Milpitas City Council
May 17, 2022

Path Transitions
Transitions occur where the path meets a roadway or railway, where one path typology meets another, such as when an elevated path transitions into an atgrade path or where separated path segments transition into shared environments.

Transitions may also include horizontal shifts to avoid physical obstacles such as utility towers or other structures.

Advisory, regulatory, and/or wayfinding signage
are should be considered at transition points.

Physical treatments to alert and guide path
users include traffic calming measures such as
vertical and horizontal deflection.

Path lllumination is an important design
element that must be considered along the
path, but is especially important in transition
zones.
618
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 33

OPTICAL SPEED BARS

LA RIVER PATH

BARRIER

CHARACTER OF

PLACE ELEMENTS

SEPARATION

OF MODES

CHANNEL WALL

ACTIVE RAIL

MIXING ZONES
Mixing zones are necessary where physical
space constraints do not allow for separated
modes, or at locations along the path where a
high level of cross-traffic is expected. Mixing
zones need to provide clear indication to all
users that a transition is occurring in advance
of the change, so that path users can adjust
their speeds and awareness appropriately to
proceed carefully into the mixing zone (see
Path Fundamentals: Sight Distances).

Advanced warning can be accomplished with
advisory signage, pavement markings, and
the use of contrasting surface treatments (e.g.
pavers/inlays with contrasting tones/textures,
striping, or a combination of these treatments).

These design elements help to guide path
users safely through the mixing zone by
alerting users to the change in conditions and
thus reducing the speed differential.
619
Item # 18.

CLASS II BIKEWAYS:

BIKE LANES
34 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 620 Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 35 621 Item # 18.
36 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Class II Bikeways: Bicycle Lanes
On-street bike lanes (Class II Bikeways) designate an exclusive space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and signs. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or parking lane.

Typical Use
• Bike lanes may be used on any street with
adequate space, but are most effective
on streets with moderate traffic volumes ≥
6,000 ADT (≥ 3,000 preferred).
• Bike lanes are most appropriate on streets
with lower to moderate speeds ≥ 25 mph.
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most
streets.
• May be appropriate for children when
configured as 6+ ft wide lanes on lowerspeed, lower-volume streets with one lane in each direction.

Design Features
• Mark inside line with 6” stripe. (CA MUTCD
9C.04) Mark 4“ parking lane line or “Ts”.1
• Include a bicycle lane marking (CA MUTCD
Figure 9C-3) at the beginning of blocks and
at regular intervals along the route. (CA
MUTCD 9C.04)
• 6 foot width preferred adjacent to on-street
parking, (5 foot min.)
• 5–6 foot preferred adjacent to curb and
gutter (4 foot min.) or 4 feet more than the
gutter pan width.
1 Studies have shown that marking the parking lane
encourages people to park closer to the curb. FHWA.

Bicycle Countermeasure Selection System. 2006.

A
A
B
B
C
C
D
D
622
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 37 Further Considerations
On high speed streets (≥ 40 mph) the minimum
bike lane should be 6 feet. (HDM 301.2)
It may be desirable to reduce the width of
general purpose travel lanes in order to add or
widen bicycle lanes. (HDM 301.2 3)
On multi-lane streets, the most appropriate
bicycle facility to provide for user comfort
may be buffered bicycle lanes or physically
separated bicycle lanes.

MANHOLE COVERS AND GRATES:
• Manhole surfaces should be manufactured
with a shallow surface texture in the form of
a tight, nonlinear pattern
• If manholes or other utility access boxes
are to be located in bike lanes within 50 ft.
of intersections or within 20 ft. of driveways
or other bicycle access points, special
manufactured permanent nonstick surfaces
are required to ensure a controlled travel
surface for cyclists breaking or turning.
• Manholes, drainage grates, or other
obstacles should be set flush with
the paved roadway. Roadway surface
inconsistencies pose a threat to safe riding
conditions for bicyclists. Construction of
manholes, access panels or other drainage
elements should be constructed with no
variation in the surface. The maximum
allowable tolerance in vertical roadway
surface will be 1/4 of an inch.

Materials and Maintenance
Bike lane striping and markings will require
higher maintenance where vehicles frequently
traverse over them at intersections, driveways,
parking lanes, and along curved or constrained
segments of roadway.

Bike lanes should also be maintained so that
there are no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces
or debris.

Approximate Cost
The cost for installing bicycle lanes will depend
on the implementation approach. Typical costs
are $80,000 per mile for restriping bike lanes
on both sides of the road.

Standard Class II Bike Lane

PLACE BIKE LANE SYMBOLS TO REDUCE
WEAR

EFFECTIVE RADIUS
Bike lane word, symbol, and/or arrow markings
(CAMUTCD Figure 9C-3) shall be placed outside of the
motor vehicle tread path in order to minimize wear
from the motor vehicle path. (NACTO 2012)
623
Item # 18.
38 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Class II Bikeways: Buffered Bicycle
Lanes
A
A
B
B
Typical Use
• Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being
considered.
• While conventional bike lanes are most
appropriate on streets with lower to
moderate speeds (≥ 25 mph), buffered bike
lanes are appropriate on streets with higher
speeds (+25mph) and high volumes or high
truck volumes (up to 6,000 ADT).
• On streets with extra lanes or lane width.
• Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most
streets.

Design Features
• The minimum bicycle travel area (not
including buffer) is 5 feet wide.
• Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If
buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron
or diagonal markings should be used. (CA
MUTCD 9C-104)
• For clarity at driveways or minor street
crossings, consider a dotted line.
• There is no standard for whether the buffer
is configured on the parking side, the travel
side, or a combination of both.

Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a striped buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.
624
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 39 Buffered bike lane transitions into dotted green and
white lane markings to indicate conflict point
The use of pavement markings delineates space for
cyclists to ride in a comfortable facility.

Further Considerations
• Color may be used within the lane to
discourage motorists from entering the
buffered lane.
• A study of buffered bicycle lanes found
that, in order to make the facilities
successful, there needs to also be driver
education, improved signage and proper
pavement markings.1
• On multi-lane streets with high vehicles
speeds, the most appropriate bicycle
facility to provide for user comfort may be
physically separated bike lanes.
• NCHRP Report #766 recommends, when
space in limited, installing a buffer space
between the parking lane and bicycle lane
where on-street parking is permitted rather
than between the bicycle lane and vehicle
travel lane.2
1 Monsere, C.; McNeil, N.; and Dill, J., “Evaluation of Innovative Bicycle Facilities: SW Broadway Cycle Track
and SW Stark/Oak Street Buffered Bike Lanes. Final
Report” (2011).Urban Studies and Planning Faculty
Publications and Presentations.
2 National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

Report #766: Recommended Bicycle Lane Widths for
Various Roadway Characteristics.

Materials and Maintenance
Bike lane striping and markings will require
higher maintenance where vehicles frequently
traverse over them at intersections, driveways,
parking lanes, and along curved or constrained
segments of roadway.

Bike lanes should be maintained so that there
are no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or
debris.

Approximate Cost
The cost for installing buffered bicycle lanes
will depend on the implementation approach.

Typical costs are a $80,000 to $425,000 per
mile. However, the cost of large-scale bicycle
treatments will vary greatly due to differences
in project specifications and the scale and
length of the treatment.
625
Item # 18.
40 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 CLASS III BIKEWAYS:

BIKE ROUTES
626
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 41 627 Item # 18.
42 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Class III Bikeway: Bicycle Boulevard
A Bicycle Boulevard is a low-speed, low-volume roadway that has been modified, as needed, to enhance comfort and convenience for people bicycling. It provides better conditions for bicycling while maintaining the neighborhood character and neighborhood and emergency vehicle access.

Bicycle Boulevards are intended to serve as the primary low-stress bikeway network, providing direct, and convenient routes across Milpitas. Key elements of Bicycle Boulevards are unique signage and pavement markings, traffic calming and diversion features to maintain low vehicle volumes, and convenient major street crossings.

Typical Use
• Parallel with, and in close proximity to
major thoroughfares (1/4 mile or less) on
low-volume, low-speed streets.
• Follow a desire line for bicycle travel that is
ideally long and relatively continuous (2-5
miles).
• Avoid alignments with excessive zigzag
or circuitous routing. The bikeway should
have less than 10% out of direction travel
compared to shortest path of primary
corridor.
• Local streets with traffic volumes of
fewer than 1,500 vehicles per day. Utilize
traffic calming to maintain or establish
low volumes and discourage vehicle cut
through / speeding.
628
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 43 Design Features
» Signs and pavement markings are
the minimum treatments necessary to
designate a street as a bicycle boulevard.
» Implement volume control treatments
based on the context of the bicycle
boulevard, using engineering judgment.

Motor vehicle volumes should not exceed
1,500 vehicles per day.
» Intersection crossings should be designed
to enhance comfort and minimize delay
for bicyclists, following crossing treatment
progression to achieve Level of Traffic
Stress 1 or 2.

Further Considerations
» Bicycle boulevards are established on
streets that improve connectivity to
key destinations and provide a direct,
low-stress route for bicyclists, with low
motorized traffic volumes and speeds,
designated and designed to give bicycle
travel priority over other modes.
» Bicycle boulevard retrofits to local streets
are typically located on streets without
existing signalized accommodation
at crossings of collector and arterial
roadways. Without treatments for bicyclists,
these intersections can become major
barriers along the bicycle boulevard.
» Traffic calming can deter motorists from
driving on a street. Anticipate and monitor
vehicle volumes on adjacent streets to
determine whether traffic calming results in
inappropriate volumes. Traffic calming can
be implemented on a trial basis.

Materials and Maintenance
Bicycle boulevards require few additional
maintenance requirements to local roadways.

Signage, signals, and other traffic calming
elements should be inspected and maintained
according to local standards.

Approximate Cost
Costs vary depending on the type of
treatments proposed for the corridor. Simple
treatments such as wayfinding signage and
markings are most cost-effective, but more
intensive treatments will have greater impact
at lowering speeds and volumes, at higher
cost. Costs can range from $75,000/mile on
the simple end to $140,000/mile for significant
horizontal deflection and diversion.
629
Item # 18.
44 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Class III Bikeway: Traffic Calming
Application
• Neighborhood bikeways should have
a maximum posted speed of 25 mph.

Use traffic calming to maintain an 85th
percentile speed below 22 mph.
• Maintain a minimum clear width of 14 feet
with a constricted length of at least 20 feet
in the direction of travel.
• Horizontal speed control measures should
not infringe on bicycle space. Where
possible, provide a bicycle route outside of
the element so bicyclists can avoid having
to merge into traffic at a narrow pinch point.
• Horizontal traffic calming devices cause
drivers to slow down by constricting the
roadway space or by requiring careful
maneuvering. Such measures may reduce
the design speed of a street, and can be
used in conjunction with reduced speed
limits to reinforce the expectation of
lowered speeds.

Design Features

VERTICAL TRAFFIC CALMING
• Speed humps are raised areas usually
placed in a series across both travel
lanes. A 14’ long hump reduces impacts
to emergency vehicles. Speed humps can
be challenging for bicyclists, gaps can be
provided in the center or by the curb for
bicyclists and to improve drainage. Speed
humps can also be offset to accommodate
emergency vehicles.
• Speed lumps or cushions have gaps
to accommodate the wheel tracks of
emergency vehicles.
• Speed tables are longer than speed humps
and flat-topped. Raised crosswalks are
speed tables that are marked and signed
for a pedestrian crossing.
• For all vertical traffic calming, slopes should
not exceed 1:10 or be less steep than 1:25.

Tapers should be no greater than 1:6 to
reduce the risk of bicyclists losing their
balance. The vertical lip should be no more
than a 1/4” high.

Traffic calming devices cause drivers to slow down by constricting the roadway space or by requiring careful maneuvering. Such measures may reduce the design speed of a street, and can be used in conjunction with reduced speed limits to reinforce the expectation of lowered speeds. 630
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 45

HORIZONTAL TRAFFIC CALMING
• Maintain a minimum clear width of 20 feet
(or 28 feet with parking on both sides), with
a constricted length of at least 20 feet in
the direction of travel.
• Chicanes are a series of raised or
delineated curb extensions, edge islands,
or parking bays on alternating sides of
a street forming an “S”-shaped curb,
which reduce vehicle speeds by requiring
motorists to shift laterally through narrowed
travel lanes.
• Pinchponts are curb extensions placed
on both sides of the street, narrowing
the travel lane and encouraging all road
users to slow down. When placed at
intersections, pinchpoints are known
as chokers or neckdowns. They reduce
curb radii and further lower motor vehicle
speeds.
• Traffic circles are raised or delineated
islands placed at intersections that reduce
vehicle speeds by narrowing turning radii
and the travel lane. Traffic circles can also
include a paved apron to accommodate
the turning radii of larger vehicles like fire
trucks or school buses.

Further Consideration
• Benefits of speed management include:
• Improves conditions for bicyclists,
pedestrians, and residents along the
neighborhood bikeway.
• Reduced travel speeds decrease the
number of passing events between
bicyclists and motor vehicles, reducing
exposure risks.
• Reduced travel speeds result in reduced
injury severity in the event of a collision.
• Emergency vehicle response times should
be considered where vertical deflection
is used. Because emergency vehicles
have a wider wheel base than passenger
cars, speed lumps/cushions allow them to
pass unimpeded while slowing most other
traffic.

References
AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2011). Impact Speed and A Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death.

