunities for
improvements across the city.
408
Item # 18.
43 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Active Transportation Safety
While bicyclists and pedestrians represent
only 11% of all reported collisions, they are
disproportionately represented in fatal and
serious injury collisions in Milpitas. From 2014
to 2018, a total of 1,703 vehicle collisions were
reported in Milpitas, including 19 fatalities. This
included 187 bicyclist- or pedestrian-involved
collisions, representing 11% of all reported
collisions. Four pedestrian fatalities* and one
bicycle fatality represents over 25% of the total
reported fatalities in the city, while severe injury
collisions involving bicyclists or pedestrians
represent 35% of all reported severe injury
crashes during this time period.

During this same time period, there were
over 6,000 bicycle- or pedestrian-involved
collisions in Santa Clara County, representing
nearly 17% of total collisions in the County.

Of these collisions, 43 people biking and 168
people walking were killed on Santa Clara
County’s roadways, representing 31% of all fatal
collisions.
0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

TOTAL COLLISIONS

SEVERE INJURIES

FATALITIES
Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Bicyclist- and Pedestrian-involved Collisions
From 2014 to 2018, there were a total of 103
bicycle-involved collisions reported in Milpitas,
including 7 severe injuries and one fatality.

Of the 103 bicycle-involved collisions, 55%
occurred at an intersection. As shown in Figure
7, bicycle-involved collisions primarily occurred
along major roadways, such as Calaveras
Boulevard, Montague Expressway, and Jacklin
Road. Most of these roadways are either
designated bike routes, such as Calaveras
Boulevard, or have designated bike lanes, such
as Abel Street and Great Mall Parkway.

During this same time period, there were a total
of 84 pedestrian-involved collisions, including
16 severe injuries, and 4 fatalities. Similar to
bicycle-involved collisions, pedestrian-involved
collisions occurred most frequently along major
roadways, such as Calaveras Road, Landess
Avenue, and Dixon Landing Road, as shown in
Figure 8. The streets with the most pedestrian

REPORTED CRASHES IN
MILPITAS, 2014-2018
Collision data is sourced from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). *Collisions occurring along interstate routes were omitted from this count. Pedestrian travel along interstates is specifically prohibited, and are not within Milpitas's jurisdiction. 409
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 44 Table 8 Safety Summary
Bicycle-Involved Collisions Pedestrian-Involved Collisions 103 total collisions 84 total collisions
55% occurred at an intersection 45% occurred in a crosswalk Occurred most often along major
roadways with designated bikeways
Occurred most often along major
roadways with high speeds and
roadways supporting regional trips
7 severe injuries 16 severe injuries
1 fatality 4 fatalities*
Most severe injuries and fatalities occurred
along a major roadway and at unsignalized
intersections with no bicycle facility.

Severe injuries and fatalities occurred
most often along major roadways
and at unsignalized locations.
fatalities and severe injuries, however, were
Abel Street and Park Victoria Drive.

Considering the location of all bicycle- and
pedestrian-involved collisions, contributing
factors may include the high posted speeds,
wide and numerous lanes, highway ramps, and
unsafe crossings. It should be further noted that
collisions involving people who bike or walk
are often under-reported, so while this data
provides insight into where the most serious
collisions occurred, minor collisions are likely
under-represented.

Trail-Specific Considerations
Safety data reflect collisions along roadways;
however, where trails cross roadways
frequently create safety concerns for trail users
and low-stress routing. Further, trails may also
provide an alternate route to an otherwise highstress and high-collision roadways. Alignments along creeks and alongside roadways, such as
*Collisions occurring along interstate routes were
omitted from this count.

Abel Street and Great Mall Parkway, provide
opportunities for safer active transportation
routes.

Providing for safe crossings of major roadways
is necessary to create a trail network that
supports comfortable, all-ages and ability
travel. Locations where improved trail facilities
and roadway crossings can better support the
growing trail network include:
• Yosemite Drive at the entrance to the Murphy
Park Trail at Merryhill Elementary
• Near the entrance to the Coyote Creek Trail
from Calaveras Boulevard
• On Dixon Landing Road near the entrance to
the Coyote Creek Trail
• At multiple intersections along the Hetch
Hetchy Trail, including Jacklin Road, north
of Sandalwood Park, Washington Drive, and
Coelho Drive.
410
Item # 18.
45 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
¥880
¥680
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

BACKGROUND
Schools
Streets
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

SERIOUS INJURY
+ FATAL COLLISIONS

SERIOUS INJURY

FATALITY

BIKE COLLISIONS

PER HEXAGON
(2014-2018)
1 Collision
2 Collisions
3 Collisions
4 Collisions
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE 7

BICYCLE COLLISIONS
2014-2018
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 7 Bicycle Collisions, 2014-2018
411
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 46 Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote
Creek
¥880
¥680
PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 8

PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
2014 - 2018

BACKGROUND
Schools
Streets
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

SERIOUS INJURY
+ FATAL COLLISIONS
Serious Injury
Fatality

PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS

PER HEXAGON
(2014-2018)
1 Collision
2 Collisions
3 Collisions
4 Collisions
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 8 Pedestrian Collisions, 2014-2018
412
Item # 18.

LTS scores help us identify a low stress
network that supports people bicycling who
are interested in riding but are concerned
for their safety. this group typically
represents up to 60% of the population.
47 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Level of Traffic Stress (LTS)
LTS refers to the perceived comfort level of a
roadway or shared use pathway. While primarily
intended to evaluate the bike network, it also
provides insight into relative roadway comfort
for pedestrians. At its foundation, LTS relates
to the speed of the roadway, the width of
the roadway, and the provision of space for
bicycles. A roadway with fewer lanes for motor
vehicles, lower posted speeds, and greater
separation from motor vehicles is considered
most comfortable, while high speeds and
mixed traffic conditions are least comfortable.

Generally, LTS 1 and LTS 2 are considered low
stress, while LTS 3 and LTS 4 are high stress
roadways.

These scores guide understanding of who
might bike along a roadway. The Four Types
of Cyclists, shown to the right, consider one's
interest and comfort bicycling. The majority of
the population—those who are interested but
concerned--are most likely to be comfortable
biking only on low stress (LTS 1 and LTS 2)
roadways.

LTS also delineates network gaps and
guides focus areas for improving the active
transportation network. Figure 9 on the
following page shows the LTS scores for
roadways within Milpitas. These results
highlight the following:
• Neighborhood roadways are typically low
stress.
• Primary roadways, such as Calaveras
Boulevard, are higher stress.
• A greater number of collisions occurred on
high stress roadways.
• Industrial and commercial land uses, as
well as BART and light rail stops are located
along high stress corridors.
1-3%

STRONG & FEARLESS
Very comfortable and willing
to ride on streets with no
designated bike facilities.
5-10%
Very comfortable riding but
prefer streets with designated
bike lanes.

ENTHUSIASTIC & CONFIDENT
50-60%
Comfortable on trails and
streets with buffered or
separated bikeways; interested
in biking more.

INTERESTED BUT CONCERNED
30%
Physically unable or very
uncomfortable biking, even
on streets with separated
bikeways.

NOT CURRENTLY INTERESTED
413
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 48 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 9

LEVEL OF

TRAFFIC STRESS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Streets
Railroad
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
1 2
3 N 4
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 9 Level of Traffic Stress
414
Item # 18.
49 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Low-Stress Connectivity
Low-stress routes can support families,
students, and interested but concerned adults
in exploring their city, traveling to work or
school, or running daily errands by bike. These
routes provide greater separation from motor
vehicles, support safe crossings of major
roadways, and have lower posted speeds.

However, low-stress roadways are only
beneficial if they help people get where they
need to go.

If a trip occurs primarily along a low-stress
road or paved path but requires someone to
travel briefly along a high-speed, high-volume
roadway or navigate a major roadway crossing
without a signal, the trip is no longer lowstress. A low-stress network must help people get from trip start to trip end along low-stress
roadways and crossings.

LTS results help visualize the effect of high
stress routes and crossings on network
connectivity. Figure 10 depicts low-stress
connectivity islands, where each color
represents the area one can travel along
continuous and connected low-stress (LTS 1
or LTS 2) roadways. Low-stress travel is only
possible within a particular color; a change in
color indicates that a high stress crossing or
road is present.

For example, the neighborhood near Hall
Memorial Park is well-connected through lowstress roadways. However, once one travels toward Abel Street or Calaveras Boulevard, the
low stress connection ends.

This exercise also demonstrates the impact
of suburban roadway patterns on continuous
travel along the network and highlights
the importance of shared use pathways in
overcoming these barriers. This affects both
OVER 90% OF MAJOR

ROADWAYS ARE

CLASSIFIED AS

HIGH STRESS
(LTS 3 OR LTS 4).
bicyclists and pedestrians. For example,
the network around Escuela Parkway in
the northern part of the city (shown in blue)
includes a series of roadways and cul-desacs that would require travel along a higher stress roadway to reach any other destination.

Roadways such as Canada Drive, Los Positos
Drive, and Pacheco Drive located off of Hillview
Drive are key examples of this. However, these
roadways connect to the Hetch Hetchy Trail
at their end, linking these homes to a lowstress network that provides access to several schools, parks, and other destinations. Without
street end connections or the Hetch Hetchy
Trail, this large area of low-stress connectivity
would not be possible.

Improving crossings to connect neighborhoods
across major roadways, completing the shared
use path network to address major barriers like
rail and highways, and exploring opportunities
for new street-end connections can help
people reach the places they want to go along
more comfortable and connected networks.
415
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 50 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 10

LOW-STRESS

CONNECTIVITY ISLANDS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Streets
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 10 Low-Stress Connectivity Islands
416
Item # 18.
51 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Access to Schools
Low-stress roadways and shared use paths are
important for connecting students to schools
of all grade levels. Comfortable routes that
are perceived to be safe can support more
active trips to school, reduce congestion and
air pollution near schools, and improve safety
around schools. A single difficult roadway
crossing or high stress roadway segment may
impact a family’s choice to reach school by
walking or rolling.

Figure 11 shows school locations compared
to high stress (LTS 3 or LTS 4) roadways. In
general, nearly all schools in Milpitas are
well-supported by lower stress roadways,
particularly within neighborhoods. However,
some schools, including John Sinnott
Elementary, Mabel Mattos Elementary, and
Robert Randall Elementary are located along
high stress roadways with limited access to
lower-stress residential areas nearby. It is
important to improve crossings, connect to
neighborhood roadways and bike boulevards,
and prioritize improvements along designated
walking routes for these schools.

Further, it’s important to consider how students
will travel to school as they advance to middle
or high school. Trips to these schools will
require covering longer distances, and for most
areas of the city, will require crossing major
roadways. Improving crossings and roadways
with travel to middle or high school in mind
should also be considered to provide support
for students who choose or otherwise rely on
active travel to reach school.

Safe Routes to School programs engage
school communities in identifying needed
improvements near schools, encouraging
more families to walk and bike to school, and
support city goals of reduced congestion
and improved air quality. Walk audits are one
tool, which gathers the school community
to evaluate the walking environment and
identify challenges. Hosting walk audits with
school communities can help the city better
understand where improvements are most
needed to encourage more families to walk
and bike safely to school.

WHILE 50% OF

STUDENTS WALKED OR

BIKED TO SCHOOL IN
1969, LESS THAN 1 IN 6
KIDS DO SO TODAY.
417
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 52 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 11

ACCESS TO SCHOOLS

BACKGROUND
Schools
Streets
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS 3
LTS 4
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 11 Access to Schools
418
Item # 18.
53 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Access to Transit
Transit options, including light rail, BART,
and bus, help people of all ages connect to
economic and educational opportunities or
access services, recreational destinations,
and shopping. Transit also connects Milpitas
to the larger Bay Area region. However, nearly
all transit opportunities are located along high
stress corridors, as shown in Figure 12.

This is particularly pronounced in the southern
area of Milpitas near BART and light rail, where
few alternate routes support access to these
modes. BART, for example, is located at the
intersection of two high-stress roadways,
and the rail line creates an additional barrier
to accessing the station. Reaching nearby
employment destinations or residential
areas require passengers to navigate difficult
roadway crossings with high traffic volumes and
speeds.

Frequent bus service, which can help more
residents access BART and light rail, is also
typically located along high stress roadways,
such as Abel Street and Jacklin Road. Limited
opportunities to cross major roadways safely
may result in longer trips to reach the bus stop,
which can discourage transit use.

Providing low-stress connections to
transit stops, including protected crossing
opportunities and pedestrian bridges, can
improve access to transit opportunities,
increasing system ridership and supporting
regional connections without the use of a
personal car. Further, improvements to bus
stops and shelters can improve the comfort and
safety of those waiting at the transit stop along
high speed, high stress roadways.

The Milpitas BART station is projected to
serve over 20,000 riders daily by the year
2030. Access to this station will better
connect Milpitas residents to the region while
providing new opportunities to commute
to work in Milpitas without a motor vehicle.

Support for improved bicycle and pedestrian
connections to and from the station has
the potential to dramatically change the
transportation landscape in Milpitas.
419
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 54 Fig. 12 Access to Transit
¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 12

ACCESS TO TRANSIT

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Bus Stop (Frequent Service)
Schools
Streets
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS 3
LTS 4
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
420
Item # 18.
55 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Access to Commercial and
Employment Centers
Commercial centers provide access to goods
and services, including grocery stores,
pharmacies, medical offices, and other
shopping options. Along with industrial areas in
the city, these locations are also where people
work. These businesses not only provide
economic opportunities for residents but attract
a significant number of people from around the
region, nearly doubling Milpitas’s population
each work day.

Shown in Figure 13, commercial areas and
employment centers are concentrated in the
southern and western areas of the city and
are located primarily along major, high-stress
roadways. For nearly all locations, there are
few opportunities to access the area without
traveling along a high stress road. McCarthy
Boulevard, Milpitas Boulevard, Calaveras
Boulevard, and Great Mall Parkway are key
routes that provide access to these areas that
should be considered for improvement.

Improvements should include greater
separation from motor vehicles, increased
safe crossing opportunities, and exploration of
more direct paths to help people navigate large
parcels and frequent driveways. Improving
comfort and safety along these roadways can
also support use of transit options by improving
the first-last mile connection to light rail, BART,
and local bus routes.

GROWTH IN JOBS
(2010-2017)
0 10,000
30,000
50,000
2010 2017
37,370
51,549
This is especially important when considering
the growth in both population and employment
that Milpitas has experienced in recent years
Expanding comfortable opportunities to reach
employment and commercial centers without a
motor vehicle can help reduce the impact of a
growing population.

From 2010 to 2017, the number of jobs in
Milpitas grew by 38%, exceeding previous
projections. as the number of jobs continues
to grow, more people will be traveling to
Milpitas Daily.
421
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 56 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 13

ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL

AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS

BACKGROUND
Streets
Commercial and Industrial
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS 3
LTS 4
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 13 Access to Commercial and Employment Centers
422
Item # 18.

Concurrent with the Trail, Pedestrian,
and Bicycle Master Plan, the Park and
recreation master plan UPDATE will identify
opportunities for improving, protecting, and
expanding the city's parks and recreational
opportunities.

Milpitas residents shared their experiences
with the city park and recreation system in
early 2020.
57 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Access to Parks
Nearly all residential areas are located within
one-half mile of a park, and an even greater
percentage of the city is within one mile of a
neighborhood or city park. As shown in Figure
14, few areas within Milpitas are separated by a
high stress roadway from a nearby park.

Improvements that increase low-stress
connections directly to parks from residential
areas and activity centers, including new
trails, safer crossings of major roadways, and a
connected bikeway network, can significantly
improve connections to parks across the city.

Specifically, improvements along roadways
such as Jacklin Road, S Park Victoria Drive, and
Abbot Avenue can increase access to parks
including Oliver Jones Memorial Park, Starlite
Park, Hall Memorial Park, and Cardoza Park.

Where low stress facilities already exist,
wayfinding and improved signage can better
direct residents to parks and other recreation
destinations. Wayfinding signs are an important
component to help those who walk and bike
navigate the network safely.

Finally, new low stress connections and
improved access to existing trails can provide
safer and more direct routes to regional trails
and parks near Milpitas. Connections to Ed R.

Levin County Park along Calaveras Blvd. and
new opportunities to access Coyote Creek Trail
can expand recreational opportunities within
and around the city.
423
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 58 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSA RD

MAIN ST

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 14

ACCESS TO PARKS

BACKGROUND
Parks
Schools
Streets
Railroad
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
LTS 3
LTS 4
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 14 Access to Parks
424
Item # 18.
59 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Travel Time to Destinations
In addition to the comfort and safety of a route,
mode choice is often affected by the length of a
trip. While a park, school, or bus stop might be
a short distance from a family's home, the most
comfortable route to walk or bike there may be
long and indirect.

The quality of Milpitas' active transportation
network isn't just determined by the miles
of bike lanes and sidewalks, it is also
determined by how complete and connected
it is. Understanding the length of trips to
reach a destination is one way to evaluate
how complete and connected the active
transportation network is.

The following maps provide examples of the
distance required to travel along Milpitas'
roadways and paths to access certain
destinations today. The examples included here
show generally where in the city one can travel
to within 2 miles of a park (Figure 15) or a transit
station (Figure 16). The results of this analysis
demonstrate the effect of limited crossings and
high stress roads; benefits of shared use paths;
and the density of the transportation network.

Travel to Parks
Most areas in Milpitas are within a short
distance of at least one park. The number of
parks in the city supports short trips to parks,
but the addition of shared use paths and dense
neighborhood networks in some locations
expands access in many areas of the city.

Nearly all residential areas are located within
one-half mile of a designated park, and an even
greater percentage of the city is within one mile
of a neighborhood or city park. This means that
generally, residents are within a 10-minute walk
of a park, and a larger number of parks are
available within a ten-minute bike ride.

Areas north of Calaveras Road, particularly
along the Hetch Hetchy Trail, have greater
access to parks within one-half mile due to
both more frequent intersections and easy
connections to the Hetch Hetchy Trail. This
direct route links several parks on a low-stress
trail.

However, areas within the central area of
the city, where land uses are predominantly
industrial and commercial, have more limited
access to park space. Barriers such as the
railway and the interstate, in addition to larger
block sizes, reduce access in areas such as
near the BART station.

Improved path connections can increase the
number of park spaces within close distance of
all residents and visitors; further, paths along
creeks and improvements at major roadway
crossings can support lower-stress travel
options for those further away.

ON AVERAGE, A
10-MINUTE WALK WILL
COVER 1/2 MILE, WHILE
A 10-MINUTE BIKE
RIDE WILL COVER 1 1/2
MILES.
425
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 60 Fig. 15 Trail Access to Parks
PARK

VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 15

TRAIL ACCESS

TO PARKS

BACKGROUND
Parks
BART Station
Light Rail Station
PublicParks
Streets
Railroad
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

ACCESS TO PARKS

0.25 miles

0.5 miles
1 mile

1.5 Miles
2 Miles
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
426
Item # 18.
61 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Travel to Transit
Unlike parks, there are fewer opportunities to
access high-capacity transit like BART and light
rail. Stations are concentrated in the southern
areas of the city where there are larger block
sizes, more frequent barriers such as highways
and high stress roadways, and fewer complete
and connected shared use paths.

This results in significantly less access to high
capacity transit in Milpitas. As shown in Figure
16, reaching transit through a short walking or
biking trip is typically limited to the immediate
area around each station. Access to major
employment centers and residential areas
extend beyond a one mile trip. The Tasman/
Alder station to the west of I-880 is the one
exception, providing better connections to
employers that are located near the station.

Comfortable walking distances limit access
to within a few blocks of BART and light rail
stations, serving only a small number of
residential and commercial areas. While a
ten-minute bike ride broadens the reach, high
stress roadways and large parcels limit route
choice and restrict access to more industrial
areas of the city along high stress roadways.

Longer, less comfortable trips between BART
or light rail and nearby destinations has
implications for promoting alternate modes of
travel into the city and limits the benefit of high
capacity transit for Milpitas residents.

Linking residents and employees to transit
through safe, direct connections--such as
paved shared use paths, grade-separated
crossings, street-end connections, and
separated bikeways--expands how people can
get around Milpitas.

Wide, high speed roadways near BART and
light rail station limit direct, comfortable
access to transit opportunities.
427
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 62 Fig. 16 Trail Access to Transit

PARK VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE

OAKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 16

TRAIL ACCESS

TO TRANSIT

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
PublicParks
Streets
Railroad
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

ACCESS TO TRANSIT

0.25 miles

0.5 miles
1 mile

1.5 Miles
2 Miles
N
0 0.5 1
Miles Bike/Ped Bridge
428
Item # 18.
63 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Needs Analysis Summary &
Improvement Opportunities
The existing active transportation network
in Milpitas helps residents connect to
neighborhood destinations along lowstress routes but is often disconnected and incomplete. Major barriers, including highways,
on- and off-ramps, high speed roadways, and
railways, limited safe, comfortable, and direct
travel for people traveling by foot or by bike.

Further, recent safety data and evaluation of
network quality suggest that an expanded
network of connected low-stress routes can
better support residents and visitors of all
ages and abilities. Improved connections to
schools, services, commercial areas, transit,
employment, and recreational opportunities
can expand choice for how people get around
Milpitas.

A complete and connected network will
also require improved crossings, both at
intersections and mid-block locations.

Specifically, improved safety and highway
on- and off-ramps will better support active
transportation users navigating limited
crossings of major barriers in the city.

Consistent with the vision for a regional active
transportation network, it is also important
to consider connections between Milpitas
and the neighboring cities of Fremont and
San Jose. As these cities also develop action
plans to improve active transportation, Milpitas
should coordinate closely to provide seamless
transitions into and out of the city. Consistency
in facility selection and design can expand
access in the region and promote active
transportation as an option for daily trips.

Figure 17 on the following page summarizes
key opportunities for improved active
transportation infrastructure identified through
the existing conditions and needs analysis
process.
429
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 64 PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 17

IMPROVEMENT

OPPORTUNITIES
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Streets
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
Class II: Bike Lane
Class IIB: Buffered Bike Lane
Class III: Bike Route
Unpaved Trails
Complete connection
to Fremont from east
side of city
Improve connections to
regional trails and
recreation destinations
Improve connections to
Coyote Creek Trail from
Dixon Landing
Connect residents to
transit, jobs, and
commerce by improving
east/west corridors
Improve connections
to BART + Transit
Extend Hetch Hetchy
Trail into Fremont
Complete connections
to San Jose and
Coyote Creek Trail
Expand access
to trails and
Fill sidewalk gaps paths
Improve crossings
of major roadways
and highways
Improve existing
sidewalks
Complete gaps in
the bicycle network
Expand direct,
low-stress routes
along creeks
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 17 Improvement Opportunities
430
Item # 18.

PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT
431
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 66 Engagement activities provided opportunities for
those who live, work, recreate, and learn in Milpitas
to share about their experience traveling in the
city. While network data provides insight into active
transportation opportunities, experiences from
people who navigate the city regularly support a
clearer picture of challenges and opportunities for
active transportation. In addition to public input,
neighboring jurisdictions and other agency partners
shared feedback throughout the process.

The COVID-19 pandemic created many challenges
throughout the engagement process, requiring
significant shifts in the approach during the final
phases of the planning process. The following
chapter summarizes engagement activities, key
themes, and ways that outreach adapted to the
pandemic.
432
Item # 18.

Milpitas farmers market visitors provided
feedback early in the planning process
about the challenges and opportunities for
walking and biking in the city today.

Public workshop participants consider which
types of destinations are most important to
connect to while walking and biking.
67 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Pop Up Events include existing community
events where project staff provide information
about the plan, gather input on key questions,
and answer questions about the process. Pop
up events help project staff reach a broader
range of people by being where people are.

Public Workshops provide a more traditional
opportunity for public engagement. These
events include a brief presentation followed by
unstructured time to review project materials,
ask questions about the planning process, and
provide feedback. Workshops were held both
in person and virtually.

Online Input asked participants to draw routes,
identify points, and share other comments
about what they would like to see or provide
feedback on proposed recommendations and
the draft plan. Participants can share feedback
at any time of day and have the opportunity to
share comments over a longer period of time..

Community feedback was collected in a
variety of formats at key points in the planning
process. The two-phased approach focused
on feedback about how people get around
in the first phase and asked for input on
recommended projects in the second phase.

The strategy included both in-person and
digital events and considered the active
transportation system comprehensively. At
each event or input opportunity, feedback
on the bicycle, pedestrian, and trail networks
was gathered to better understand how the
networks work together. Participants provided
more than 2,000 comments and points of
feedback across all forms of outreach. In
person and digital events were promoted
through city channels, including the city
website and social media pages; shared with
the school district via printed fliers and digital
communications; and were promoted by
project partners, including the Silicon Valley
Bicycle Coalition. The three main methods for
collecting feedback included:

Outreach
Strategy
433
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 68 Table 9 Phase 1 Public Outreach Events
EVENT TYPE Event location Event date + Time
Interactive Web Map https://milpitas.altaplanning.cloud/#/ July 8, 2019 through October 8, 2019
Pop-up Event Milpitas Farmers Market July 27, 2019.

Pop-up Event Hot August Bites August 24, 2019
Public Workshop #1 Jose Higuera Adobe
Building and Park
September 26, 2019
Public Workshop #2 Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Resources Commission; City Hall
October 7, 2019
Phase 1
GOALS
• Confirm understanding of existing network,
including pedestrian facilities, on-street
bikeways, and trails.
• Develop a more comprehensive
understanding of where residents would like
to walk, bike, or roll.
• Gain insight into current network challenges,
such as network connectivity or safety
concerns.
• Gain insight into current network barriers,
such as locations where rail lines or fences
impede travel.
• Learn which facility types and types of
improvements are preferred by the public.
• Inform network recommendations.

KEY FINDINGS
• Safety was a common concern along major
roadways and at crossings throughout the
city.
• Trail safety was a common concern both
in terms of safe access to trails and safe
crossings where trails intersect with major
roadways.
• Safe Routes to School was a specific safety
concern identified by many; opportunities
for more and improved routes to school are
needed.
• Better access and connectivity to
destinations is needed, specifically in the
form of a complete and continuous network
of safe routes for walking and bicycling.
• Roadway debris and gravel on the roadway
and in the bike lane, especially major arterials,
was identified as a concern.
• Participants requested additional bike
parking at locations across the city such
as shopping centers, schools, job centers,
libraries, public parks, and transit stations.
• More access/entrance points to trails and
better connectivity in the form of a complete
and continuous network of trails were
requested.
• Trail conditions, specifically where existing
segments are incomplete, were identified as
a concern.
434
Item # 18.
69 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Phase 2
GOALS
• Gather feedback on draft recommendations
for projects, programs, and prioritization.
• Gain further insight into the challenges
and opportunities associated with
plan implementation.
• Learn which project recommendations are
priorities for the public.
• Inform the public and gather feedback on
specific types of potential improvements
including: intersection, connectivity, and
crossing improvements for bicyclists and
pedestrians; program recommendations;
bicycle facility types; and streetscape
improvements.
• Receive feedback on the Trail, Pedestrian,
and Bicycle Master Plan

KEY FINDINGS
• Projects supporting safe routes to school
received significant support from community
members.
• Safety remained a primary concern among
those providing feedback, including requests
to slow vehicle speeds, improve crossings
(including trail crossings), and reduce
exposure. to motor vehicles
• Creating a complete and connected active
transportation network supports participants'
vision for active transportation, including
connections with San Jose and Fremont.
• Connections to BART and other transit
opportunities were frequently identified as a
priority for many participants.
• Participants also supported better and new
connections to recreation, particularly across
major barriers in the city.

Table 10 Phase 2 Public Outreach Events
EVENT TYPE Event location Event date + Time
Interactive Web Map https://milpitasphase2.
altaplanning.cloud/
March 2, 2020 through
May 3, 2020
City Council Meeting Virtual February 2, 2021
Parks, Recreation, and
Cultural Resources
Commission Presentation
City Hall March 2, 2020
Public Workshop #3 Virtual April 13, 2021
Virtual Open House Virtual February 2, 2021 through
April 26, 2021
Public Draft Plan Comment
Period
Virtual February 2, 2021 through
April 26, 2021
435
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 70 Fig. 18 Phase 1 Public Input Map Results
The online input map provided a digital opportunity for the public to share ideas for improving active transportation, identify common challenges, and provide feedback on recommended improvements.

COVID-19 Response
Outreach activities remained flexible and
adaptive as the COVID-19 emergency response
affected Phase 2 planned outreach events.

For example, the recommendations comment
period was extended an additional two months,
through the month of April 2020, to provide
additional opportunities for input. Scheduled inperson workshops were canceled and shifted to digital workshops and a Virtual Open House
in the final phases of the plan. Further, City staff
utilized various outreach channels to promote
plan activities and expand the reach of virtual
engagement. These outlets included NextDoor,
outreach through major employers and schools,
print newspaper information, and Facebook
ads. Table 11 on the next page highlights these
outlets.

Despite these challenges, participants provided
more than 2,000 comments and points of
feedback across online outlets, pop up events,
and public workshops and supported a vision
for a safe, complete, and connected approach
to active transportation in Milpitas. During
the Spring 2021 Draft Plan comment period
alone, more than 1,500 people visited the
Virtual Open House, and nearly 25,000 people
learned about the plan through Facebook ads.

PARTICIPANTS SHARED
MORE THAN 2,000

COMMENTS AND POINTS

OF FEEDBACK ACROSS

ALL ENGAGEMENT

PLATFORMS
436
Item # 18.
71 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Facebook ads promoted the public draft plan
from March 24 through April 26, 2021. Ads
were shared in four languages, including
English, Chinese, Spanish, and Vietnamese.

Outreach Summary
Despite the challenges faced throughout the
development of the Trail, Pedestrian, and
Bicycle Master Plan, Milpitas residents and
visitors shared feedback that strongly supports
an improved transportation network throughout
the city. Improving infrastructure to support
safer, more comfortable routes to common
destinations has the opportunity to improve
access to active transportation, expand
mode choice, and support a broad range of
trip purposes. Access to schools, transit, and
recreation were commonly cited destinations,
as were requests for improved connections to
regional destinations beyond the city.

Table 11 COVID-19 Outreach Outlets

ORGANIZATION/
OUTLET

DESCRIPTION DATES
NextDoor Neighborhood based digital message board March 30, 2020 Facebook Posts Posts directed people to the
interactive webmap.

March 6th, 19th,
25th, and 30th and
April 2nd, 2020
Twitter Posts Posts directed people to the
interactive webmap.

March 6th, 19th,
25th, and 30th and
April 2nd, 2020
Milpitas Post Advertisement directing people to
the interactive webmap link.

March 13, 2020
Facebook Ads Ads promoting the Virtual Open House
were provided in 4 languages: English,
Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese.

March 24, 2021
through April
26, 2021
437
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 72 During phase 2 of public outreach, over 1,500 people visited the virtual open house, which provided residents the opportunity to review the components of the plan, comment on the proposed priority projects, and submit general comments. 438
Item # 18.

VISION, GOALS,

AND POLICIES
439
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 74 The Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
represents a vision for a transportation network that
expands choice for how all people in Milpitas travel,
improves safety for all roadways users, and expands
access to destinations for people of all ages and
abilities.

The Vision and Goals presented here were
developed based on previous planning efforts,
public engagement results, and analysis of existing
conditions. Further, the Trail, Pedestrian, and
Bicycle Master Plan seeks to closely align with the
forthcoming General Plan Update and builds on
the goals and policies presented in the updated
Circulation Element.
440
Item # 18.
75 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 The Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master
Plan is an action plan for the city to create a
safe and convenient network of connected active
transportation infrastructure for all residents.

Through implementation of infrastructure
improvements and policies and programs, Milpitas
will:
• Support connectivity and access to destinations
across the city and region, including employment
and educational opportunities, recreation, services,
and transit
• Expand choice for how people travel, including
integration of active transportation with transit
• Improve safety for all modes of travel, particularly
for people walking and biking
• Increase access to recreational opportunities, both
locally and regionally
• Create an active transportation network that meets
the needs of people of all ages and abilities
VISION
441
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 76 GOAL CIR 1:

Provide a transportation system that
efficiently, equitably, and effectively supports
the City’s land use vision, minimizes vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), enhances connectivity
of the existing network, and supports the use
of all modes of transportation.
• Policy CIR 1-1: Prioritize and measure
infrastructure and facility safety on streets
and public rights-of-way.
• Policy CIR 1-2: Ensure that the City’s
transportation system supports planned land
uses and removes barriers to all types of
transportation options as envisioned in the
Land Use Element.
• Policy CIR 1-3: Promote interconnectivity of
the transportation network in existing and
new developments and actively measure
the quality of conditions in neighborhoods to
better understand what barriers exist in order
to support use of and access to the network.
• Policy CIR 1-4: Coordinate development
of safe, inclusive, and health-promoting
transportation infrastructure with local,
county, regional, and state agencies to
optimize efficiency of the transportation
network for all users and increase
opportunities for physical activity for all types
of users.
• Policy CIR 1-5: Encourage reduced block size
in new developments to develop a grid or
modified grid network to enhance walkability.
• Policy CIR 1-6: Continue to participate in
county and regional transportation processes
through VTA and MTC to facilitate interagency coordination and education, maintain awareness of programmatic and funding
opportunities, and advocate for the City's
interests for the community.
• Policy CIR 1-7: Coordinate with
neighboring jurisdictions regarding
planned developments and transportation
improvements that impact communities in
both jurisdictions
• Policy CIR 1-8: Prioritize multi-modal
infrastructure improvements that improve
pedestrian, bicyclists, and transit user safety
and equity for inclusion in the CIP.

GOAL CIR 2:

Provide safe, healthy, comfortable, equitable,
and efficient transportation choices for all
modes of transportation to enable people of
all races, cultures, ethnicities, religions, sexual
orientation, genders income levels, ages and
abilities, especially people of color and those
disproportionately affected by access to a
personal vehicle, systemic transportation
inequities, racism, oppression, and poverty to
increase safe physical activity, reduce usage
of personal vehicles, access to goods and
services, employment opportunities, and for
personal travel; to provide for efficient goods
movement.
• Policy CIR 2-1: Promote multi-modal
transportation options by developing an
interconnected system of streets, roads,
bridges, and highways that provides
continuous, efficient, safe and convenient
travel for all users regardless of mode, age
or ability and encourage users to walk, ride a
bicycle, or use transit for shorter, local trips.

The focus of this plan is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan Circulation Element; specifically, the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan supports the following goals and policies stated in the Circulation Element:
442
Item # 18.
77 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 GOAL CIR 3:

Support the development and maintenance
of the public transit system to provide an
integrated, accessible, convenient, safe,
comfortable, and effective mobility option.
• Policy CIR 3-1: Coordinate with VTA and
BART to design and implement capital
improvements that support safety and
access to rail stations and bus stops.
• Policy CIR 3-4: Ensure that all transitsupportive infrastructure, sidewalks, and bike lanes are adequately maintained to
provide high-quality facilities for users.

GOAL CIR 4:

Promote, provide, and maintain an expanded,
safe, convenient and comprehensive network
of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists of
all ages and abilities to support walking and
bicycling as viable modes of transportation,
for recreational use, and to promote public
health.
• Policy CIR 4-1: Encourage a shift to active
transportation modes by expanding and
enhancing current pedestrian and bicycle
facilities to accommodate pedestrians
and bicyclists of all ages and abilities and
encourage all users to reduce vehicle trips
and utilize active transportation options
with an increase in density of pedestrian
and bicycle-supportive infrastructure.
• Policy CIR 4-2: Link and expand City
pedestrian and bicycle circulation facilities
to existing and planned local and regional
networks, with an emphasis on expanding
infrastructure options near transit.
• Policy CIR 4-3: Encourage walking,
biking and transit use by prioritizing
and implementing “first-mile/last mile”
improvements, wayfinding, and educational
efforts in the vicinity of the Great Mall
transit center, light rail stations, the BART
station, and heavily used bus stops.
• Policy CIR 4-4: Provide secure bicycle
parking and end-of-trip support facilities
at centers of civic, retail, recreation,
education, and work activity.
• Policy CIR 4-5: Support building bridges
or under-crossings across creek channels,
railroad lines and roadways to improve
• Policy CIR 2-2: Design intersections to
safely and comfortably accommodate all
transportation modes and users, especially
those who are disproportionately impacted
by health, income, or access disparities.
• Policy CIR 2-3: Seek opportunities to
implement and assess traffic calming
strategies to reduce vehicle speeds
and establish a safer, more comfortable
environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Policy CIR 2-4: To enhance the City’s
multi-modal network in a cost-effective
and forward-thinking manner, view all
public capital improvement projects as
opportunities to enhance mobility, access,
health, and safety for all modes
of transportation, especially for those who
are more vulnerable.
• Policy CIR 2-7:Provide inclusive and diverse
wayfinding measures to provide directional
guidance for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit riders.
443
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 78 network connectivity and facilitate
bicycling and walking between high density
residential developments, retail centers,
civic buildings, and recreational centers.
• Policy CIR 4-6: Eliminate gaps in the
pedestrian and bicycle network, especially
between neighborhoods, trails that access
schools, and areas with higher health
disparities.
• Policy CIR 4-7: Work collaboratively with
the community to discover and develop
connections between the multi-use paths
and the on-street bicycle system to support
development of a comprehensive network,
with an emphasis on areas with limited
access and/or higher health disparities.
• Policy CIR 4-8: Preserve and enhance the
natural environment of the creek corridors
in conjunction with each trail project.
• Policy CIR 4-9: Identify and investigate the
feasibility of trail development along rightsof-way including abandoned, unused, or active railroad corridors, utility corridors,
and waterways.
• Policy CIR 4-10: Work and promote an
active lifestyle that encourages walking,
bicycling, and utilizing the trail network
to support public health while reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and other air
pollutants.

GOAL CIR 5:

Implement measures that increase transit use
and other non-motorized travel modes that
lead to improved utilization of the existing
transportation system, such as accessibility
improvements to public transit stops and
stations by walking and biking, and provide
transit stops near employment centers and
higher density residential developments and
in areas where infrastructure is lacking and
access without a car is unsafe.
• Policy CIR 5-1: Develop, implement, and
monitor vehicle trip reduction requirements
for large development projects – including
all land use types – to minimize the impact
of new development on traffic congestion
and to reduce vehicle emissions.
• Policy CIR 5-2: Adopt a citywide TDM
ordinance to require and encourage
vehicle trip reduction at employment sites,
businesses, and multi-unit residential
facilities, and hire dedicated staff to work
closely with communities throughout
the City on ongoing education and
encouragement efforts.
• Policy CIR 5-3: Encourage existing
employers to adopt strategies to implement
programs to reduce employee vehicle trips,
including purchasing passes through VTA’s
annual transit pass program; providing
facilities such as secure bike parking,
lockers, changing rooms, and showers;
telework, and flexible work schedules.
444
Item # 18.
79 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 GOAL CIR 6:

Support and expand the City’s efforts to
promote economic, environmental and social
sustainability through initiatives to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and other air
pollutants, reduce runoff, promote public
health, equity and engage the community in
an inclusive planning process.
• Policy CIR 6-1: Develop guidelines for the
inclusion of green infrastructure in the
design of transportation improvements.
• Policy CIR 6-2: Support development
of healthier communities through the
use of lower- or non-polluting modes of
transportation to reduce GHG vehicle
emissions and local air pollution levels
• Policy CIR 6-3: Encourage walking
and bicycling as strategies to promote
public health and reduce the long-term
transportation costs of owning and
maintaining a vehicle.
• Policy CIR 6-4: Prioritize transportation
improvements in part based on
consideration of benefits to disadvantaged
communities.
• Policy CIR 6-5: Include a robust, inclusive
and interactive community engagement
and educational process in transportation
planning efforts to help ensure that the
project will address the needs of local
stakeholders, especially disadvantaged
populations.
• Policy CIR 6-7: Develop impact fees to
provide revenues to be used to construct
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure that
will support new development.
• Policy CIR 6-8: Use repaving projects as an
opportunity to cost-effectively implement
new bicycle facilities in accordance with
City plans.
• Policy CIR 6-9: Maximize efficient
maintenance of transportation
infrastructure of all modes, such as
coordinating roadway paving or striping
projects to include maintenance of
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

GOAL CIR 7:

Identify strategies and funding sources
to implement the actions identified in this
Circulation Element.
• Policy CIR 7-1: Proactively position the City
to be competitive in pursuing grant funding
for planning, design, and construction of
transportation improvements.
• Policy CIR 7-2: Consider developing
additional local sources of funding for trails
and bikeways such as special assessment
districts, nonprofit corporations and ballot
initiatives.
• Policy CIR 7-3: Seek opportunities to
develop public/private partnerships to
provide transportation infrastructure and
services.
• Policy CIR 7-4: Ensure that construction
detour routes provide safe and
convenient access for users of all modes
of transportation, including people with
disabilities.
445
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 80

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
446
Item # 18.
81 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022

RECOMMENDATIONS
447
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 82 The recommended active transportation network
seeks to improve safety for all users; support
connections to schools, transit, employment,
shopping, and recreation; and support an improved
active transportation culture within Milpitas.

Enhanced crossings and sidewalks will provide
a safer and more comfortable environment for
pedestrians along commercial corridors and within
neighborhoods.

On-street bikeways, including cycle tracks and
bike boulevards, provide low-stress connections in
conjunction with improved intersections and midblock crossings.

New and extended paved shared use paths along
creeks and adjacent to roadways help Milpitas
residents and visitors navigate barriers while
traveling along a low-stress, direct route. New
access points and expanded trail heads increase
visibility of the trail system and integration with
other transportation systems.

Combined, these improvement support a
comprehensive all ages and abilities network. The
following chapter outlines the recommended project
locations, associated treatments, and opportunities
for further study.
448
Item # 18.
83 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 The Pedestrian Network Recommendations
focus on opportunities to create a safer,
more comfortable, and better-connected
network for those who walk or use mobility
devices in Milpitas. Pedestrian infrastructure
improvements are focused in priority
areas that aim to improve the comfort and
safety of pedestrian travel and maximize
pedestrian access to transit, schools, parks,
and commercial centers. By filling sidewalk
gaps, prioritizing pedestrian travel through
safe crossings at major roadways, creating
pedestrian-focused commercial corridors, and
considering accessibility of pedestrian facilities,
Milpitas can improve the safety and experience
for those who walk.

The two focus areas shown in Figure 19 guide
pedestrian improvements to areas that best
support the goals of this plan while building
on public feedback and previous planning
efforts, including the Midtown Specific Plan
and the Transit Area Specific Plan. Pedestrian
improvements should be completed in
coordination with other projects in the public
right-of-way, including implementation of the
bicycle network, paving projects, or other
system improvements.

Commercial Pedestrian Improvement Areas:

Reflect the areas addressed in the Midtown
Specific Plan and the Transit Area Specific Plan,
both of which identify a range of pedestrian
improvements for areas with anticipated
growth. Locations with a high number of
reported collisions; key cross-town corridors
that provide access across barriers; and high
potential demand for active trips are also
included. Refer to the Pedestrian Toolbox
on page 89 and Appendix E for examples
of recommended improvements, such as
wayfinding, mid-block crossings, and transit
waiting area improvements. Existing gaps in the
sidewalk network should also be filled.

Neighborhood Pedestrian Improvement
Areas: Support improved connections to
schools, high frequency bus stops, and other
neighborhood destinations. Traffic calming,
street end connections, and enhanced crossing
opportunities at major roadways are project
types supported not only through the Needs
Analysis of this plan but also public feedback.

Improving safety and prioritizing pedestrians in
these areas can support more trips by foot and
improve community connections. Existing gaps
in the sidewalk network should also be filled.

Pedestrian Network
Table 12 Example Streetscape Improvements
TYPE Recommended improvements
Commercial
Pedestrian
Improvement Areas
• Transit waiting area improvements to increase comfort and safety for passenger • Increased vegetation improves comfort while traveling along the corridor • Wayfinding helps people navigate the common destinations, trails, and transit • Benches and lighting help create a sense of place, providing a place to rest and increasing visibility
Neighborhood
Pedestrian
Improvement Areas
• Wayfinding help people navigate to common destinations, trails, and transit • Traffic calming slows motor vehicle speeds and can discourage cut-through traffic • Shade trees and vegetation create a more comfortable pedestrian environment 449
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 84 ¥ YOSEMITE DR
880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZAN
KER
R
D
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD

BACKGROUND
BART Station
SRTS Route
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE 19

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENT AREAS
Commercial Priority Area
Neighborhood Priority Area
Specific Area Plan Boundary
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 19 Proposed Pedestrian Improvement Areas
450
Item # 18.
85 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Pedestrian Spot
Improvements: Commercial
Within each focus area, specific opportunities
to improve safety for pedestrian travel were
identified through public input, collision
history, and review of existing conditions. The
following maps (Figures 20 and 21) identify
the locations for these improvements and the
range of associated improvements. For all
project locations, additional study and data
collection is required to determine the specific
improvements required. This inventory should
also confirm sidewalk completion.

Table 13 Proposed Pedestrian Improvement Strategy: Commercial Priority Areas TYPE Recommended improvements
Commercial Priority
Areas: Signalized
Crossing
• Signal Improvements, including: pedestrian countdown signal, lengthening pedestrian crossing times and/or Leading Pedestrian Interval, No Right on Red, dedicated left turn phase
• Upgrade curb ramps to comply with ADA standards as needed • Advanced stop bar
• Improve visibility, through lighting and improved sight lines • Implement high visibility crosswalks, particularly in high use areas • Shorten crossing distances through pedestrian refuge islands, curb extensions, or other traffic calming features.
• Reduce curb radius to slow turning speeds and explore reducing posted speeds through data collection and evaluation
• Remove slip lanes
Commercial Priority
Areas: Unsignalized
Crossing
• Upgrade curb ramps to comply with ADA standards as needed • Improve visibility through lighting and improved sight lines, including restricting parking in advance of the intersection
• Implement high visibility crosswalks, particularly in high use areas • Evaluate pedestrian hybrid beacon or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) installation, especially for mid-block crossings • Install advanced yield/stop bars
• Shorten crossing distances through pedestrian refuge islands, curb extension, or other traffic calming features.
• Reduce curb radius to slow turning speeds and explore reducing posted speeds through data collection and evaluation
Improvements in Commercial Priority Areas
include the following types:

Signalized Crossing: Crossing of at least one
major roadway with an existing traffic signal
within the Commercial Priority Areas
Unsignalized Crossing: Major road crossings
without an existing traffic signal or mid-block
crossings of a major roadway within the
Commercial Priority Areas.

Table 13 outlines the recommended
improvements for each type.
451
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 86 ¥ YOSEMITE DR
880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZAN
KER
R
D
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
BART Station
SRTS Route
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE 20

PROPOSED COMMERCIAL

PRIORITY AREA SPOT
IMPROVEMENTS Commercial Unsignalized
Sidewalk Gap
Commercial Priority Area
Neighborhood Priority Area
Commercial Signalized

PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS BACKGROUND
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 20 Proposed Commercial Priority Area Spot Improvement 452
Item # 18.
87 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Table 14 Proposed Pedestrian Improvement Strategy
TYPE Recommended improvements
Neighborhood
Priority Areas:

Signalized
Crossing
• Consider curb extensions, raised crosswalks, or medians to reduce vehicle speed and prioritize pedestrian movement
• Install advanced yield/stop bars
• Coordinate improvements with Class IIIB (Bicycle Boulevard), as applicable • Improve visibility through lighting and improved sight lines (restricting parking in advance of intersection, clearing vegetation) • Upgrade curb ramps to comply with ADA standards as needed • Install advanced stop bars
• Remove slip lanes
Neighborhood
Priority Areas:

Unsignalized
Crossing
• Install high visibility crossings and improved signage • Consider curb extensions, raised crosswalks, or medians to reduce vehicle speed and prioritize pedestrian movement
• Install advanced yield/stop bars
• Coordinate improvements with Class IIIB (Bicycle Boulevard), as applicable • Improve visibility through lighting and improved sight lines (restricting parking in advance of intersection, clearing vegetation) • Upgrade curb ramps to comply with ADA standards as needed • Where routes cross Commercial Priority Areas, consider improvements from Signalized Category above, including installation of RRFB or other stop control Pedestrian Spot
Improvements: Neighborhood
Neighborhood Priority Area improvements
seek to improve safety, particularly along
routes that provide access to schools, parks,
and other neighborhood-based destinations.

Improvements prioritize pedestrian travel
and may also provide benefits for the bicycle
network. Improvements should be coordinated
with the recommended bicycle boulevard
network.

Also included in the Neighborhood Spot
Improvements are sidewalk gaps not located
within either focus area but identified through
comment. Improved sidewalks, including
implementing missing sidewalks or enhancing
existing sidewalks to support pedestrians will
further enhance the pedestrian network.

Improvements in Neighborhood Priority Areas
include the following types:

Signalized Crossing: Crossings located in
Neighborhood Priority Areas that are signalized
Unsignalized Crossing: Crossings located
in Neighborhood Priority Areas that are
unsignalized. In nearly all instances, these
correspond with designated Safe Routes to
School preferred walking routes.

Table 14 outlines the recommended
improvements for each type.
453
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 88 ¥ YOSEMITE DR
880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZAN
KER
R
D
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD

BACKGROUND
BART Station
SRTS Route
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
FIGURE 21 PROPOSED

NEIGHBORHOOD

PRIORITY AREA SPOT
IMPROVEMENTS Neighborhood Unsignalized
Enhance Sidewalk
Commercial Priority Area
Neighborhood Priority Area
Neighborhood Signalized

PEDESTRIAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Sidewalk Gap
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 21 Proposed Neighborhood Priority Area Spot Improvements 454
Item # 18.
89 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Pedestrian Improvement Toolbox
Streetscape Improvements
Sidewalk Amenities
Sidewalk amenities are placed either immediately adjacent to buildings or adjacent to the curb and street outside of the path of travel. These amenities can include cafe seating, public benches, trees and shade structures, bike racks, or similar items that support pedestrians and others. Sidewalk amenities should also include pedestrian-scale lighting to support increased visibility.

Transit Waiting Improvements
Transit waiting area improvements can increase pedestrian comfort, perceived safety, and protection from weather.

These improvements can include bus shelters, benches,
public art, and arrival information. Consider design and integrate art as one method of supporting district or
community identity.

Wayfinding
Pedestrian wayfinding helps people walking navigate
between different locations, reduces perceived trip
distance, and encourages more walking trips. Consistent colors and branding can help create community or district identity.

Sidewalk Improvement
Sidewalk improvements can include a variety of measures such as general repaving to fix cracks and uneven
pavement and widening to provide more space for
pedestrians, landscaping, and commercial activity.
455
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 90 Signal Improvements
Pedestrian Countdown Signal
Pedestrian countdown signals inform pedestrians of when and how long they have to cross the street. This increases certainty for both pedestrians and drivers.

Leading Pedestrian Interval
At signalized intersections, Leading Pedestrian Intervals give pedestrians a head-start crossing the street by
activating the walking signal a few seconds before cars are permitted to go. This can dramatically improve visibility and predictability between vehicles and pedestrians,
particularly for motor vehicle turning movements.

Right Turn Restrictions
In densely populated areas with high pedestrian volumes, allowing right turns on red can increase vehicle-pedestrian collisions. Eliminating right turns on red simplifies turning movements at intersections and can increase pedestrian
safety through increased predictability.

All-way Crossing
All-way crossings, sometimes referred to as a pedestrian scramble, allow pedestrians to cross the street in any
direction with a longer pedestrian interval at signalized intersections. This requires a dedicated crossing phase for pedestrians.
456
Item # 18.
91 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Crossing & Connectivity Improvements
ADA Curb Ramps
ADA curb ramps are required by the Americans with
Disabilities Act to allow safe and easy crossing conditions for all users, especially people with disabilities. Curb ramps that are compliant with ADA standards include features
such as detectable warnings, minimal slopes, and wide
landing areas.

High Visibility Crosswalk
High visibility crosswalks use easy-to-see traffic markings to decrease vehicle encroachment and increase yielding
behavior. High visibility crosswalks can be applied at
intersections or for mid-block crossings. Mid-block
crossings are also typically accompanied by pedestrian
signage, median refuge islands, and/or curb extensions.

Curb Extensions
A curb extension expands the curb out into the street at intersections in order to shorten crossing distances, slow down turning vehicles, and create more visibility between vehicles and pedestrians. The geometry of the intersection is altered to reduce the curb radius.

Street End Connections
Street End Connections provide bicycle and pedestrian
access in areas with limited roadway connectivity.

Particularly in locations with cul-de-sacs, paths that connect dead-end streets can improve route directness, shorten trip distances, and support pedestrian access to destinations. 457
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 92 Median Refuge Island
Median refuge islands shorten crossing distances
and reduce pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles by
establishing a safe waiting space in the middle of a
crossing. The minimum width of a median refuge island is 6 feet, but should be 10 feet or greater.

Raised Crosswalk
Raised crosswalks provide a continuous, level surface for pedestrians crossing the street from sidewalk to sidewalk.

They increase visibility between vehicles and pedestrians and force cars to slowly pass through by raising the vehicle wheelbase.

Improved / Reduced Slip Lane
Slip lanes create conditions for fast-turning vehicles.

People driving have lower visibility of their surroundings when traveling at higher speeds. Slip lanes also add more pedestrian exposure to vehicles at intersections by creating two crossing segments. Closing the slip lane or adding
high visibility crossings and signage can improve crossing conditions for pedestrians.

Beacons
Beacons, including pedestrian hybrid beacons, provide
highly visible flashing signals directly above crossings, usually placed on higher speed roads at uncontrolled
marked crosswalks. These beacons are only activated when pedestrians press a button.
458
Item # 18.
93 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Bike network improvements support a better
connected, more complete bike network in
Milpitas. The identified improvements (Figure
22) create safer routing options and provide
connections to transit, jobs, commercial
centers, and educational opportunities.

Neighborhood routes offer alternatives to highspeed roadways, while increased separation on key corridors support cross-town connections.

Spot improvements identify opportunities to
prioritize bicycle travel across the city. The
shared use path network, also displayed in
Figure 22, is a vital component of a low-stress
network; more details on the proposed trail
network begin on page 103 of this plan.

Some projects, including Calaveras Boulevard,
will require additional coordination with other
agencies. The recommendations for this
segment support a more protected route for
people biking; however, it is recommended
through further study that alternate designs
Bicycle Network
that support this goal are considered.

In addition to route recommendations, sitespecific spot improvements are crucial to providing safe and connected routes.

Intersections in particular can limit low-stress
connectivity in a network when dedicated and
separated bicycle facilities are not available.

Varying lane configuration, turning movements,
dropped bike lanes, and highway ramps lend
to more potential points of conflict among
bicycles and motor vehicles. While intersection
improvements are recommended as bicycle
facilities are implemented, the two categories
of spot-specific improvements listed in Table
15 below identify both near-term projects to
support network connectivity and safety and
longer-term studies required to address some
of Milpitas’s biggest barriers. Additional detail
can be found on page 99 and in Appendix E.

Table 15 Proposed Bicycle Spot Improvement Strategy
TYPE Recommended improvements
Bike Lane
Connectivity
(Short Term
Improvement)
• Complete bike lane striping through the intersection and approach • Install necessary signage and striping to clarify motor vehicle movement at the intersection and intersection approach, including yielding to bicyclists for right turn movements • Consider implementation of demonstration projects or other interim applications to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians Intersection
Connectivity
Improvements
(Long Term
Improvements)
• Improve visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians through signage, marked crossings, and similar mechanisms in advance of and at potential conflict points • Increase separation of bicyclists and pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic through wide sidewalks and separated bicycle facilities (sidepaths or cycle tracks) • Reconfigure interchanges to remove free-flowing ramps and replace with 90-degree intersections (preferred)
• Implement signal or stop sign control on on-ramps and off-ramps • Consider over-crossings or under-crossings where intersection reconfiguration is not possible; roundabouts may also be considered 459
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 94 PARK

VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZAN
KER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLV D

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park

FREMONT BLVD
WARM

SPRINGS
BLVD
FIGURE 22

PROPOSED BICYCLE

NETWORK

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PROPOSED BIKE FACILITIES
Bike Lane Connectivity
Intersection Connectivity
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
Class II: Bike Lane
Class IIB: Buered Bike Lane
Class IIIB: Bike Boulevard
Class IV: Cycle Track

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
Class II: Bike Lane
Class IIB: Buered Bike Lane
Class III: Bike Route N
Unpaved Trails
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 22 Proposed Bicycle Network
460
Item # 18.
95 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Existing Conditions
Existing active transportation infrastructure is currently limited near BART. However the area is rapidly changing. Known as Milpitas Metro District, there is continued investment in the transportation system, including VTA corridor improvements, and new development. The increased intensity of land uses and associated demand with the area will continue to shift transportation system needs in years to come.

As part of these changing conditions, a new grade-separated pedestrian crossing leading north from BART across Montague Expressway provides a safe connection across an otherwise highstress roadway. With the station located at the intersection of two high-stress roadways, there are significant barriers to travel to and from the station; improvements such as this pedestrian bridge provide a vital link for people navigating this complex area.

The Milpitas BART station opened in June 2020 and is projected to have 20,000 daily passengers by the year 2030. BART will improve connections between Milpitas and the region and has the potential to significantly alter transportation in the city and beyond.

Located in south Milpitas near San Jose, BART expands opportunities to connect to major employer in the area. In fact, with Milpitas's daytime population nearly doubling each day, the addition of BART can help reduce reliance on motor vehicles for accessing employment opportunities.

However, to successfully expand transportation options and encourage greater use of transit, it is important to consider how complete, connected, and comfortable the active transportation network near the station is. Low-stress infrastructure, including separated bikeways, safe crossings, complete and wide sidewalks, and direct routes are imperative to maximizing the benefit of BART.

Milpitas BART Station
In addition to limited existing pedestrian
and bicycle infrastructure in the area, there
are few alternate routes that can support
lower stress travel in the area. Large
parcels, limited safe crossing opportunities,
and limited roadway connectivity impact
connections to bus stops, employment
opportunities, and commercial destinations.

As Milpitas re-imagines this area, there are
opportunities to explore new connections,
separated active transportation
infrastructure, and improved streetscape
design to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian
activity to and near the station. LTS 4:

High-Stress
Roadway

MILPITAS
BLVD

ABEL ST

TRADE ZONE BLVD

GREAT MALL PKWY
MAIN

MONTAGUE EXPY
MABEL
MATTOS

ELEMENTARY
BOB

MCGUIRE
PARK

GREAT MALL
PEARL
ZANKER

ELEMENTARY
LEGEND
461
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 96 Milpitas Metro Specific Plan
The Milpitas Metro Specific Plan establishes the
city's vision for the future of the Milpitas Metro
District. It outlines goals and policies aimed to
guide the growth of the Milpitas and support
improved connections among the City, BART,
and VTA transit services.

Milpitas Metro will shape the rapidly changing
area into a high-density, transit-oriented
neighborhood with a mix of uses. Circulation
in and around the district is an integral piece
of the plan, including opportunities to reshape
the roadway network, identify new active
transportation connections, and secure access
to new parks and other destinations. For
example, planned opportunities to expand
Milpitas Boulevard to Tarob Court can improve
connections to the station for all modes.

Milpitas Metro is currently being updated.

Recommendations
Specific recommendations for active transportation should be considered within the District as the vision for the area takes shape. New bikeways, sidewalks, and shared use paths should prioritize connections both within and external to the District to support access to the area for all. Specifically, Milpitas should work with incoming development to implement active transportation improvement.

Improvements should advance the vision for a complete, connected, all ages and abilities network that expands access to and use of transit in Milpitas. .

Specifically, circulation in the Metro District should consider the following recommendations identified in the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan:
• Expansion of safe, comfortable, and direct routes from BART that leverage shared use path and cycle-track recommendations near the station.
• Implementation of safer pedestrian crossings, including prioritizing pedestrian and bicycle travel. • Expand integration with transit and shared mobility options to improve utility for BART. • Improved connections to bus stops and transit opportunities through improved pedestrian environments, wayfinding, and lighting.
• Support first-last mile connections by integrating end of trip facilities, such as long term bike parking, in the District.