AASHTO. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

IBPI. Bicycle Boulevard Planning and Design Handbook.
2009.

BikeSafe. Bicycle countermeasure selection system.

Ewing, Reid. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. 1999.

Ewing, Reid and Brown, Steven. U.S. Traffic Calming
Manual. 2009.

Litman, T. (1999). Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs, and Equity Impacts.

NACTO. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

VanZerr, M. (2009). Resident Perceptions of Bicycle
Boulevards: A Portland, Oregon Case Study.

Speed hump with traffic circle sign.
631
Item # 18.
46 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Class III Bikeway: Shared Lane Markings
Shared Lane Marking (SLM) or “Sharrow” stencils are used in California as an additional treatment for Bike Route facilities and are currently approved in conjunction with on-street parking. The CA MUTCD approved pavement marking can serve a number of purposes, such as making motorists aware of the need to share the road with bicyclists, showing bicyclists the direction of travel, and, with proper placement, reminding bicyclists to bike further from parked cars to prevent collisions with drivers opening car doors.

Typical Use
• Shared Lane Markings are not appropriate
on paved shoulders or in bike lanes, and
should not be used on roadways that have
a posted speed greater than 35 mph.
• Shared Lane Markings should be
implemented in conjunction with BIKES
MAY USE FULL LANE signs (R4-11).

Design Features
• Placement in the center of the travel lane is
preferred in constrained conditions.
• Markings should be placed immediately
after intersections and spaced at 250 foot
intervals thereafter.
• When placed adjacent to parking, markings
should be outside of the “door zone”.

Minimum placement is 11 feet from the curb
face.

A
A
CA MUTCD R4-11
(optional)
CA MUTCD D11-1
(optional)
CA MUTCD R117
(optional)
632
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 47 Further Considerations
Consider modifications to signal timing to
induce a bicycle-friendly travel speed for all
users.

Though not always possible, placing the
markings outside of vehicle tire tracks will
increase the life of the markings and the longterm cost of the treatment.

A green thermoplastic background can be
applied to further increase the visibility of the
shared lane marking.

A “Pass Bicycle 3 FT MIN” sign (R117(CA)) can
be installed to indicate to drivers the required
passing distance per California Vehicle Code
section 21760.

Materials and Maintenance
Shared lane markings should be inspected
annually and maintained accordingly, especially
if located on roadways that feature high vehicle
turning movements, or bus, or truck traffic.

They can be placed in the center of the lane of
travel to reduce wear from vehicles.

Approximate Cost
Sharrows typically cost $200 per each marker
for a lane-mile cost of $4,200, assuming the CA
MUTCD guidance of sharrow placement every
250 feet in each direction.

Sharrows also serve as positional guidance and raise bicycle awareness where there isn’t space to accommodate a full-width bike lane. Center lane markings may or may not be necessary depending on travel lane widths. Narrower two way residential streets (less than 22 ft between parked cars) have a natural traffic calming effect without center turn lanes. 633
Item # 18.
48 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 CLASS IV BIKEWAYS:

PROTECTED BIKE
LANES
634
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 49 635
Item # 18.
50 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Design Features
• Pavement markings, symbols and/or arrow
markings must be placed at the beginning
of the separated bikeway and at intervals
along the facility based on engineering
judgment to define the bike direction. (CA
MUTCD 9C.04)
• 7 foot width preferred in areas with high
bicycle volumes or uphill sections to
facilitate safe passing behavior (5 foot
minimum). (HDM 1003.1(1))
• 3 foot minimum buffer width adjacent
to parking lines (2 foot minimum when
adjacent to travel lanes), marked with 2
solid white (DIB 89, 2015).

Typical Use
• Along streets on which conventional bicycle
lanes would cause many bicyclists to feel
stress because of factors such as multiple
lanes, high bicycle volumes, high motor
traffic volumes (9,000-30,000 ADT), higher
traffic speeds (25+ mph), high incidence of
double parking, higher truck traffic (10% of
total ADT) and high parking turnover.
• Along streets for which conflicts at
intersections can be effectively mitigated
using parking lane setbacks, bicycle
markings through the intersection, and
other signalized intersection treatments.

A
B
C
A
B
C
Class IV Bikeway: One-Way Separated
One-way separated bikeways, also known as protected bikeways or cycle tracks, are on-street bikeway facilities that are separated from vehicle traffic. Physical separation is provided by a barrier between the bikeway and the vehicular travel lane. These barriers can include flexible posts, bollards, parking, planter strips, extruded curbs, or on-street parking. Separated bikeways using these barrier elements typically share the same elevation as adjacent travel lanes, but the bikeway could also be raised above street level, either below or equivalent to sidewalk level. 636
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 51 Parked cars serve as a barrier between bicyclists and the vehicle lane. Barriers could also include flexible posts, bollards, planters, or other design elements Source: Bike East Bay.

Further Considerations
Separated bikeway buffers and barriers are
covered in the CAMUTCD as preferential lane
markings (section 3D.01) and channelizing
devices (section 3H.01). If the buffer area is
4 feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal
markings should be used (section 9C.04).

Curbs may be used as a channeling device,
see the section on islands (section 3I.01).

Grade-separation provides an enhanced level
of separation in addition to buffers and other
barrier types.
• Where possible, physical barriers such
as removable curbs should be oriented
towards the inside edge of the buffer to
provide as much extra width as possible for
bicycle use.
• A retrofit separated bikeway has a relatively
low implementation cost compared to road
reconstruction by making use of existing
pavement and drainage and using a
parking lane as a barrier.
• Gutters, drainage outlets and utility covers
should be designed and configured as not
to impact bicycle travel.

For clarity at major or minor street crossings,
consider a dotted line (CA MUTCD Detail 39A
- Bike Lane Intersection Line) for the buffer
boundary where cars are expected to cross.

Approximate Cost
Separated bikeway construction costs can vary
drastically depending on the type of separation
used, the amount of new curb and gutter,
stormwater mitigation, and crossing treatments.

On the lower end of the scale, construction of
a striped parking protected bikeway without
delineators or other vertical elements can cost
as little as $250,000 to $350,000 per mile.

Materials and Maintenance
Bikeway striping and markings will require
higher maintenance where vehicles frequently
traverse over them at intersections, driveways,
parking lanes, and along curved or constrained
segments of roadway. Green conflict striping
(if used) will also generally require higher
maintenance due to vehicle wear.

Bikeways should be maintained so that there
are no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or
debris.

Access points along the facility should be
provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/
exit the separated bikeway,
• Special consideration should be given
at transit stops to manage bicycle and
pedestrian interactions. For design
guidance, refer to VTA’s Bus Stop Boarding
Islands Memo (November 2020).
637
Item # 18.
52 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Design Features
• 12 foot operating width preferred (10 ft
minimum) width for two-way facility.
• In constrained locations an 8 foot minimum
operating width may be considered (HDM
1003.1(1)).
• Adjacent to on-street parking a 3 foot
minimum width channelized buffer or
island shall be provided to accommodate
opening doors (NACTO, 2012) (CA MUTCD
3H.01, 3I.01).
• A separation narrower than 5 feet may be
permitted if a physical barrier is present.
(AASHTO, 2013)
Typical Use
• Works best on the left side of one-way
streets.
• Streets with high motor vehicle volumes
and/or speeds
• Streets with high bicycle volumes.
• Streets with a high incidence of wrong-way
bicycle riding.
• Streets with few conflicts such as
driveways or cross-streets on one side of
the street.
• Streets that connect to shared use paths.

A
A
B
B
Class IV Bikeway: Two-Way Separated
Two-Way Separated Bikeways are bicycle facilities that allow bicycle movement in both directions on one side of the road. Two-way separated bikeways share some of the same design characteristics as one-way separated bikeways, but often require additional considerations at driveway and side-street crossings, and intersections with other bikeways.
638
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 53 A two-way facility can accommodate cyclists in two directions of travel.

TWO-WAY SEPARATED BIKEWAY
Further Considerations
• On-street bikeway buffers and barriers are
covered in the CA MUTCD as preferential
lane markings (section 3D.01) and
channelizing devices, including flexible
delineators (section 3H.01). Curbs may
be used as a channeling device, see the
section on islands (section 3I.01).
• A two-way separated bikeway on one way
street should be located on the left side.
• A two-way separated bikeway may be
configured at street level or as a raised
separated bikeway with vertical separation
from the adjacent travel lane.
• Two-way separated bikeways should
ideally be placed along streets with long
blocks and few driveways or mid-block
access points for motor vehicles.
• See Caltrans Design Information Bulletin
No. 89 for more details.
• Special consideration should be given
at transit stops to manage bicycle and
pedestrian interactions. For design
Materials and Maintenance
Bikeway striping and markings will require
higher maintenance where vehicles frequently
traverse over them at intersections, driveways,
parking lanes, and along curved or constrained
segments of roadway. Green conflict striping
(if used) will also generally require higher
maintenance due to vehicle wear.

Bikeways should be maintained so that there
are no pot holes, cracks, uneven surfaces or
debris.

Access points along the facility should be
provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/
exit the separated bikeway.

Approximate Cost
Separated bikway construction costs can vary
drastically depending on the type of separation
used, the amount of new curb and gutter,
stormwater mitigation, and crossing treatments.

On the lower end of the scale, construction
of a striped parking protected bikeway with
delineators or other vertical elements can cost
as little as $310,000 per mile.
• Additional signalization and signs may be
necessary to manage conflicts.
guidance, refer to VTA’s Bus Stop Boarding
Islands Memo (November 2020).
639
Item # 18.
54 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021

APPROPRIATE BARRIERS FOR

RECONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS:
• Curb separation
• Medians
• Landscaped Medians
• Raised separated bike lane with vertical or
mountable curb
• Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Typical Use

APPROPRIATE BARRIERS FOR
RETROFIT PROJECTS:
• Parked Cars
• Flexible delineators
• Bollards
• Planters
• Parking stops
Barrier Separation Media Separation
Grade Separation
Parking Separation
P
3’ Buffer and
Spatial Envelope
for Barriers
Flexible
Delineators
(10’-40’ spacing)
Raised Curb
(2’ min. width)
Optional Planting
Raised Bike
Facility
Buffered Door
Zone
(3' width
and optional
Flexible
Delineators)
Wheel Stops
(6’ spacing,
1’ from travel lane)
Planter Boxes
(Consistent
spacing)
Jersey Barriers
(consistent
spacing)
Class IV Separated Bikeway Barriers
Separated bikeways may use a variety of vertical elements to physically separate the bikeway from adjacent travel lanes. Barriers may be robust constructed elements such as curbs, or may be more interim in nature, such as flexible delineator posts. 640
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 55 Raised separated bikeway configurations around driveways and transit stops Design Features
• Maximize effective operating space by
placing curbs or delineator posts as
far from the through bikeway space as
practicable.
• Allow for adequate shy distance of 1 to 2
feet from vertical elements to maximize
useful space.
• When next to parking allow for 3 feet of
space in the buffer space to allow for
opening doors and passenger unloading.
• Parking should be prohibited within 30 feet
of the intersection to improve visibility.

Further Considerations
• Separated bikeway buffers and barriers are
covered in the CA MUTCD as preferential
lane markings (section 3D.01) and
channelizing devices (section 3H.01).

Curbs may be used as a channeling device,
see the section on islands (section 3I.01).
• With new roadway construction a raised
separated bikeway can be less expensive
to construct than a wide or buffered bicycle
lane because of shallower trenching and
sub base requirements.
• The presences of landscaping in medians,
planters and safety islands increases
comfort for users and enhances the
streetscape environment.

Approximate Cost
Separated bikeway barrier material costs can
vary greatly, depending on the type of material,
the scale, and whether it is part of a broader
construction project.

Materials and Maintenance
Separated bikeways protected by concrete
islands or other permanent physical separation,
can be swept by smaller street sweeper
vehicles.

Access points along the facility should be
provided for street sweeper vehicles to enter/
exit the separated bikeway.
641
Item # 18.
56 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021

SUPPORTING

FACILITIES
642
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 57 643 Item # 18.
58 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Bike Parking
Typical Application
• Bike racks provide short-term bicycle
parking and is meant to accommodate
visitors, customers, and others expected
to depart within two hours. It should be
an approved standard rack, appropriate
location and placement, and weather
protection.
• On-street bike corrals (also known as onstreet bicycle parking) consist of bicycle racks grouped together in a common area
within the street traditionally used for
automobile parking. Bicycle corrals are
reserved exclusively for bicycle parking and
provide a relatively inexpensive solution
to providing high-volume bicycle parking.

Bicycle corrals can be implemented by
converting one or two on-street motor
vehicle parking spaces into on-street
bicycle parking. Each motor vehicle parking
space can be replaced with approximately
6-10 bicycle parking spaces.
• Bicycle lockers are intended to provide
long-term bicycle storage for employees,
students, residents, commuters, and others
expected to park more than two hours.

Long-term facilities protect the entire
bicycle, its components and accessories
against theft and against inclement
weather, including snow and wind-driven
rain.
• A Secure parking Area for bicycles,
also known as a BikeSPA or Bike & Ride
(when located at transit stations), is a
semi-enclosed space that offers a higher
level of security than ordinary bike racks.

Accessible via key-card, combination locks,
or keys, BikeSPAs provide high-capacity
parking for 10 to 100 or more bicycles.

Increased security measures create
an additional transportation option for
those whose biggest concern is theft and
vulnerability.