Source: City of Milpitas, Milpitas Metro
462
Item # 18.
97 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Low-Stress Bike Network
When implemented, the proposed bike network
will include 52 miles of connected, low-stress
bikeways—17 existing and 35 proposed—that
support travel to destinations across Milpitas.

This system of cycle tracks, bike boulevards,
and paved shared use paths—along with safe
crossing opportunities—serves all areas in
Milpitas.

Low-stress bikeways provide maximum
separation from motor vehicles on major
roads and support comfortable travel along
neighborhood roadways where bicycle travel
is prioritized. The proposed low-stress network
provides direct connections within the city to
transit, commercial areas, schools, parks, and
residential areas.

For example, a person riding a bicycle could
ride from Dixon Landing Road in the northern
part of the city all the way down to the Milpitas
BART Station using bikeways separated from
motor vehicle traffic. The low-stress bikeways
also connect to San Jose and Fremont,
contributing to a regional network.

Investing in low-stress bikeways supports a
broad range of people who bicycle, including
the approximately 60% of the population who
are interested in biking but have concerns
about doing so safely, families with young
children, and even more confident riders who
prefer greater separation from motor vehicles.

THE PROPOSED

BIKE NETWORK
PROVIDES 35 MILES
OF CONNECTED LOWSTRESS BIKEWAYS
463
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 98 PARK

VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZAN
KER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLV D

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 23

PROPOSED

LOW STRESS

BICYCLE NETWORK

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Streets
Railroad
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PROPOSED BIKE FACILITIES
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
Class IIIB: Bike Boulevard
Class IV: Cycle Track

EXISTING BIKE FACILITIES
Unpaved Trails
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
N
0 0.5 1
Miles Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 23 Proposed Low-Stress Bicycle Network
464
Item # 18.
99 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Bike Signals
Bike signals provide a dedicated crossing signal that
signifies when people on bicycles can cross. Typically
they are used to separate the timing of bicycle and
motor vehicle movements and can reduce opportunities
for conflict in complex intersections.

Intersection Improvement Toolbox
No Turn on Red
No turn on red restrictions prevent turns during the
red signal to reduce motor vehicle conflicts with
bicyclists and pedestrians. This restriction is commonly established at bicycle box installations, cycle tracks, and where bicycle signals are used to separate bicycle traffic from motor vehicles.

A low-stress network requires safe, comfortable ways for navigating an intersection by bike. With 55% of bicycle-involved collisions occurring at intersections, exploring opportunities to improve bicyclist safety and comfort at intersections is crucial to the effectiveness of the larger bicycle network. As described below, intersection improvements for bicyclists can include pavement markings, signal changes, signage, and even a physical redesign of the intersection. More information regarding intersection improvements are in the design guidelines, which can be found in the Appendix A: Design Guidelines.
465
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 100 Transit Integration
Bikeway design should consider locations of bus and
other transit stops to reduce conflict both between bus and bike and with pedestrians accessing the transit stop.

Signage and separating the bikeway from the transit
stop support these goals.

Protected Intersection
Protected intersections maintain physical separation
between motor vehicles and people bicycling. Signals
and positioning of the bike lane in the intersection limit opportunities for conflict between motor vehicles and
bicycles.

Intersection Crossing Marking
Safer bicycle networks require bicycle lane markings
to continue through intersections. Because these
improvements simply require paint, they are relatively
low-cost projects that can support network connectivity in the near term.
466
Item # 18.
101 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Bike Lane Connectivity
Bicycle Lane Striping
Bicycle lane striping should be applied along an entire roadway segment, including through the approach and up to the intersection.

Striping designates space for bicycle travel and can help people bicycling and people driving better navigate the shared spaces at an intersection.

Conflict Marking and Signage
Where right turn only lanes are present, striping should clearly indicate where people driving can merge into the turn lane. This should include a dashed lane marking, other conflict markings as applicable, and related signage. Cross sections that require bicycles and motor vehicles to share the right turn lane should implement the recommended best practices outlined in Section 5 of VTA's Bicycle Technical Guidelines.

Pedestrian Opportunity Improvements
Consider opportunities to implement low-cost interim treatments to help slow traffic speeds and support safer pedestrian travel in the corridor in conjunction with bike lane connectivity projects.

These treatments may include curb extensions, reconfiguration of intersection geometry, temporary plazas, or similar improvements.

Existing bicycle lane striping often disappears as the lane approaches an intersection, typically to accommodate right turning movements for motor vehicles. This presents challenges at signalized intersections, unsignalized crossings of major roadways, and at connections with adjoining existing bikeways. Completing the bicycle lane striping through the approach and to the intersection is a lowcost project that supports network connectivity in the near term while funding and design for more intensive network improvements is secured. Further, it is recommended that city design guidance is updated to require bicycle lane markings to be continue through the intersection. Additional guidance can be found in Appendix A: Design Guidelines. 467
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 102 Remove Free Flowing Ramps
On- and off-ramps should meet local roadways at 90-degree angles (preferred) or limit turning speeds when perpendicular crossings are not possible. Free-flowing ramps encourage higher travel speeds for people driving, creating conditions with high potential for conflict with people walking and bicycling.

Signal Control
On- and off-ramps should be controlled through traffic signals or stop signs. Stop bars should be placed in advanced of the intersection to improve visibility for people walking and biking across the intersection. Crosswalks should be well-marked.

Over and Under Crossings
In locations with significant safety concerns or limited right-of-way, over or under crossings may be considered. Implementation of these facilities should consider connectivity with the adjoining bikeways and sidewalks; maintain visibility for those traveling through these crossings; and have a maximum slope of 5%.

Intersection Connectivity
Travel east or west in the city requires use of corridors that interface with highways. On- and offramps create significant safety concerns for those walking or biking along these roadways as the interchange configuration creates more potential points of conflict among active modes and motor vehicles. While at least one of these locations was identified for improvement at the regional scale (Calaveras and I-880), the other locations identified represent specific challenges to low-stress connectivity across the network. Additional study will be required to develop context-sensitive solutions that support safe routes for active travel and should be considered as part of roadway reconfiguration that supports Complete Streets. Additional guidance for interchange design can be found in VTA's Bicycle Technical Guidelines.
468
Item # 18.
103 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 The recommended trail network is the
foundation for a more comprehensive,
connected, and comfortable active
transportation system in Milpitas. Paved shared
use paths located along creeks and roadways,
support more direct routes and improved
recreational opportunities, while connecting to
on-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities that
link to transportation, commercial centers, and
other community destinations.

The proposed path network considers
recommendations included in previous Milpitas
plans, including the previous Trail Master Plan;
county and district plans; and public feedback.

However, it should be noted the several
alignments previously recommended are not
included in this plan; in coordination with city
staff, Valley Water, and other project partners,
changing conditions along Milpitas's creeks and
rails have reduced the feasibility of new trail
alignment. These routes are explored further
on page 105.

While the existing network has grown in recent
years, particularly along Berryessa Creek and
Penitencia Creek, today's trail system remains
incomplete and disconnected. Previouslyproposed networks and public input provide strong support for a more complete, connected,
and easier to navigate system that helps
people reach transit, parks, employment, and
commercial destinations.

The proposed network shown in Figure
24 expands existing paths along creek
corridors and adjacent to major roadways to
support a comprehensive, connected active
transportation system. The path network in
particular can help trail users navigate barriers
in the city, including high-stress corridors.

To better support transportation connections
and provide for all ages and abilities access, it
is recommended that all paths are paved and
implemented as Class I facilities. Further, path
design should comply with standards from
Santa Clara County, Valley Water, and local
requirements. More information regarding
these standards can be found in the Design
Guidelines (Appendix E).

As projects are implemented, roadway
crossings and access points should be
improved and expanded. Where paths cross
major roadways, it is important to include
features such as high visibility crosswalks, clear
signage, and bulb out or median refuge islands
to support shorter crossing distances. Signals,
including RRFBs or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons,
as well as raised crossings should also be
considered.

Shared use paths along creeks will require
coordination with Valley Water for permitting
and design. While the proposed segments
have been reviewed in coordination with Valley
Water, it is recommended that the City engages
the water district early in the implementation
process to best explore opportunities for
coordination with maintenance or other
projects planned for these corridors.

Finally, while public input indicates that
surface quality along existing paths required
maintenance, comprehensive data to support
a specific maintenance plan is not available.

It is recommended that a complete inventory
of existing trails and paths, including surface
type and quality, is completed to inform a
systematic maintenance approach. Additional
recommendations about system maintenance
can be found on page 123.

Trail Network
469
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 104 Fig. 24 Proposed Trail Network
Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 24

PROPOSED TRAIL

NETWORK
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Streets
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT
TRAILS
Existing
Proposed
Unpaved Trails
West side of creek
West side of creek
East side of creek
South side of creek
Hetch Hetchy Trail
Highway 237 Bikeway
Penitencia Creek Trail
Berryessa Creek Trail
Coyote Creek Trail
Bike/Ped Bridge
470
Item # 18.
105 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Previously-Proposed
Trail Alignment
Summary
The Trail Master Plan (2007) proposed a network of paved paths along Milpitas's creek system, trail alignments in and near neighborhood parks, and a paved path along the BART railway. Since these alignments were proposed in 2007, conditions along Milpitas's creek system, development standards guiding trail alignments near rail, and opportunities to advance onstreet bikeways have all shifted. As part of the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan, City of Milpitas staff coordinated among departments and with other agencies to evaluate the feasibility of previously-proposed trail alignments. The results of this coordination concluded that several previously-proposed alignments are no longer considered feasible and are not recommended for inclusion in this plan. The following pages summarize the trail location and associated rationale for determining their feasibility. Where possible, alternate alignments are indicated.

BART Corridor - between BART Station and Fremont City Limits While this route would provide direct access from the BART station to northern areas of the city and into neighboring jurisdictions, updated guidance from BART restricts trail development within the available right-of-way. Further, an improved understanding of existing conditions, including available right-of-way and adjacent development, limits trail implementation in this corridor. To support access north from the BART station, alternate alignments along Abel Street and Penitencia Creek are included.

Calera Creek - between I-680 and Ed R. Levin County Park A trail located along Calera Creek leading east from I-680 would support a direct and continuous connection to the county park separate from motor vehicles. This would provide a safer, more comfortable route and expand access for northern areas of Milpitas. However, opportunities to connect the trail across I-680 limits a continuous route, and the conditions along the creek heading east from the city are generally steep and not viable for trail implementation.

Calera Creek - west of Milpitas Boulevard
The presence of the railway west of Milpitas Boulevard is a barrier to continued travel west; potential for crossing is limited due to similar concerns as the BART trail alignment discussed above. To better support travel west of Milpitas, this plan recommends exploring low-stress connections to Jacklin Road and Abel Street. This alignment would include a combination of on-street separated bikeways, sidepaths, and an enhanced sidewalk along Jacklin Road across the railway. a
a
a
471
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 106 Neighborhood Trails near Sinnott Park and Robert E. Browne Park The previous Trail Master Plan identified neighborhood trails around Sinnot Park, Robert E. Browne Park, and John Sinnott Elementary School. These parks presently include trails and paths that connect alongside and through the park. Due to limited right-of-way and integration with the on-street bicycle network, these trail alignments are no longer proposed. Where applicable, proposed bicycle boulevards will support travel in the areas.

Berryessa Creek - between Yosemite and San Jose City Limits A trail along Berryessa Creek south of Yosemite would provide additional options for connections to and from BART; however, limited space along the creek does not support a trail alignment adjacent to the creek.

Further, a railroad spur crosses the creek between Yosemite and Montague; per California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), no new at-grade railroad crossings are permitted.

Penitencia Creek - Dixon Landing to Coyote Creek
Extension of the existing trail along Penitencia Creek to connect to Coyote Creek is limited by the available space along the creek and clearance under I-880. This connection as a creek-side trail is not feasible; however, it is recommended that options to connect the existing Penitencia Creek Trail to Coyote Creek be explored further. Implementation of sidepath along DIxon Landing can support connections between Penitencia Creek access along California Circle, and Coyote Creek Trail west of McCarthy Boulevard. a
a
a
472
Item # 18.
107 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Paved Shared Use Paths along Creeks
Shared use paths are routes completely separated from motor vehicles and are often independent from the roadway network. Proposed paths in Milpitas primarily follow creeks, including Penitencia Creek, Calera Creek, and Berryessa Creek. Creek alignments support more direct, low-stress connections among destinations while supporting lengths of uninterrupted recreational space. Paths should be at least 8 feet wide, with a preferred width of 12 feet; for additional design guidance, please see Appendix A.

Supporting Amenities
Shared use paths are more than just a way to travel from one point to another. Park elements and other amenities can create a sense of place and support a wider range of recreational opportunities while encouraging a greater sense of security through increased activity and use of the trail. Where applicable, trails should consider surrounding land uses and integrate with the nearby community. Where space permits, selection of amenities and other trail features should be done in coordination with the neighboring communities. The following are examples of items to consider:

Trail Features
Implementation requires coordination and permitting with Valley Water. While Chapter 8 outlines the recommended phasing for proposed trails, coordination with Valley Water projects should also be considered when determining implementation timelines. For all identified alignments, at least one side of the creek should include a paved shared use path. Opportunities should be considered to provide a path along both sides where space and demand allow.

Bike repair stations, drinking fountains, and bike parking located along the trail can support active trips and recreation. Bike repair stations should include air pumps and other common tools. Consider integrating these amenities with shade structures and opportunities for rest, such as benches.

Benches and shade provide an opportunity to rest, socialize, and enjoy the surroundings. Benches, shade, and site furnishing also create an opportunity to integrate art and sculpture, as well as opportunities for play, such as through swings or other interactive elements.
473
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 108 Community gardens, habitat restoration, or other opportunities to add more vegetation along the trail can increase comfort along the trail, improve aesthetics, and support a sense of place.

Where applicable, integration with nearby land uses can help the trail be an extension of the area, provide greater visibility on the trail to increase a sense of security, and support travel to destinations through active modes.

Interactive elements along the trail, such as play features or exercise equipment, provide additional opportunities to recreate along the trail. These features support the recreational purpose of the trail system.

Wayfinding along the trail will help direct people to common destinations, connections with other trails, or other attractions. It also can help orient people to where they are in the city and provide an indication of how far they have traveled. The system should be consistent with other city wayfinding signs; interpretive signs may also be considered.
474
Item # 18.
109 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Sidepath
Sidepaths are located adjacent and parallel to a roadway. Located within the right-of-way, sidepaths are separated from motor vehicle travel by an unpaved buffer or other physical barrier. Sidepaths accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel and can help connect share-used paths and other low-stress bicycling facilities. Recommended links in Milpitas should provide for two-way travel and follow design guidance specified in Appendix A.

Supporting Amenities
Unlike shared use paths, sidepaths should primarily serve travel from one point to another. Opportunities for placemaking are available in wayfinding, other signage, and integration with nearby land uses, including parks. Examples of these elements are included below:

Wayfinding supports navigation across the trail system and can support transitions among sidepaths, shared use paths, and the on-street network. The wayfinding system will help orient people to where they are in the system and support a greater sense of comfort in navigating to their destination. Wayfinding will be particularly important for supporting connection to BART and other transit opportunities.

Vegetation can improve comfort along side paths, particularly when located between the path and general purpose travel lanes. In addition to providing additional separation and improved aesthetics of the facility, consider options for bioswales to improve storm water management along the corridor.
475
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 110 Bike parking should be clearly available near the trail alignment. Consider co-locating with bike repair stations. Not only will these features support trips by bicycle, they can also encourage more people to travel to the park by bike. Consider use of a corral as well as opportunities to provide shelter.

Consider options to clearly define space if conflict among modes is anticipated. Pavement markings or material selection can clearly mark spaces for pedestrian and spaces for bicycles. This is particularly pertinent where sidepaths connect to nearby land uses.

Adequate lighting should be included along all trail segments; however, along sidepaths lighting should consider clear visibility at intersections, other conflict points, and the approach to these locations. Lighting selection can be integrated into trail or area branding.

Trail design should consider clear connections to nearby land uses that are distinct from vehicular routes. Consider connections that provide direct access to destinations with minimal exposure to motor vehicles in parking lots or driveways. Bike parking and other end of trip facilities should be located along this route. Also consider crossings or other links to destinations on the opposite side of the roadway and make the preferred route clear through signage and striping.
476
Item # 18.
111 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Trail Spot Improvements
When designing functional, attractive, and
inviting trails, the small details matter. Essential
elements, including clear access points,
wayfinding, trail system information, bike
parking, comfort stations, and items like a bike
repair station help orient people to the trail
system, support their selected activities, and
create a welcoming environment for all trail
users. The following recommendations include
spot improvements that consider both how
people access trails and how they navigate
barriers, such as major roadway crossings.

Access points can include both designated
trailheads and secondary connections located
in neighborhoods or at trail crossings. In all
forms, access point make it clear that trail
access is permitted at this location. This may
include signage, such as a trail name or system
information and maps. Access points are
recommended wherever the trail crosses a
roadway, and new trail connections should be
explored where current access is limited.

Expanding opportunities to access the trail is an
important component of a comprehensive trail
system; with more opportunities to access the
trail, more people can benefit from a system of
low-stress corridors.

Highly-visible locations, such as parks, or
other locations that are anticipated to provide
access to a larger number of people should
be designated as trailheads. Trailheads offer
greater visibility for the trail system and include
a wider range of amenities, such as end-of-trip
facilities. In some cases, these locations may
also support motor vehicle parking to access
the trail system.

Spot improvements are grouped into three
main categories:
• Trail Access Improvement: Opportunities
for new connections and access to the
trail network, as well as improvements to
roadway crossings to prioritize low-stress
travel along trails.
• Trailhead Improvements: Frequently in
existing parks or at key entry points for
existing trails, trailhead improvements
identify locations where amenities such
as restrooms, bicycle storage, maps, and
wayfinding can improve user experience
accessing the trail network.
• New trail connections: These locations
represent opportunities for new
connections to the trail network. These
locations should include amenities
such as those listed above for Trailhead
Improvements.

These recommendations are depicted in Figure

25. More information about spot improvement
elements are included in the Trail Improvement
Toolbox beginning on page 113. More detail
regarding trail improvements can also be found
in Appendix E: Design Guidelines.
477
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 112 Fig. 25 Trail Spot Improvements
Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 25

TRAIL SPOT

IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT
TRAILS
Existing
Proposed
Unpaved Trails

TRAIL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
New Trail Connection
Trail Access Improvements
Trailhead Improvements
Hetch Hetchy Trail
Highway 237 Bikeway
Penitencia Creek Trail
Berryessa Creek Trail
Coyote Creek Trail
Bike/Ped Bridge
478
Item # 18.
113 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Trail Improvement Toolbox
Trail Access Improvements
Trail Access Point
Access points connect trail users to the network at
locations other than a trailhead. Opportunities include major roadway crossings, neighborhoods and parks, or
through parcels that connect high-densities of residents and employees directly to the trail network. These
location should be well-marked with signs and a clear
entry point.

Intersecting Trails
Where high-use corridors connect, elements that clearly define the path of travel and encourage slow speeds
can reduce conflict among user groups and improve
wayfinding along the trail network.

Roadway Crossing
Where trails cross roadways, treatments ranging from
pavement markings and signage to signals may be
used to support safe crossings. The type of treatment
depends on the width, traffic volume, and travel speed
of the roadway; more details can be found in Appendix
A. Crossings should also consider other features to
increase safety and comfort for people walking and
biking. Raised crossings, median refuge islands, and/or bulb outs may further prioritize trail users.
479
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 114 Trailhead Amenities
Bike Amenities
Bike amenities at entry points to trails can include a bike repair station and short-term or long-term bike parking.

These amenities allow people to conveniently stop and
store their bikes and repair them if needed
Wayfinding & Signage
Wayfinding and signage can provide trail users with
information regarding nearby destinations and rules of
the trail to enhance the route’s predictability. Wayfinding elements should be consistent across the system and
consider how they integrate with on-street and regional wayfinding systems.

Lighting
Lighting enhances visibility and perceptions of safety for trail users at night. Distinct, pedestrian-oriented lighting also adds to the trail’s sense of place. Lighting should be installed as trails are implemented to help trail users better navigate the trial system; lighting should also be installed on all existing trails that do not currently have adequate lighting..

Comfort Station
A comfort station provides a place for people to stop and rest at a trail entrance. They can provide shade, seating, garbage cans, restrooms, a water fountain, etc.
480
Item # 18.
115 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 The projects identified through the Milpitas
Trail, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Master Plan
support a more complete and connected
active transportation network across the city.

Seeking to maximize the use of existing rightsof-way, these projects focus on opportunities to improve and expand low-stress routes,
enhance safe crossings, and extend the shared
use path network.

However, the City recognizes that the
challenge of today’s network extends beyond
the local street network and instead requires
consideration of more complex projects to
provide solutions to the barriers created by
rail lines, highways, and more. This section
identifies specific projects or locations for
further study that advance the City’s vision for a
complete and connected active transportation
network. While not included in the prioritized
project list, the following projects and
categories of improvements are included as
part of this plan for further study.

Project Sources
The projects listed here come from several
sources. First, the Santa Clara County
Bicycle Plan identifies a number of project
opportunities to advance countywide
connectivity. This list notes specific barriers
requring new crossings or configuration and
areas with limited connectivity. Second, public
feedback throughout the planning process has
indicated support for new and improved routes
over major barriers across the city, including
new trail connections, pedestrian crossings
over highways and rail, and more direct routes
connecting important regional destinations.

Finally, the City has identified additional project
Projects for
Further Study
locations based on coordination with other
planning efforts, ongoing development, and
other project opportunities.

Additional Study Required
These projects are identified for additional
study due to the complex nature of the
improvements. Reasons for additional study
include, but are not limited to: identification of
additional funding opportunities, coordination
among multiple agencies, identification of rightof-way needs, and coordination with ongoing studies, plans, and development.

For example, the overcrossings for major
barriers such as I-680 or the BART rail line
refrence general locations or areas where a
new crossing is needed. However, the precise
locations along these corridors will require
consideration for site constraints, right-of-way
availability, regulations governing crossing
locations and qualities, and more.

As opportunities arise, whether through
specific funding mechanisms or coordination
with development and other projects, the City
should continue ti explore implementation
of these projects. In the absence of a direct
implementation mechanism, the City should
continue to advance review and study of these
projects, as is feasible, so that specific projects
can be included in future implementation plans.

Figure 26 on the next page identifies known
locations of improvements requiring further
study.
481
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 116 Ed R. Levin
County Park

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

EXISTING TRAILS
Unpaved Trails
C
Projects for Further Study
lass I: Paved Shared Use Paths

BACKGROUND PROJECTS FOR

FURTHER STUDY
FIGURE 26
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Railroad
Public Parks
Streets
Water
¥880
¥680
Ã237
M
C
C
ARTHY
BLVD

TASMAN DR

RIVER OAKS PKWY
ZANKER
RD
1ST
ST

LANDING RD

MILPITAS BLV
D

ESCUELAPKWY
PARK

VICTORIA DR
EVANS
RD

CALAVERAS RD

YOSEMITE DR

LANDESS AVE

PIEDMONT
RD

CROPLEY AVE

MORRILL AVE

HOSTETTER RD

SIERRA RD

BERRYESSA RD

CAPITOL AVE

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD
GREAT

MALL PKWY
MAIN
ST

ABEL ST

JACKLIN RD
DIXON
Coyote Creek
Identify crossing
opportunity over
I-880 between
Calaveras Blvd &
Dixon Landing Rd
Idenitify crossing
opportunity over
I-880 between
Tasman Dr &
Montague Expwy
Identify opportunities to connect
trails where roads are physical
barriers along Berryessa and
Penetencia Creeks. Explore underor over-road connections to create continuous low-stress paths.

Explore extension of
Milpitas Blvd & creek
crossing to connect
with Tarob Ct
Provide a low-stress
connection over the
BART rail line,
connecting Lundy Pl
& Trimble Rd
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 26 Projects for Further Study
482
Item # 18.
117 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Programs refer to non-infrastructure efforts that
support walking, bicycling, and other mobility
options in the city. Programs supplement
infrastructure improvements by helping connect
residents and visitors to these new ways to get
around. Programs can provide education about
how to get around by bike or by foot, including
route options, safety tips, and how to connect
with other modes, like transit. Programs also
provide encouragement, whether it’s helping
connect people through walking or bicycling
groups, incentives for trying out other ways to
get around, or supporting the choice to walk
or bike more generally. In conjunction with the
improvements outlined above, the City should
consider the following programs:
• Safe Routes to School
• Wayfinding
• Bicycle Parking
• Encouragement and Education Programs
• Shared Mobility Program
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
• Comprehensive Data Collection, including
improved safety and health data, user
counts, and infrastructure inventories
• Vision Zero
In order to successfully implement the above
program recommendations, investments in City
staff, including increasing the number of staff
dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian issues,
may be required. Dedicated staff are crucial to
ensuring the success and longevity of these
programs.

Safe Routes to School: Safe Routes to School
connect students with information about
how to travel to school safely by foot or by
bike. Often implemented in conjunction with
an infrastructure program, Safe Routes to
School efforts can include celebration of Walk
and Bike to School Days, hosting walking
school buses and bike rodeos, and teaching
students about how to walk and bike safely in
their neighborhoods. Safe Routes to School
programs can cover a broad range of topics
and approaches but generally focus on
supporting students in getting to school in a
safe and active way.

Santa Clara County Public Health Department,
with support from VTA, hosts a range of Safe
Routes to School programs and has a number
of resources available for schools on their
website, including an annual Walk and Bike to
School Week celebration. The City of Milpitas
should consider implementing a Safe Routes
to School program, in coordination with the
Milpitas School District and other schools
operating in the City. Coordination with the
county and VTA can help connect the City with
existing resources and funding opportunities.

Safe routes to school programs encourage
more students to walk or bike to school
through infrastructure improvements and
education programs.

Program
Recommendations
483
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 118 Wayfinding: Wayfinding systems include
signs, kiosks, pavement medallions, and other
indicators that direct people walking and
bicycling to their destinations. A comprehensive
wayfinding system helps people navigate
the city confidently and can direct people to
preferred routing options.

Signs typically include information such as a
destination or district name, an arrow indicating
direction of travel, and a measure of distance
and/or time to that destination. Kiosks can
include a district or city map to help orient
people to where they are in the city, the
available bike and trail networks, and major
destinations.

Wayfinding systems also offer an opportunity
to convey city and district identity. For
example, different colors or icons can help
distinguish one area of the city from another
and provide visual cues to people navigating
the system. Given Milpitas’s potential to
connect with local and regional trail systems,
it is important to consider how these networks
can work together and include complementary
signage to support connected travel in the
city. Improved wayfinding should also be
considered to improve travel to the new BART
station and from BART to the bike and trail
system.

Adult Bicycling Skills Courses: Bicycle skills
courses can help adults who have never
received training on how to ride a bike safely
or may want a refresher to learn how to more
safely and comfortable navigate the city by
bike. As bicycle infrastructure increases and
bike share is added to the city, this can help
support a more vibrant bicycling culture in
Milpitas.

The City should explore options for partnership
with bicycling courses offered through the
League of American Bicyclists, Silicon Valley
Bicycle Coalition, or VTA.

Employer-Based Encouragement Programs:

The City should support employers in
connecting employees with information about
and opportunities to try new transportation
options. The opening of the BART station
provides additional opportunity for employers
to host bicycle challenges, connect
experienced riders with novice bicyclists, or
participate in Bike to Work Day. The City can
provide information or help employers connect
with other information that supports these
efforts.

Community Walks, Rides, and Education
Events: Milpitas regularly participates in Bike
to Work day to celebrate those commuting by
bike. Opportunities to host other community
walk, rides, or educational events can
encourage continued support beyond May.

Milpitas should partner with local and regional
groups to identify opportunities for new
community events.
484
Item # 18.
119 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Comprehensive Data Collection Program:

Data regarding all active transportation facilities
and activity should be collected regularly.

Three primary areas for data collection that
should be explored and expanded include:
• Safety: To better understand crash patterns
and who is affected, opportunities to record
additional information on crash types and
parties should be explored.
• User Counts: Implement an annual counts
program to track use of existing facilities
and identify areas for future facility
implementation. Counts programs can
rely on permanent automatic counters,
temporary counters, or manual counts
completed in coordination with local
volunteers. Counts should be collected
annually, utilizing consistent locations and
methodology. The National Bicycle and
Pedestrian Documentation project provides
information on how to get started.
• Infrastructure Inventory: Project
implementation and maintenance is best
supported when location and quality
of assets is known. To better track
implementation progress and identify
locations for new crosswalks, maintenance
needs, or other project opportunities,
the city should develop a comprehensive
database that documents existing
infrastructure, such as: signal locations;
crosswalk locations and quality; sidewalk
and bikeway location, quality, and width;
pedestrian-scale lighting location; traffic
calming locations; and similar. The data
plan should include considerations for
regular updates to the data set and
protocols for integrating new projects.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee:

The City should re-convene a Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee to support
the city in implementing programs and
infrastructure. This committee, comprised of
interested residents and stakeholders, can
provide resident oversight on implementation
of the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan,
support the city in understanding identified
needs for walking and biking, and provide
recommendations to the city on how to best
support walking and biking in Milpitas.

Expanded Public Engagement:

The City should explore opportunities to more
regularly engage with residents and visitors
regarding the active transportation network.

Regular opportunities for feedback and
event participation, in addition to expanded
opportunities for reporting maintenance
concerns, can support the City's understanding
of resident and visitor needs, challenges,
and opportunities for enhancing the active
transportation culture in Milpitas.

Manual counts collected by volunteers or
city staff along key corridors in the city can
provide a baseline understanding of current
bicycle and pedestrian use. intercept surveys
conducted during this time can provide
greater insight into needed improvements
over time.
485
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 120 Bicycle Parking: Bicycle parking and related
trip end facilities complete the bicycle network.