Bicyclists expect a safe, convenient place to secure their bicycle when they reach their destination. This may be short-term parking of 2 hours or less, or long-term parking for employees, students, residents, and commuters. 644
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 59 Design Features

BIKE RACKS
• 2 feet minimum from the curb face to avoid
‘dooring.’
• 4 feet between racks to provide
maneuvering room.
• Locate close to destinations; 50 feet
maximum distance from main building
entrance.
• Minimum clear distance of 6 feet should be
provided between the bicycle rack and the
property line.

BIKE CORRALS
• Bicyclists should have an entrance width
from the roadway of 5-6 feet.
• Can be used with parallel or angled
parking.
• Parking stalls adjacent to curb extensions
are good candidates for bicycle corrals
since the concrete extension serves as
delimitation on one side.

BIKE LOCKERS
• Minimum dimensions: width (opening) 2.5
feet; height 4 feet; depth 6 feet.
• 4 foot side clearance and 6 foot end
clearance.
• 7 foot minimum distance between facing
lockers.

SECURE PARKING AREA
• Closed-circuit television monitoring with
secure access for users.
• Double high racks & cargo bike spaces.
• Bike repair station with bench and bike
tube and maintenance item vending
machine.
• Bike lock “hitching post” – allows people to
leave bike locks.

Construction Costs
Costs can vary based on the design and
materials used. Bicycle rack costs can range
from approximately $60 to $3,600, depending
on design and materials used. On average the
cost is approximately $660. Bicycle lockers
costs range from $1,280 to $2,680, and secure
parking areas are approximately $250,000
Bike Racks and Bike Lockers Secure Parking Area
645
Item # 18.
60 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Wayfinding Sign Types
The ability to navigate through a city is informed by landmarks, natural features and other visual cues. Signs throughout the city should indicate to bicyclists the direction of travel, the locations of destinations and the travel time/distance to those destinations. A bicycle wayfinding system consists of comprehensive signing and/or pavement markings to guide bicyclists to their destinations along preferred bicycle routes.

Typical Application
• Wayfinding signs will increase users’
comfort and accessibility to the bicycle
systems.
• Signage can serve both wayfinding and
safety purposes including:
• Helping to familiarize users with the bicycle
network
• Helping users identify the best routes to
destinations
• Helping to address misperceptions about
time and distance
• Helping overcome a “barrier to entry” for
people who are not frequent bicyclists (e.g.,
“interested but concerned” bicyclists)
Design Features
• Confirmation signs indicate to bicyclists
that they are on a designated bikeway.

Make motorists aware of the bicycle route.

Can include destinations and distance/time
but do not include arrows.
• Turn signs indicate where a bikeway turns
from one street onto another street. These
can be used with pavement markings and
include destinations and arrows.
• Decisions signs indicate the junction of two
or more bikeways and inform bicyclists of
the designated bike route to access key
destinations. These include destinations,
arrows and distances. Travel times are
optional but recommended.

Further Considerations
• Bicycle wayfinding signs also visually cue
motorists that they are driving along a
bicycle route and should use caution. Signs
are typically placed at key locations leading
to and along bicycle routes, including the
intersection of multiple routes.
• Too many road signs tend to clutter the
right-of-way, and it is recommended that
these signs be posted at a level most
visible to bicyclists rather than per vehicle
signage standards.
• A community-wide bicycle wayfinding
signage plan would identify:
• Sign locations
• Sign type – what information should be
included and design features
• Destinations to be highlighted on each sign
– key destinations for bicyclists
• Approximate distance and travel time to
each destination
646
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 61 • Green is the color used for directional
guidance and is the most common color
of bicycle wayfinding signage in the US,
including those in the CAMUTCD.
• Check wayfinding signage along bikeways
for signs of vandalism, graffiti, or normal
wear and replace signage along the
bikeway network as-needed.

Approximate Cost
Trail wayfinding signs range from $500-$2000.
10’
11’
12’
9’
8’
7’
6’
5’
4’
3’
2’
1’

TRAIL NAME
TRAIL
NAME
!! Transit Stations
Bus Station
Schools
Hospital
Destinations Points of Interest

PARKS AND RECREATION

CIVIC FACILITIES

NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
Trailhead
Kiosk
Secondary Access
Signage
Pavement
Marking
Mile
Marker
Rec
Tra
Decision
Sign
Turn
Sign
Confirmation
Sign

CITY NAME
Destination 1
Destination 3
Destination 2

TRAIL NAME

1.0 MILE
647
Item # 18.
62 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021

ENHANCED

CROSSING

TREATMENTS
648
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 63 649 Item # 18.
64 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Marked Crosswalks
A marked crosswalk signals to motorists that they must stop for pedestrians and encourages pedestrians to cross at designated locations. Installing crosswalks alone will not necessarily make crossings safer especially on multi-lane roadways. At midblock locations, crosswalks can be marked where there is a demand for crossing and there are no nearby marked crosswalks.

Typical Application
All crosswalks should be marked at controlled
intersections. At uncontrolled intersections,
crosswalks should be marked under the
following conditions:
• At a complex intersection, to orient
pedestrians in finding their way across.
• At an offset intersection, to show
pedestrians the shortest route across traffic
with the least exposure to vehicular traffic
and traffic conflicts.
• At an intersection with visibility constraints,
to position pedestrians where they can
best be seen by oncoming traffic.
• At an intersection within a school zone on a
walking route.

Design Features
• The crosswalk should be located to align
as closely as possible with the through
pedestrian zone of the sidewalk corridor
• The 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 ramp shall slope no more than 8.33%,
with a maximum cross slope of 2.0%.
• If the ramp runs directly into a crosswalk,
the landing at the bottom will be in the
roadway.
• If the ramp lands on a dropped landing
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 and at least as wide
as the ramp itself.
650
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 65 Further Considerations
Continental crosswalk markings should be
used at crossings with high pedestrian use or
where vulnerable pedestrians are expected,
including: school crossings, across arterial
streets for pedestrian-only signals, at mid-block
crosswalks, and at intersections where there is
expected high pedestrian use and the crossing
is not controlled by signals or stop signs. Highvisibility crosswalks are not appropriate for all locations. See intersection signalization for a
discussion of enhancing pedestrian crossings.

Because the effectiveness of marked crossings
depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining
marked crossings should be a high priority.

Thermoplastic markings offer increased
durability than conventional paint.
in order to require a three-stage pedestrian
crossing. Intersections with three-stage
crossings lead to arduous and increased
crossing distances, pedestrian frustration,
encourages jaywalking, and exhibits modal bias
favoring motor vehicle level-of-service over
other modes.

Approximate Cost
Standard transverse marked crosswalks range
from approximately $1,500 to $3000 per
intersection leg. High-visibility crosswalks, such
as Continental-style crossings, can range from
$2,500 to $5,000 per intersection leg
651
Item # 18.
66 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Curb Extensions
Curb extensions minimize pedestrian exposure during crossing by shortening crossing distance and giving pedestrians a better chance to see and be seen before committing to crossing.

Typical Application
• Within parking lanes appropriate for any
crosswalk where it is desirable to shorten
the crossing distance and there is a parking
lane adjacent to the curb.
• May be possible within non-travel areas on
roadways with excess space.
• Particularly helpful at midblock crossing
locations.
• Curb extensions should not impede bicycle
travel in the absence of a bike lane.

Design Features
• For purposes of efficient street sweeping,
the minimum radius for the reverse curves
of the transition is 10 ft and the two radii
should be balanced to be nearly equal.
• When a bike lane is present, the curb
extensions should terminate one foot short
of the parking lane to maximize bicyclist
safety.
• Reduces pedestrian crossing distance by
6-8 ft.
• Planted curb extensions may be designed
as a bioswale for stormwater management.

Approximate Cost
The cost of a curb extension can range from
$10,000 to $40,000 depending on the design
and site condition, with the typical cost
approximately $13,000. .
652
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 67 Typical Use
• Refuge islands an be applied on any
roadway with a left turn center lane
or median that is at least 6’ wide (to
accommodate wheelchair users) and at least
20’ long (40’ minimum preferred). Islands
are appropriate at signalized or unsignalized
crosswalks.
• The refuge island must be accessible,
preferably with an at-grade passage
through the island rather than ramps and
landings.
• Provide double centerline marking,
reflectors, and “KEEP RIGHT” signage (CA
MUTCD R4-7a) in the island on streets with
posted speeds above 25 mph.

Materials and Maintenance
Refuge islands may require frequent
maintenance of road debris. Trees and
plantings in a landscaped median must be
maintained so as not to impair visibility, and
should be no higher than 1 foot 6 inches.

W11-2,
W16-7P
Median Refuge Islands
Median refuge islands are located at the mid-point of a marked crossing and help improve pedestrian access by increasing pedestrian visibility and allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Refuge islands minimize pedestrian exposure at mid-block crossings by shortening the crossing distance and increasing the number of available gaps for crossing.

Cut-through median refuge
islands are preferred over curb
ramps to better accommodate
wheel chairs users.

Approximate Cost
The approximate cost to install a median refuge
island ranges from $10,00 to $40,000, depending
on the design, site conditions, landscaping, and
whether the median can be added as a part of
a larger street reconstruction project or utility
upgrade.

Design Features
• Median refuge islands can be installed
on roadways with existing medians or on
multi-lane roadways where adequate space
exists
• Median Refuge Islands should always be
paired with crosswalks, and should include
advance pedestrian warning signage when
installed at uncontrolled crossings.
• On multi-lane roadways, consider
configuration with active warning beacons
for improved yielding compliance.
653
Item # 18.
68 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Materials and Maintenance
RRFBs should be regularly maintained to ensure
that all lights and detection hardware are
functional.

Typical Use
RRFBs are typically activated by pedestrians
manually with a push button, or can be actuated
automatically with passive detection systems.

RRFBs shall not be used at crosswalks controlled
by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic control
signals.

RRFBs shall initiate operation based on user
actuation and shall cease operation at a
predetermined time after the user actuation or,
with passive detection, after the user clears the
crosswalk.

Providing secondary installations
of RRFBs on median islands
improves driver yielding behavior W11-2,
W16-7P
Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons
(RRFB) dramatically increase
compliance over conventional
warning beacons
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFB)
Design Features
Guidance for marked/unsignalized crossings
applies.
• A study of the effectiveness of going from
a no-beacon arrangement to a two-beacon
RRFB installation increased yielding from
18 percent to 81 percent. A four-beacon
arrangement raised compliance to 88%.

Additional studies of long term installations
show little to no decrease in yielding
behavior over time.
• See FHWA Interim Approval 21 (IA-21) for
more information on device application
standards.

Approximate Cost
RRFBs range in price from $14,000 to $50,000
for a solar powered unit depending on the
location, width of the road and other factors.

Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons (RRFB) are a type of active warning beacon used at unsignalized crossings. They are designed to increase motor vehicle yielding compliance on multi-lane or high-volume roadways. Guidance for marked/ unsignalized crossings applies.
654
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 69 Design Features
• Hybrid beacons may be installed without
meeting traffic signal control warrants if
roadway speed and volumes are excessive
for comfortable pedestrian crossings.
• If installed within a signal system, signal
engineers should evaluate the need for the
hybrid signal to be coordinated with other
signals.

HAWK beacons should be installed at least
100 feet from side streets or driveways that are
controlled by STOP or YIELD signs. Parking and
other sight obstructions should be prohibited for
at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20
feet beyond the marked crosswalk to provide
adequate sight distance. (CA MUTCD 4F)
Materials and Maintenance
Hybrid beacons are subject to the same
maintenance needs and requirements as
standard traffic signals. Signing and striping
need to be maintained to help users understand
any unfamiliar traffic control.

Further Considerations
• HAWK beacons may also be actuated by
infrared, microwave, or video detectors.
• Each crossing, regardless of traffic speed
or volume, requires additional review by a
registered engineer to identify sight lines,
potential impacts on traffic progression,
timing with adjacent signals, capacity, and
safety.
• The installation of HAWK beacons
should also include public education and
enforcement campaigns to ensure proper
use and compliance.

Typical Use
HAWK beacons are only used at marked midblock crossings or unsignalized intersections.

They are typically activated with a pedestrian
pushbutton at each end. If a median refuge
island is used at the crossing, another
pedestrian pushbutton can be located on the
island to create a two-stage crossing.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)
Approximate Cost
Hybrid beacons are more expensive than other
beacons, ranging in costs from $50,000 to
$130,000, but are generally less expensive than
full signals.

Hybrid beacons or High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) beacons are used to improve unsignalized intersections or midblock crossings of major streets. It consists of a signal head with two red lenses over a single yellow lens on the major street, and a pedestrian signal head for the crosswalk. The signal is only activated when a pedestrian and/or bicyclist is present, resulting in minimal delay for motor vehicle traffic. 655
Item # 18.
70 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Bike Detection and Actuation
Bicycle detection and actuation is used to alert the signal controller of bicycle crossing demand on a particular approach. Proper bicycle detection should meet two primary criteria: accurately detects bicyclists and provides clear guidance to bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to push, where to stand).

Typical Application
• At signalized intersections within bicycle
lanes or general purpose travel Lanes
• At signalized intersections within left turn
lanes used by bicyclists
• At signalized intersections within separated
bike lanes.
• In conjunction with active warning beacons
and pedestrian hybrid beacons.