A convenient and secure location to store a
bicycle while at a destination is necessary trips
made by bike, especially when connecting to
transit. While bicycle parking is available in
many locations around Milpitas, requests for
more parking options was one of the most
frequent comments provided during public
engagement activities. Figure 27 identifies
possible locations for new bike parking
opportunities.

Bike parking can provide both short-term and
long-term options, and the city should consider
the context when selecting and implementing
new bike parking locations:
• Short Term Bicycle Parking: These parking
options support relatively short trips to
destinations such as shopping, errands,
dining, or recreation. Bicycle racks are
the most common type of short-term
parking and can be grouped to provide
for higher volumes of bicycle parking.

Racks provide convenient parking options
with moderate levels of security. Selected
racks should be consistent with bicycle
parking guidelines outlined in VTA’s Bicycle
Technical Guidelines (2012) and consider
rack recommendations as outlined in the
Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals' (APBP) Essentials of Bike
Parking manual (2015). The following racks
are recommended for use in Milpitas.

In locations with higher demand, bike corrals
can create more parking options for bicycles.

If implemented on street, as shown above,
they also can provide traffic calming and
enhance the pedestrian environment.

Inverted U Racks provide a more secure and
stable option for short term bike storage.
486
Item # 18.
121 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 • Long Term Bicycle Parking: These options
support trips where people intend to leave
their bicycles for longer periods of time.

This can include during the work day, at
transit stations as part of a first-last mile
connection, or similar. These facilities
provide for higher levels of security, may
protect bicycles from the elements, and
include a number of storage options.

Bicycle lockers are an option rented to
an individual, with options for longer-term
rentals (annual or monthly) or on-demand
hourly rentals. BikeLink lockers currently
located throughout Milpitas are one
example.

Secure parking areas are another common
option and feature bike racks located in a
secure room or cage. These rooms can be
controlled through access cards, keypads,
or attendants .

Bike parking options should include locations
that accommodate bikes of differing sizes, such
as cargo bikes, or support e-bikes and charging
locations, particularly within secure parking
areas.

To support a robust bike parking program,
Milpitas should review and update its
development standards as necessary to
encourage greater provision of bicycle parking
both within private developments and public
areas.

Bicycle lockers provide a secure location for
individual bicycles for longer-term storage.

Secure parking areas, as shown above, can
accommodate a greater number of bicycles
within a more secure, longer-term storage
area.
487
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 122 PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSA RD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 27

PROPOSED BIKE

PARKING LOCATIONS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Railroad
Streets
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

EXISTING BIKEWAYS
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path
Class II: Bike Lane
Class IIB: Buffered Bike Lane
Class III: Bike Route
Unpaved Trails

BIKE PARKING RECOMMENDATIONS
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 27 Proposed Bike Parking Locations
488
Item # 18.
123 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 As biking, walking, and rolling in Milpitas grows,
it is important to identify opportunities within
City policy and practice to better support
development of the active transportation
network. The following recommendations
consider both the longevity of the City’s
investment in the active transportation network
as well as considerations for improving access
and use of the network.

Shared Mobility: Bike and scooter share
programs can support first- and last-mile
connections between transit and other
destinations. As active transportation
infrastructure grows along with transit
opportunities, the City should explore a bike
and/or scooter share program. A successful
program will require close coordination with
city policy, neighboring jurisdictions, and
program vendors to create a program that is
responsive to resident and employee needs,
consistent with other programs in the region,
and meets the City’s goals and objectives for
the program. A more comprehensive review
of program opportunities is found in the next
chapter.

Staff Trainings: Both internal and interdepartmental staff trainings can increase understanding of active transportation
design and guidance and support a shared
understanding of active transportation needs
across city staff. In addition to trainings
regarding city policy and preferred practice,
technical trainings on guidance from the
American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), National
Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO), Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), and others can support city staff as
Milpitas seeks to support a network that meets
the needs of all users.

Facility Design,The City should review
and update all relevant policy and design
guidance regarding bikeway and sidewalk
design, materials, and supporting amenities
to be consistent with regional guidance. The
City should clearly define opportunities for
relevant departments to coordinate on design,
implementation, and maintenance of the
network so that it can best serve the needs of
all users.

Maintenance
Routine maintenance can prolong the life of
surface materials, increase the utility of the
system, and encourage greater use of the
network. This includes maintaining bike lanes,
protected facilities, trails and sidewalks by
keeping them clear of debris, surfaces free from
obstructions, and crossings well-marked. For
trails, maintaining access points, trail surface,
and crossings are important components to
a well-functioning and effective system that
supports trips of all types.

It is recommended that the City develop a
routine maintenance schedule and track
maintenance over time. These activities
should include all components of the bicycle,
pedestrian, and trail networks.

In addition to routine maintenance, the City
should track more significant maintenance
needs and integrate these improvements into
annual budgeting. This information should be
tracked in a manner consistent with the system
inventory recommended as part of this plan.

Policy
Recommendations
489
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 124 Complete Streets + Vision Zero
Adopting Complete Streets and Vision
Zero Policies can support a more balanced
transportation system with a commitment to
improving safety of all roadway users. Both
policies are identified in the Circulation Element
of the General Plan (Goal CIR-1 and Goal
CIR-2). Existing streets and any future street
reconstruction projects should be reviewed for
their compatibility with the goals and objectives
of the Complete Streets policy. Education and
encouragement programs should integrate
Vision Zero principles.

Trail Use
The trail system supports both recreational
and transportation trips in Milpitas. With an
increasing number of personal e-bikes and
e-scooters—as well as the potential for a
future shared mobility program—the City
should develop clear policy regarding the
use of shared use paths by these modes. This
guidance should be consistent with county,
regional, and state guidance. Information
regarding this policy should be made available
through educational and encouragement
materials, including at trailheads and other key
access points. This information can provide
guidance to users about trail etiquette and help
reduce potential conflicts along the pathway.

Trail Access Points
The City should review and update any relevant
policy and design guidance regarding trails
and access points. Specifically, the City should
establish standards for consistent design
of access points that help people better
Signage at key access points can include
wayfinding information, outline guidelines
for use, and provide information regarding
user group right-of-way on the trail.
understand where and how to access trails.

The City should coordinate with Valley Water
regarding any restrictions or considerations for
maintenance activities. Access points should
be clearly marked and provide for all ages and
abilities access, including compliance with ADA
guidelines.

Trail Design, Maintenance, and Operation
The City should review and update any relevant
policy and design guidance regarding trail
design, materials, and supporting amenities
to be consistent with regional guidance.

As trails provide for both recreation and
transportation uses, the City should clearly
define opportunities for relevant departments
to coordinate on design, implementation, and
maintenance of the network so that it can best
serve the needs of all users.
490
Item # 18.
125 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022

BIKE AND

SCOOTER SHARE
491
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 126 Bike and scooter share systems are designed to
provide a cost-effective, environmentally-friendly,
and convenient travel option for short trips within
the city. Although bike share systems have been
present in North America for many years, the
introduction of e-bikes and more recently e-scooters
have led to a rapidly changing and growing industry.

In Milpitas, bike and e-scooter share systems
have the opportunity to support connections to
transit, major employers, and other destinations.

Specifically, these programs can help reduce
reliance on private automobiles, extend the reach of
transit as a first-last mile connection, and improve
access to active transportation options.
492
Item # 18.
127 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Shared Mobility
Bike and e-scooter share, or shared mobility,
refer to a system of shared vehicles that are
available for short-term rental in the city. These
options help residents and visitors connect
to transit, reach nearby destinations, or
support other short trips that would otherwise
be completed by car. Systems may include
standard or e-bikes, e-scooters of various
shapes and sizes, and a number of options for
locking the vehicle at the end of the trip.

Many cities across the Bay Area have
implemented shared mobility systems, and as
of July 2019, there were close to 300 systems
in place across the United States. A review
of neighboring and peer systems as well as
current industry practices were reviewed to
develop recommendations for implementation
of a system in Milpitas.

Milpitas Program Objectives
In considering a shared mobility system for
Milpitas, the City established the following
objectives:
• The system should support connection to
transit opportunities and major employers
• The system should establish clear
guidelines that support safety while
increasing use and visibility of active
transportation
• The system should follow industry best
practices for equitable access to shared
mobility and provide opportunities for all
residents to benefit from the system
• The system should outline a process for
program evaluation, including opportunities
to expand or modify approach over time.

Table 16 Shared Mobility Systems in the
United States
System Type Number
Docked Bike Share 108
Dockless Bike Share 46
E-Scooter 142
Designated parking areas for bike share and
scooter share encourage compliance with
parking requirements, including providing
locations to lock bikes and scooters.
493
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 128 System Recommendations
Milpitas should implement a one year pilot
program for bike and e-scooter share to
evaluate the potential for a more robust
program. This program will include the
following elements:
• E-Bikes and E-Scooters: Electric-assist
bikes and scooters can support a wider
range of potential users reach a wider
range of locations.
• Hybrid System: The system will feature
hubs where parking is encouraged.

Hubs will include racks or other locking
mechanisms and help increase visibility of
the system.
• Parking Requirements: The system should
require all users to end their trip by locking
to a designated fixed object so as to reduce
impact to paths of travel.
• Focused Service Area: The service area
represents the recommended operating
locations for bikes and scooters. The
recommended service areas can be seen in
Figure 28.

Service Area
Service Area selection considered several
factors, including potential demand for use,
existing infrastructure, and existing network
barriers. Potential for demand considered
where people live, work, access transit, and
shop.

The recommended bike share service area
focuses on connections among employers
and the BART station in the southern area
of Milpitas. Calaveras Boulevard and the
two interstates form barriers to safe and
comfortable travel and form the boundaries for
the pilot program service area. An expansion
area covering much of the city is recommended
for consideration as understanding of program
demand grows and bicycle infrastructure
improvements are completed. Hubs are located
primarily in parks and other public facilities;
additional hubs can be selected in coordination
with private property owners.

The recommended scooter share service
area focuses on two areas of Milpitas: along
McCarthy Boulevard north of Tasman Road
and in the southeast area of the city, south
of Calaveras Road and east of the interstate.

These two areas represent differing land use
contexts and can provide greater insight into
program specifications as the city looks to
expand the program.

For both bikes and scooters, Calaveras
Boulevard and Montague Expressway are
identified as restricted roadways. Details of
the service areas and recommended hubs are
shown in Figure 28 on the next page.
494
Item # 18.
129 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 PARK

VICTORIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZAN
KER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
Parc Metro East
Bob McGuire Park
Great Mall
Light Rail
O’Toole
Elms Park
Pinewood Park BART Station
Cerano Park
Cisco
McCarthy
Center
Ranch
Drive
Park Victoria +
Calaveras
Murphy Park
Park Town Plaza

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Streets
Railroad
PublicParks
Schools
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

SHARED MOBILITY
Bikeshare Pilot
Bikeshare Expansion
Scooter Share Pilot N
Hub Locations
0 0.5 1
Miles
Restricted Roadway
FIGURE 28

RECOMMENDED SERVICE

AREAS & HUB LOCATIONS
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 28 Recommended Service Areas and Hub Locations
495
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 130 Other Considerations
As the City looks to develop a pilot program
and associated permit requirements,
specifications for fleet size, safety, maintenance
and re-balancing requirements, user
education, data sharing, and equity programs
should be considered. An overview of these
recommendations is included below:
• Pricing Structure: The system should
provide for single trip, day pass, and
monthly and annual membership options.

Additional fees should also be considered
as a mechanism for enforcing parking
requirements and service area restrictions.
• Equity Programs: Pricing should include
income-based discounts, mechanisms for
cash payments, and alternative payment
structures. Reduced liability and elimination
of hidden fees should also be considered.

Adoption of the regional Bike Share for All
model can support these efforts.
• Data Sharing: Milpitas should require
vendors to share system data to support
program evaluation and compliance. Data
should be shared in the Mobility Data
Specification (MDS) and General Bike Feed
Specifications (GBFS).
• User Education: Vendors should provide
user education supporting parking
requirements, where to operate the vehicle,
and other rules of the road.
• Parking: Users should be require to lock
to designated hubs or other approved
fixed objects when at the end of the trip.

Vehicles should not obstruct pedestrian
pathways.

Further, it is recommended that Milpitas
coordinate closely with neighboring
jurisdictions and VTA to identify opportunities
to partner on program requirements and
features. Implementing a consistent program
that can exist across city boundaries with
San Jose, for example, could support trips
made to and from the BART station and
other destinations along the city boundaries.

Consistency in program elements can increase
predictability for system users. Information
regarding vendor requirements, city policy,
and liability and enforcement should be
shared with neighboring jurisdictions. It
should also be noted that Milpitas's program
requirements should consider overlap with
other jurisdictions;. For example, vendors must
secure a permit from VTA if the system is to
operate on VTA property, including the Milpitas
Transit Center. These requirements should
be clearly reflected and communicated in
Milpitas's shared mobility approach.

Collaboration with private employers can
further support program goals and use through
opportunities to locate hubs on employer
campuses and promote programs through
employer transportation programs.
496
Item # 18.
131 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022

IMPLEMENTATION
497
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 132 The following chapter outlines the proposed
prioritization strategy for implementation of the
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan and
identifies potential funding sources. This approach
is intended to establish a framework that guides
implementation over time and can be adjusted to
account for future changes as Milpitas continues to
grow.
498
Item # 18.
133 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 While the Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master
Plan recommends a series of projects that
support a complete and connected low-stress
network, limited resources require an action
plan that identifies which projects may have the
greatest impact. The prioritization framework
seeks to evaluate projects based on which
projects provide the greatest benefit. Projects
are evaluated based on measures of both
community need and project feasibility:

Community Need evaluates which projects
help address safety concerns, improve high
stress network links, connect people to
destinations, and expand the reach of transit.

These factors are intended to represent
community values and needs and include
consideration of community support through
the engagement process.

Project feasibility provides insight into which
projects may take additional time and/or
resources to complete. For example, projects
that require coordination among multiple
agencies may require additional time and
staff resources, whereas projects that require
roadway reconstruction will be more costly.

These measures offer a quick assessment
of feasibility; however, other factors may
also affect project readiness and should
be considered as the implementation plan
advances over time.

Specific criteria are listed for each project type
in the pages that follow.

Project Categories
Community need and project feasibility
are considered together to determine the
overall priority of a project. The results of
this evaluation group projects into four main
categories, also shown in Figure 29:
• Short term improvements are rated
high need and high project feasibility;
these projects should be prioritized for
implementation
• Long term improvements are rated high
need and low project feasibility . These
projects provide community benefit but
may require additional funding, study, or
agency coordination.
• Opportunity improvements are rated
low need and high project feasibility.

These projects should be considered
in coordination with development or as
funding becomes available.
• Low priority projects are rated low need
and low project feasibility. These projects
should be pursued in the long term but do
not represent an immediate priority for the
community.

Prioritization
499
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 134 Fig. 29 Prioritization Categories

SHORT TERM

IMPROVEMENT
High priorty and easy
to implement projects
for short term
development.

OPPORTUNITY

IMPROVEMENT
Lower priority projects
that may become an
opportunity if funding
or partnership occurs.

LOW

PRIORITY
Low priority, challenging
projecs that may be
pursued long term, but
are not a priority
at this time.

LONG TERM

IMPROVEMENT
Projects for further study
and evaluation. Seek grant
funding to advance
these projects.

HIGH
HIGH

FEASIBILITY
NEED
LOW
LOW
Project Evaluation
The sections that follow outline the
prioritization process used for each project
type, including linear bikeway improvements,
spot bikeway improvements, and pedestrian
spot improvements. Each project type includes
more information on how project need was
evaluated as well as specific considerations for
feasibility. Project need was evaluated based
on considerations for safety, connectivity,
and public support. Opportunities for project
coordination were also considered for spot
improvements. Project lists follow each section.

Project Costs
Planning level costs estimates are provided for
each project in the project table. This amount
is intended to provide only an estimate based
on the project type. Specific site conditions and
location needs may require different project
components. More detailed cost estimates
should be completed based on an engineering
review and further analysis of the site context.

See Appendix F for more detail on the
planning- level cost estimates used to inform
this plan.
500
Item # 18.
135 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Evaluation Criteria: Pedestrian Spot Improvements
Table 17 and Table 18 list the evaluation criteria for project priority and project feasibility.

Projects were scored for each criteria listed in the tables. Project need was determined by the criteria listed in Table 17, while project feasibility was determined using the criteria in Table 18.

Table 17 Project Priority
Category Criteria Description
Connectivity Connectivity to
Transit, Schools,
Parks, and
Employment
Centers
Project provides connections to transit, including frequent local bus, BART, and light rail; schools (adjacent to school or along identified walking route); parks; or employment centers.

Bicycle
Improvement
Bicycle
Improvement
Project is located coincident with a bicycle improvement, indicating an opportunity for coordination among project types.

Safety Previous Collision Project provides safety improvement near reported crash location. Collision occurred at the project intersection.

Project Support Public Support Project was supported by the public through this Plan’s public engagement activities
Table 18 Project Feasibility
Category Description
Agency Coordination Requires coordination among multiple agencies (water district, state, VTA, etc.) 501
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 136 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK

VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 30

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY PEDESTRIAN SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
1 2
4 5
6 3
7 8
9 10
11 12
27 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 42
43 44
32 29
30 31
33 34
35 36
37 38
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 53
54 55
56 57
58 5960
28 39 40
41 52
^
Fig. 30 Priority Pedestrian Spot Improvements
502
Item # 18.
137 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Pedestrian Spot Improvement Project List
TABLE 19 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Number Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category** Feasibility
category
Cost
estimate
1 Commercial Signalized Milpitas Blvd Dixon Landing Rd HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 2 Commercial Signalized Abel Street Milpitas Blvd HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 3 Neighborhood Unsignalized Yosemite Dr S Temple Dr HIGH HIGH $250,000 4 Neighborhood Unsignalized Arizona Avenue Washington Drive HIGH HIGH $250,000 5 Neighborhood Unsignalized Milpitas Blvd Tramway Dr HIGH HIGH $250,000 6 Commercial Signalized Jacklin Rd. Park Victoria Dr HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 7 Commercial Signalized Main St Cedar Way HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 8 Commercial Unsignalized Jacklin Rd Foothills Square HIGH HIGH $1,300,000 9 Commercial Signalized Abel St Serra Way HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 10 Neighborhood Signalized Milpitas Blvd Washington Dr HIGH HIGH $3,000,000 11 Commercial Unsignalized Dixon Rd Hetch Hetchy Trail HIGH HIGH $1,300,000 12 Neighborhood Unsignalized Yosemite Dr Roswell Dr HIGH HIGH $250,000 13 Neighborhood Unsignalized Abbott Avenue Valley Way HIGH HIGH $250,000 14 Neighborhood Signalized S Park Victoria Yosemite Dr HIGH HIGH $800,000 15 Neighborhood Unsignalized Capitol Ave Fallen Leaf Way HIGH HIGH $250,000 16 Commercial Signalized Calaveras Blvd Serra Way HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 17 Commercial Signalized Jacklin Rd Escuela Parkway HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 18 Neighborhood Signalized Abel St Redwood Ave HIGH HIGH $800,000 19 Neighborhood Signalized Abel St Marilynn Dr HIGH HIGH $800,000 20 Neighborhood Signalized Abel St Penitencia St HIGH HIGH $800,000 *For more information regarding Pedestrian Project Types, please see pages 77 and 79. **For more information regarding Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 503
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 138 Table 20 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations: Long Term Improvements NUMBER Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category** Feasibility
category
Cost
estimate
29 Commercial Signalized Hillview Dr Calaveras Blvd HIGH LOW $4,400,000 30 Commercial Unsignalized Calaveras Blvd Carnegie Dr HIGH LOW $1,300,000 31 Commercial Signalized Tasman Dr Alder Dr HIGH LOW $4,400,000 32 Sidewalk Improvement Calaveras Blvd Carnegie Dr to
Protected Crossing
HIGH LOW $30,000
33 Commercial Signalized Dixon Landing Rd Milmont Dr HIGH LOW $4,400,000 34 Commercial Signalized Abel St Calaveras Blvd HIGH LOW $4,400,000 35 Commercial Signalized Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Blvd HIGH LOW $4,400,000 36 Commercial Signalized Main St Great Mall Parkway HIGH LOW $4,400,000 Pedestrian Spot Improvement Project List
Table 19 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations: Short Term Improvements (continued) Number Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category** Feasibility
category
Cost
estimate
21 Commercial Unsignalized Main St Corning Ave HIGH HIGH $1,300,000 22 Commercial Unsignalized Abel St Machado Ave HIGH HIGH $1,300,000 23 Commercial Signalized Main St Curtis Ave HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 24 Commercial Signalized Abel St Main St HIGH HIGH $4,400,000 25 Neighborhood Signalized Landess Ave Yellowstone Ave HIGH HIGH $800,000 26 Neighborhood Unsignalized Edsel Dr Temple Dr HIGH HIGH $250,000 27 Neighborhood Signalized Park Victoria Dr Edsel Dr HIGH HIGH $800,000 28 Sidewalk Gap Milpitas Blvd Montague Expwy
to Los Coches St
HIGH HIGH $360,000
504
Item # 18.
139 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Table 21 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations: Opportunity Improvements Number Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
42 Neighborhood Unsignalized Smithwood St Rudyard Dr LOW HIGH $250,000 43 Neighborhood Unsignalized Shenandoah Ave Sequoia Dr LOW HIGH $250,000 44 Neighborhood Unsignalized Yellowstone Ave Westridge Drive LOW HIGH $250,000 45 Neighborhood Unsignalized Park Victoria Dr Park Heights Dr LOW HIGH $250,000 46 Neighborhood Unsignalized Fallen Leaf Way Cedar Way LOW HIGH $250,000 47 Commercial Unsignalized Dixon Rd Vegas Ave LOW HIGH $1,300,000 48 Commercial Signalized Abel St Curtis Ave LOW HIGH $4,400,000 49 Neighborhood Unsignalized Yellowstone Ave Sequoia Dr LOW HIGH $250,000 50 Neighborhood Unsignalized Yellowstone Ave Murphy Park LOW HIGH $250,000 51 Commercial Unsignalized Dixon Rd Conway St LOW HIGH $2,100,000 52 Sidewalk Gap Yosemite Dr Milpitas Blvd to Vista Way LOW HIGH $80,000 Pedestrian Spot Improvement Project List
NUMBER Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category** Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
37 Commercial Signalized Tasman Dr McCarthy Blvd HIGH LOW $4,400,000 38 Commercial Signalized Great Mall
Parkway
Montague Expressway HIGH LOW $4,400,000
39 Sidewalk Gap Tasman Dr Alder Dr to
McCarthy Blvd
HIGH LOW $80,000
40 Sidewalk Improvement Landess Ave /
Montague Expwy
S Park Victoria Dr
to Milpitas Blvd
HIGH LOW $250,000
41 Sidewalk Improvement Abel St Milpitas Blvd to
Redwood Ave
HIGH LOW $120,000
TABLE 20 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations Long Term Improvements (Continued) *For more information regarding Pedestrian Project Types, please see pages 77 and 79. **For more information regarding Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 505
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 140 Table 22 Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations: Low Priority Improvements Number Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category** Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
53 Commercial Signalized Dixon Landing Rd California Circle LOW LOW $4,400,000 54 Commercial Signalized Abel Street Great Mall Parkway LOW LOW $4,400,000 55 Commercial Signalized McCarthy Blvd Highway Ramp LOW LOW $4,400,000 56 Commercial Unsignalized California Circle Off Ramp LOW LOW $2,100,000 57 Sidewalk Gap Dixon Landing Rd McCarthy Blvd
to Milmont
LOW LOW $150,000
58 Sidewalk Gap Montague Expressway Berryessa Creek to
Trade Zone Blvd
LOW LOW $80,000
59 Commercial Unsignalized Berryessa Creek Coffee Berry Lane LOW LOW $2,100,000 60 Commercial Unsignalized Montague Expressway Berryessa Creek LOW LOW $2,100,000 ^ Commercial Signalized Dixon Landing Rd McCarthy Blvd
Pedestrian Spot Improvement Project List
^The City of milpitas supports this project; however, the intersection is located outside of city limits. 506
Item # 18.
141 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Evaluation Criteria: Linear Bikeway Improvements
Table 23 and Table 24 list the evaluation criteria for project priority and project feasibility. Projects were scored for each criteria listed in the tables. Project need was determined by the criteria listed in Table 23, while project feasibility was determined using the criteria in Table 24.

Table 23 Project Priority
Category Criteria Description
Connectivity Connectivity to
Transit or Schools
Project provides connections to transit (bus, BART,
and light trail) or schools. Project should be located
within ¼ mile of transit or schools to qualify.

Connectivity to
Parks or Trails
Project provides connections to trails or parks. Project should be located within ¼ mile of a trailhead or park to qualify.

Connectivity
to Employment
Centers or Services
Project provides connections to employment or
commercial centers. Project should be located within ¼
mile of employment or commercial centers to qualify.

Gap Closure Gap Closure Project closes network gap between two existing facilities, or across a challenging crossing. Gap closure should consider neighboring jurisdiction’s existing and proposed networks.

Safety Safety Project provides safety improvement near reported crash location. Collision occurred at the project
intersection or along the identified project segment.

Safety Project improves a high stress roadway (LTS 3 or 4 network link) Project Support Public Support Project was supported by the public through this Plan’s public engagement activities
Previous Plan Project identified in previous planning efforts.

Table 24 Project Feasibility
Category Description
Agency Coordination Requires coordination among multiple agencies (water district, state, VTA, etc.) Project Complexity Project requires significant roadway reconfiguration or ROW acquisition. 507
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 142 PARK

VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 31

PRIORITY

LINEAR BIKEWAY

IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY N LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 31 Priority Linear Bikeway Improvements
508
Item # 18.
143 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Priority Linear Bikeway Improvements
Table 25 Priority Bikeway Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Roadway From To
Recommended
bikeway* Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Abel Street Milpitas Blvd Redwood Ave Class IV HIGH HIGH $600,000 Abel Street Redwood Ave Calaveras Blvd Class IIB HIGH HIGH $200,000 Evans Road S Park Victoria Dr Kennedy Dr Class II HIGH HIGH $200,000 S Park Victoria Dr Calaveras Blvd Landess Ave Class IIB HIGH HIGH $400,000 S Park Victoria Dr Jacklin Rd Calaveras Blvd Class IIB HIGH HIGH $300,000 Milpitas Blvd City Limit Jacklin Rd Class IV HIGH HIGH $1,500,000 Jacklin Rd Milpitas Blvd S Park Victoria Dr Class IV HIGH HIGH $1,400,000 Milpitas Blvd Jacklin Rd Calaveras Blvd Class IV HIGH HIGH $1,300,000 Yosemite Dr S Park Victoria Dr Piedmont Rd Class IIIB HIGH HIGH $500,000 Yosemite Dr Milpitas Blvd S Park Victoria Dr Class IV HIGH HIGH $1,000,000 Arizona Avenue Buskirk St Jacklin Rd Class IIIB HIGH HIGH $600,000 Yellowstone Ave S Park Victoria Dr Landess Ave Class IIIB HIGH HIGH $500,000 Washington Dr Milpitas Blvd Escuela Parkway Class IIIB HIGH HIGH $300,000 Dixon Land Rd Milpitas Blvd Hetch Hetchy Trail Class IV HIGH HIGH $500,000 Milpitas Blvd Calaveras Blvd Yosemite Dr Class IV HIGH HIGH $1,000,000 Milpitas Blvd Yosemite Dr Landess Ave Class IV HIGH HIGH $1,000,000 Tahoe Dr Sinnott Park Yellowstone Ave Class IIIB HIGH HIGH $100,000 Evans Rd Calaveras Blvd Kennedy Dr Class IIB HIGH HIGH $100,000 *For more information regarding Bikeway Types, please see page 27. **For more information on Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 509
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 144 Table 26 Priority Bikeway Recommendations: Long Term Improvements Roadway From To Recommended
bikeway*
Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Calaveras Blvd Coyote Creek Trail Abel St Class IV HIGH LOW $1,600,000 Calaveras Blvd^ Abel St Milpitas Blvd Class IV HIGH LOW $80,000,000 Calaveras Blvd Milpitas Blvd Evans Rd Class IV HIGH LOW $2,000,000 Dixon Land Rd McCarthy Blvd Milpitas Blvd Class IV HIGH LOW $1,200,000 Landess Ave/
Montague
Expressway
Piper Dr S Park Victoria Dr Class II HIGH LOW $300,000
S Main Street S Abel St Montague
Expressway
Class IV HIGH LOW $600,000
McCarthy Blvd Calaveras Blvd Montague
Expressway
Class II HIGH LOW $500,000
E Capitol Avenue Montague
Expressway
Trimble Rd Class IV HIGH LOW $500,000
Great Mall Pkwy S McCarthy Blvd Montague
Expressway
Class IV HIGH LOW $2,220,000
Landess Ave Piedmont Rd S Park Victoria Dr Class IV HIGH LOW $1,100,000 S Main Street Calaveras Blvd S Abel St Class IIB HIGH LOW $400,000 Priority Linear Bikeway Improvements
^ Cost estimate reflects City estimate for bridge expansion/upgrades, which include bikeway improvements. 510
Item # 18.
145 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Table 27 Priority Bikeway Recommendations: Opportunity Improvements Roadway From To Recommended
bikeway* Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Marylinn Dr/
Main Street
N Abel Street Calaveras Blvd Class IIB LOW HIGH $200,000 Marylinn Drive Heath Street N Abel Street Class IIIB LOW HIGH $300,000 Kennedy Dr Wool Dr Evans Rd Class IIIB LOW HIGH $400,000 Hillview Dr Jacklin Rd Calera Creek Class IIIB LOW HIGH $300,000 Sequoia Dr Yosemite Dr Yellowstone Ave Class IIIB LOW HIGH $200,000 N Abbott Avenue San Andreas Dr Calaveras Blvd Class IIIB LOW HIGH $800,000 Tramway Dr Milpitas Blvd Hillview Dr Class IIIB LOW HIGH $400,000 Fallen Leaf Drive W Capitol Ave Greenwood Way Class IIIB LOW HIGH $300,000 Temple Dr Calaveras Blvd Yosemite Dr Class IIIB LOW HIGH $300,000 Temple Dr Kennedy Dr Calaveras Blvd Class IIIB LOW HIGH $200,000 Piedmont Rd Yosemite Dr Landess Ave Class IIB LOW HIGH $300,000 Hillview Dr Jacklin Rd Berryessa
Creek Trail
Class IIIB LOW HIGH $500,000
Piedmont Rd Calaveras Blvd Yosemite Dr Class IIB LOW HIGH $200,000 W Capitol Ave Starlite Drive S Abel Street Class IIIB LOW HIGH $200,000 Gadsden Dr/Canton
Dr/Roswell Dr
Calaveras Blvd Yosemite Dr Class IIIB LOW HIGH $300,000 Fanyon St/Dennis
Ave/Gadsden Dr
Kennedy Dr Calaveras Blvd Class IIIB LOW HIGH $300,000
Priority Linear Bikeway Improvements
*For more information regarding Bikeway Types, please see page 27. **For more information regarding Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 511
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 146 Table 28 Priority Bikeway Recommendations: Low Priority Improvements Roadway From To Recommended
bikeway* Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Redwood Avenue N Abbott Ave N Abel Street Class IIIB LOW LOW $100,000 McCarthy Blvd Dixon Landing Rd 237/Calaveras Class IIB LOW LOW $600,000 N Park Victoria Dr Nicklaus Ave Jacklin Rd Class II LOW LOW $100,000 E Tasman Drive Coyote Creek Trail McCarthy Blvd Class IV LOW LOW $200,000 Priority Linear Bikeway Improvements
512
Item # 18.
147 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Evaluation Criteria: Bicycle Spot Improvements
Table 29 and Table 30 list the evaluation criteria for project priority and project feasibility. Projects were scored for each criteria listed in the tables. Project need was determined by the criteria listed in Table 29, while project feasibility was determined using the criteria in Table 30.