Design Features

PUSH BUTTON ACTUATION
• User-activated button mounted on a pole
facing the street.
• The location of the device should not
require bicyclists to dismount or be
rerouted out of the way or onto the
sidewalk to activate the phase. Signage
should supplement the signal to alert
bicyclists of the required activation to
prompt the green phase.

LOOP DETECTORS
• Loop detectors are bicycle-activated and
installed within the roadway to allow the
presence of a bicycle to trigger a change in
the traffic signal. This allows the bicyclist
to stay within the lane of travel without
having to maneuver to the side of the road
to trigger a push button.
• Loops should be sensitive enough to detect
bicycles should be supplemented with
pavement markings to instruct bicyclists
how to trip them.
• The CAMUTCD provides guidance on
stencil markings and signage related to
signal detection.

VIDEO DETECTION
• Video detection systems use digital image
processing to detect a change in the
image at a location. These systems can
be calibrated to detect bicycle, although
there may be detection issues during poor
lighting and weather conditions.
• Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor
Detection (RTMS)
• RTMS is a system which uses frequency
modulated continuous wave radio signals
to detect objects in the roadway. This
method marks the detected object with a
time code to determine its distance from
the sensor.
• The RTMS system is unaffected by
temperature and lighting, which can affect
standard video detection.
656
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 71 Further Considerations
• Bicycle loops and other detection
mechanisms can also provide bicyclists
with an extended green time before the
light turns yellow so that bicyclists of
all abilities can reach the far side of the
intersection.
• User comprehension of the bicycle
detector Pavement markings is low,
although some treatments show promise
in increasing proper usage. Researchers
at Portland State University found that

23.5% of bicyclists correctly positioned
themselves over the stand-alone marking,
use increased to 34.8% when the marking
was paired with a R10-22 sign, and
increased further to 48.4% when installed
over a green background .

User-activated button mounted on a pole Bicycle loop detection Approximate Cost
Costs vary depending on the type of
technology used, but bicycle loop detectors
embedded in the pavement are $2,000 on
average, and can range from $1,500 to $3,000
Video detection camera system costs range
from $20,000 to $25,000 per intersection.
657
Item # 18.
72 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Design Features
• 14 foot minimum depth from back of
crosswalk to motor vehicle stop bar.
(NACTO, 2012)
• A “No Turn on Red” (CA MUTCD R10-11) or
“No Right Turn on Red” (CA MUTCD R13A)
sign shall be installed overhead to prevent
vehicles from entering the Bike Box. (Refer
to CVC 22101 for the signage) A “Stop Here
on Red” (CA MUTCD R10-6) sign should be
post mounted at the stop line to reinforce
observance of the stop line.
• A 50 foot ingress lane should be used to
provide access to the box.
• Use of green colored pavement is
recommended.

Typical Use
• At potential areas of conflict between
bicyclists and turning vehicles, such as a
right or left turn locations.
• At signalized intersections with high bicycle
volumes.
• At signalized intersections with high vehicle
volumes.
• Not to be used on downhill approaches
to minimize the right hook threat potential
during the stale green signal phase.

Bicycle Box
A
B
C
A
B
C
A bicycle box is an experimental treatment, designed to provide bicyclists with a safe and visible space to get in front of queuing traffic during the red signal phase.

Motor vehicles must queue behind the white stop line at the rear of the bike box.

On a green signal, all bicyclists can quickly clear the intersection. This treatment is currently under experiment, and has not been approved by Caltrans. 658
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 73 A bike box allows for cyclists to wait in front of queuing traffic, providing high visibility and a head start over motor vehicle traffic.

Further Considerations
• This treatment positions bicycles together
and on a green signal, all bicyclists can
quickly clear the intersection, minimizing
conflict and delay to transit or other traffic.
• Pedestrian also benefit from bike boxes,
as they experience reduced vehicle
encroachment into the crosswalk.
• Bike boxes are currently under experiment
in California. Projects will be required to go
through an official Request to Experiment
process. This process is outlined in
Section 1A.10 in the CAMUTCD, and
jurisdictions must receive approval prior to
implementation.

Materials and Maintenance
Bike boxes are subject to high vehicle wear,
especially turning passenger vehicles, buses,
and heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with
green coloring will require more frequent
replacement over time. The life of the green
coloring will depend on vehicle volumes and
turning movements, but Thermoplastic is
generally a more durable material than paint.

Approximate Cost
Costs will vary due to the type of paint or
thermoplastic used and the size of the bike box,
as well as whether the treatment is added at the
same time as other road treatments.

Typical costs range from $1.20/sq. ft.
installed for paint to $14/sq. ft. installed for
Thermoplastic.
659
Item # 18.
74 THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Two-Stage Turn Boxes
Two- stage turn boxes offer bicyclists a safe way to make turns at multi-lane signalized intersections from a physically separated or conventional bike lane.

On separated bike lanes, bicyclists are often unable to merge into traffic to turn due to physical separation, making the provision of two-stage turn boxes critical.

Typical Application
• Streets with high vehicle speeds and/or
traffic volumes.
• At intersections of multi-lane roads with
signalized intersections.
• At signalized intersections with a high
number of bicyclists making a left turn from
a right side facility.
• Preferred treatment to assist turning
maneuvers on bike lanes, instead of
requiring bicyclists to merge to make a
vehicular left turn.
• Required for protected bikeways to assist
left turns from a right side facility, or right
turns from a left side facility.

Design Features
• The two-stage turn box shall be placed in
a protected area. Typically this is within
the shadow of an on-street parking lane or
protected bike lane buffer area and should
be placed in front of the crosswalk to avoid
conflict with pedestrians.
• 8 foot x 6 foot preferred dimensions
of bicycle storage area (6 foot x 3 foot
minimum).
• Bicycle stencil and turn arrow pavement
markings shall be used to indicate proper
bicycle direction and positioning. (NACTO,
2012)
Further Considerations
• Consider providing a “No Turn on Red”
(CAMUTCD R10-11) on the cross street to
prevent motor vehicles from entering the
turn box.
• This design formalizes a maneuver called a
“box turn” or “pedestrian style turn.”
• Some two-stage turn box designs are
considered experimental by FHWA and
is not currently under experiment in
California.
• Design guidance for two-stage turns apply
to both bike lanes and separated bike
lanes.
• Two-stage turn boxes reduce conflicts in
multiple ways; from keeping bicyclists from
queuing in a bike lane or crosswalk and by
separating turning bicyclists from through
bicyclists.
• Bicyclist capacity of a two-stage turn box
is influenced by physical dimension (how
many bicyclists it can contain) and signal
phasing (how frequently the box clears.)
660
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS 75 Materials and Maintenance
Turn boxes may subject to high vehicle wear,
especially turning passenger vehicles, buses,
and heavy trucks. As a result, bike boxes with
green coloring will require more frequent
replacement over time. The life of the green
coloring will depend on vehicle volumes and
turning movements, but Thermoplastic is
generally a more durable material than paint.

Approximate Cost
Costs will vary due to the type of paint used
and the size of the two-stage turn box, as well
as whether the treatment is added at the same
time as other road treatments.

Typical costs range from $1.20/sq. ft.
installed for paint to $14/sq. ft. installed for
Thermoplastic.
661
Item # 18.
662
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
663
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS B

APPENDIX F
664
Item # 18.

C THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 Planning level cost estimates are included for each project, as shown in the Implementation chapter of the plan. These costs represent high level estimates based on the project type to guide planning and implementation strategy. Costs are provided by project type. As projects advance toward implementation, more detailed cost estimates should be completed based on an engineering review and further analysis of the site context.

The planning level cost estimates used to inform the project costs are shown in the following tables.

The estimates are based on the planning costs for comparable projects in nearby jurisdictions and do not include costs for design.

Cost Estimates
TABLE 1 Cost Estimates: Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations project type notes unit cost
estimate
commercial
signalized
commercial
unsignalized
neighborhood
signalized
neighborhood
unsignalized
Curb Extension Per corner. No utility or
strorm drain relocations.

Cost depends on
size of intersection,
whether regrading of
intersection required.

EA
(each)
$750,000 x x x
Modify Skewed
Intersection(s)
Varies by intersection EA $750,000 x x x
Parking
Restrictions
Red thermoplastic
paint at curb, signage
LF
(linear
foot
$50 x x
Right-Turn Slip
Lane Removal(s)
No utility or storm drain
relocations included
EA $600,000 x x x
Transit
Waiting Area
Improvements/
Bus Shelter
Varies by type EA $400,000 x x
Sidewalk Construction cost is
the base cost of $10/
square foot for a six
foot wide sidewalk.

LF $60
High Visibility
Crosswalk
Marking(s)
One leg, cost
varies by length of
crosswalk and color
LF $25 x x x x
Advance Yield/
Stop Line(s)
Thermoplastic paint LF $20 x x x x
Curb Ramp(s) No utility or storm
drain relocations
EA $10,000 x x x x
665
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS D Table 1 Cost Estimates: Priority Pedestrian Spot Recommendations (continued) project type notes unit cost
estimate
commercial
signalized
commercial
unsignalized
neighborhood
signalized
neighborhood
unsignalized
Pedestrian
Refuge Island(s)
No utility or storm drain
relocations. Cost varies
with size of crossing.

SF
(square
foot)
$1,000 x x x
Raised
Pedestrian
Crossing(s)
Varies by length of
crossing. No utility or
storm drain relocations.

EA $8,000 x x
Overhead
Crosswalk
Lighting
Varies by type
and location
LS
(lump
sum)
$500,000 x x x x
Pedestrian
Crosswalk Motion
Sensor(s)
Per leg of crosswalk. EA $30,000 x x
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
EA $100,000
Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon
(PHB)
EA $500,000 x
Traffic and
Pedestrian
Signal Changes
(Leading
Pedestrian
Intervals,
Pedestrian
countdown
signal, no right
on red, etc.)
Per intersection.

Costs vary by type
of change and
equipment required.

LS $50,000 x x
Signage EA $500 x
666
Item # 18.

E THE CITY OF MILPITAS Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 TABLE 2 Cost Estimates: Linear Bikeway Recommendations
project type Notes
Planning Level
Cost Per Mile
(Average)
Class I: Paved Shared Use Path Includes minor crossing improvements. Does not include signal modification or right of way acquisition.

Assume high cost for creekside trails
$1,500,000
Class II: Bike Lane Low cost assumes signage, striping. High cost assumes green conflict marking, traffic signal modification including bike signal detection. $260,000
Class IIB: Buffered Bike Lane Low cost assumes signage, striping, and a painted buffer. High cost assumes green conflict marking, traffic signal modification including bike signal detection, and wayfinding signage. $296,000
Class IIIB: Bicycle Blvd Low cost assumes signage, striping, and minor traffic calming such as speed humps, and up to 3 other elements such as medians, diverters or a raised crosswalk. High cost assumes low cost items plus traffic circles, curb extensions, traffic signal modification including bike signal detection, and wayfinding signage. $548,000
Class IV: Cycle Track Low cost assumes signage, striping, and a painted buffer with flexible delineators. High cost assumes green conflict marking, traffic signal modification including bike signal detection, and a raised concrete buffer. $1,307,000
TABLE 3 Cost Estimates: Priority Bike Spot Recommendations project category Notes cost Per foot
Bike Lane Connectivity
(short-term)
Striping and signage $75
667
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan - June 2021 THE CITY OF MILPITAS F TABLE 4 Cost Estimates: Priority Trail Spot Recommendations project type Notes unit Planning Level
cost estimate
Trail Access Improvement
Trail Access
New connections and access to the
trail network, as well as improvements
to roadway crossings; similar crossing
improvements as described in the
pedestrian spot improvements and
depends upon whether the crossing
is signalized or unsignalized.
n/a varies
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon EA $650,000
Signage EA $500
High Visibility Crosswalk Marking(s) LF
(Linear
Foot)
$25
Pedestrian Refuge Island(s) SF
(Square
Foot)
$2,000
Traffic and Pedestrian Signal Changes LS
(Lump
Sum)
$1,000,000
Raised Pedestrian Crossing(s) EA $8,000
Curb Extension EA $750,000
Trailhead Improvement
Restroom EA $125,000
Drinking Fountain EA $4,000
Map Kiosk EA $5,000
Waste Receptacles EA $1,000
Picnic Tables EA $1,500
Benches EA $1,000
Paved Plaza/Gathering Area EA $10
Bike Repair Station EA $1,500
668
Item # 18.
669
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Milpitas
Engineering Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035
Contact: Fanny Yu, Associate Civil Engineer
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2022
670
Item # 18.

Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of Milpitas
Engineering Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035
Contact: Fanny Yu, Associate Civil Engineer
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
April 2022
671
Item # 18.

This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content. 672
Item # 18.