Table 29 Project Priority
Category Criteria Description
Connectivity Connectivity to
Transit, Schools,
Parks, and
Employment
Centers
Project provides connections to transit, including
frequent local bus, BART, and light rail; schools
(adjacent to school or along identified Suggested
Walking Route); parks; or employment centers.

Pedestrian
Improvement
Pedestrian
Improvement
Project is located in a Pedestrian Priority Improvement Area, indicating an opportunity to introduce traffic calming or other safety improvement measures for pedestrian travel.

Safety Previous Collision Project provides safety improvement near reported crash location. Collision occurred at the project intersection.

Project Support Public Support Project was supported by the public through this Plan’s public engagement activities
Table 30 Project Feasibility
Category Description
Project Complexity Project requires significant roadway reconfiguration or ROW acquisition. 513
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 148 ¥880
¥680
Ã237
PARK

VICTORIA DR
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST
ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST GREAT MALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKS PKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
CARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 32

PRIORITY BICYCLE

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITY BIKE SPOT IMPROVEMENTS

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY

LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY
N
0 0.5 1
Miles
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 32 Priority Bicycle Spot Improvements
514
Item # 18.
149 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Priority Bicycle Spot Improvements
Table 31 Priority Bike Spot Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Jacklin Road HIGH HIGH $40,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Dixon Landing Rd Milpitas Blvd HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Jacklin Road Arizona Avenue HIGH HIGH $40,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Calaveras Boulevard HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Abel Street Marilynn Drive HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Montague Expressway E Capitol Avenue HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Blvd Washington Dr HIGH HIGH $40,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Jacklin Road Escuela Parkway HIGH HIGH $40,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Jacklin Road Park Victoria Drive HIGH HIGH $110,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Calaveras Boulevard HIGH HIGH $40,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Abel Street Redwood Avenue HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Edsel Drive HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Yosemite Drive HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Montague Expressway HIGH HIGH $40,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Main Street Great Mall Parkway HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Tasman Drive McCarthy Boulevard HIGH HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Abel St Main St HIGH HIGH $110,000 *For more information regarding Bicycle Spot Improvement Types, please see pages 93-94. **For more information regarding Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 515
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 150 Table 32 Priority Bike Spot Recommendations: Long Term Improvements Project type* Location Cross street Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost estimate
Intersection Connectivity Calaveras Boulevard Main Street HIGH LOW Varies Intersection Connectivity Jacklin Road Sinclair Freeway HIGH LOW Varies Intersection Connectivity Calaveras Boulevard Nimitz Freeway HIGH LOW Varies Intersection Connectivity Calaveras Boulevard Sinclair Freeway HIGH LOW Varies Intersection Connectivity Dixon Landing Rd Nimitz Freeway HIGH LOW Varies Table 33 Priority Bike Spot Recommendations: Opportunity Improvements Project type* Location Cross street Priority category** Feasibility category
cost
estimate
Bike Lane Connectivity Park Victoria Drive Yellowstone Avenue LOW HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Capitol Avenue Trimble Road LOW HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Hillview Dr Calaveras Blvd LOW HIGH $80,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Yosemite Drive LOW HIGH $110,000 Bike Lane Connectivity Milpitas Boulevard Escuela Parkway LOW HIGH $110,000 Priority Bicycle Spot Improvements
Table 34 Priority Bike Spot Recommendations: Low Priority Improvements Project type* Location Cross street Priority category** Feasibility category
cost estimate
Intersection Connectivity Yosemite Drive Sinclair Freeway LOW LOW Varies Intersection Connectivity Yosemite Drive Rail Line LOW LOW Varies Intersection Connectivity Landess Avenue Sinclair Freeway LOW LOW Varies 516
Item # 18.
151 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Evaluation Criteria: Trail Improvements
Table 35 and Table 36 list the evaluation criteria for project priority and project feasibility. Figure 33 shows the resulting priority trail network. Projects were scored for each criteria listed in the tables. Project need was determined by the criteria listed in Table 35, while project feasibility was determined using the criteria in Table 36.

Table 35 Project Priority
Category Criteria Description
Connectivity Connectivity to
Transit or Schools
Project provides connections to transit (bus, BART,
and light trail) or schools. Project should be located
within ¼ mile of transit or schools to qualify.

Connectivity to
Parks or Trails
Project provides connections to parks. Project should
be located within ¼ mile of a park to qualify.

Safety Previous Collision Project provides safety improvement and/or alternate routing near reported crash location.

Project Support Public Support Project was supported by the public through this Plan’s public engagement activities
Table 36 Project Feasibility
Category Description
Project Complexity Project requires significant roadway reconfiguration, ROW acquisition, or significant construction to overcome existing barriers. 517
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 152 Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 33

PRIORITY TRAIL

IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITIZED TRAIL

RECOMMENDATIONS

HIGH, HIGH

HIGH, LOW

LOW, HIGH

LOW, LOW

EXISTING TRAILS
Existing
Unpaved Trails
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 33 Priority Trail Improvements
518
Item # 18.
153 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Priority Trail Improvements
Table 37 Priority Trail Recommendations: Short Term Improvements Roadway From To Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Penitencia Creek San Andreas Dr Calaveras Blvd HIGH HIGH $1,800,000 Calera Creek Milpitas Blvd Hillview Dr HIGH HIGH $1,400,000 Escuela Pkwy Russell Ln Roger St HIGH HIGH $500,000
Hillview Dr / Los
Coches St
Berryessa Creek Berryessa Creek HIGH HIGH $400,000
Table 38 Priority Trail Recommendations: Long Term Improvements Roadway From To Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Abel St Calaveras Blvd Great Mall Pkwy HIGH LOW $1,500,000 Dixon Landing Rd California Circle N McCarthy Blvd HIGH LOW $500,000 Montague Exp Piper Dr Coyote Creek Trail HIGH LOW $3,200,000 N McCarthy Blvd Dixon Landing Rd Coyote Creek Trail HIGH LOW $300,000 Great Mall Pkwy
/ Tasman Dr
McCarthy Blvd Montague Exp HIGH LOW $2,600,000
Coyote Creek Calaveras Blvd
& Coyote Creek
Trail (North)
Calaveras Blvd
& Coyote Creek
Trail (South)
HIGH LOW $200,000
**For more information regarding Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 519
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 154 Table 39 Priority Trail Recommendations: Low Priority Improvements Roadway From To Priority
category**
Feasibility
category
cost
estimate
Yosemite Dr Parc East Milpitas Blvd LOW LOW $300,000
Penitencia Creek Milmont Dr California Circle LOW LOW $800,000 520
Item # 18.
155 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Evaluation Criteria: Trail Spot Improvements
Trail spot improvements should be implemented in coordination with new shared use path development. Proposed trail access improvements or new trailhead improvements located along existing paths should be considered for more immediate development, particularly where the City owns the land. Other locations are considered higher priority due to collision history and the ability of these locations to connect existing trails to destinations and other transportation corridors.

Tables 40 and 41 below outline the criteria for both need and feasibility of Trail Spot Improvement projects; Figure 34 reflects the prioritized spot improvements. Projects were scored for each criteria listed in the tables. Project need was determined by the criteria listed in Table 40, while project feasibility was determined using the criteria in Table 41.

Table 40 Project Need`
CATEGORY Description
Connectivity to
Parks or Trails
Project supports connections to existing trails, paths, and parks.

Previous Collision Project provides safety improvement and/or alternate routing near reported crash location.

Public Support Project was supported by the public through this Plan’s public engagement activities Table 41 Project Feasibility
Category Description
Project Complexity Project requires coordination among multiple agencies, acquisition of ROW, or other
521
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 156 Berryessa Creek
Calera Creek
Penitencia Creek
Coyote Creek
PARK
VICTO
RIA DR

BERRYESSARD
MAIN
ST

ESCUELAPKWY

DIXON LANDING RD
1ST ST

LUNDY AVE
O

AKLAND RD

TRADE ZONE BLVD

LANDESS AVE
EVANS
RD

ABEL ST

GREATMALL PKWY

JACKLIN RD

RIVER OAKSPKWY

SIERRA RD

TASMAN DR

MILPITAS BLV
D

CROPLEY AVE

YOSEMITE DR

HOSTETTER RD

MORRILL AVE
ZANKER
RD
MC
C
ARTHY
BLVD

CAPITOL AVE

CALAVERAS RD

PIEDMONT
RD
¥880
¥680
Ã237
Ed R. Levin
County Park
FIGURE 34

PRIORITY TRAIL

SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
N
0 0.5 1
Miles

BACKGROUND
BART Station
Light Rail Station
Schools
Public Parks
Water

SAN JOSE

FREMONT

PRIORITIZED TRAIL

SPOT RECOMMENDATIONS

HIGH NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITY

HIGH NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
LOW NEED, HIGH FEASIBILITy

LOW NEED, LOW FEASIBILITY
TRAILS
Existing
Proposed
Unpaved Trails
Bike/Ped Bridge
Fig. 34 Priority Trail Spot Improvements
522
Item # 18.
157 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Priority Trail Spot Improvements
Table 42 Priority Spot Recommendations: Short Term
Improvements
Type* Location Cross Street Need Category** Feasibility Category
cost estimate
Trail Access
Improvements
Berryessa Creek Yosemite Dr HIGH HIGH $3,200,000
Trail Access
Improvements
Berryessa Creek N Milpitas Blvd HIGH HIGH $3,200,000
Trailhead Improvements Hetch Hetchy Trail Oliver W. Jones Park HIGH HIGH $140,000 Trailhead Improvements Robert E. Browne Park Yellowstone Ave HIGH HIGH $140,000 Trailhead Improvements Hetch Hetchy Trail Paseo Refugio HIGH HIGH $140,000 Trail Access
Improvements
S Hillview Dr Los Coches St HIGH HIGH $3,200,000
Trail Access
Improvements
Tom Evatt Park S Abel St HIGH HIGH $3,200,000
Table 43 Priority Spot Recommendations: Long Term Improvements Type* Location Cross Street Need Category** Feasibility Category
cost estimate
Trail Access
Improvements
N McCarthy Blvd Dixon Landing Rd HIGH LOW $3,200,000
New Trail Connection Coyote Creek Alviso Milpitas RD HIGH LOW $3,200,000 Trail Access
Improvements
S Abel St Great Mall Pkwy HIGH LOW $3,200,000
Trail Access
Improvements
Coyote Creek S McCarthy Blvd HIGH LOW $3,200,000
*For more information regarding Trail Spot Improvement Types, please see page 103. **For more information regarding Project Categories, please see Figure 28 on page 124. 523
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 158 Table 44 Priority Spot Recommendations: Opportunity Improvements Type* Location Cross Street Need Category** Feasibility Category
cost
estimate
Trail Access
Improvements
Penitencia Creek W Capitol Ave / S Abel St LOW HIGH $3,200,000 Trail Access
Improvements
Coyote Creek McCarthy Creekside
Industrial Center
LOW HIGH $3,200,000
Trailhead Improvements Penitencia Creek Alegra Terrace / Dixon Landing Park
LOW HIGH $140,000
Trail Access
Improvements
Abel St/Jacklin Rd Milpitas Blvd LOW HIGH $3,200,000
Trail Access
Improvements
Penitencia Creek Milmont Dr/
California Circle
LOW HIGH $3,200,000
Table 45 Priority Spot Recommendations: Low Priority Improvements Type* Location Cross Street Need Category** Feasibility Category
cost estimate
Trail Access
Improvements
Penitencia Creek California Circle LOW LOW $3,200,000
New Trail Connection Coyote Creek Barber Ln LOW LOW $3,200,000 Trail Access
Improvements
Penitencia Creek Calaveras Blvd LOW LOW $3,200,000
524
Item # 18.
159 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 The following section identifies potential funding
opportunities as part of the Trail, Pedestrian,
and Bicycle Master Plan. The document
identifies potential funding opportunities from
local, regional, and state sources. The funding
opportunities are briefly introduced along with
the agency or organization that administers
each source. Finally, a table is provided
(Table 46) that clearly summarizes all of the
funding sources as well as their purpose. This
section will help guide the implementation of
the recommendations provided in the Trail,
Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan.

Local and Regional Funding
Sources
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (BAAQMD &
VTA)
Assembly Bill 434 established a $4 vehicle
registration surcharge in the Bay Area counties
to be used on projects that reduce vehicle
emissions, including bicycle and pedestrian
projects. Funds can also be used as a match for
competitive state or federal programs.

Funds are administered by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

One Bay Area Grant (MTC)
The second round of the One Bay Area Grant
program provides $916 million for projects
through 2021-2022 and is divided into a regional
program managed by MTC and a county
program administered by the nine Bay Area
Congestion Management Agencies. Projects are
focused in the Priority Development Areas and
can invest in bicycle, pedestrian, Safe Routes to
School, and transportation planning projects.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

Transportation Development Act Article 3
(MTC & VTA)
Transportation Development Act Article 3
provides annual funding to counties for bicycle
and pedestrian projects, which are reviewed by
the City or County Bicycle Advisory Committee.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and programmed
by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA).
2016 Measure B (VTA)
Measure B is a one-half cent sales tax in Santa
Clara County to fund transportation projects
and is expected to raise $250 million for bicycle
and pedestrian improvements.

Funds are administered by the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA).

Regional Measure 3 (MTC)
Regional Measure 3 uses toll revenue from
the Bay Area’s seven state-owned toll bridges,
which can be used for safe routes to transit
projects.

Funds are administered by Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).

Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at
Schools (MTC & VTA)
The Vehicle Emissions Reduction Based
at Schools (VERBS) has a goal of reducing
greenhouse gases by promoting walking,
biking, transit, and carpooling to school with
an additional focus on reducing collisions.

These funds come from the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission’s Climate Initiative
Funding
Opportunities
525
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 160 Priority Development Area Planning Program
(MTC)
MTC provides grants to cities and counties
to develop plans for areas surrounding future
rail stations, which must include multi-modal
connectivity.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).

Program for Arterial System Synchronization
(MTC)
MTC provides financial and technical assistance
to cities and counties to improve and
coordinate signal timing across jurisdictions on
multi-city corridors.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).

State Funding Sources
Active Transportation Program (CTC)
The California Transportation Commission’s
Active Transportation Program provides
annual funding to public agencies, schools,
nonprofit organizations and others for active
transportation projects, programs, and plans.

Funds are administered by the California
Transportation Commission (CTC).

California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS)
Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST)
Act allocates five percent of Section 405 funds
to addressing non-motorized safety, which
can include law enforcement training related
to pedestrian and bicycle safety, enforcement
campaigns, and public education and
awareness campaigns.

Funds are administered by the California Office of
Traffic Safety (CA OTS)
Safe Routes to School Program and are
allocated to each county based on school
enrollment.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and programmed
by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA).

Lifeline Transportation Program (MTC & VTA)
The Lifeline Transportation Program uses
state and federal money to fund communitybased transportation projects in low-income neighborhoods that address a gap or barrier
identified in local transportation plans.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).

Transportation for Livable Communities (MTC
& VTA)
MTC allocates funding to cities, counties,
or transit operators for projects in Priority
Development Areas that promote transitoriented development. These projects can include multi-modal streetscape improvements.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).

Climate Initiative Grants (MTC)
MTC uses federal funds for two competitive
grant programs aimed at funding innovative
ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in
the Bay Area. The two grants include innovative
grants, funding high- impact projects of $1
million or more, and Safe Routes to Schools
Creative Grants, which allocates $500,000 to
implement and evaluate creative emissionsreducing safe routes to school projects.

Funds are administered by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC).
526
Item # 18.
161 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant
Program (Caltrans)
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grants funds plans that align with state goals
outlined in the Regional Transportation
Plan Guidelines adopted by the California
Transportation Commission as well as fund
projects that address deficiencies in the state
highway system. Funds are administered by
Caltrans.

Highway Safety Improvement Program
(Caltrans)
Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grants funds plans that align with state goals
outlined in the Regional Transportation
Plan Guidelines adopted by the California
Transportation Commission as well as fund
projects that address deficiencies in the state
highway system. Funds are administered by
Caltrans.

Solutions for Congested Corridors Program
(CTC)
The California Transportation Commission
provides funds to regional transportation
planning agencies for projects on high-traffic
corridors in order to improve congestion and
the environment. These projects can include
bicycle and pedestrian enhancements. Funds are
administered by Caltrans.

Urban Greening Grant (CA NRA)
Urban Greening Grants fund green infrastructure
projects that include the goal of reducing
commute vehicle miles traveled through
the construction of bicycle or pedestrian
infrastructure and trails. Funds are administered by
the California Natural Resources Agency.

Local Partnership Program (CTC)
The Local Partnership Program provides
local and regional agencies that have passed
sales tax measures, developer fees or
other transportation-imposed fees to fund a
wide variety of transportation improvement
projects including roadway rehabilitation and
construction, transit capital and infrastructure,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and
green infrastructure. Funds are administered by
the California Transportation Commission.

Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Program
(State Controller’s Office)
The Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Program (RMRP) provides funds cities and
counties to address deferred maintenance on
state highways and local road systems for both
design and construction efforts and can include
active transportation-related maintenance
projects. Funds are administered by the State’s
Controller’s Office.

State Highway Operation and Protection
Program (Caltrans)
State Highway Operation and Protection funds
projects that maintain and enhance the state
highway system through a wide variety of
infrastructure improvements including bicycle
and pedestrian projects. Funds are administered
by Caltrans.
527
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 162 FTA 5310 - Enhanced Mobility of Seniors
& Individuals with Disabilities Program
(Caltrans)
This program provides funds to non-profit
corporations and public agencies for projects
that improve mobility for seniors and individuals
with disabilities, particularly related to public
transportation. Funds are administered by
Caltrans.

Wildlife Conservation Board Public Access
Program (WCB)
State Highway Operation and Protection
provides funds to public agencies and
nonprofits for projects that promote wildlifeoriented recreation and can include trail and trailhead construction. Funds are administered by
the Wildlife Conservation Board.
528
Item # 18.
163 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 Table 46 Funding Sources
Pedestrian infrastructureBicycle infrastructureTRAILSSafe routes to schoolSafe routes to transitProgramsPlans / studies

LOCAL & REGIONAL PROGRAMS
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (BAAQMD & VTA) X x X X X One Bay Area Grant (MTC) X X X X X
Transportation Development Act Article 3 (MTC & VTA) X X X X X Measure B (MTC) X X X X X X X
Regional Measure 3 (MTC) X
Vehicle Emissions Reductions Based at Schools (MTC & VTA) X X X X X Lifeline Transportation Program (MTC & VTA) X X X X X X Transportation for Livable Communities (MTC & VTA) X X X X X Climate Initiative Grants (MTC) X X X X X
Priority Development Area Planning Program (MTC) X
Program for Arterial System Synchronization (MTC)
State programs
Active Transportation Program (CTC) X X X X X X
California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS) X
Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program (Caltrans & VTA) X Highway Safety Improvement Program (Caltrans) X X X X
Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (CTC) X X X
Urban Greening Grant (CA NRA) X X X X X
Local Partnership Program (CTC) X X X X
Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Program (State Controller’s Office) X X X X State Highway Operation and Protection Program (Caltrans) X X X X FTA 5310 - Enhanced Mobility of Seniors & Individuals
with Disabilities Program (Caltrans)
X X
Wildlife Conservation Board Public Access Program (WCB) X 529
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - May 2022 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 164

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
530
Item # 18.
531
Item # 18.

APPENDIX A
532
Item # 18.

MEMORANDUM
304 12th Street, Suite 2A
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 540-5008
www.altaplanning.com
Alta Planning + Design | 1
To: Fanny Yu, City of Milpitas
From: Erin David, Alta Planning + Design
Date: October 28, 2019
Re: Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans Existing Conditions Summary Introduction
The Milpitas Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Trails Master Plan updates will provide a vision and action plan for the City to improve safe and convenient travel by active transportation modes for everyone, regardless of age, ability, or background. Milpitas has grown significantly in recent years, both in terms of population and industry, and these plans can help improve quality of life in the city through more transportation options and new connections with the region. A new BART station and other transportation investments will provide the City with an opportunity to alleviate congestion, improve recreational opportunities, and enhance safety for all people regardless of how they get around. The following memorandum explores the existing conditions for walking and bicycling in Milpitas, current demographic and employment data, and policy context.

Community Context
The City of Milpitas is located in Santa Clara County at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay. It is situated directly north of San Jose and is located southeast of Fremont, covering over 13 square miles.

Immediately east of the city is the Calaveras Valley, where a variety of County parks, regional preserves, low-density housing developments, and other local amenities are located.

Within Milpitas, land use patterns respond to primary through-ways, such as the rail line, I-680, and I-880, which run north-south across the city. Industrial and commercial land uses are located primarily along these routes, and the roadway patterns are focused on vehicle movement. State Route 237 runs eastwest through much of the city, creating an additional barrier to bicycle and pedestrian travel.

Existing land use in Milpitas is predominantly residential, with single-family homes comprising approximately 75% of all housing units.
1 Residential land uses are located between major arterials and along a series of winding roadways. The existing roadway pattern in these areas provide minimal connectivity for all modes, especially in areas where cul-de-sacs are present. 1 2017 ACS 1-year estimate
533
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 2
In general, commercial and industrial areas are located in the south and west of the city, with only a few commercial land use nodes mixed within residential areas. Access to services such as groceries require travel along major roadways that are not comfortable for those on foot or bike, particularly as they are located outside of residential areas.

The industrial land uses represent major job centers and are typically separated from residential and institutional uses by major highways. Typically located on large parcels with limited points of access and large parking lots, connectivity through and among industrial land uses rely on motor vehicle use for even short trips. Contending with driveways, sharing the road with motorists traveling at high speeds, and out of direction travel can negatively impact the choice to make a trip by foot or by bike. Increasing connectivity, such as through connecting street ends or pathways across large parcels, can increase the availability of lower stress routing for bicyclists and pedestrians. This also improves the directness of routes available, making these trips more appealing.

According to the CA Department of Finance,
2 Milpitas has an estimated population of 76,231 as of
January 1, 2019. This is an increase of over 16% since the 2010 Census. Milpitas experiences an increase in its weekday daytime population—nearly doubling the population3—due in part to several large employers located within the city. The majority of the population is under the age of 65, with only 10% of the population aged 65 years or older. Nearly 25% of the population is under the age of 18. Although the 2 CA Department of Finance annual population estimate, 2019 3 City of Milpitas. http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/about-milpitas.

Figure 1: Existing Land Use
534
Item # 18.

Existing Conditions

3 | Alta Planning + Design
majority of the population is between the ages of 18 and 65, those under and 18 and those over 65 are often the most vulnerable road users; specific opportunities to provide safe routes for these populations can improve opportunities for safe access to schools and services.

The population is generally affluent and well-educated, with over 50% of the population having a Bachelor’s degree or higher; over 90% of the population has at least a high school diploma. The median household income is nearly $128,000, approximately 1.5 times higher than the median household income for the State of California and 10% higher than the larger San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metropolitan area.4 The majority of households in Milpitas have an income of at least $75,000.5 Further, the population is racially diverse, with Asian populations representing over 60% of the city. More than 70% of all households speak a language other than English.

Transportation Overview
Transportation options in Milpitas are
varied, including bicycle facilities,
sidewalks and pathways, numerous bus
lines, and light rail. Despite the wide
range of modes available, individuals
primarily commute to work by driving
alone. Over 78% of the working
population drive alone to work; an
additional 11% of the working population
carpool. While over 80% of households
in Milpitas have access to two or more
motor vehicles, nearly 2% of households
do not have access to a motor vehicle.

Those without access to a motor vehicle
often rely heavily on transit, walking, and
bicycling. High quality bicycle and
pedestrian networks that connect
destinations and provide access to
transit not only provide mobility options
for those without motor vehicle access
but can also increase options available to those relying on motor vehicles today.

In addition to supporting local traffic, several major roadways—including State Route 237, Montague Expressway, and Great Mall Parkway—support regional trips both into and out of Milpitas. Improvements should consider the regional role of these roadways while still seeking to improve safety and access for active modes.

Public Transportation
Transit is the next most used commute mode; however, only 2.5% of the working population utilizes public transportation options. The network is supported by bus and light rail service, and the Milpitas BART station will be opening at the end of 2019 in the southern part of the city. The addition of BART will connect Milpitas with the region; not only will residents have improved access to nearby cities, but those traveling to Milpitas will need ways to get around without a motor vehicle when they reach their 4 2017 ACS 1-year estimate 5 City of Milpitas. http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/about-milpitas.

78.3%

11.2% 2.5% 1.3% 0.8% 4.2% 1.7%
Drive Alone
Carpool
Public Transportation
Walk
Bicycle
Work at Home
Other
Means of Transportation to Work
Figure 2: Means of Transportation to Work
535
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 4
destination. Bus and light rail are currently operated by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Additional bus lines providing service in the city are operated by AC Transit.

The Alum Rock – Santa Teresa light rail line includes stops in the southern area of Milpitas. Stops are located along E Tasman Drive and E Capitol Avenue, with three stops within Milpitas city boundaries. The I-880 Milpitas Station and the Great Mall/Main Station have park and ride lots available; the Montague station is located near the future BART stop. Opportunities to increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to transit and implement Transit Demand Management (TDM) strategies envisioned in the Transit Area Specific Plan should be explored.

The Milpitas BART station will be served by two routes (Richmond to Warm Springs/Fremont and Daly City to Warm Springs/Fremont), with service every 7.5 minutes. The station will provide easy connections to bus service and the light rail line. Projected to have 20,000 daily passengers by the year 2030, this station will be a major transportation hub in the city. Along with the station area development, VTA has also proposed a series of bicycle and pedestrian complete streets projects for the Tasman Drive Corridor. Within Milpitas this includes the addition of a bike path (Class I facility) along portions of Tasman Drive/Great Mall Parkway, a new bike/pedestrian bridge over I-880, and new bike signals to improve movement along the corridor. These improvements will also support connectivity in some locations, such as improving connections to the Coyote Creek Trail.

Figure 3: Light Rail and BART Station Locations
536
Item # 18.

Existing Conditions

5 | Alta Planning + Design
Bicycle Network
The existing bicycle network represents nearly 50 miles and consists of bicycle lanes (Class II), designated bicycle routes (Class III), and paved pathways (Class I). This network is shown in Figure 4 below. It should be noted that while Class III facilities are displayed as part of the network, these shared roadways are frequently along major arterials or are co-located with truck routes, presenting many challenges to safe and comfortable travel by bike. Through this planning process, opportunities to increase the comfort and safety of designate bicycle routes (Class III) should be explored.

While Milpitas currently does not have a bike share system in place, company campuses may have options available for their employees. Bike share systems make bicycles readily available to residents for short-term rentals, often based on a per trip fee or a daily or monthly subscription. Bike share systems support first-last mile connections to transit and increase mobility options, especially for short trips.

Bike lockers, which can support connections to transit or other destinations by a personal bike, are available at both the Great Mall Light Rail Station and the Montague Light Rail Station. Other features, such as wayfinding systems, that support multi-modal and active trips are not currently in place but should be explored.

Figure 4: Existing Bikeways and Trails
537
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 6
Pedestrian Network
Data specifying sidewalk location through the City of Milpitas was not available. Shared use pathways and trails support pedestrian travel throughout the city, and review of aerial imagery indicates that the sidewalk network is complete in many locations throughout the city. Street Design Guidelines for the City specify that streets shall include sidewalks with curb ramps. However, it is important to note that cul-desacs, high speed arterials and limited access highways, and large parcels limit the connectivity and directness of pedestrian routes.

The City has designated Safe Routes to School for 11 schools, totaling nearly 45 miles of roadways. These routes typically follow neighborhood roadways, which are lower speed and lower volume, or include segments of Class I (paved pathway) facilities. However, several segments are located along higher speed roadways, such as Abel Street. With children comprising approximately one-quarter of the total population in Milpitas, and children often more vulnerable to crashes than adults, opportunities to improve these routes through separation from motor vehicles and safe crossings should be explored.

Figure 5: Safe Routes to School
538
Item # 18.

Existing Conditions

7 | Alta Planning + Design
Trails
In addition to the facilities noted above, a number of trails provide recreational opportunities in Milpitas and support the transportation network. There are over 20 miles of unpaved trails in Ed R. Levin County Park on the east side of Milpitas, and unpaved segments in the west of the city run alongside Coyote Creek’s paved pathway. Coyote Creek Trail is a designated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, connecting bicyclists and pedestrians to a regional network of trails and pathways.

The San Francisco Bay Trail is an effort to establish walking and bicycling facilities around approximately 500 miles of the San Francisco Bay with the goal of connecting communities to parks, schools, and transit. It is comprised of a series of on-street, paved off-street, and unpaved off-street segments. To date, 350 of the 500 miles are designated and available for use; the trail miles not yet available for use are proposed, with alignments dependent on jurisdiction coordination, funding availability, and construction. Proposed segments in Fremont and San Jose will improve connectivity among these cities and create opportunities for greater connectivity with Milpitas.

The Coyote Creek Trail is located to the west of I-880 along the western extent of the city. The highway creates a barrier for access to the trail without a motor vehicle, as the existing bikeway system does not provide a low-stress connected route to the west. Travel west across I-880 is limited to a few high-speed roadways that also require bicyclists to navigate on- and off-ramps from the highway. While trailheads with parking are available along the trail, improved multi-modal connections can make the trail more accessible for all residents. The trail currently provides connections to the light rail system, and proposed improvements along Tasman Drive will improve connectivity to the Milpitas BART station.

Access to Ed R. Levin County Park is also limited by foot or by bike. Ed R. Levin Park is primarily accessed along Calaveras Boulevard, a high-speed roadway leading east from the city. Although this road is a designated bicycle route (Class III) facility, it is also a designated truck route, requiring bicyclists to navigate with heavy truck traffic in a shared roadway setting. Heading east toward the city limits, the roadway also narrows providing reduced operating space for bicycles. A paved sidewalk is also incomplete along this segment. Opportunities should be explored to better connect Milpitas residents to these regional resources.

Additional trail segments are available along Penitencia Creek and Berryessa Creek. Pathways along both creeks were identified in the previous Trails Master Plan, and while only a few short segments have been built, these trail alignments offer the opportunities to increase low-stress routes connecting residents with schools, shopping, jobs, and public transit. Opportunities to implement these trails and integrate the alignments into a larger network vision for the city should be explored. 539
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 8
Policy and Plan Review
Plan Review
This section provides a brief overview of supporting planning and policy documents relevant to the development of the Bicycle and Pedestrian and Trails plans. The documents reviewed here will be considered both to promote continuity with previous planning efforts and to explore opportunities for further recommendations to grow active transportation networks in Milpitas.

Milpitas General Plan Circulation Element (updated 2010) The Circulation Element provides support for expanding and enhancing pedestrian and bicycle facilities; improving connections to transit via bicycle and pedestrian routes; and providing end-of-trip facilities and bicycle parking accommodations at community hubs. Further, it identifies the need for a comprehensive network of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that connect all parts of the city. The City is currently updating the General Plan.

City of Milpitas Bikeway Master Plan (2009)
This plan identifies multiple goals to increase bicycle connectivity throughout the city, integrate bicycle facilities into the larger regional trail network, provide roadway safety education to bicyclists and motorists, and encourage bicycling for all ages. Plan recommendations included a series of infrastructure and non-infrastructure improvements including:
• Bicycle wayfinding
• Safe Routes to School and Education Programs
• Improved signals and bicycle detection at intersections City of Milpitas Trails Master Plan (1997)
The Trails Master Plan recommends an off-street trail network to improve the quality of life for residents by providing an alternative transportation system, expanding recreational opportunities, and preserving and restoring natural environmental conditions of creek corridors that contain trails. It further encourages public involvement by reaching multiple stakeholders to maximize support and ownership of the trails.

Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2008)
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan establishes a vision for a parks and trails system that creates a legacy for future generations, preserves and restores natural resources, improves accessibility to parks, and support an interconnected system of parks and trails that promote social interaction and community health. The plan considers existing resources, maintenance procedures and policies, and implementation of the future vision. The Parks and Recreation Department will be updating this plan in the next year to capture the achievements since the 2008 plan and better reflect the needs of a rapidly growing community.

Streetscape Master Plan
This plan provides recommendations to guide the development and maintenance of public street right-ofway including providing guidelines to improve the pedestrian experience along major streets by incorporating street trees, landscape treatments, and street amenities. 540
Item # 18.

Existing Conditions

9 | Alta Planning + Design
Specific and Area Plans
A number of specific and area plans are in place throughout Milpitas. For example, the Midtown Specific Plan (2002) provides a plan for streetscape improvements along corridors in Midtown, including sidewalk specifications, bike parking requirements, and other improvements that support active transportation.

The Transit Area Specific Plan (2011) seeks to guide development of an industrial area into a walkable, transit-oriented district for the new BART station, including specifications around bike parking, public space, and sidewalks.

Regional Plans
Regional plans for the Valley Transportation Authority, Santa Clara County, and Caltrans District 4 also inform the direction this plan. These plans include technical guidance for bikeway development; identify regional facilities, corridor improvements, and spot improvements; and establish consistent approaches for network development and implementation at the regional scale. These plans include various corridor, trail, and subarea studies and the following regional plans:
• VTA Transportation Plan 2040
• Santa Clara County Bicycle Plan
• VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines
• Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan
Neighboring Jurisdictions
Consistent with the goals of the Santa Clara County Bicycle Master Plan, connected bikeways and shared used pathways across jurisdiction boundaries are imperative to a comprehensive network that connect residential areas, employment, schools, transit, and other destinations. Connectivity should be considered among cities for bicycle facilities, sidewalks, and trails. San Jose to the south and west and Fremont to the north have developed substantial bicycle networks. Recommended facilities in Milpitas should take into consideration proposed facility types in these cities to provide a consistent path of travel. Examples include Warm Springs Boulevard in Fremont and Milpitas. A bicycle lane (Class II) exists today, but Fremont has proposed a separated bikeway (Class IV) to increase comfort of users. Similarly, McCarthy Boulevard, which is currently a shared roadway (Class III), is planned for bicycle lane (Class II) improvement in the future.

Programs Review
Bicycle and pedestrian focused programs provide education and encouragement for residents to use existing bicycle, sidewalk, and trail networks. Programs may include Safe Routes to School, traffic safety campaigns, recreational programs, or similar. As part of this plan, city departments and other partners working on these programs will meet to discuss current efforts and opportunities for expanding education and encouragement efforts within the city. The results of this meeting will be integrated into the final plan documents as part of the Existing Conditions chapter. 541
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 10
Summary
As the City of Milpitas continues to grow and new transportation opportunities are introduced, improved connectivity for bicycles and pedestrians should be explored to provide more transportation options to all residents. Improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities can increase access to recreational opportunities, support trips without a motor vehicle, and support a more vibrant streetscape. Current conditions limit comfortable travel across the city; highways segment the city, creating barriers for continuous travel.

Many shared bikeways are co-located with truck routes and along high speed, high volume arterial roadways.

A growing population, an increasing number of jobs, and a variable daytime population may lead to further challenges of congestion, increased safety concerns, and highlight the need for improved access to recreational opportunities.

The following sections of this plan will explore connectivity, access to destinations and recreation, and safety information to guide where network improvements can best support the vision for a comprehensive multi-modal network.
542
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
543
Item # 18.

APPENDIX B
544
Item # 18.

MEMORANDUM
304 12th Street, Suite 2A
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 540-5008
www.altaplanning.com
Alta Planning + Design | 1
To: Fanny Yu, City of Milpitas
From: Erin David, Alta Planning + Design
Date: October 28, 2019
Re: Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans Needs Analysis and Gap Summary Introduction
The following memorandum summarizes the results of the needs analysis and identifies gaps in the existing network. The needs analysis considers network safety, network connectivity, access to destinations, and potential demand for bicycle and pedestrian trips in Milpitas. This information will provide additional insight to the challenges and opportunities for active transportation and will be used to identify network needs and safety improvements across the city. The results of these assessments will inform project recommendations in conjunction with public input.

Safety Analysis
The Safety Analysis considers the locations of bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions throughout Milpitas. Using data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), reported collisions occurring between 2014 and 2018 were considered.

A total of 1,703 collisions were reported during this time period, with bicyclists and pedestrians involved in 11% of all collisions. There were 19 fatalities, over 50% of which were bicyclists or pedestrians. Although reported bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collisions make up a small portion of the total collisions during this time period, the resulting fatalities disproportionately affected these modes. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fatalities
Total Collisions
Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian
Figure 1: Reported Crashes in Milpitas, 2014-2018
545
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 2
To provide context for these numbers, there were 43 bicycle fatalities and 168 pedestrian fatalities in Santa Clara County during this same time period. This represents nearly 40% of all fatalities. At the county scale, bicycle-involved collisions represented 9.4% of all collisions; pedestrian-involved collisions represented 7.3% of all collisions.

From 2014 to 2018, there were a total of 103 bicycle-involved collisions reported in Milpitas, including 8 severe injuries and one fatality. Of the 103 bicycle-involved collisions, 55% occurred at an intersection. As shown in Figure 2 below, bicycle-involved collisions primarily occurred along major roadways, such as Calaveras Boulevard, Montague Expressway, and Jacklin Road. Most of these roadways are either designated bike routes, such as Calaveras Boulevard, or have designated bike lanes, such as Abel Street or Great Mall Parkway. A higher frequency of collisions along these routes suggests that greater separation from motor vehicles through protected bike lanes, shared use pathways, and wider sidewalks is needed.

Figure 2: Bicycle Collisions, 2014-2018
546
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

3 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 3 above depicts the pedestrian-involved collisions occurring between 2014 and 2018. Similar to bicycle-involved collisions, pedestrian-involved collisions occurred most frequently along major roadways. Calaveras Road, Landess Avenue, and Dixon Landing Road each had a number of collisions during this time period. These roadways have high posted speeds, more lanes, and also provide a pathway for regional trips; along with business access points and highway ramps, these factors may contribute to the higher frequency of collisions along these roadways. As shown in Figure 1, although pedestrian-involved collisions were fewer than both motor vehicle collisions and bicycle-involved collisions, pedestrian fatalities occurred with similar frequency as compared to motor vehicle collisions during this time period. There were 9 pedestrian fatalities, primarily occurring in the southwest area of the city. There were 17 pedestrian-involved collisions resulting in a severe injury, which represents 24% of all severe injury collisions in Milpitas. The streets with the most pedestrian fatalities and severe injuries were Abel Street and Park Victoria Drive; over 45% of all pedestrian-involved collisions occurred in a crosswalk.

Although there has been a slight decrease in the number of bicycle- and pedestrian-involved crashes during the reporting period analyzed, continued improvements to the network can help improve safety for active modes. Further, the decrease in the number of crashes could be a result of reduced exposure, with fewer people walking and bicycling due to safety concerns. Based on the results of this analysis, both higher speed corridors and crossings of major roadways and highways should be improved to increase separation from motor vehicles for active modes.

Figure 3: Pedestrian Collisions, 2014-2018
547
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 4
Level of Traffic Stress
Level of traffic stress (LTS) refers to the perceived comfort level of a roadway or trail facility for bicyclists and pedestrians. At its foundation, LTS relates to the speed of the roadway, the width of the roadway, and provision of space for bicycles or pedestrians. A roadway with fewer lanes for motor vehicles, lower posted speeds, and greater separation from motor vehicles is considered most comfortable, while high speeds and mixed traffic conditions are least comfortable. A score of LTS 1 is typically considered to be an all ages and abilities facility.

LTS provides insight into network gaps or focus areas for improving the active transportation network.

Figure 4 below depicts the LTS scores for roadways within Milpitas. Neighborhood roadways are typically low stress, including the roadways providing connections among neighborhoods. Primary roadways, such as Calaveras Road, Abel Street, Landess Avenue, and Great Mall Parkway, however, are higher stress corridors that not only impact bicycle and pedestrian travel along the roadway, but may also be a barrier for travel across the roadway. When compared to the collision analysis shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, many of the reported collisions occurred along higher stress roadways; further, higher stress roadways are most prevalent in the areas of the city that include industrial or commercial uses.

Given the single-use zoning in these areas, the commercial and industrial areas are built to be primarily accessed by motor vehicles and are located adjacent to major roadways. This land-use pattern does not facilitate safe and comfortable conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, and alternate routes and improved facilities should be explored.

Figure 4: LTS Analysis
548
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

5 | Alta Planning + Design
Connectivity Analysis
The development pattern in Milpitas includes a high separation of land uses, neighborhoods with cul-desacs and limited through-routes, and highways that create barriers for travel throughout the city. These characteristics can lead to longer trip distances and trip times, discouraging trips by bike or by foot.

Further, high speed roadways, high volumes of traffic, and infrequent signalized crossings can negatively affect the perceived length of a trip. For many, a walking or bicycling trip in these conditions will feel more difficult and cause a greater degree of discomfort or stress.

To better understand the effects of both real and perceived trip distance, the connectivity analysis assesses bicycle and pedestrian access to destinations throughout Milpitas. Travel along higher stress roadways is weighted to reflect longer perceived travel times in order to more accurately represent the experience of residents. The results of this analysis demonstrate the distance to the nearest destination— whether that is a school, a park, or a transit station—from any given roadway intersection.

The maps that follow seek to identify opportunities to improve access to destinations through increased connectivity, improved route directness, and new low stress bikeways and pedestrian pathways. Results are displayed based on distance and correspond to average walking or bicycling times. For example, a one-half mile walk will take an average resident approximately 10 minutes to complete, while a 10-minute bike ride will typically cover around one-and-a-half miles. With many trips across the United States covering distances of 3 miles or less, these thresholds can help us understand where switching trips to an active mode may be more viable with improved networks.
549
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 6
Access to Schools
Within most residential areas, a public school is accessible within a one-mile walk or less. As shown in Figure 5 below, residential areas to the east of I-680 and immediately west of I-680 in the northern extent of the city have greatest access, with most areas providing walking access to a school within ½ mile or less, or approximately a 10-minute walk. However, neighborhoods to the east of I-880 and west of the railroad have more limited access to schools. The two schools located in these neighborhoods are both elementary schools; for access to the middle school or high school in this part of the city, longer trips that require navigating higher stress roadways across the railroad are required. A more comprehensive understanding of providing safer routes to school should consider access by grade level and seek to better connect neighborhoods to schools across all grades.

Figure 5: Pedestrian Access to Schools
550
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

7 | Alta Planning + Design
A 10-minute trip to school by bicycle increases the range of accessibility for students travelling from neighborhoods to elementary, middle, and high schools. For students who are able to bike to school, a greater number of schools, including middle and high schools, are accessible across more neighborhoods. In fact, very few areas are outside of a 10-minute bike ride (approximately 1.5 miles) from the nearest school, and nearly all residential areas within the city fall within the two-mile threshold for bicycle access. Although there is high access to schools, further consideration of low stress, continuous routes to school should be considered. In addition to providing safe, separated pathways for students to travel to school, it is also important to consider access to schools of all grade levels and providing high quality routes that connect neighborhoods.

Figure 6: Bicycle Access to Schools
551
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 8
Access to Transit
Transit access is considered in two parts. First, access to light rail and BART are considered; then frequent service bus routes as defined by VTA are assessed. By considering these modes separately, opportunities to connect residents and employers to regional routes, such as light rail and BART, are more apparent.

Access to light rail and BART is concentrated in the southern portion of the city nearest the station locations for both walking and bicycling. Pedestrian access, as shown in Figure 7 above, is limited to within a few blocks of the station locations, which serve only a small number of residential and commercial areas in the city. While this provides connections to several major employers, pedestrians must travel along higher speed corridors and through indirect routes. Further, these trips will best serve those who are traveling from further away to work in Milpitas, while access for residents to reach other regional destinations is limited. While land use patterns limit transit access for residents living in the northern areas of the city, opportunities for safer and more direct routes to stations can expand pedestrian access and should be explored.

Figure 7: Pedestrian Access to BART and Light Rail
552
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

9 | Alta Planning + Design
Figure 8 below demonstrates that access to the station is improved when bicycling, with a larger area available within a 10-to-15-minute bike ride. While areas of accessibility are increased with bicycling, access is primarily concentrated within industrial areas of the city. Crossings of highways and major roadways, along with a less-dense roadway network, affect direct accessibility to the station; opportunities to improve low stress routing or implement more direct routes, such as through a new trail, should be considered.

Figure 8: Bicycle Access to BART and Light Rail
553
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 10
Expanding this assessment to include high-frequency buses, more of the city has access to transit within a short walk or bike ride. Access to frequent bus routes by foot, as shown in Figure 9, is primarily concentrated in the central area of the city between I-880 and I-680. Nearly all locations within this area and north of Highway 237 are within one mile or less of a frequent bus route. However, these results demonstrate clearly the impact of cul-de-sacs and indirect roadway networks. Walking trips to transit quickly rise to one-half mile or more, despite straight-line distances to the nearest bus stop measuring less than one-quarter mile. Out-of-direction travel required due to limited access points and dead-end roadways significantly limits pedestrian access to transit.

Bicycle access to frequent bus routes is generally constrained by I-880 and I-680, similar to pedestrian access. However, most locations within this area are within a one-mile bike ride to a frequent bus route.

Areas with more limited access are located either east of I-680, west of I-880, or along the large commercial parcels in the northeast of the future BART station. Figure 10 on the next page depicts bicycle access to frequent transit routes. Bicycle access can be improved through increasing separation from motor vehicles and identifying additional low-stress routes and crossings.

Figure 9: Pedestrian Access to Transit
554
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

11 | Alta Planning + Design
For residents who want to use BART to reach destinations outside of Milpitas, bus connections to the station can facilitate car-free trips to reduce congestion and provide access for those without motor vehicle access. However, few frequent bus routes and land use patterns that require a sizable walk to the bus stop may discourage potential transit users. Opportunities to connect street ends and improve wayfinding and routing to high frequency bus stops will facilitate more multimodal trips. Bicycle routes that provide greater access to high frequency bus routes should be prioritized to encourage seamless transitions among modes and increase access to transit opportunities in the region.

Figure 10: Bicycle Access to Transit
555
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 12
Access to Parks
Access to parks and recreational space is prevalent throughout the city. Nearly all residential areas within the city are within one-half mile or less of a park entry point. If the threshold is increased to one mile, even more of the city is within easy reach of a park. In many areas, walls, fencing, or other barriers restrict access to parks at specific points. Even with this in mind, access to parks across the city is high.

The areas with limited access to a park are primarily confined to the central area of the city, where land uses are predominantly industrial and commercial. Improvements that support access to parks and recreational opportunities should consider the comfort level of the trip to the park and opportunities to improve access to regional destinations. Other considerations, such as wayfinding, can help residents navigate to their nearest park.

Figure 11: Pedestrian Access to Parks
556
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

13 | Alta Planning + Design
Bicycle access to parks is even greater than by foot, with only a few areas in the city being greater than one-mile travel distance from a park; nearly all of the city is within two miles of a park. Where access is most limited, larger parcels, less dense roadway networks, and less frequent intersections lead to longer trip distances. Increased access points across these parcels can significantly improve access to open space within the city.

Figure 12: Bicycle Access to Parks
557
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 14
Connections to Neighboring Jurisdictions and Recreation Consistent with the vision for a regional bicycle network, it is important to consider the connections between Milpitas and its neighboring cities. Several existing facilities provide continuous connections into the neighboring jurisdictions of Fremont and San Jose. For example, an existing bike lane (Class II) along Milpitas Boulevard continues north of Milpitas city boundaries and into Fremont. Similarly, bike lanes along Great Mall Parkway and Oakland Road connect across city boundaries into San Jose.

However, there are several locations where recommended bike facilities should consider improving connections to neighboring jurisdictions. Depicted in Figure 13 below, these opportunities include:
• Completing connections into San Jose and to the Coyote Creek Trail near the Montague Expressway, connecting to existing bikeways on Trimble Road and Junction Avenue. • Completing connections between McCandless Drive in Milpitas and Ringwood Avenue in San Jose to support access to the BART station and provide an additional point of connection between the two cities
• Considering opportunities to improve connections into Fremont both from east of I-680 and by way of low-stress facilities, such as the Hetch Hetchy Trail.

Figure 13: Connections to Neighboring Jurisdictions + Recreation 558
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

15 | Alta Planning + Design
A regional network will also include connections to regional recreation opportunities and regional trail facilities, such as the San Francisco Bay Trail. As shown in Figure 13, connections to Ed R. Levin County Park and improved low-stress routes to Coyote Creek Trail can increase access for Milpitas residents.

Demand Analysis
The Demand Analysis assesses potential existing and future demand for walking and bicycling trips based on regional trip data available from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The MTC is responsible for transportation planning and related tasks for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, including Milpitas. They seek to understand transportation needs based on projected future conditions and population growth. Using this data, the demand analysis identifies areas in the city with large numbers of short trips (under 3 miles); trips in this range are most viable to switch to active modes, like walking and bicycling.

Data is aggregated to Transportation Analysis Zone boundaries, which are the standard unit for transportation planning used by the MTC. Existing conditions represent 2015 trip conditions. Shown in Figure 14 above, the greatest number of shorter-distance trips are taking place in the south and central areas of Milpitas, while the furthest corners of the city have fewer short-distance trips.

Figure 14: Existing Potential Demand for Walking and Biking Trips 559
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans

Alta Planning + Design | 16
In addition to understanding where facilities may help meet current unmet demand for walking and biking, understanding where short trips are anticipated to grow in number can help direct bicycle and pedestrian investments. In the map below (Figure 15), the estimated density of short trips for 2040 was compared to 2015 data. Areas nearest the light rail and BART stations are expected to see the greatest growth in short trips, likely due to transit-oriented development and improved connectivity, while the area east of I-680 along Calaveras Road is expected to see a reduction in short trips. This is likely due to the anticipated development patterns in this area and anticipated needs of this area, such as potentially reduced trips to schools or employment locations being further away. Further, it is important to note that TAZ boundaries are not coincident with city or growth area boundaries and may include areas of land that are not planned for future development. Changes in demand over time may be due to limited areas within a larger TAZ or anticipated shifts in travel patterns based on population characteristics. Overall, improved facilities and new connections can encourage more trips by active modes, particularly where there are connections to transit.

The results of the demand analysis demonstrate the importance of providing high quality pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit. Trips to and from the Milpitas BART station are expected to increase after station opening. With investment in the Tasman Street/Great Mall Parkway Corridor seeking to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to the station, Milpitas should seek to enhance connections in the areas beyond the immediate station area. By encouraging more trips by bike or by foot, the city has the opportunity to reduce congestion, improve quality of life, and provide more mobility options for all.

Figure 15: Change in Potential Demand for Walking and Bicycling Trips (2040) 560
Item # 18.

Needs Analysis

17 | Alta Planning + Design
Summary
The results of the needs analysis suggest several key opportunities for identifying gaps and potential projects throughout Milpitas. Projects that provide greater separation from motor vehicles, particularly on high speed corridors, will contribute to greater connectivity and improved safety across the city.

Focus should be given to routes that connect to schools, provide access across highways and other major roadways, connect to high frequency transit, and increase access to regional recreational opportunities. With increased demand for trips near light rail and BART stations, opportunities should also be explored to further improve resident access to these regional transit systems. Potential locations for new trails, which will be further informed by public input, should connect to other recreational opportunities as well as to the rest of the bicycle network. Recommendations should also consider opportunities for new or improved trailheads and associated amenities, such as end-of-trip facilities like bike storage.

The map below (Figure 16) summarizes the findings of the needs analysis and includes opportunities to improve the active transportation network in Milpitas. These opportunities are shown, building on the LTS analysis, to demonstrate the existing network gaps in a city-wide low-stress network. The findings explored in this memo will be combined with public input to develop recommendations for an improved bicycle, pedestrian, and trail network.

Figure 16: Needs Analysis Summary
561
Item # 18.

APPENDIX C
562
Item # 18.

MEMORANDUM
304 12th Street, Suite 2A
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 540-5008
www.altaplanning.com
Alta Planning + Design | 1
To: Fanny Yu, City of Milpitas
From: Erin David, Alta Planning + Design
Date: May 06, 2020
Re: Milpitas Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update and Trails Master Plan Update: Proposed Prioritization Strategy DRAFT
Introductions
The following memorandum outlines the proposed prioritization strategy for implementation of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update and Trail Master Plan Update. This approach is intended to establish a framework that can be used to revisit prioritization as needed to account for future changes in priority as Milpitas continues to grow.

Strategy
Through this evaluation process, projects
will be grouped into four Project
Categories that represent varying phases
and/or approaches to project
implementation. These categories will be
based on project priority and relative
project feasibility. Each project will be
evaluated as “high” or “low” on each axis,
resulting in the four Categories, depicted
in Figure 1 (right).

DRAFT Prioritization Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 2
• Opportunity projects are rated low priority and high project feasibility • Low priority projects are rated low priority and low project feasibility Bike Network Evaluation Criteria
In order to sort projects into these four overarching categories, a series of criteria will be used to evaluate projects in relation to plan goals and public engagement findings. Table 1 on the next page outlines the details of these criteria. In general, projects benefit or priority will be evaluated based on:
• Connectivity: Does the project provide access to parks, trails, transit, schools, employment centers, or commercial centers?
• Gap Closure: Does the project close the gap between two existing facilities? This criterion will also consider neighboring jurisdiction existing and programmed facilities. • Safety: Does the project improve conditions along a corridor or at an intersection that has a history of collisions? Does the project improve the quality of a high stress segment link? • Project Support: Has the project been identified in previous planning efforts or was it identified through the public engagement process?
564
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans
3 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 1: Bicycle Network Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Priority

CATEGORY CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SCORING CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity to Transit
or Schools
Project provides connections to
transit, including local bus,
BART, and light rail; or project
provides connections to
schools. Project should be
located within ¼ mile of transit
or schools to qualify.

Project receives full points if
within ¼ mile of school, BART,
light rail, or high frequency bus
stop.

Connectivity to Parks
or Trails
Project provides connections to
trails or parks. Project should
be located within ¼ mile of a
trailhead or park to qualify.

Project receives full points if
within ¼ mile of trailhead or
park.

Connectivity to
Employment Centers
or Services
Project provides connections to
employment or commercial
centers. Project should be
located within ¼ mile to
qualify.

Project receives full points if
within ¼ mile of commercial,
industrial, or Town Center
zoning.

GAP CLOSURE
Gap Closure
Project closes existing network
gap between two existing
facilities, or across a
challenging crossing. Gap
closure should consider
neighboring jurisdiction’s
existing and proposed
networks.

Project receives full points if it
connects on both ends to an
existing facility. Project receives
partial points if it connects to
an existing facility on one end
only.

SAFETY
Previous Collision
Project provides safety
improvement near reported
crash location. Collision
occurred at the project
intersection or along the
identified project segment.

Project receives full points if a
severe injury or fatal collision
occurred along the project
segment. Project receives
partial points if a collision
occurred along project
segment.

Level of Traffic Stress
Project improves a high stress
roadway (LTS 3 or 4 network
link)
Project receives full points if it
improves an LTS 4 roadways.

Project receives partial points if
it improves an LTS 3 roadway.
565
Item # 18.

DRAFT Prioritization Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 4

CATEGORY CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SCORING PROJECT SUPPORT
Public Support
Project was supported by the
public through this Plan’s
public engagement activities
Project receives full points if it
was identified in Phase 1 Public
Outreach.

Previous Plan Project identified in previous
planning efforts.

Project receives full points if it
was identified in a previous
planning effort.

To evaluate project feasibility, criteria will consider:
• Project Complexity: Does the project require significant reconfiguration of the roadway, rightof-way (ROW) acquisition, or similar? • Agency Collaboration: Will the project require collaboration with one or more agencies, such as VTA, Valley Water, or neighboring jurisdictions?
These criteria are outlined in Table 2 below. For feasibility, it is assumed that if a project meets at least one of these criteria, it is considered low feasibility. In the project tables that follow, please note that a score of 1 is considered low feasibility; a maximum score of 1 is currently considered for feasibility.

Table 2: Bicycle Network Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Feasibility

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Agency Coordination
Requires coordination among multiple agencies
(CalTrans, VTA, etc.)
Project Complexity Project requires significant roadway reconfiguration or ROW acquisition.

Trail Network Evaluation Criteria
The trail network will be prioritized separately, with the final prioritized project list for all Class I and shared use pathways featured in the Trail Master Plan Update. These segments will not be included in the Bicycle Master Plan Update project list.

The prioritization approach for the trail network will build on the criteria outlined for the bicycle network in the above sections. Table 3 that follows outlines the details of these criteria. In general, project benefit or priority will be evaluated based on:
• Connectivity: Does the project provide access to parks, transit, schools, employment centers, or commercial centers?
566
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans
5 | Alta Planning + Design
• Gap Closure: Does the project close the gap between two existing facilities? Does the project extend an existing facility? This criterion will also consider neighboring jurisdiction existing and programmed facilities.
• Safety: Does the project provide an alternate route along a corridor with a history of collisions? • Project Support: Was the project identified by the public as a needed improvement? Table 3: Trail Network Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Priority

CATEGORY CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SCORING CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity to
Transit or Schools
Project provides connections to
transit, including local bus, BART,
and light rail; or project provides
connections to schools. Project
should be located within ¼ mile
of transit or schools to qualify.

Project receives full points if
within ¼ mile of school,
BART, light rail, or bus stop.

Connectivity to Parks
or Trails
Project provides connections to
parks. Project should be located
within ¼ mile of a park to qualify.

Project receives full points if
within ¼ mile of a park.

Connectivity to
Employment Centers
or Services
Project provides connections to
employment or commercial
centers. Project should be located
within ¼ mile to qualify.

Project receives full points if
within ¼ mile of commercial,
industrial, or Town Center
zoning.

GAP CLOSURE
Gap Closure
Project closes existing network
gap between two existing
facilities, or across a challenging
crossing. Gap closure should
consider neighboring
jurisdiction’s existing and
proposed networks.

Project receives full points if
it connects on both ends to
an existing facility. Project
receives partial points if it
connects to an existing
facility on one end only.

SAFETY
Previous Collision
Project provides safety
improvement and/or alternate
routing near reported crash
location.

Project receives full points if a
severe injury or fatal collision
occurred along an adjacent
roadway. Project receives
partial points if a collision
occurred along an adjacent
roadway.
567
Item # 18.