Table of Contents
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study.............................................................................................................................................1

1. Project Title ...........................................................................................................................1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address...........................................................................................1

3. Contact Person and Phone Number .....................................................................................1

4. Project Location ....................................................................................................................1

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address...................................................................................1

6. General Plan Designation......................................................................................................1

7. Zoning....................................................................................................................................1

8. Description of Project ...........................................................................................................1

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................................................................... 11

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required.......................................................... 11

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? ....................................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected........................................................................................ 13 Determination ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Checklist...................................................................................................................... 15 1 Aesthetics........................................................................................................................... 15 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................... 19 3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 21 4 Biological Resources........................................................................................................... 27 5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................. 39 6 Energy................................................................................................................................. 43 7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................... 45 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................................................................................ 53 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 59 10 Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................ 63 11 Land Use and Planning ....................................................................................................... 69 12 Mineral Resources.............................................................................................................. 71 13 Noise .................................................................................................................................. 73 14 Population and Housing..................................................................................................... 81 15 Public Services.................................................................................................................... 83 16 Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 85 17 Transportation ................................................................................................................... 87 18 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 91 19 Utilities and Service Systems.............................................................................................. 95 673
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
ii
20 Wildfire............................................................................................................................... 99 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................. 101 References......................................................................................................................................... 103 Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 103 List of Preparers......................................................................................................................... 105 Tables
Table 1 Representative Active Transportation Projects with Potential Effects on Biological Resources1.......................................................................................................................... 29 Table 2 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage............................................ 75 Table 3 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ............................................................................. 76 Table 4 Typical Construction Noise Levels...................................................................................... 77 Table 5 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment.................................................................... 79 Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location..................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Plan Area ...............................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Proposed Pedestrian Commercial Area Improvements........................................................6 Figure 4 Proposed Pedestrian Neighborhood Area Improvements....................................................7 Figure 5 Proposed Bikeway Improvements by Priority.......................................................................8 Figure 6 Proposed Trail Improvements by Priority .............................................................................9 Figure 7 Proposed Projects for Future Study ................................................................................... 10 Appendices
Appendix A Proposed Pedestrian, Bikeway, and Trail Improvements Appendix B Tamien Nation Consultation Meeting Notes
674
Item # 18.

Initial Study
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study

1. Project Title
City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan

2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Milpitas
Engineering Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035

3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Fanny Yu, Associate Civil Engineer, 408-586-3318

4. Project Location
Citywide, City of Milpitas (see Figure 1 for regional location and Figure 2 for project location)

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of Milpitas
Engineering Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035

6. General Plan Designation
N/A, Citywide

7. Zoning
N/A, Citywide

8. Description of Project
The proposed City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan (the “Plan”) is intended to increase walking and biking in the city of Milpitas through the provision and enhancement of safe and convenient active modes of travel. The Plan has two basic elements: 1) a vision, goals, and policies to support a safe and expansive active transportation network to improve active transportation choices, and 2) a comprehensive list of recommended improvements to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
675
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
2 Figure 1 Regional Location
676
Item # 18.

Initial Study
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Plan Area
677
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
4 The Plan’s goals include:
 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.  Provide a safe, healthy, comfortable, equitable, and efficient transportation choices for all modes of transportation to enable people of all races, cultures, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientation, gender, incomes levels, ages and abilities, especially people of color and those disproportionally affected by access to a personal vehicle, systemic transportation inequalities, 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.
 Support the development and maintenance of the public transit system to provide an integrated, accessible, convenient, safe, comfortable, and effective mobility option.  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.  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.  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.
 Identify strategies and funding sources to implement the actions identified in the City’s Circulation Element.

Recommended trail, pedestrian, and bicycle projects listed in the Plan were selected based on input gathered from several community engagement activities, neighboring jurisdictions, and agency partners. The City held pop up events, public workshops in person and virtually, and gathered online input from participants as part of the Plan’s outreach strategy. A full list of pedestrian, bikeway, and trail projects are included in Appendix A.

Pedestrian Improvements
Proposed pedestrian improvements would create a safer, more comfortable, and better-connected pedestrian network in Milpitas. Improvements include filling sidewalk gaps, prioritizing pedestrian travel through safe crossings at major roadways, creating pedestrian focused commercial corridors, and considering accessibility to pedestrian facilities. The Plan includes two main pedestrian improvement areas, Commercial Priority Area and Neighborhood Priority Area, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. The Plan also includes proposed pedestrian spot improvements that include streetscape improvements, such as sidewalk amenities, and signal improvements, such as right turn restrictions. Appendix A presents the Plan’s full list of pedestrian improvement projects and project locations are shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
678
Item # 18.

Initial Study
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Bikeway Improvements
The Plan provides a bicycle network that would connect residential roadways with paved shared use paths, protected crossings, and improved bikeways to support bicycle travel throughout Milpitas.

Proposed bicycle projects include four classes of facilities:
 Class II bike lanes: dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to traffic and in the right-of-way.  Class IIB buffered bike lane: dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to traffic and in the right of way, separated from motor vehicles by a painted buffer.  Class IIIB bike boulevard: calm, local roadways that prioritize bicycle travel through traffic calming features such as traffic diverters and speed bumps.  Class IV cycle track: on-street bikeway separated from motor vehicles by a curb, median, planters, or other physical barrier.

The Plan also includes proposed pedestrian spot improvements such as bike lane and intersection connectivity. Appendix A presents the Plan’s full list of bikeway improvement projects and project locations are shown in Figure 5.

Trail Improvements
The trail network in Milpitas includes unpaved trails and paved shared use paths. The Plan proposes to expand existing paths along creek corridors and adjacent to major roadways to support a connected trail system. All proposed trails would be paved and implemented as Class I facilities1 .

Path design would comply with standards from Santa Clara County, Valley Water, and local requirements. The Plan also includes proposed trail spot improvements that include trail access improvements, such as roadway crossings; trailhead amenities, such as lighting and wayfinding signage; and new trail connections. Appendix A presents the Plans full list of trail improvement projects and project locations are shown in Figure 6.

The Plan includes a list of projects identified for further study. Projects for future study are shown in Figure 7 and include major roadway crossings such as bridges, undercrossings, and overcrossings.

These projects, although included in the Plan, are not analyzed in this CEQA document because they are identified as potential opportunities in the Milpitas that require further study.

Adoption of the proposed Plan would set in place a long-term program for the future construction of the active transportation projects listed in Appendix A; however, adoption in itself would not directly involve the construction of such projects. Thus, this Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) evaluates the environmental impacts associated with the Plan at a programmatic level and provides programmatic-level mitigation measures. All future active transportation projects forwarded as implementing actions of the Plan, when proposed for construction, will be compared with the Plan program and programmatic mitigation measures, with the anticipated benefit of more detailed construction drawings and scheduling information. 1 A Class I facility is a paved shared use path completely separated from the roadway and typically shared with bicyclists and pedestrians. 679
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
6 Figure 3 Proposed Pedestrian Commercial Area Improvements 680
Item # 18.

Initial Study
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Figure 4 Proposed Pedestrian Neighborhood Area Improvements 681
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
8 Figure 5 Proposed Bikeway Improvements by Priority
682
Item # 18.

Initial Study
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Figure 6 Proposed Trail Improvements by Priority
683
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
10 Figure 7 Proposed Projects for Future Study
684
Item # 18.

Initial Study
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Milpitas is a suburban community measuring 13.6 square miles in size, and located at the southeastern edge of the San Francisco Bay. It is comprised of the range of urban land use, including industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential in a range of densities. City is bisected by two major freeways, Interstate 880 (I-880) and Interstate 680 (I-680), and by the State Route 237 expressway/freeway, and a County expressway. Milpitas is located on a generally flat plain between the steep Mission Hills to the east and the marshy flats of the bay to the west (City of Milpitas 2020). The foothill of Mt. Diablo border the City to the east. The City is located north of the City of San Jose and south of the City of Fremont just north of the Alameda County line.

10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
None.

11. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area
Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21080.3.1?
The City received a request from Tamien Nation for consultation on the project, pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.3.1.
685
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
12 This page intentionally left blank.
686
Item # 18.

Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources □ Energy
■ Geology and Soils □ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources
□ Noise □ Population and
Housing
□ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources □ Utilities and Service
Systems
□ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
■ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 687
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
14 □ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date
Printed Name Title
April 22, 2022
Ned Thomas Planning Director
688
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ □ ■
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views
are those that are experienced from a
publicly accessible vantage point). If the
project is in an urbanized area, would the
project conflict with applicable zoning and
other regulations governing scenic
quality? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
The Plan Area is characterized by a generally flat developed land characterized by a range of lowdensity suburban land uses. The area is framed by the rising Mission Hills to the east and the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay to the west. Milpitas is similar development patterns in Fremont to the north and San Jose to the south.
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Mission Hills and Monument Peak are identified in the General Plan as significant visual resources.

The General Plan also identifies Mount Diablo as a significant visual feature outside of the Planning Area because it dominates the skyline (City of Milpitas 2020).

Other than these topographical features, the Plan Area does not contain any designated scenic vistas. The proposed active transportation improvements contemplated in the Plan would not affect the identified visual resources.

Several proposed bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects in the Plan would make scenic vistas more accessible to Milpitas residents and visitors. For example, the proposed Class II, IIB, and IV bike lanes 689
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
16 along Evans Road and Piedmont Road would provide views of the Mission Hills. Other proposed bike lane additions running east and west throughout Milpitas would provide access routes with views of the eastern hills. This impact would be less than significant.

In summary, the construction of trail, pedestrian, and bicycle facility improvements in Milpitas under the proposed Plan would not adversely affect scenic vistas, and may enhance access to some of these vistas. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? A scenic highway is generally defined by Caltrans as a public highway that traverses an area of outstanding scenic quality, containing striking views, flora, geology, or other unique natural attributes. Directly north of Milpitas, beginning at the Alameda County line, Interstate 680 (I-680) is an eligible state scenic highway, but is not officially designated (Caltrans 2019). This eligibility does not continue into Santa Clara County and therefore does not apply within the Plan Area. New improvements and infrastructure listed in the Plan such as additional bike paths and pedestrian safety improvements would not block or otherwise alter scenic vistas from this segment of I-680.

Additionally, no buildings or other visual barriers that could affect existing scenic vistas are proposed in the Plan. Therefore, the Plan would not have an adverse effect on a scenic resource within a scenic highway.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? The proposed Plan would facilitate development of active transportation projects within Milpitas city limits. New bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects listed in the Plan would not conflict with General Plan policies to protect public views of scenic resources. General Plan policy CD 1-4 in the Community Design Element directs the city to “(r)ecognize, enhance, celebrate and preserve, where possible, natural features and ecosystems, and protect cultural and historic resources.” CD 1-5 directs the city to “(m)aintain and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and views to and from all local creek corridors.”
Proposed improvements in the Plan would not significantly alter these natural resources and could provide greater access and enjoyment of natural features and ecosystems by providing recreational access. Zoning regulations applicable to scenic quality in Milpitas Municipal Code Title XI address antennas, fence and wall heights on residential properties, outdoor storage and displays, recycling collections facilities, wireless telecommunication facilities, grading, and hillside development, among other issues. New bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects would involve installation of new feature such as lighting, kiosks, and wayfinding signage. These features would not include features that would conflict with these regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
690
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Projects listed in the Plan would add the following types of lighting to improve visibility and enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists:
 Pedestrian-scale lighting on Class I shared-use paths and from the public right-of-way to transit stations
 Pedestrian-oriented lighting along all trail segments and sidewalks  Crosswalk lighting (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons) Active transportation projects under the Plan would result in additional nighttime lighting near shared-use paths, streets, and crosswalks in Milpitas. However, lighting for bicyclists and pedestrians is generally smaller in scale and provides less illumination than typical lighting on streetscapes. New lighting also would be installed within or adjacent to already urbanized corridors within Milpitas where street and building lighting is already present. Lighting in these areas, at a scale appropriate for bicyclists and pedestrians, would not substantially affect views in less developed parts of the city (e.g., the eastern hills) that are darker at night. Proposed lighting under the Plan would not substantially increase nighttime lighting levels or glare in Milpitas to the extent that would affect views. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
691
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
18 This page intentionally left blank.
692
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Proposed bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects in the Plan are within urbanized corridors which the California Department of Conservation does not identify as suitable for farmland (California Department of Conservation 2018). The Plan Area does not contain any agricultural lands identified by the California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program considered prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance (City of Milpitas 2020). There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
693
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
20 b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Milpitas does not have any land zoned for agricultural use (City of Milpitas 2020), and there are no Williamson Act contract parcels in Milpitas (DOC 2021). Therefore, proposed bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects included in the Plan would not be located on agricultural land or conflict with Williamson Act contracts for preservation of agricultural use. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)); timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Milpitas does not have any land zoned for forestry or forest lands (City of Milpitas 2020). Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland, and would not result in the loss of forest land. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
As discussed in Items a and d, the Plan would not result in the conversion of land used for agricultural or forestry purposes. Therefore, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
694
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? □ □ ■ □
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ □ ■ □
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Air Pollution
The federal and State Clean Air Acts (CAA) mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for “criteria pollutants” and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),2 nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM10) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead.

Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between ROG and NOX. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog).

Air Quality Standards and Attainment
The Plan Area is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) which is under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, BAAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. 2 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, “any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate,” with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term ROG is used in this IS-MND.
695
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
22 Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SFBAAB is classified as being in “attainment” or “nonattainment.” Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The SFBAAB is designated a nonattainment area for the state and federal ozone standards, the state and federal PM2.5 (particulate matter up to 2.5 microns in size) standards and the state PM10 (particulate matter up to 10 microns in size) (BAAQMD 2017a). This nonattainment status is a result of a number of sources in the region, such as mobile sources, wood burning, industrial combustion, and dust, in the SFBAAB.

Air Quality Management
Because the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin currently exceeds the federal ozone and PM2.5 standards and the state ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, the BAAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the NAAQS and CAAQS. BAAQMD adopted the 2017 Clean Air Plan (2017 Plan) as an update to the 2010 Clean Air Plan. The 2017 Plan provides a regional strategy to protect public health and the climate. Consistent with the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets adopted by the state, the 2017 Plan lays the groundwork for a long-term effort to reduce Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To fulfill state ozone planning requirements, the 2017 control strategy includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (ROG and NOX) and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 Plan builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (TAC) (BAAQMD 2017a).