DRAFT Prioritization Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6

CATEGORY CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SCORING PROJECT SUPPORT
Public Support
Project was supported by the
public through this Plan’s public
engagement activities
Project receives full points if
it was identified in Phase 1
Public Outreach.

To evaluate project feasibility, criteria will consider:
• Project Complexity: Does the project require significant reconfiguration of the roadway, rightof-way (ROW) acquisition, or include significant construction to address existing barriers? For Trail Projects, agency coordination is required for nearly all recommended corridors with at least one other agency. For example, shared use path corridors along creeks will require permit coordination with Valley Water. For this reason, agency coordination is not considered for trail and shared use path project feasibility.

These criteria are outline in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Trail Network Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Feasibility

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Project Complexity
Project requires significant roadway
reconfiguration, ROW acquisition, or significant
construction to overcome existing barriers.

Methodology
Projects will be scored based on the tables outlined above. For Priority criteria, projects will be scored on each criterion, and the sum of all criteria will be considered the project’s Priority score.

For project feasibility, a project will be considered to have low feasibility on this axis if at least one condition is true. City staff will be invited to review the initial results of priority and feasibility scoring; based on institutional knowledge of the street network, project complexity, and similar, changes may be recommended to better reflect on-the-ground conditions.

Next Steps
City staff are requested to review the criteria and approach outlined above, along with the accompanying maps and project tables. In reviewing prioritization results, please provide feedback specifically related to Feasibility based on City understanding of complexity of coordination. Additional comments on the approach are also welcome.
568
Item # 18.

Proposed Prioritization Strategy - Spot Improvements DRAFT Introductions
The following memorandum outlines the proposed prioritization strategy for recommended Spot Improvements as part of the Bicycle + Pedestrian and Trails Mater Plan Updates. This approach is intended to establish a framework that can be used to revisit prioritization as needed to account for future changes in priority as Milpitas continues to grow.

Strategy
Spot improvements represent
individual locations on the roadway
and trail network that should be
improved to better support active
travel in the city. Spot improvements
can either be implemented individually
or can be coordinated with larger
corridor improvement projects. While it
is recommended that intersection
improvements are coordinated with
larger projects, near term projects with
high feasibility should be considered as
immediate improvements. Prioritization
for these improvements follows the
approach developed through the
bicycle and trails prioritization process,
with projects grouped into four main
categories, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Implementation Strategy Categories
569
Item # 18.

DRAFT Prioritization Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 2
Through this evaluation process, projects will be grouped into four Project Categories that represent varying phases and/or approaches to project implementation. These categories will be based on project priority and relative project feasibility. Each project will be evaluated as “high” or “low” on each axis.

These four categories can be summarized as follows:
• Short term priority projects are rated high priority and high project feasibility • Long term priority projects are rated high priority and low project feasibility • Opportunity projects are rated low priority and high project feasibility • Low priority projects are rated low priority and low project feasibility Spot Improvement Evaluation Criteria
In order to sort projects into these four overarching categories, a series of criteria will be used to evaluate projects in relation to plan goals and public engagement findings. Table 1 on the next page outlines the details of these criteria. In general, projects benefit or priority will be evaluated based on:
• Connectivity: Does the project provide access to parks, trails, transit, schools, employment centers, or commercial centers?
• Safety: Does the project improve conditions at an intersection that has a history of collisions? • Pedestrian Improvement: Does the project provide an opportunity to coordinate with a pedestrian improvement?
• Project Support: Is the project supported by the public? (Pending results of Phase 2 input map) 570
Item # 18.

Milpitas Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plans
3 | Alta Planning + Design
Table 1: Spot Improvement Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Priority

CATEGORY CRITERIA DESCRIPTION SCORING CONNECTIVITY
Connectivity to
Transit, Schools, Parks,
and Employment
Centers
Project provides connections to
transit, including frequent local
bus, BART, and light rail;
schools (adjacent to school or
along identified SRTS route);
parks; or employment centers.

Project receives full points if it
supports connections to at
least 3 of the listed
destinations. Project receives
partial points for providing
connections to fewer than 3
destination categories.

MULTI-MODAL

IMPROVEMENT
Multi-Modal
Improvement
Project provides an
opportunity to introduce traffic
calming or other safety
improvement measures that
benefit other active modes.

Project receives points if it is
located within the Pedestrian
Priority Improvement Areas or
is coincident with trail and bike
improvements.

SAFETY
Previous Collision
Project provides safety
improvement near reported
crash location. Collision
occurred at the project
intersection.

Project receives full points if a
severe injury or fatal collision
occurred along the project
segment. Project receives
partial points if a collision
occurred at intersection.

PROJECT

SUPPORT
Public Support
Project was supported by the
public through this Plan’s
public engagement activities
Project received at least 1 like
or was voted as a priority
project.

To evaluate project feasibility, criteria will consider:
• Project Complexity: Does the project require significant reconfiguration of the roadway, right-of-way (ROW) acquisition, or similar?
These criteria are outlined in Table 2 below. For feasibility, it is assumed that if a project meets at least one of these criteria, it is considered low feasibility.

Table 2: Spot Improvement Proposed Evaluation Criteria - Feasibility

CATEGORY DESCRIPTION
Project Complexity Project requires significant roadway reconfiguration or ROW acquisition.
571
Item # 18.

DRAFT Prioritization Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 4
Methodology
Projects will be scored based on the tables outlined above. For Priority criteria, projects will be scored on each criterion, and the sum of all criteria will be considered the project’s Priority score.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
573
Item # 18.

APPENDIX D
574
Item # 18.

MEMORANDUM
304 12th Street, Suite 2A
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 540-5008
www.altaplanning.com
To: Fanny Yu, City of Milpitas
From: Alta Planning + Design
Date: June 2, 2020
Re: Milpitas Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: Implementation, Policies, and Pricing Structures The following memo outlines the recommendations for the implementation of a Bike and Scooter Share program in Milpitas. The strategy presented here is based on current best practices in other jurisdictions, review of existing conditions and assessment of demand in Milpitas, and the goals and objectives for a shared mobility program as defined by the City. These recommendations are intended to provide a starting point for city implementation; given how rapidly the shared micro-mobility industry is evolving, the City should assess any needed adjustment at the time of implementation, building on the recommendations for partnerships and information sharing outlined in the section that follow.

Further, it should be noted that the COVID-19 public health crisis in 2020 may be dramatically shifting shared mobility options. As scooter service in particular has been suspended in many locations at this time, additional consideration for pilot program parameters and timing of pilot launch is needed.

Partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions may be vital to developing a strong and successful system in the future.

RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Milpitas should consider a one-year pilot period for implementation of a hybrid bike share system and e-scooter program. The one-year evaluation period is consistent with the approach of many other jurisdictions across the United States and provides an opportunity to assess program strengths, challenges, and required adjustments for operations. Specifics such as service area, required policies, vendor requirements, parking and restricted area regulations, and overall fleet size and distribution are items that may be refined after gaining additional understanding of operations in the Milpitas setting.

The pilot program approach provides the opportunity to test operations and adjust in subsequent deployments or expansions.

Further, with the upcoming start of BART service in Milpitas and continued investment in making bicycling and pedestrian networks safer and more complete, transportation patterns have the capacity to change drastically in coming years. A pilot period will allow the city to evaluate these changes and what effects it might have on expanding or restricting shared micro-mobility options. Following the oneyear pilot, the City can consider program changes, including permitting additional operators, switching 575
Item # 18.
to a city-owned and third-party operated system, modifying vehicle limits and service areas, and/or exploring other contract terms for operators.

The City of Fremont implemented a pilot program in 2019 for bike share specifically to better understand many of these questions. It is recommended that Milpitas staff coordinate with Fremont staff to understand lessons learned specific to the region that should be considered in implementation a local program.

SYSTEM TYPE
Based on City-identified goals with consideration for potential service areas, it is recommended that Milpitas implement a hybrid bike share system and e-scooter share system.

Hybrid Bike Share System with Electric Assist Bikes
The recommended system type for bike share in Milpitas is a hybrid system. A hybrid system will encourage system users to lock at specified hubs but provide options to end the trip at other designated locations; locking requirements can encourage system users to park bikes in areas that do not obstruct other travel.

This type of system will provide the ideal balance of control and flexibility to meet the needs of the Milpitas community, including more ways to connect to transit; the ability to provide service to all residents; promote public health; and lend to long-term sustainability and adaptability of the bike share program.

The fleet should use electric-assist bikes. Electric-assist bikes are consistent with the bikes used in other programs. With an electric bike share system, riders can cover more ground and navigate topography with ease. Electric bikes are more appealing to a larger range of potential users of varying physical abilities. Because electric bikes are powered by a battery, they must be recharged on a regular basis.

While this creates an additional operations step for vendors/contractors who must either swap the batteries or dock the bikes at a recharging station, permit requirements can help address these concerns.

E-Scooter Share System
An e-scooter share system should be deployed at the
same time as the bike share system. The system should
also focus on hubs with rack options and other
designated parking locations (see Figure 1). Specific
scooter types and accommodations should be
determined in coordination with the vendor selection
process. However, the approach should include specific
consideration for parking and locking mechanisms, as
this allows the city to manage scooter parking while
maximizing geographic coverage to support a diversity
of trip origins and destinations. Additional
considerations for both the e-scooter and bike share Figure 1: A scooter parking zone encourages system users to lock scooters in designated areas.
576
Item # 18.
system requirements are explored in the sections that follow.

SERVICE AREA
Based on City goals for the program, an understanding of existing infrastructure, and intent to gather data on demand for shared mobility, it is recommended that the pilot program launch in a more focused area of Milpitas. The initial service areas for bike share and e-scooter share are proposed in differing locations, as shown in in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 below depicts the recommended service areas for pilot launch. The recommended bike share service area considers the city goals to promote connections to transit while also responding to existing barriers in the network. For example, current conditions do not provide for a low-stress route across I880, creating a clearly defined edge for the service area to the west. Along with the service areas, locations for shared mobility hubs are indicated. These hubs are locations where parking options dedicated to bike share are located. Selection and implementation of parking hubs may require coordination with private property owners. Finally, an expansion area for bike share is defined; this area represents potential new areas to expand bike share service and news hubs over time. The expansion area extends the service area to the majority of the city. These areas show high potential demand bicycle use and will promote access from these peripheral areas to the center of the city. The expansion area should be approached incrementally, particularly in areas where improved bicycle infrastructure is Figure 2: Recommended service area for pilot launch and expansion 577
Item # 18.
needed to support crossing of barriers (e.g., I-880). It is not necessary to expand all at once. The timing and size of the expansion should consider ridership, funding opportunities, and the arrival of new bicycle infrastructure. It is important to note that travel by shared mobility device is not recommended along Calaveras Boulevard of Montague Expressway. In both the pilot launch and expansion of the systems, these roadways should be considered restricted, and the City should coordinate with the vendor on options to encourage and enforce this restriction.

Two potential pilot service areas for scooters are recommended west of I-880 along MCarthy Blvd., and in the southeastern area of the city. In both locations, potential demand for shared mobility is moderate-to-high and can help the city evaluate demand for scooters, identify considerations for expanded service, and evaluate parking requirements. Starting in the initial service area provides the opportunities for residents and visitors to become comfortable with shared micro-mobility on city streets and build support for bike and scooter share and infrastructure before it expands to other neighborhoods. Expansion areas are not defined for scooter share as more data and understanding of the role of scooters in the city is needed.

FLEET SIZE
The initial bike share launch proposes up to 250 electric-assist bikes distributed among 6 hubs, depending on the demand and available space within the right of way. The initial scooter share launch proposes up to 250 e-scooters distributed among 7 hubs; the City should coordinate with employers located in the service areas—particularly along McCarthy Boulevard—to explore options for additional hubs in support of these campuses. It is recommended that the city begins with a conservative number of vehicles and consider providing the opportunity to expand fleet size when certain performance metrics are met, such as number of trips.

LAUNCH CONSIDERATIONS
Timing of the pilot program launch should provide ample opportunity for coordination with other agencies, private property owners, and others who can support launch of the program. Coordination with city festivals or other large events can provide venues for connecting directly with residents and visitors to answer questions, promote the program, and generate excitement for the addition of shared mobility options. Program launch should also include a robust marketing and outreach strategy that engages transit riders, local employers, and other groups. While bikes and scooters should be available all year, it is recommended that the program is launched in a season with generally more favorable weather conditions.

Further, the launch of the scooter and bike share program should occur at approximately the same time to optimize communications and promotional efforts. If this is not possible, it is acceptable to launch at different times.
578
Item # 18.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR OPERATOR SELECTION
It is recommended that Milpitas select a private operator for pilot bike and scooter share system deployment. Private operators can bring extensive knowledge and experience from operating in other cities and limit the need for Milpitas to hire new staff.

Hiring a private operator still allows Milpitas to dictate the terms for bike and e-scooter share service level agreements. Milpitas should require prospective operators to submit their plans for routine maintenance and operation during the bid process, as well as provide evidence of high performance in other jurisdictions. The pilot program should consider working with only one operator to provide for greater flexibility in adjusting the program in response to the current conditions.

Application and Permitting Process
Operators should successfully complete the application process and be issued a permit to operate within Milpitas. The purpose of this permit is to promote the safe use of the city’s public right-of-way and provide for the safe and responsible operations of shared micro-mobility operations. The permit application requirements should include the following elements:
• Program scope
• Safe operations
• Parking and re-balancing of devices
• Equipment and maintenance
• Customer service, including a set response time to incidences • Device technology, including geofencing capabilities for restricted areas • Education and outreach requirements
• Data sharing and privacy
• Deposit and fees
• Insurance and indemnification
Based on fees implemented in nearby jurisdictions, application fees of approximately $2,500 should be paid by the vendor with an annual permit and program monitoring fee of $94 per vehicle. 1 In addition,
operators should provide a performance deposit of $20,000 to cover public property repair and maintenance related to the impacts of the operator’s devices.

Program Scope
It’s recommended that the city is given the ability to make modifications to the regulations to better meet the needs of residents, including placing limits on the program size. This can be done by limiting the number of operators or devices by allowing a fixed number of devices per operator or invoking “dynamic capping,” a market-based approach that limits devices based on usage rather than total.

Dynamic capping sets a performance standard or range of the number of trips taken by device per day to limit the number of devices deployed while simultaneously meeting user demand. Compliance with This is the cost for a permit in San Jose, California. Application costs should be discussed within the City to determine appropriate fees.
579
Item # 18.
any limitation on size, aera, or scope can be monitored through the data sharing requirements (see Data Sharing section below).

Operations, Maintenance, and Customer Service
Considerations for selecting an operator should include:
• Re-Balancing: A hybrid system encourages parking at specific locations but permits system users to lock to other specific locations. The selected operator should be able to demonstrate how they will maintain bike and scooter availability in the service area, including regular charging of bikes and scooters. Permit requirements should consider specifying distribution targets. • Parking: Shared micro-mobility devices must be parked upright in a way that does not impede ADA clearance or obstruct pedestrian traffic flow. Devices are required to be locked to an approved rack or other object, preferably in the park strip adjacent to the sidewalk or in the furniture zone, when present. The devices should not block fire hydrants or other emergency facilities; above- and under-ground utilities; sidewalks, curb ramps, ADA ramps, public or private driveways, pathways, or entryways; handicapped parking zones, loading zones, and bus boarding zones; transit access, ingress, or egress and light rail platforms; and bicycle racks, public restrooms, and newspaper racks. Operators should also not place devices in landscaped park strips in front of single-family homes. The city may designate parking zones in certain areas of the city to better manage the location of parked devices. • Equipment: Devices will be required to meet State codes, policies, and standards as well as local ordinances and rules. This includes speed limit and sidewalk riding restrictions. • Vehicle Maintenance: The selected operator will be responsible for ongoing maintenance of bikes and scooters as well as hub locations. Agreements should include specific maintenance protocols and consider penalties for noncompliance with the agreement. • Customer Service: Operators are responsible for bike and e-scooter share customer service and should have a call center, online portal, and service center to help resolve technical and mechanical issues. Milpitas should request operators to be accessible 24 hours a day, and provide multilingual services including English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. Operators should be required to respond to and address any incidences within two hours of receiving the complaint. • Technology: To comply with restricted zones, further exploration into ways that technology can support service areas should be explored. Existing mechanisms, including geofencing to limit the areas the bike or e-scooter can access, or incentives/disincentives can be used to enforce restricted zones. Restricted zones should be enforced in areas of high pedestrian activity, transit use, and other areas as determined by the city. The City should evaluate each permitee’s compliance with this requirement and track the industry’s overall progress with restricted area technology.
• User Education + Outreach: The operator should provide for user education regarding parking requirements, where to operate the vehicle, and other rules of the road. Operators should also 580
Item # 18.
be required to educate their users and to post state and local laws regarding legal and safe use of their devices on their website, mobile app, and the devices themselves in a manner that is accessible and legible to all users. Additionally, it is recommended that the city require the operator to staff representatives in the area to answer questions and distribute information during the first weeks of deployment. Milpitas can also require that the operator provide marketing and outreach materials and staff for major community events at no cost to the City as well as meet with target businesses, community leaders, and community organizations to promote the bike and e-scooter share system within the community.

LIABILITY
The City, in close consultation with their legal team, should identify liability considerations for operator contracts. These liability considerations should place all liability on the operator and require the operator to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City (including its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees) from and against any claims, litigations, demands, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses, including court costs, attorney’s fees, expert fees, and other costs and fees of litigation or other dispute resolution proceedings resulting or arising from the operator’s performance or failure to perform. It is also recommended that the City require the operator to obtain insurance as part of their permit application. For further information regarding liability considerations, it is recommended that Milpitas staff coordinate with Fremont or San Jose staff to share information regarding local best practices.

ENFORCMENT
The City should establish a clear system with the vendor to address issues related to vehicle maintenance, parking, or other requirements of the permit program. Other systems have included options to reduce the number of vehicles allowed, impose fines, or require additional actions in the case of permit requirements not being met. For example, if parking requirements are not being observed and the vendor does not respond in a timely manner, the number of permitted vehicles allowed may be reduced for a set amount of time or until certain performance metrics are achieved.

User behavior, including following the rules of the road, will be enforced by the local police department.

The City should coordinate closely with the police department to both identify concerns prior to launching the program as well as establish a process for communicating any issues or concerns they have as the program is implemented.

DATA SHARING REQUIREMENTS
GPS-enabled micro-mobility devices generate a wealth of transportation data that is useful for monitoring compliance, providing users and mobility app developers with real-time information on the availability and location of shared devices, and contributing to City planning efforts. Data requirements include data in the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) which includes anonymized information on trips, rides, number of devices, and other system usage statistics to be used in planning efforts; General Bike 581
Item # 18.

Feed Specification (GBFS) which allows system availability and status information to be shared with the public and third-party operators; and anonymized reporting on system use, memberships, low-income programs, and other pertinent data. It is also recommended that the operator provide the city with timestamped records of maintenance activities, customer service inquiries, and safety issues.

SYSTEM FARES + PRICING STRUCTURE
It is recommended that Milpitas require a pricing structure that is comparable to Bay Wheels and other existing bike and e-scooter share systems in neighboring municipalities. It is recommended that Milpitas invest in a variety of payment options, including monthly memberships, annual memberships, equitable memberships, single ride fares, and station access passes. The fares listed below are intended to be guidelines based on systems in nearby jurisdictions.

Single rides for both e-scooters and bikes should can include an unlock fee (typically $1) and a per-minute fee of $0.20 for bikes. E-scooter per minute fees may vary, with area costs typically around $0.25.

Access passes at $10 a day should allow membership for one day, with unlimited unlocks in a 24-hour period.

Monthly and Annual memberships should provide for unlimited unlocks and reduced per-minute fees. Cost should reflect regional rates, which are approximately $15/month or $149 for an annual membership.

Bike Share for All, as highlighted in the next section, should offer affordable transportation costs for qualifying residents. This program should accept prepaid cards to make payments for convenient for users.

Parking Fees: Additional fees should be considered for users who park vehicles outside of the designated service area or lock to locations not designated by the program. Similarly, bonuses can be offered to users who return vehicles to the service area and specific hub locations.

EQUITY
In order to provide a service that meets the needs of all users, the bike and e-scooter share should consider including the following elements in their bike and e-scooter share system:

Income-Based Discounts: The vast majority of bike and e-scooter share systems that pursue equity goals, regardless of size, have plans that address the financial barriers to users. Income based-discounts and cash payment options are key strategies to include lower income bike share riders who may not have access to credit or may not be able to afford the transportation service at the standard fare.

Cash Payment: Over the past couple years, many bike and e-scooter share providers, both public and private, have implemented cash payment options where users can go to designated locations to add cash to their accounts. Reload locations are often social service provides, bike share offices, and local grocery/convenience stores.

Alternative Payment Structures: Beyond income-based discounts and cash payment options, bike and e-scooter share systems should consider other alternative payment structures in order to reduce the financial barriers to entry. For example, rather than offering either a year-long pass or weekly passes, bike and e-scooter share providers could consider offering monthly passes which cater to regular users who can’t afford the high total cost of a year-long pass or the high per-trip cost of a weekly pass.

Additionally, providing longer rental times can alleviate fears of overage charges. 582
Item # 18.

Reduce Liability and Eliminate Hidden Fees: Some bike and e-scooter share systems require a deposit or have steep fees for lost or stolen bikes or scooters. Eliminating these fees across the board or just for lower income users can make people feel more comfortable using the system.

Targeted Marketing: Targeted marketing is any content that increases awareness of the bike and escooter share among demographics and populations that may benefit from additional outreach. This is a key way providers pursue equity goals. Targeted marketing should reflect the diversity of the area and the system it serves. It should reinforce the idea that the system is for people who live in Milpitas, and not just visitors looking for recreational amenities. Successful content is created for (and often with the help of) specific groups and communities the bike and e-scooter share hope to engage. These strategies could include: ambassador photos shoots, press releases, social media, billboards, bus-stop displays, bike station panels, flyers, emails, custom painted or sponsored bikes/scooters by community partners.

Regardless or marketing strategy, it is recommended that the content is produced in the languages and located in the places that the target population occupies.

Bikeshare for All: Based on the recommendation outlined above, Milpitas should create a comparable program to Bay Wheel’s Bike Share for All, promoting affordable, accessible, and fun transportation for everyone, no matter their socio-economic status. Milpitas residents who qualify for CalFresh, SFMTA Lifeline Pass, or PG&E CARE utility discount should be eligible to join the Bikeshare for All program for just $5 for the first year. This program should also make sure to accept prepaid cards.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS FOR CITY POLICY:
• No Sidewalk Riding: The City should restrict bicyclists and e-scooters from riding in areas of high pedestrian activity, transit use, and other such areas as determined by the City. This can be enforced via technology, incentives, or fines.
• Restricted Areas: Users are not permitted to operate scooter or bike share vehicles along specific corridors, including Montague Expressway. The City should coordinate with the selected operator on methods for implementation, including geo-fencing and rider notifications. Similar to system requirements in place in Fremont, the city should consider designating certain block faces or areas as no parking, no deployment, or no- riding zones. • Trails: For city owned- and operated trails, City policy should be clarified to specify if scooters or bike share vehicles can be operated here. It is recommended that they are permitted on trails within the city limits to support access to low-stress facilities. • Consistency with Neighboring Jurisdictions: San Jose and Fremont both have existing systems that Milpitas should considering modeling after for consistency of user experience. With a focus on BART and transit connections, it is recommended that the system is first consistent with San Jose. Given the close proximity to the city boundary for these primary transit connections, a more seamless experience for users is recommended.
• Age Restrictions: Bike and e-scooter use should be limited to those who are ages 18 or older. 583
Item # 18.

PERFORMANCE METRICS
Establishing a set of performance metrics for the system can help the City evaluate program success and expansion and also provide common understanding with operators for system operations. Performance metrics should reflect City goals for the system and potential challenges based on lessons learned from other jurisdictions. Benchmarks related to established performance metrics can also provide opportunities for fleet expansion or reduction.

Performance metrics the city should consider include:
• Ridership: Consider total users, trips per vehicle, total trips, and number of unique users.

Location-based measures can inform hubs that are not performing as well and locations where hubs may be better suited.
• Equity: Consider number of users enrolled in public assistance and number of users utilizing alternative payment options. Additional considerations may include number of trips starting or ending near service providers, affordable housing locations, or similar. • Distribution Compliance: Is the operator compliant with distribution requirements set out as part of the permitting process?
• Complaint Response: How responsive is the operator to identified issues, including parking concerns, vehicle maintenance and operability, and hub functionality? • Safety: Consider the number of collisions per miles traveled • Trip Characteristics: Consider average trip length (time), average trip distance, and total miles for the system.

COLLABORATION
This study recommends that Milpitas pursue collaborative partnerships with other agencies, community-based organizations, and other relevant groups. Partnerships will help build support for the bike share system, increase ridership, site stations, and raise funding. The following lists shows potential partners:
• Major employment centers, such as Cisco and Western Digital • Milpitas Unified School District
• Valley Transportation Authority
• Santa Clara County
• Santa Clara Public Health
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
• Bay Area Bike Share and Partner Cities
584
Item # 18.

Next Steps
The City should review the recommendations provided to determine additional considerations for a bike and scooter share program. Close coordination with area jurisdictions and agencies is encouraged, particularly for shared of permit and application materials, lessons learned, and coordination for system selection. Further resident engagement may also be useful, including a survey of residents and employees to gain insight into potential demand, service areas, and price considerations. 585
Item # 18.

APPENDIX E
586
Item # 18.

THE CITY OF MILPITAS
Design
Guidelines
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
June 2021
587
Item # 18.
2 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 588 Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 3 Contents
INTRODUCTION 5
Guidance Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Facility Selection: Bicycle User Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Facility Selection: Comfort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Facility Selection: Bikeways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Design Needs of Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Design Needs of Bicyclists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES 16
Sidewalk Zones & Widths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Curb Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CLASS I BIKEWAYS: BIKE PATHS 22
Class I Bikeway: Shared Use Path.................................24 Shared Use Paths along Levees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Shared Use Paths along Ditches & Drains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Bollard Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Screening/Barrier Separation Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Path Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 CLASS II BIKEWAYS: BIKE LANES 34
Class II Bikeways: Bicycle Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Class II Bikeways: Buffered Bicycle Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CLASS III BIKEWAYS: BIKE ROUTES 40
Class III Bikeway: Bicycle Boulevard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Class III Bikeway: Traffic Calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Class III Bikeway: Shared Lane Markings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 589
Item # 18.
4 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 CLASS IV BIKEWAYS: PROTECTED BIKE LANES 48
Class IV Bikeway: One-Way Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Class IV Bikeway: Two-Way Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Class IV Separated Bikeway Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 SUPPORTING FACILITIES 56
Bike Parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Wayfinding Sign Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS 62
Marked Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Curb Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Median Refuge Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Bike Detection and Actuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Bicycle Box . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Two-Stage Turn Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 590
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 5

INTRODUCTION
This Design Guide presents a toolbox of current
design guidance and standards to implement bicycle
and pedestrian improvements. It has been developed
to complement the City’s Trail, Pedestrian, and
Bicycle Master Plan and reflects other nationally
recognized efforts to promote pedestrian and bicycle
safety and comfort. The information assembled
here is not, however, a substitute for a more
thorough evaluation by a professional engineer prior
to implementation of facility improvements with
considerations to physical, right of way, and other
constraints.
591
Item # 18.
6 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 National guidance
The National Association
of City Transportation
Officials’ (NACTO) Urban
Bikeway Design Guide
(2012) and Urban Street
Design Guide (2013) are
collections of nationally
recognized street design
standards, and offers
guidance on the current
state of the practice
designs.

Separated Bike Lane
Planning and Design
Guide (2015) is the latest
national guidance on
the planning and design
of separated bike lane
facilities released by
the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA).

The resource documents
best practices as
demonstrated around
the U.S., and offers
ideas on future areas of research, evaluation and
design flexibility.

A Policy on Geometric
Design of Highways and
Streets (2018) provides
national guidance onthe
design of highways and
streets. The 7th edition
of the “The Green Book”
offers an updated
framework for geometric
design that is more
flexible, multimodal, and
performance based than
in previous editions.

The National Association
of City Transportation
Officials’ (NACTO)
Urban Bikeway Design
Guide (2012) provides
cities with state-ofthe-practice solutions
that can help create
complete streets that
are safe and enjoyable
for bicyclists. The
designs were developed
by cities for cities,
since unique urban streets require innovative
solutions. In August 2013, the Federal Highway
Administration issued a memorandum officially
supporting use of the document.

Guidance Basis
The sections that follow serve as an inventory of pedestrian and bicycle design treatments and provide guidelines for their development. These treatments and design guidelines are important because they represent the tools for creating a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, accessible community. The design guidance offered here are reflected in the following national and state sources. 592
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 7 California guidance
The California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (CAMUTCD)
(2014) is an amended
version of the FHWA
MUTCD 2009 edition
modified for use
in California. While
standards presented
in the CA MUTCD
substantially conform
to the FHWA MUTCD,
the state of California
The California Highway
Design Manual (HDM)
(Updated 2015)
establishes uniform
policies and procedures
to carry out highway
design functions for the
California Department of
Transportation.

Complete
Intersections: A Guide
to Reconstructing
Intersections and
Interchanges for
Bicyclists and
Pedestrians (2010)
is a reference guide
presents information
and concepts related
to improving conditions
for bicyclists and
pedestrians at major
Main Street, California:

A Guide for Improving
Community and
Transportation
Vitality (2013) reflects
California’s current
manuals and policies
that improve multimodal
The Caltrans Memo:

Design Flexibility in
Multimodal Design
(2014) encourages
flexibility in highway
design. The memo
stated that “Publications
such as the National
Association of City
Transportation Officials
(NACTO) “Urban Street
Design Guide” and
“Urban Bikeway Design
follows local practices, laws and requirements
with regards to signing, striping and other traffic
control devices.
access, livability and sustainability within the
transportation system. The guide recognizes the
overlapping and sometimes competing needs of
main streets.

Guide,” ... are resources that Caltrans and local
entities can reference when ma king planning and
design decisions on the State highway system and
local streets and roads.”
intersections and interchanges. The guide can be
used to inform minor signage and striping changes
to intersections, as well as major changes and
designs for new intersections.