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? The California CAA requires that air districts create a Clean Air Plan that describes how the jurisdiction will meet air quality standards. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the BAAQMD 2017 Plan. The 2017 Plan includes control measures related to stationary sources, transportation, energy, buildings, agriculture, natural and working lands, waste management, water, and super-GHG pollutants.

The 2017 CAP focuses on two paramount goals:
 Protect air quality and health at the regional and local scale by attaining all national and state air quality standards and eliminating disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from TACs
 Protect the climate by reducing Bay Area GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050
Under BAAQMD’s methodology, a determination of consistency with the 2017 Plan should demonstrate that a project:
 Supports the primary goals of the air quality plan
 Includes applicable control measures from the air quality plan  Does not disrupt or hinder implementation of any air quality plan control measures 696
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 The Plan would improve trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities throughout Milpitas. Planning for additional active transportation facilities, including safe routes to schools and transit, would be consistent with strategies in the 2017 Plan to reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants from transportation. Transportation Control Measure TR7 in the 2017 Plan encourages planning for safe routes to schools and transit, and Measure TR9 encourages planning for bicycle access and pedestrian facilities in local plans, as a means of reducing mobile emissions. Therefore, the Plan would be consistent with the BAAQMD’s 2017 Plan. Impacts would be less than significant impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Milpitas is within the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. Emissions of ozone precursors and particulate matter during construction of the proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan could incrementally contribute to an existing air quality violation. Because the proposed facilities would not contribute to urban growth or generate additional motor vehicle trips, they would not introduce new long-term sources of air pollutants into the BAAQMD region. In fact, improvements to trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be expected to encourage people to bicycle and walk to destinations thereby reducing automobile use, incrementally reducing emissions associated with motor vehicle use.

The construction of active transportation projects would generate temporary emissions from three primary sources: the operation of construction vehicles (e.g., scrapers, loaders, and dump trucks); ground disturbance during clearing and grading, creating fugitive dust; and the application of asphalt, paint, or other oil-based substances. The extent of daily emissions, particularly ROGs and NOX emissions, generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project. The extent of fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions would depend upon the following factors: 1) the amount of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is involved; and 5) whether transporting excavated materials offsite is necessary. The amount of ROG emissions generated by paints and oil-based substances such as asphalt depends upon the type and amount of material utilized.

BAAQMD’s May 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provide thresholds for plan-level impacts for criteria pollutants and precursors (BAAQMD 2017b). There are no construction emissions thresholds for plans. However, impacts would be significant if the project is not consistent with the 2017 Plan and if projected vehicles miles traveled or vehicle trip increase would be less than or equal to projected population increase.

By facilitating active transportation, it is expected that the Plan would reduce motor vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Milpitas and the greater Santa Clara County, incrementally improving regional air quality to the extent that the automobile use is reduced. As described above under Item a, the Plan would be consistent with 2017 Plan Transportation Control Measures TR7 and TR9 to encourage planning for safe routes to schools and transit and for bicycle access and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, the Plan includes applicable control measures from the 2017 Plan and would not disrupt or hinder implementation of the 2017 Plan. 697
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
24 Because implementation of the Plan would decrease VMT and would not result in a population increase, it would not result in exceedance of the BAAQMD threshold for criteria pollutants and precursors. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Certain population groups, such as children, the elderly, and people with health problems, are particularly sensitive to air pollution. Therefore, the majority of sensitive receptor locations are schools, hospitals, and residences, all of which occur within the Plan Area. Localized air quality impacts to sensitive receptors typically result from Carbon Monoxide (CO) hotspots and TACs. A CO hotspot is a localized concentration of CO that is above a CO ambient air quality standard. Localized CO hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. TACs are defined by California law as air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health.

Proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects adjacent to travel lanes for motor vehicles would temporarily expose users of these facilities to particulate matter, CO, and other pollutants from motor vehicle exhaust. However, users would only be exposed to air pollutants for brief periods while using bicycle and pedestrian projects and are not considered sensitive receptors. In addition, according to a 2017 review of scientific literature published in the Lancet Public Health journal, “consensus exists that despite the harmful effects of air pollution exposure, physical activity from active commuting provides more gains in health outcomes than air pollution exposure provides losses” (Cepeda et. al 2017). Therefore, it is anticipated that the health benefits from increased bicycling and pedestrian activity under the Plan would outweigh the risks from exposure to air pollution.

The proposed active transportation projects would not generate operational pollutants that would expose adjacent sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Furthermore, because the Plan is intended to facilitate additional bicycling and walking, it would reduce VMT in Milpitas, thereby incrementally reducing the exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations from motor vehicles. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
During construction activities, heavy equipment and vehicles would emit odors associated with vehicle and engine exhaust and during idling. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary, would cease upon completion, and odors disperse with distance. Overall, project construction would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, affecting a substantial number of people. Furthermore, bicyclists and pedestrians would not be exposed to any objectionable odors from construction because active transportation facilities would be closed to the public when under construction. Construction-related impacts would be less than significant.

Table 3-3 in the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines provides screening distances for land uses that have the potential to generate substantial odor complaints. The uses in the table include wastewater treatment plants, landfills or transfer stations, refineries, composting facilities, confined animal facilities, food manufacturing, smelting plants, and chemical plants (BAAQMD 2017a). The Plan would not facilitate the construction of any of these facilities, and use of pedestrian, bicycle, 698
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 and trail improvements would not generate other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would affect a substantial number of people. No operational impacts would occur.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
699
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
26 This page intentionally left blank.
700
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state
or federally protected wetlands (including,
but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other means? □ ■ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ ■ □
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan? □ ■ □ □
701
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
28 Existing Setting
Milpitas is located within the Bay Area/Delta bioregion (City of Milpitas 2020). T This bioregion extends from the Pacific Ocean to the Sacramento Valley and San Joaquin Valley bioregions to the northeast and southeast, and a short stretch of the eastern boundary joins the Sierra bioregion at Amador and Calaveras counties. The Bay Area/Delta Bioregion is one of the most populous areas of the State, encompassing the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

The water that flows through the Delta supplies two-thirds of California's drinking water, irrigating farmland, and sustaining fish and wildlife and their habitat. The bioregion fans out from San Francisco Bay in a jagged semi-circle that takes in all or part of 12 counties: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and parts of Sacramento and Yolo (City of Milpitas 2020).

The habitats and vegetation of the Bay Area/Delta Bioregion are as varied as the geography.

According to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System there are 13 land use cover types within Milpitas, including Annual Grassland, Blue Oak Woodland, Coastal Oak Woodland, Valley Oak Woodland, Cropland, Irrigated Grain Crops, Dryland Grain Crops, Vineyard, Fresh Emergent Wetland, Lacustrine, Montane Hardwood, Valley Foothill Riparian, and Urban (City of Milpitas 2020). Urban cover encompasses approximately 82 percent of the City, while Annual Grassland covers approximately 15 percent of the City’s 8,863 acres (City of Milpitas 2020). The remaining three percent of the City is covered by the other 11 land use cover types. Urban habitats include both native and non-native species and vegetative structure usually includes tree groves, street strips, shade trees, lawns, and shrub cover. Annual Grassland habitat occurs mostly on flat plains and gently rolling foothills.

There are 21 special status plant and wildlife species found or potentially existing within a one-mile radius of Milpitas, according to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), California Native Plant Survey Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service endangered and threatened species list (City of Milpitas 2020). Special status plant species include alkali milk-vetch Astragalus tener var. tener), Congdon’s tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. condonii), Hoover’s button-celery (Eryngium arstulatum var. hooveri), most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanhus albidus ssp. permaonenus), robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta), and Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa). Special status wildlife species include, Berkeley kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis), burrowing owl (Athene cuniclari), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), golden eagle (aquila chrysaetos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus), salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), salt-marsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), white-tailed kite (Elanus lecurus), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumanensis). The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) identifies a sensitive natural community, the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, within one mile of Milpitas city limits, to the northwest (City of Milpitas 2020).

Birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) nest in a wide range of habitats including previously disturbed and ruderal areas (e.g., medians and road shoulders) and within areas of maintained ornamental vegetation (i.e., lawns, gardens, parks, and trails). Wetlands and associated riparian areas often function as habitat for special-status species and may act as important wildlife movement corridors.
702
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 Approach to Impacts Analysis
As a programmatic evaluation, this section considers the potential for direct and indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources that could occur at the project-level if active transportation projects listed in the Plan are constructed in specific vegetation communities or habitats. Many of the proposed trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities listed in the Plan would be located within the limits of existing roads, sidewalks, or other previously disturbed areas and would be unlikely to affect sensitive biological resources. However, the construction of proposed Class I trail improvements and Class IIIB and IV bike lanes along creeks or open space may result in the loss of vegetation or impact waterways, which could directly affect special-status or sensitive biological resources. Table 1 lists representative projects included in the Plan that have the potential to impact biological resources and includes a brief description of the proposed project activities.

Table 1 Representative Active Transportation Projects with Potential Effects on Biological Resources1
Roadway or Creek Limits (From/To) Project Type Miles
Penitencia Creek San Andres Drive to Calaveras
Boulevard
Class I Trail Improvement 1.2
Calera Creek Milpitas Boulevard to Hillview Drive Class I Trail Improvement 0.9 Hillview Drive/Los Coches Street Berryessa Creek to Berryessa Creek Class I Trail Improvement 0.3 Montague Expressway Piper Drive to Coyote Creek Trail Class I Trail Improvement 1.8 North McCarthy Boulevard Dixon Landing Road to Coyote Creek Trail
Class I Trail Improvement 0.2
Coyote Creek Calaveras Boulevard & Coyote Creek
Trail (North) to Calaveras Boulevard &
Coyote Creek Trail (South)
Class I Trail Improvement 0.1
Penitencia Creek Milmont Drive to California Circle Class I Trail Improvement 0.6 Dixon Landing Road Milpitas Boulevard to Hetch Hetchy
Trail
Class IV Bikeway Improvement 0.4
Tahoe Drive Sinnott Park to Yellowstone Avenue Class IIIB Bikeway Improvement 0.2 Hillview Drive Jacklin Road to Calera Creek Class IIIB Bikeway Improvement 0.4 Hillview Drive Jacklin Road to Berryessa Creek Trail Class IIIB Bikeway Improvement 0.9 East Tasman Drive Coyote Creek Trail to McCarthy
Boulevard
Class IV Bikeway Improvement 0.2
1 Table does not include spot improvements.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Based on the locations of proposed active transportation projects included in the Plan, as shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5 of the Project Description, most projects would be within existing paved, disturbed, or graded rights-of-way. For all construction work, staging, parking and associated activity that would be fully contained within previously disturbed areas, the projects would not 703
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
30 modify or otherwise impact suitable habitat for sensitive species. It is not expected that projects in previously disturbed areas would directly disturb natural habitat, where soil compaction could cause direct mortality from the collapse of underground burrows, or the trimming or removal of obligate host plants could cause direct mortality or loss of suitable habitat for special-status species.

Therefore, projects occurring entirely within existing disturbed areas would not result in significant impacts to non-avian federal or state listed species or other non-avian special-status species.

Some proposed Class I trail improvements, and Class IV and IIIB bikeway improvements would be located adjacent to or would transverse creeks, streams, or open space that could include specialstatus species. As listed in Table 1, linear improvement projects run adjacent to or terminate at creeks such as Penitencia Creek, Calera Creek, Berryessa Creek, and Coyote Creek. Other projects would be constructed adjacent to or terminate at existing trails or parks that may support specialstatus species, such as Coyote Creek Trail, Hetch Hetchy Trail, Berryessa Creek Trail, or Sinnott Park.

Notably, Coyote Creek provides habitat for saltmarsh common yellowthroat (City of Milpitas 2020).In the event of disturbance or removal of vegetation around creeks or open space, projects could result in direct mortality of special-status species. In addition, these activities could result in the loss of breeding, foraging, and refuge habitat.

These proposed Class I trail improvements and Class IV and IIIB bikeway improvements would have the potential to temporarily or permanently disturb or remove natural habitat, which could directly impact special-status species. In addition, higher usage of new sidewalks or widened roads, bike paths, and trails could cause increased mortality of species in nearby natural habitat. Construction and maintenance activities for individual active transportation projects could result in potentially significant impacts to federal and state listed species under all circumstances, while impacts to nonlisted species may be considered significant under CEQA if they result in reduced viability of the survival of a local or regional population. Therefore, the proposed active transportation projects could result in direct and indirect effects on sensitive biological resources including special-status species, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Many projects also would require the removal of vegetation that could serve as habitat for migratory birds protected under the CFGC. Projects could remove ruderal vegetation, ornamental roadside vegetation, or street trees along roadways. Protected migratory birds can be expected to nest within and adjacent to a wide range of disturbed areas, including existing trails, creeks, road medians, road and sidewalk shoulders, ornamental vegetation, and ruderal areas. Construction noise and activity in previously disturbed areas could result in nest abandonment, injury or mortality of birds protected under the CFGC, violating State regulations to protect migratory birds. Potentially significant impacts on special-status migratory birds include:
 Direct mortality resulting from the movement of equipment and vehicles through an individual project area
 Direct mortality resulting from removal of trees with active bird nests  Abandoned eggs or young and subsequent nest failure for special-status nesting birds, including raptors, and other non-special-status migratory birds resulting from construction-related noises  Loss or disturbance of rookeries and other colonial nests These adverse effects on listed or special status bird species would be a potentially significant impact.

Maintaining the consistency of individual projects with adopted federal and state regulations that protect special-status species, including their habitat and movement corridors, would ensure that 704
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 the City incorporate appropriate design measures, including avoidance, if appropriate. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would further ensure potential impacts are avoided or reduced to less than significant. These measures would require assessment of biological resources at a projectspecific level, mitigation of impacts to special-status species, and protection of such species during construction. The City shall implement the following mitigation measures for all trail, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements included in the Plan, as appropriate.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Biological Resources Screening and Assessment
Prior to final design approval of individual active transportation projects listed in the Plan that involve ground disturbance in or directly adjacent to natural habitat, or the removal or trimming of trees, the City shall have a qualified biologist conduct an analysis of the project to identify biological constraints and potential impacts to sensitive biological resources, including potential impacts to special-status plants, animals, and their habitats, as well as protected natural communities including wetland and terrestrial communities and protected trees. For those projects where ground disturbance would not affect natural habitat (i.e., work is limited to paved, ruderal, or developed areas only), a desktop analysis to identify biological constraints for the project may be sufficient.

This analysis shall include queries of agency databases such as the CNDDB, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, and USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as well as other relevant literature for baseline information on special-status species and other sensitive biological resources occurring at the individual project site and in the immediate surrounding area. The qualified biologist shall determine, based on the nature of construction activities, if a field reconnaissance is necessary for such projects to completely assess biological constraints.

If the biologist identifies protected biological resources within the limits of and/or potentially adversely affected by the project, the City shall first prepare alternative designs that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts to the biological resources. If the project cannot be designed without complete avoidance, the City shall have the qualified biologist identify the specific impacts to special-status species, develop project-specific avoidance and mitigation procedures to be followed to reduce biological impacts to a less-than-significant level, identify any state or federal listed species that would necessitate coordination with the appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Services [NMFS], CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) to obtain regulatory permits, and implement project-specific avoidance and mitigation measures prior to and during any construction activities.

Mitigation actions that may be required should impacts to special-status species be identified include:
 Pre-construction surveys to identify the presence of special-status species within and adjacent to work areas.
 Worker Environmental Awareness Program training for all construction personnel.  Complete avoidance of special-status species where and if possible. Avoidance measures may include:
 Delimiting and flagging of special-status species avoidance buffer areas (Environmentally Sensitive Areas or ESAs)
705
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
32  Monitoring of construction activity near ESAs
 Installation of special-status species exclusion fencing.  Relocation of special-status species out of work areas (with applicable permits and authorizations as necessary).
 Restoration of temporarily disturbed special-status species’ habitat.  Compensatory mitigation for impacts to special-status species habitat at a minimum ratio appropriate for extent and quality of permanently disturbed habitat. Mitigation ratios may vary from 1:1 to 5:1.

BIO-2 Construction Best Management Practices
Based on the results of the biological resources screening and assessment required by Mitigation Measure BIO-1 for certain active transportation projects, and the extent of potential impacts to special-status species, the City shall incorporate one or more of the following construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) as recommended by a qualified biologist into all grading and construction plans:
 A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be designated in all construction areas to minimize dust emissions and noise.
 All vehicles and equipment shall be parked on pavement, existing roads, and previously disturbed areas, and clearing of vegetation for vehicle access shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible.
 The number of access routes, number, and size of staging areas, and the total area of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal of the project.  Equipment washout and fueling areas shall be located within the limits of grading at a minimum of 100 feet from waters, wetlands, or other sensitive resources as identified by a qualified biologist. Washout areas shall be designed to fully contain polluted water and materials for subsequent removal from the site.
 Daily construction work schedules shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. only (consistent with the City’s noise ordinance).
 Mufflers shall be used on all construction equipment and vehicles shall be in good operating condition.
 Drip pans shall be placed under all stationary vehicles and mechanical equipment.  All trash shall be placed in sealed containers and shall be removed from the project site a minimum of once per week.
 No pets are permitted on project site during construction.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would protect special-status species that may be affected by construction of the proposed active transportation projects, reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
706
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, a sensitive natural community, occurs approximately one mile northwest of Milpitas city limits. Northern Coastal Salt Marshes occur along margins of the San Francisco Bay that are sheltered from excessive wave action. They support a high amount of vegetation such as cordgrass and pickleweed, as well as provide potential habitat for a plant of special concern, the Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris). Proposed active transportation projects would not occur within the Northern Coastal Salt Marsh habitat; therefore, implementation of the Plan would not result in significant impacts to any sensitive natural communities.

Wetland habitat occurs along several creeks in the City and may be impacted by the development of individual trail and bikeway projects, specifically new Class I shared-use paths, and Class IIIB and Class IV bikeways (USFWS 2021). Riparian habitat associated with Waters of the State falls under the jurisdiction of CDFW, as discussed below under Impact c. Individual active transportation projects, such as those in Table 1 could potentially result in construction work within jurisdictional limits including cut and fill below the top of delineated banks, removal or modification to wetlands, or trimming and clearing of riparian vegetation. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would have a potentially significant impact on riparian habitat. Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would ensure avoidance of impacts or mitigate those impacts to less than significant through a projectlevel analysis to delineate sensitive aquatic environments, and design or modify the project to avoid direct and indirect impacts on these areas through compensatory mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-3 Riparian Communities
For trail or bikeway projects located within or immediately adjacent to natural areas, if the initial screening of biological resources under Mitigation Measure BIO-1 identifies the presence of riparian communities within or adjacent to a project site, the City shall design or modify the project to avoid direct and indirect impacts on these habitats, if feasible. Additionally, the City shall minimize the loss of riparian vegetation by trimming rather than removal where feasible.

Prior to construction, the City shall install orange construction barrier fencing to identify environmentally sensitive areas around the riparian area (50 feet from edge) and other sensitive natural communities (50 feet from edge), or as defined by the agency with regulatory authority over the resource(s). The location of the fencing shall be marked in the field with stakes and flagging and shown on the construction drawings. The fencing shall be installed before construction activities are initiated and shall be maintained throughout the construction period. The following paragraph shall be included in the construction specifications:

The Contractor’s attention is directed to the areas designated as “environmentally sensitive areas.” These areas are protected, and no entry by the Contractor for any purpose will be allowed unless specifically authorized in writing by lead agency overseeing the bicycle improvement project. The Contractor will take measures to ensure that the Contractor’s forces do not enter or disturb these areas, including giving written notice to employees and subcontractors.
707
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
34 Temporary fences around the environmentally sensitive areas shall be installed as the first order of work. Temporary fences shall be furnished, constructed, maintained, and removed as shown on the plans, as specified in the special provisions, and as directed by the project engineer. The fencing shall be commercial-quality woven polypropylene, orange in color, and at least 4 feet high (Tensor Polygrid or equivalent). The fencing shall be tightly strung on posts with maximum 10-foot spacing.

Immediately upon completion of construction activities, the contractor shall stabilize exposed soil/slopes. On highly erodible soils/slopes, the contractor shall use a non-vegetative material that binds the soil initially and breaks down within a few years. If more aggressive erosion control treatments are needed, geotextile mats, excelsior blankets, or other soil stabilization products shall be used. All stabilization efforts should include habitat restoration efforts.

BIO-4 Compensatory Mitigation
If individual trail or bikeway projects located within or immediately adjacent to natural areas involve the disturbance of riparian communities during construction, the City shall compensate for the disturbance to ensure no net loss of habitat functions and values. Compensatory mitigation ratios shall be determined on a project-by-project basis once project impacts have been determined.

Compensatory mitigation shall be at a minimum ratio of two acres restored, created, and/or preserved for each acre disturbed. Compensation may comprise on-site restoration/creation, offsite restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits (or a combination of these elements). The City shall develop and implement a restoration and monitoring plan that describes how the habitat shall be created, the success criteria that will be sued to quantify mitigation success, and the frequency and duration of monitoring.

By delineating, avoiding, and/or compensating for the loss of sensitive habitats, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 would reduce the impact on sensitive habitats to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Milpitas contains numerous aquatic habitats that qualify as federally protected wetlands and jurisdictional waters. The following creeks are located in the City: Arroyo de los Coches Creek, Berryessa Creek, Coyote Creek; Calera Creek; Scott Creek; Penitencia Creek; Piedmont Creek; and Tularcitos Creek. Wetlands are found in the northwest corner of the City along Coyote Creek.

Individual proposed active transportation projects may be located in or adjacent to wetlands and creeks. Specifically, the Class I trail improvements and Class IIIB and IV bikeway improvements planned along or limited by Penitencia, Calera, and Coyote Creeks could be constructed adjacent to or across freshwater emergent wetlands. Implementation of active transportation projects under the Plan has the potential to impact federal and state Jurisdictional Waters under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sections 1600-1616 of the CFGC. Cut and fill activity below the top of delineated banks, removal, or modification to wetlands, or trimming and clearing of riparian vegetation could affect state or federally regulated aquatic resources in several ways including disturbances to the hydrologic structure, increased siltation, and modifications to bed and bank.

A formal Jurisdictional Delineation would be required to assess the extent of impacts to waters of the state and waters of the U.S., and to support Clean Water Act and Sections 1600-1616 permitting 708
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 for projects that could directly impact USACE, CDFW, or Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional areas. If it is determined that a trail, bicycle, or pedestrian project would impact wetland resources, the appropriate permits under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Sections 1600-1616 of the CFGC would be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would ensure avoidance of impacts or mitigate those impacts to less than significant through a project-level analysis to delineate jurisdictional waters and wetlands and perform restoration if necessary.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-5 Jurisdictional Delineation and Restoration for Impacts to Waters and Wetlands
For individual trail or bikeway projects listed in the Plan, if waters of the state or waters of the U.S. are present within or immediately adjacent to the area of construction, a qualified wetlands biologist shall perform a wetland delineation following the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and any applicable regional supplements to the Delineation Manual. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine the extent of the jurisdiction for CDFW, USACE, and/or RWQCB, and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement set forth by each agency. The result shall be a preliminary jurisdictional delineation report to be submitted to the implementing agency, USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate, for review and approval. Jurisdictional areas shall be avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Impacts to waters and wetlands shall be mitigated through one or more options to meet the required amount of mitigation based on direct impacts from project development under the mitigation ratios outlined below. Mitigation for impacts to waters and wetlands can be achieved through the acquisition and in-perpetuity management of similar habitat or through the in-lieu funding of such through an existing mitigation bank. Funding and management of internal mitigation areas can be managed internally. Funding and management of off-site mitigation lands shall be provided through purchase of credits from an existing, approved mitigation bank or land purchased by implementing entity and placed into a conservation easement or other covenant restricting development (e.g., deed restriction). Internal mitigation lands, or in lieu funding sufficient to acquire lands shall provide habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio for impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be impacted by individual project activity. Compensatory mitigation for wetlands communities can be combined with other compensatory mitigation (e.g., sensitive vegetation communities) as applicable.

BIO-6 General Avoidance and Minimization
For individual trail or bikeway projects located within or immediately adjacent to waters of the state, waters of the U.S., or wetlands, potential jurisdictional features identified in jurisdictional delineation reports shall be avoided. Identified jurisdictional features shall be documented in a report detailing how all identified jurisdictional features should be avoided.  Material/spoils generated from project activities shall be located away from jurisdictional areas or special-status habitat and protected from storm water run-off using temporary perimeter sediment barriers such as berms, silt fences, fiber rolls (non- monofilament), covers, sand/gravel bags, and straw bale barriers, as appropriate.
 Materials shall be stored on impervious surfaces or plastic ground covers to prevent any spills or leakage from contaminating the ground and generally at least 50 feet from the top of bank. 709
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
36  Spillage of material shall be stopped if it can be done safely. The contaminated area shall be cleaned, and any contaminated materials properly disposed. For all spills, the project foreman or designated environmental representative shall be notified.

Implementation of these measures would reduce the level of impact on wetlands to a less than significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Wildlife movement corridors, or habitat linkages, are generally defined as connections between habitat patches that allow for physical and genetic exchange between otherwise isolated animal populations. Such linkages may serve a local purpose, such as providing a linkage between foraging and denning areas, or they may be regional in nature. Some habitat linkages may serve as migration corridors, wherein animals periodically move away from an area and then subsequently return.

Others may be important as dispersal corridors for young animals. A group of habitat linkages in an area can form a wildlife corridor network.

Wildlife movement corridors can be both large and small scale. Regionally, the City is located within an Essential Connectivity Area (ECA) as mapped in the report California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California (Caltrans 2010). ECAs represent principal connections between Natural Landscape Blocks. ECAs are regions in which land conservation and management actions should be prioritized to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. ECAs are mapped based on coarse ecological condition indicators, rather than the needs of particular species and thus serve the majority of species in each region. However, this ECA is located in the northeastern portion of the City, where no active transportation projects are planned. Implementation of the Plan would therefore not impact movement through the ECA.