Caltrans Design
Information Bulletin
89-01 provides
enhanced guidance
for two-way separated
bikeways, with added
information on transit
stops and separated
bikeways adjacent to
street parking. It also
provides a discussion
of maintenance using
Caltrans equipment.
593
Item # 18.
8 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Facility Selection: Bicycle User Type
The current AASHTO Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities encourages designers to identify their rider type based on the trip purpose (Recreational vs Transportation) and on the level of comfort and skill of the rider (Causal vs Experienced). A user-type framework for understanding a potential rider’s willingness to bike is illustrated in the figure below. Developed by planners in Portland, OR* and supported by research**, this classification identifies four distinct types of bicyclists.

TYPICAL DISTRIBUTION OF

BICYCLIST TYPES
Strong and Fearless – This group is willing to
ride a bicycle on any roadway regardless of traffic
conditions. Comfortable taking the lane and riding
in a vehicular manner on major streets without
designated bicycle facilities.

Enthused and Confident - This group of people
riding bicycles who are riding in most roadway
situations but prefer to have a designated facility.

Comfortable riding on major streets with a bike lane.

Interested but Concerned – This group is more
cautious and has some inclination towards bicycling,
but are held back by concern over sharing the road
with cars. Not very comfortable on major streets,
even with a striped bike lane, and prefer separated
pathways or low traffic neighborhood streets.

No Way, No How – This group comprises residents
who simply aren’t interested at all in bicycling and
may be physically unable or don’t know how to ride
a bicycle, and they are unlikely to adopt bicycling in
any way.
1%
60%
5-10%
30%

INTERESTED BUT

CONCERNED

NO WAY, NO HOW

ENTHUSED AND

CONFIDENT

STRONG AND

FEARLESS
* Roger Geller, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation. Four Types of Cyclists. http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/ index.cfm?&a=237507. 2009.
** Dill, J., McNeil, N. Four Types of Cyclists? Testing a Typology to Better Understand Bicycling Behavior and Potential. 2012. 594
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 9 Facility Selection: Comfort
In order to provide a bikeway network that meets the needs of the Milpita’s “Interested but Concerned” residents (who comprise the majority of the population), bikeways must be low-stress and comfortable. By using a metric called Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), specific facility types can be matched to the needs of people who bicycle in Milpitas. Generally, “Interested but Concerned,” users will only bicycle on LTS 1 or LTS 2 facilities.

LTS 1
LTS2
LTS3
LTS4

LTS LEVEL DESCRIPTION
Presents the lowest level of trac stress; demands
less attention from people riding bicycles, and
attractive enough for a relaxing bicycle ride. Suitable for almost all people riding bicycles, including children trained to ride in the street and to safety cross
intersections.

Presents little trac stress and therefore suitable to
most adults riding bicycles, but demandsmore
attention than might be expected from children.

More trac stress than LTS2, yet significantly less than the stress of integrating with multilane trac.

A level of stress beyond LTS 3. Includes roadways that
have no dedicated bicycle facilities and moderate to
higher vehicle speeds and volumes OR high speed
and high volume roadways WITH an exclusive riding
zone (lane) where there is a significant speed
di
erential with vehicles.

WHAT TYPE OF BICYCLISTS WILL RIDE ON
THIS LTS FACILITY?

STRONG &

FEARLESS

ENTHUSIASTIC &

CONFIDENT

INTERESTED BUT

CONCERNED
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

SOMETIMES
NO
YES

SOMETIMES
NO
NO

LEVELS OF TRAFFIC STRESS (LTS)
595
Item # 18.
10 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Facility Selection: Bikeways
Average Annual Daily Trac (1,000 Vehicles/day Or 100 Vehicles/peak hour)

CLASS III

BICYCLE

BOULEVARD

CLASS I

BIKE PATH

CLASS III

BIKE ROUTE

CLASS II

BIKE LANE

CLASS IV

SEPARATED BIKEWAY
FACILITY TYPE Street Class 0 1 1.5 3 5 10+
Local

CLASS II

BUFFERED BIKE LANE
Collector
Arterial
Arterial
Collector
Arterial
Local
2 4 7.5+ 12.5+
N/A
LTS 1
LTS 2

NOT RECOMMENDED

RECOMMENDED

RECOMMENDED
LTS 3
(Average Daily Vehicles, per 1,000)
Selecting the best bikeway facility type for a given roadway can be challenging, due to the range of factors that influence bicycle users’ comfort and safety. There is a significant impact on cycling comfort when the speed differential between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic is high and motor vehicle traffic volumes are high. This page can help determine when a Class IV Bikeway is most appropriate relative to other facility types.

Facility Selection Table
As a starting point to identify a preferred facility, the chart below can be used to determine the recommended type of bikeway to be provided in particular roadway speed and volume situations. To use this chart, identify the appropriate daily traffic volume on the existing or proposed roadway, and locate the facility types indicated by those key variables.

Other factors beyond volume which affect facility selection include traffic speed, traffic mix of automobiles and heavy vehicles, the presence of on-street parking, intersection density, surrounding land use, and roadway sight distance. These factors are not included in the facility selection chart below, but should always be considered in the facility selection and design process. 596
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 11 Types of Pedestrians
Pedestrians have a variety of characteristics
and the transportation network should
accommodate a variety of needs, abilities,
and possible impairments. Age is one
major factor that affects pedestrians’
physical characteristics, walking speed, and
environmental perception. Children have low
eye height and walk at slower speeds than
adults. They also perceive the environment
Disabled Pedestrian Design
Considerations
The table below summarizes common physical
and cognitive impairments, how they affect
personal mobility, and recommendations for
improved pedestrian-friendly design.

Design Needs of Pedestrians
Impairment Effect on Mobility Design Solution
Physical
Impairment
Necessitating
Wheelchair and
Scooter Use
Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft
surfaces.

Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges.

Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer
downhill or tip sideways.

Cross-slopes of less than two percent.

Require wider path of travel. Sufficient width and maneuvering space.

Physical
Impairment
Necessitating
Walking Aid
Use
Difficulty negotiating steep grades and cross
slopes; decreased stability and tripping hazard.

Cross-slopes of less than two percent.

Smooth, non-slippery travel surface.

Slower walking speed and reduced endurance;
reduced ability to react.

Longer pedestrian signal cycles, shorter crossing
distances, median refuges, and street furniture.

Hearing
Impairment
Less able to detect oncoming hazards at
locations with limited sight lines (e.g. driveways,
angled intersections, channelized right turn
lanes) and complex intersections.

Longer pedestrian signal cycles, clear sight distances, highly visible pedestrian signals and markings.

Vision
Impairment
Limited perception of path ahead and obstacles;
reliance on memory; reliance on non-visual
indicators (e.g. sound and texture).

Accessible text (larger print and raised text), accessible pedestrian signals (APS), guide strips and detectable
warning surfaces, safety barriers, and lighting.

Cognitive
Impairment
Varies greatly. Can affect ability to perceive,
recognize, understand, interpret, and respond
to information.

Signs with pictures, universal symbols, and colors,
rather than text.

The CA MUTCD recommends a normal walking speed of 3.5 ft per second when calculating the pedestrian clearance interval at traffic signals. The walking speed can drop to 3 ft per second for areas with older populations and persons with mobility impairments. While the type and degree of mobility impairment varies greatly across the population, the transportation system should accommodate these users to the greatest reasonable extent.
differently at various stages of their cognitive
development. Older adults walk more slowly
and may require assistive devices for walking
stability, sight, and hearing.
597
Item # 18.
12 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Source: AASHTO. Guide for the Planning, Design, and
Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Exhibit 2-1. 2004.

Age Characteristics
0-4 Learning to walk
Requires constant adult supervision
Developing peripheral vision
and depth perception
5-8 Increasing independence, but
still requires supervision
Poor depth perception
9-13 Susceptible to “darting out” in roadways
Insufficient judgment
Sense of invulnerability
14-18 Improved awareness of
traffic environment
Insufficient judgment
19-40 Active, aware of traffic environment
41-65 Slowing of reflexes
65+ Difficulty crossing street
Vision loss
Difficulty hearing vehicles
approaching from behind
Walking
2’ 6” (0.75 m)
Minimum Accessible Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Eye Level
4’ 6” - 5’ 10”
(1.3 m - 1.7 m)
Shoulders
1’ 10” (0.5 m)
Pedestrian characteristics by age
598
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 13 Preferred Operating Space
5’ (1.5 m)
Shoulders
1’ 10” (0.5 m)
Sweep Width

4.3’ (1.3 m)
Physical Length
5’ (1.5 m)
Sweep Width
3’ 6” (1.5 m)
Design Needs of Runners
Running is an important recreation and fitness
activity commonly performed on shared use
paths. Many runners prefer softer surfaces
(such as rubber, bare earth or crushed rock) to
reduce impact. Runners can change their speed
and direction frequently. If high volumes are
expected, controlled interaction or separation of
different types of users should be considered.

Design Needs of Strollers
Strollers are wheeled devices pushed by
pedestrians to transport babies or small
children. Stroller models vary greatly in their
design and capacity. Some strollers are
designed to accommodate a single child, others
can carry 3 or more. Design needs of strollers
depend on the wheel size, geometry and ability
of the adult who is pushing the stroller.

Strollers commonly have small pivoting front
wheels for easy maneuverability, but these
wheels may limit their use on unpaved surfaces
or rough pavement. Curb ramps are valuable
to these users. Lateral overturning is one main
safety concern for stroller users.
599
Item # 18.
14 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Design Needs of Wheelchair
Users
As the American population ages, the age
demographics in Milpitas may also shift, and
the number of people using mobility assistive
devices (such as manual wheelchairs, powered
wheelchairs) will increase.

Manual wheelchairs are self-propelled devices.

Users propel themselves using push rims
attached to the rear wheels. Braking is done
through resisting wheel movement with the
hands or arm. Alternatively, a second individual
Effect on Mobility Design Solution
Difficulty propelling over uneven or soft surfaces. Firm, stable surfaces and structures, including ramps or beveled edges.

Cross-slopes cause wheelchairs to veer downhill. Cross-slopes of less than two percent.

Require wider path of travel. Sufficient width and maneuvering space.

Wheelchair User Design Considerations
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum Width of Accessway
4’ (1.2 m)
Minimum Operating Width
3’ (0.9 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Minimum to Make a 180 Degree Turn
5’ (1.5 m)
Physical Width
2’6” (0.75 m)
Physical Width
2’2” (0.7 m)
Armrest
2’5” (0.75 m)
Handle
2’9” (0.9 m)
Eye Height
3’8” (1.1 m)
Wheelchair User Dimensions
can control the wheelchair using handles
attached to the back of the chair.

Power wheelchairs use battery power to move
the wheelchair. The size and weight of power
wheelchairs limit their ability to negotiate
obstacles without a ramp. Various control units
are available that enable users to control the
wheelchair movement, based on their ability
(e.g., joystick control, breath controlled, etc).

Maneuvering around a turn requires additional
space for wheelchair devices. Providing
adequate space for 180 degree turns at
appropriate locations is an important element of
accessible design.
600
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 15 Operating
Envelope
8’ 4”
Eye Level
5’
Handlebar
Height
3’8”
Preferred Operating
Width 5’
Minimum
Operating
Width
4’
Physical
Operating
Width
2’6”
Design Needs of Bicyclists
The facility designer must have an understanding of how bicyclists operate and how their bicycle influences that operation. Bicyclists, by nature, are much more affected by poor facility design, construction and maintenance practices than motor vehicle drivers. By understanding the unique characteristics and needs of bicyclists, a facility designer can provide quality facilities and minimize user risk.

Bicycle as a Design Vehicle
Similar to motor vehicles, bicyclists and
their bicycles exist in a variety of sizes and
configurations. These variations occur in
the types of vehicle (such as a conventional
bicycle, a recumbent bicycle or a tricycle), and
behavioral characteristics (such as the comfort
level of the bicyclist). The design of a bikeway
should consider reasonably expected bicycle
types on the facility and utilize the appropriate
dimensions.

The Bicycle Rider figure illustrates the
operating space and physical dimensions of
a typical adult bicyclist, which are the basis
for typical facility design. Bicyclists require
clear space to operate within a facility. This is
why the minimum operating width is greater
than the physical dimensions of the bicyclist.

Bicyclists prefer five feet or more operating
width, although four feet may be minimally
acceptable.

In addition to the design dimensions of a
typical bicycle, there are many other commonly
used pedal-driven cycles and accessories to
consider when planning and designing bicycle
facilities. The most common types include
tandem bicycles, recumbent bicycles, and
trailer accessories.

BICYCLE RIDER - TYPICAL DIMENSIONS

BICYCLE TYPE FEATURE TYPICAL SPEED
Upright
Adult
Bicyclist
Paved level surfacing 8-12 mph*
Crossing Intersections 10 mph
Downhill + 20 mph
Uphill 5 -12 mph
Recumbent Bicyclist Paved level surfacing 18 mph
Bicycle as Design Vehicle - Design Speed Expectations
* Typical speed for causal riders per AASHTO 2013.
601
Item # 18.
16 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021

PEDESTRIAN

FACILITIES
602
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 17 603 Item # 18.
18 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Enhancement Buffer Zone Pedestrian Through Zone Frontage Zone zone
The pedestrian through zone
is the clear area intended for
pedestrian travel. This zone
should be entirely free of
permanent and temporary
objects.

Wide through zones are needed
in downtown areas or where
pedestrian flows are high.

The frontage zone
allows pedestrians
a comfortable “shy”
distance from the
building fronts. It
provides opportunities
for window shopping, to
place signs, planters, or
chairs.

The buffer zone, also
called the furnishing
or landscaping zone,
buffers pedestrians from
the adjacent roadway,
and is also the area
where elements such
as street trees, signal
poles, signs, and other
street furniture are
properly located.

The enhancement
zone can act as
a flexible space
to further buffer
the sidewalk from
moving traffic, and
may be used for
a bike lane. Curb
extensions, cafe
seating, and/or bike
parking may occupy
this space where
appropriate.

In the enhancement
zone there should
be a 6 inch wide
curb.

Sidewalk Zones & Widths
Sidewalk zones
Sidewalks are the most fundamental element of the walking network, as they provide an area for pedestrian travel separated from vehicle traffic. Providing adequate and accessible facilities can lead to increased numbers of people walking, improved accessibility, and the creation of social space.
604
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 19 Street Classification
Enhancement
Zone/parking
lane
Buffer
Zone
Pedestrian
Through Zone
Frontage
Zone
Local Streets Varies 4 - 6 ft 6 ft N/A
Downtown and Pedestrian
Priority Areas
Varies 4 - 6 ft 12 ft 2.5 - 10 ft
Arterials and Collectors Varies 4 - 6 ft 6 - 8 ft 2.5 - 5 ft Typical Uses
• Wider sidewalks should be installed near schools, at transit stops, in downtown areas, or anywhere high concentrations of pedestrians exist.
• At transit stops, an 8 ft by 5 ft clear space is required for accessible passenger boarding/ alighting at the front door location per ADA requirements. • Sidewalks should be continuous on both sides of urban commercial streets, and should be required in areas of moderate residential density (1-4 dwelling units per acre). • When retrofitting gaps in the sidewalk network, locations near transit stops, schools, parks, public buildings, and other areas with high concentrations of pedestrians should be the highest priority.

Approximate Cost
Cost of standard sidewalks range from about
$25 per square foot for concrete sidewalk. This
cost can increase with additional right-of-way
acquisition or addition of landscaping, lighting
or other aesthetic features. As an interim
measure, an asphalt concrete path can be
placed until such time that a standard sidewalk
can be built. The cost of asphalt path can be
less than half the cost of a standard sidewalk.

Materials and Maintenance
Sidewalks are typically constructed out
of concrete and are separated from the
roadway by a curb or gutter and sometimes
a landscaped boulevard. Less expensive
walkways constructed of asphalt, crushed
stone, or other stabilized surfaces may be
appropriate. Ensure accessibility and properly
maintain all surfaces regularly. Surfaces must
be firm, stable, and slip resistant. Colored,
patterned, or stamped concrete can add
distinctive visual appeal.
605
Item # 18.
20 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Curb Ramps
Curb ramps are the design elements that allow all users to make the transition from the street to the sidewalk. A sidewalk without a curb ramp can be useless to someone in a wheelchair, forcing them back to a driveway and out into the street for access. There are a number of factors to be considered in the design and placement of curb ramps.

Curb ramps shall be located so that they do not project into vehicular traffic lanes, parking spaces, or parking access aisles. Three configurations are illustrated below. (Crosswalk spacing not to scale. For illustration purposes only) Perpendicular
Curb Ramps
(Recommended)
Parallel Curb Ramp
Diagonal Curb Ramp
Diagonal ramps shall include
a clear space of at least 48”
within the crosswalk for user
maneuverability
Typical Use
Curb ramps must be installed at all
intersections and midblock locations where
pedestrian crossings exist, as mandated by
federal legislation (1973 Rehabilitation Act and
ADA 1990). All newly constructed and altered
roadway projects must include curb ramps. In
addition, existing facilities must be upgraded to
current standards when appropriate.

The edge of an ADA compliant curb ramp shall
be marked with a tactile warning device (also
known as truncated domes) to alert people
with visual impairments to changes in the
pedestrian environment. Contrast between
the raised tactile device and the surrounding
infrastructure is important so that the change is
readily evident to partially sighted pedestrians.

These devices are most effective when
adjacent to smooth pavement so the difference
is easily detected.
606
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 21 Design Features
• The level landing at the top of a ramp shall
be at least 4 feet long and at least the
same width as the ramp itself. The slope
of the ramp shall be compliant to current
standards.
• If the ramp runs directly into a crosswalk,
the landing at the bottom will be in the
roadway.
• If the top landing is within the sidewalk
or corner area where someone in a
wheelchair may have to change direction,
the landing must be a minimum of 5’-0”
long (in the direction of the ramp run) and
at least as wide as the ramp, although a
width of 5’-0” is preferred.

Further Considerations
Where feasible, separate directional curb ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection should be provided rather than having a single ramp at a corner for both crosswalks. Although diagonal curb ramps might save money, they orient pedestrians directly into the traffic zone, which can be challenging for wheelchair users and pedestrians with visual impairment. Diagonal curb ramp configurations are not recommended.

Curb return radii meed to be considered when designing directional ramps. While curb ramps are needed for use on all types of streets, the highest priority locations are in downtown areas and on streets near transit stops, schools, parks, medical facilities, shopping areas.

Materials and Maintenance
It is critical that the interface between a curb
ramp and the street be maintained adequately.

Asphalt street sections can develop potholes at
the foot of the ramp, which can catch the front
wheels of a wheelchair.

Approximate Cost
The cost is approximately $5,000-$10,000 per
curb ramp depending on drainage and right-ofway.
607
Item # 18.
22 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021

CLASS I
BIKEWAYS:

BIKE PATHS
608
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 23 609 Item # 18.
24 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 A
B
Class I Bikeway: Shared Use Path
Typical Use
• In waterway corridors, such as along
canals, drainage ditches, rivers, and creeks.
• In abandoned rail corridors (commonly
referred to as Rails-to-Trails or Rail-Trails.
• In active rail corridors, trails can be built
adjacent to active railroads (referred to as
Rails-with-Trails.
• In utility corridors, such as powerline and
sewer corridors.
• Along roadways.

A shared use path provides a travel area separate from motorized traffic for bicyclists, pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other users. Shared use paths are desirable for bicyclists of all skill levels preferring separation from traffic. Bicycle paths should generally provide directional travel opportunities not provided by existing roadways. Most shared use paths are designed for two-way travel.
610
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 25 B
Design Features
• 12 ft is recommended for heavy use
situations with high concentrations
of multiple users. A separate track (5’
minimum) can be provided for pedestrian
use.
• 10 ft is recommended in most situations
and will be adequate for moderate to heavy
use.
• 8 ft is the minimum width (with 2’ ft
shoulders) allowed for a two-way bicycle
path and is only recommended for low
traffic situations. (Caltrans Design Manual)
Lateral Clearance
• A 2 ft or greater shoulder on both sides of
the path should be provided. An additional
ft of lateral clearance (total of 3’) is required
by the CAMUTCD for the installation of
signage or other furnishings.

Overhead Clearance
» Clearance to overhead obstructions should
be 8 ft minimum, with 10 ft recommended.

Striping
» When striping is required, use a 4 inch
dashed yellow centerline stripe with 4 inch
solid white edge lines.
» Solid centerlines can be provided on tight
or blind corners and transitions, and on the
approaches to roadway crossings.

Further Considerations
Under most conditions, centerline markings
are not necessary. Centerline markings should
only be used if necessary for clarifying user
positioning or preferred operating procedure:

Solid line = No Passing; Dashed line = Lane
placement
Paths with a high volume of bidirectional traffic
should include a centerline. This can help
communicate that users should expect traffic in
both directions and encourage users to travel
on the right and pass on the left.

Where there is a sharp blind curve, painting a
solid yellow line with directional arrows reduces
the risk of head-on collisions.

Small scale signs should be used in path
environments (CAMUTCD 9B.02).

Terminate the path where it is easily accessible
to and from the street system, preferably at
a trailhead, controlled intersection or at the
beginning of a dead-end street.

Use of bollards should be avoided when
possible. If bollards are used at intersections
and access points, they should be colored
brightly and/or supplemented with reflective
materials to be visible at night.

A
611
Item # 18.
26 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Shared Use Paths along Levees
Typical Application
Along levees.

Design Features
Shared use paths adjacent to levees or
waterways should meet or exceed general
design practices. If additional width allows,
wider paths and landscaping are desirable.

Where the path is adjacent to levees, ditches,
or slopes steeper than 1 vertical :3 horizontal
(1:3), a wider separation should be considered.

A 5-foot separation from the edge of the path
to the top of slope is desirable under these
circumstances. Where a slope of 1:2 or greater
exists within 5 feet of a path and the fill is
greater than 10 feet, a physical barrier such as
dense shrubbery, railing, or chain link fence
should be provided along the top of slope.

Access to a trail on top of a levee would likely
require ramps or boardwalk to provide ADA
compliance.

Public access to levees may be undesirable.

Hazardous materials, deep water or swift
current, steep, slippery slopes, and debris
all may constitute risks for public access.

Appropriate fencing may be desired to keep
path users within the designated travel way.

Creative design of fencing is encouraged to
make the path facility feel welcoming to the
user.

Any access point to the path should be welldefined with appropriate signage designating the pathway as a bicycle facility and prohibiting
motor vehicles.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 27 Typical Application
Along flood control channels such as ditches
and drains.

Design Features
Shared use paths adjacent to waterways should
meet or exceed general design practices.

If additional width allows, wider paths and
landscaping are desirable.

Public access to flood control channels may
be undesirable. Hazardous materials, deep
water or swift current, steep, slippery slopes,
and debris all may constitute risks for public
access. Appropriate fencing may be desired to
keep path users within the designated travel
way. Creative design of fencing is encouraged
to make the path facility feel welcoming to the
user.

Any access point to the path should be welldefined with appropriate signage designating the pathway as a bicycle facility and prohibiting
motor vehicles.

Further Considerations
It is not desirable to place the pathway in a
narrow corridor between two fences for long
distances, as this creates personal security
issues, prevents users who need help from
being seen, prevents path users from leaving
the path in an emergency, and impedes
emergency response. (AASHTO Bike Guide
p.5-6)
Public access to the shared use path may be
prohibited during the following events:
• Flood control channel maintenance
activities
• Inclement weather or the prediction of
storm conditions
Shared Use Paths along
Ditches & Drains
The corridors created by ditches and drains offer excellent shared use path development and bikeway gap closure opportunities. They are typically long and linear in nature and can generally offer a continuous pathway with few conflicts with other transportation modes.
613
Item # 18.
28 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Bollard Alternatives
Bollards are physical barriers designed to restrict motor vehicle access to the multiuse path. Unfortunately, physical barriers are often ineffective at preventing access, and create obstacles to legitimate trail users. Alternative design strategies use signage, landscaping and curb cut design to reduce the likelihood of motor vehicle access.

Design Features
“No Motor Vehicles” signage (R5-3) may
be used to reinforce access rules.

At intersections, split the path tread
into two sections separated by low
landscaping.

Vertical curb cuts should be used to
discourage motor vehicle access.

Low landscaping preserves visibility and
emergency access.

Typical Application
• Bollards or other barriers should not be
used unless there is a documented history
of unauthorized intrusion by motor vehicles.
• If unauthorized use persists, assess
whether the problems posed by
unauthorized access exceed the risks
and issues posed by bollards and other
barriers.

A
A
B
C
D
B
C
D
614
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 29 Screening/Barrier Separation Types
Urban trails typically transverse through a range of channel configurations, path types, and adjacent land uses. As a result, a toolkit of options is required in order to apply appropriate edge conditions to the unique circumstances along the path. Edge conditions comprise the range of treatments used to transition from the path of travel to space adjacent to the path. Edge conditions include shoulder buffers, screening, barriers, railing, and other visual and tactile cues to indicate the path of travel.¹ These treatments keep users from venturing off the path, protect users from hazards, delineate the path of travel where users are separated by direction, mode or speed, and enhance the comfort and attractiveness of the pathway.

Design Features
Shoulders should be a minimum of 2 feet
wide 3 feet preferred) and constructed of the
same material as the path or another durable
surface.2 Shoulders should be sloped at 2%
to 5% away to reduce ponding and minimize
debris on the path.2 Three feet minimum is
required where signage or other furnishings
will be installed.3 A shoulder of at least 1 foot
should be provided between the path and any
fencing or barrier. Where the shoulder serves
as a pedestrian path, a maximum cross slope
of 2% is required to remain compliant with ADA
regulations.

BARRIERS AND RAILINGS
Fences, walls, and railings will likely be a
recurring element along the path to provide
separation between the path and the channel
edge, rail lines, and private property. In some
areas, railings and/ or security fences will be
on both sides of the path. For overcrossing
structures, barrier and fence types are
prescribed by Caltrans (e.g. Type 26 and Type
732 barriers)2.

LA RIVER PATH

BARRIER

SHADE SHELTER AND BARRIER

LA RIVER PATH

RAILING

VERTICAL WALL

LA RIVER PATH

GREEN SCREEN
615
Item # 18.
30 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Ramps
Many urban trails with connections to the on-street network feature extensive vertical transitions and ramping due to the existing conditions of the corridor. A common example is having to pass over/ under an existing road or to ramp over adjacent rail lines to connect to an access point. At other locations it may be necessary to ramp up or down depending on the presence of physical obstacles, such as utility towers or existing structures. Vertical transitions are also necessary to satisfy minimum vertical clearance requirements for overcrossings and undercrossings.
2% MAX

4.8% MAX
30”

BARRIER

CHANNEL WALL

RAILING

LANDING
REQUIRED EVERY 30” OF RISE
WHEN SLOPE >5%
GRADE

4.8% MAX
<3% PREFERRED

CROSS-SLOPE
2% MAX

1.5% PREFERRED
Design Features
The complexity of ramp design and
construction will vary depending on the grade
change, physical location of access points, the
scale and orientation of path connectors, the
proximity to competing structures (horizontal
and vertical clearances), and budget. Compact
ramp designs feature both horizontal and
vertical transitions to facilitate comfortable
transitions in constrained spaces. These
include U-, S-, or Z-shaped ramps and spiraled
ramps.

SLOPE/GRADE
Running slopes under 5% are typically
employed along pathways as they do not
qualify as a ramp and therefore are not subject
to the ramp requirements set forth by ADAAG.

Slopes of 4.8% are generally employed to
account for inconsistencies in the construction
process and ensure slopes do not exceed 5%.

For ramps, the Slope Bandwidth formula1 can
be used to evaluate the relationship between
factors such as average slope, elevation
change, wind level, and user comfort. It is
assumed that the longer and steeper a ramp,
the more difficult path users will find it to
traverse. A cross slope of 1.5% is preferred for
drainage and accessibility, but may go up to 2%
in constrained conditions.
616
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 31 4 0
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 FEET

HEIGHT DIFFERENCE
GRADE
Low value Z=0.100(ft)
when more windy or when
more comfort is desired
Extreme Value Z=0.656(ft)
when less windy or where user
comfort is less important
Target Value Z=0.246(ft) EXAMPLE
for normal circumstances
However, the average slope of a ramp impacts
user comfort significantly more than ramp
length. The difficulty the user experiences
while using a ramp can be calculated as the
square of the average slope multiplied by its
length, formulated as:

Z = (H/L)2 x L = H2/L
or as the square of the height difference
divided by its length, formulated as:

G = H/L = Z/H
where H = elevation change, L = length,
G = average slope, Z = difficulty for users.

The Slope Bandwidth graph shows that
target ramp slopes that are believed to be
comfortable for the average person bicycling
should be between 1.75% and 7.5%. The lower
limit slope is between 1.25% and 6.67% and the
upper limit maximum slope is 10%. The steeper
the slope, the shorter the distance it may be
employed to maintain the same relative level of
ease or difficulty to the user.
1 Dutch Design Manual for Bicycle and
Pedestrian Bridges ipv Delft, 2015
Additional Resources
Caltrans HDM, 200, 300
UPRR and BNSF Guidelines for Railroad
Grade Separation Projects, 4, 5
SCRRA Grade Separation Guidelines, 7
617
Item # 18.
32 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021

ACCESS RAMP

REGULATORY SIGNAGE

BARRIER

LA RIVER PATH

MIXING ZONE /

OPTICAL SPEED BARS

ACTIVE RAIL

PAVEMENT MARKINGS

CHANNEL WALL

RAILING
Design Features

TYPOLOGY TRANSITIONS
Design elements used to alert path users
include pavement markings such as optical
speed bars, zebra stripe crosswalks with yield/
stop markings, and “LOOK” legends and
arrows. Other visual indications include bike
and pedestrian directional markings, centerlane
striping, and the use of colored pavement
to visually narrow or indicate a change in
environment.

Tactile indications include speed humps, tactile
speed bars, and the use of multiple surface
types, such as concrete, asphalt, and pavers.

Milpitas City CouncilMay 17, 2022

Milpitas City Council
May 17, 2022