Milpitas supports a diversity of wildlife and has several creek channels which serve as smaller scale movement corridors for both terrestrial and aquatic species throughout the City. Specifically, Coyote Creek, which is surrounded by open space, and Penitencia and Berryessa Creeks, which are surrounded by open space and urban land uses, function as an important movement corridor for native wildlife (City of Milpitas 2020). The Plan is not anticipated to affect wildlife movement in areas of paved and disturbed rights-of-way. Although some active transportation projects such as Class I trail improvements would be adjacent to riparian corridors and waterways, the location of these projects would not disrupt a critical wildlife movement corridor, considering that terrestrial or aquatic wildlife can cross a pedestrian or bicycle path with relative ease, and the level and speed of path use is not a substantial overall deterrent to wildlife moving across the proposed path. Adverse effects on the movement of terrestrial species would be temporary and limited to specific activities including installation of temporary fencing, night lighting, construction noise, construction of multiuse paths, and the presence of construction personnel during working hours. Pedestrian and bicycle path development is not expected to result in significant changes to the genetic connectivity among local populations of wildlife, or within a broader regional context, and is not expected to prevent local wildlife movement. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
710
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City has established a Tree Protection and Heritage Tree Program in Section 7 of the Milpitas Municipal Code. The Tree Protection Ordinance makes it unlawful to remove existing trees that meet certain size requirements or are heritage trees or groves of trees. Heritage trees can be designated as such with a resolution by the City Council pursuant to Section X-2-7.01 of Municipal Code. Pursuant to Section X-2-4.02 of the Milpitas Municipal Code, a permit from the Public Works Department is required to remove any street tree, protected tree, or heritage tree. A permit is not required for trimming of branches less than four inches in diameter or removal of less than 10 percent of tree canopy.

Tree trimming and the removal of some streetscape trees may be required for some individual projects that involve street modifications. Any proposed active transportation project involving tree trimming or removal of heritage, protected, or street trees would require permits from the Public Works Department. Additionally, the Public Works Department may determine that a removed tree be replaced with at least two trees commensurate with the size of the removed tree, in accordance with Milpitas Municipal Code Section X-2-4-.02. With adherence to the City’s Municipal Code, proposed active transportation projects would not conflict with local policies and ordinances and impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan is a habitat conservation plan (HCP) and natural community conservation plan (NCCP) encompassing about 812 square miles, or approximately 62 percent of Santa Clara County (City of Milpitas 2020). The City of Milpitas is currently not a permittee of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan and the Plan Area is not included in the Habitat Plan Study Area and Permit Area. However, the Plan Area is identified in the HCP/NCCP as within the expanded study area and permit area for Burrowing Owl Conservation.

The proposed active transportation projects do not re-designate any land currently designated for open space or habitat protection. Though Milpitas is not a permittee of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan, the City is within the expanded study and permit area for Burrowing Owl Conservation.

Therefore, there is potential for burrowing owls to occur in the City and future projects would be required to comply with all of the conditions of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan to protect burrowing owls. Conditions include avoiding direct impacts on legally protected plant and wildlife species, incorporating urban-reserve system interface design requirements, maintaining hydrologic conditions, and protecting water quality, including stream and riparian setbacks, wetland and pond avoidance and minimization, and avoid or minimize impacts to western burrowing owls (Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency 2012). Adherence to these conditions in the Habitat Plan would be ensured with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-56, outlined in Item a, Item b, and Item c, which would protect sensitive species, water quality, and wetlands. Future active transportation projects facilitated by the Plan would be required to comply with applicable conditions of the Habitat Plan and therefore, impacts related to consistency with the HCP/NCCP would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
711
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
38 This page intentionally left blank.
712
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
According to files maintained by the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System, there exist 33 recorded cultural resources within the City of Milpitas (City of Milpitas 2020). Known cultural resources include historic buildings and railroads, prehistoric villages and artifacts, and refuses. Further, the Santa Clara County Historic Property Data File Directory identified 25 historic buildings within the City. Some of those buildings overlap with cultural resources identified by NWIC.

The significance of a cultural resource and subsequently the significance of any impact is determined by, among other things, consideration of whether that resource can increase our knowledge of the past. The determining factors are site content and degree of preservation. A finding of archaeological significance follows the criteria established in the CEQA Guidelines.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (Determining the Significance of Impacts to Archaeological Resources) states:
(a)(3) […] Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852).
(a)(4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
(b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the 713
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
40 significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired. Generally, impacts to historical resources can be mitigated to below a level of significance by following the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards) [Guidelines Section 15064.6(b)]. In some circumstances, documentation of an historical resource by way of historic narrative photographs or architectural drawings will not mitigate the impact of demolition below the level of significance [Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(2)].

Preservation in place is the preferred form of mitigation for archaeological resources as it retains the relationship between artifact and context and may avoid conflicts with groups associated with the site [Guidelines Section 15126.4 (b)(3)(A)].

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are numerous previously recorded historical resources within the city limits. In addition, other properties in Milpitas have the potential to include historical resources pending further evaluation.

According to the California Office of Historic Preservation, any physical evidence of human activities over 45 years of age can be recorded and evaluated for consideration as historical resources (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995). This includes not only buildings, but also structures, objects, sites, and districts.

The Plan proposes a variety of active transportation projects such as improved bikeways and bike paths. They would be constructed in existing public rights-of-way and would not require the acquisition of private property that could contain historical structures or contributing features in their surrounding landscapes. Therefore, implementation of the Plan itself would not result in the demolition or alteration of structures which are or would qualify as historical resources.

Furthermore, although active transportation projects would introduce new street features such as curbs, planter boxes, striping, and signs; the modest scale and nature of these project elements would be consistent with the function and character of existing roadways proposed for modification.

The Plan therefore would not substantially alter the general setting or indirectly impact any known or potential historical resources such that its significance would be materially impaired. As a result, the Plan would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
There are numerous previously recorded archaeological resources within the city limits.

Archaeological materials associated with Native American and early Euro-American occupation may exist throughout the city, including where proposed active transportation projects are located, and have the potential to provide important scientific information regarding history and prehistory.

Therefore, the Plan could affect known and unknown cultural resources. Because the Plan is being analyzed on a program level, the majority of projects do not yet have complete design plans and known archaeological resources cannot be identified at this time. The majority of the proposed 714
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 active transportation projects would occur in or adjacent to already disturbed corridors in an urban environment, where it is unlikely that ground disturbance would encounter intact archaeological resources. However, ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Plan would still have the potential to damage or destroy archaeological resources, especially if they occur below the existing road base, in less disturbed sediments, or previously undisturbed areas. Consequently, mitigation is necessary to ensure that potential impacts to cultural resources are reduced to a lessthan-significant level.

Mitigation Measure
CUL-1 Archaeological Resources Assessment
If cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing activities for a proposed active transportation project listed in the Plan, work in the immediate area shall be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology in either prehistoric or historic archaeology shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the find. If necessary, the evaluation may require preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If a unknown discovery is encountered and proves to be significant under the State CEQA Guidelines and cannot be avoided by the project, additional work such as excavating the cultural deposit to fully characterize its extent, and collecting and curating artifacts may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts to cultural resources. In the event that archaeological resources of Native American origin are identified during project construction, a qualified archaeologist will consult with the City to begin Native American consultation procedures.

By implementing Mitigation Measure CUL-1, the City would evaluate and protect significant archaeological resources if encountered during construction, resulting in a less than significant impact.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Ground disturbing activities during implementation of the Plan could potentially encounter human remains. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance occur until the county coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission which will determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site and make recommendations to the landowner within 48 hours of being granted access. With adherence to these existing regulations, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
715
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
42 This page intentionally left blank.
716
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Energy
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 6 Energy
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in a potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption
of energy resources, during project
construction or operation? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local
plan for renewable energy or energy
efficiency? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Construction of the proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan would result in short term consumption of energy from the use of construction equipment and processes. Energy use during construction would be primarily from fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. The scope of construction activity that requires energy use would be limited because many facilities would simply require restriping of or minimal surface treatments on existing paved rights-of-way, while others would add narrow linear strips of pavement to widen existing roadways or construct new shared-use paths. Therefore, the Plan would not result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy during construction. After construction, proposed active transportation projects would provide a safe and better connected non-motorized transportation system in the Plan Area, facilitating an increase the number of bicyclists and pedestrians and potentially resulting in a decrease in the number of motor vehicle trips. Decreasing the number of personal vehicles on roadways would reduce overall energy consumption in Milpitas, mainly from fuel consumption. Some proposed shared-use paths, pedestrian routes to transit stations, and crosswalk enhancements could include light fixtures that would require energy use at nighttime. However, energy for lighting would be minimal relative to existing lighting in the Milpitas and offset by the reduced use of fossil fuels for vehicle transport. Therefore, the Plan would have a less than significant impact from wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The City of Milpitas adopted their Smart City Infrastructure Program in October 2020 to modernize citywide services, conserve and generate clean energy, and reduce operations and maintenance expenses, with one program pillar being efficient lighting infrastructure. The Smart City initiative will 717
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
44 add energy-efficient LED fixtures, lighting motion sensors, and improve public safety and increase visibility for residents using outdoor public spaces after dark. Proposed path and trail lighting amenities in the Plan would not conflict with this initiative. By improving the active transportation network in Milpitas, the Plan would be expected to result in an overall reduction in motor vehicle trips and an improvement in energy efficiency. In addition, as described in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Plan would be consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan.

Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with any state or local plans for energy efficiency, and this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
718
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 7 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? □ □ ■ □

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □

3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ □ ■ □

4. Landslides? □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse? □ ■ □ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial direct
or indirect risks to life or property? □ ■ □ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature? □ ■ □ □
719
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
46 a.1. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? The proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan would be located in the San Francisco Bay Area, a region of considerable seismic activity. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), one Quaternary fault (with evidence of movement in the last 15,000 years) is located on the eastern side of the Plan Area: the Hayward fault (USGS 2021). This active fault runs on a northwestsoutheast axis, paralleling the rising hillsides. According to the California Department of Conservation’s Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map this narrow band of land surrounding the Hayward fault is in an Earthquake Fault Zone, carrying a substantial risk of surface rupture during seismic activity. Most proposed projects in the Plan are located outside of designated fault zones. Only proposed improvements along the hillside fault zone such as the Class II bike lane along Evans Road and Class IIB buffered bike lane along Piedmont Road are within the fault zone. Fault rupture may result in breakage or cracks in the proposed bicycle facilities but would not cause a potentially adverse risk to trail users. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? Major earthquakes have occurred in the vicinity of the Plan Area in the past and can be expected to occur again in the near future (City of Milpitas 2020). Strong ground shaking at any of the proposed active transportation projects could result from a rupture of faults in or near the Plan Area or of the major regional earthquake faults in the Bay Area. Such strong ground shaking could damage pavement at proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities listed in the Plan. However, the City would resurface pavement that is substantially damaged by ground shaking to prevent a long-term risk of injury. While the Plan does propose further study dedicated to overcrossings and substantial infrastructure, the proposals in the Plan do not include proposed habitable structures that could be vulnerable to collapse during ground shaking. Therefore, the Plan would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects of seismic ground shaking. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction, which is primarily associated with unconsolidated, saturated materials, is most common in areas of sand and silt or on reclaimed lands. In these areas, ground failure and differential settlement could result from a severe earthquake, damaging paved surfaces and elevated structures. Liquefaction potential is highest in areas underlain by poorly engineered fills, mud, and unconsolidated alluvium. As mapped in Figure 3.6-2 in the City’s General Plan Update, low-lying parts of Milpitas nearest San Francisco Bay and in along Calera Creek descending from the southern hills are susceptible to liquefaction (City of Milpitas 2020). Proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects listed in the Plan would not include habitable structures that could expose people to adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts would be less than significant.
720
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.4. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
As mapped in Figure 3.6-5 in the Milpitas General Plan Draft EIR, slopes with landslide potential are located in the eastern hillside portion of the city (City of Milpitas 2020). Unstable slopes that may be susceptible to landslides within the city limits are primarily to the east of Evans Road. Proposed bicycle facilities would not be located in areas mapped as having moderately or generally unstable slopes. Crosswalk enhancements listed in the Plan would not have the potential to cause loss, injury, or death from landslide events. Therefore, the impact from exposure to landslides would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? The active transportation projects listed in the Plan that would be constructed within existing paved rights-of-way are unlikely to cause substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. However, the construction of proposed shared-use paths and bicycle facilities that require roadway widening would involve ground disturbance of unpaved areas, including trails. This construction activity could cause erosion and sedimentation. However, any grading activity within city limits is subject to the erosion control plan requirements of Title II, Chapter 13, Section 10 of the Milpitas Municipal Code.

Pursuant to Section II-13-10 of the Municipal Code projects completing an erosion control plan must, “fully indicate necessary land treatment, structural measures and timing requirements which will effectively minimize soil erosion and sedimentation.” In addition to local erosion control regulations, if any proposed trail, pedestrian, or bicycle facility would involve disturbance of an area over one acre in size, it would be required to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit Requirements, which would limit peak post-project runoff levels to pre-project levels. The City would also be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), a sediment and erosion control plan that describes the activities to prevent stormwater contamination, control sedimentation and erosion, and comply with the requirements of the statewide permit. Therefore, the Plan would have a less than significant impact from soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
The proposed active transportation projects that would be constructed within existing paved rightsof-way would not result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse because they would occur on already developed land. Proposed facilities that would occur on undeveloped parcels would adhere, as applicable, to Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (below) to minimize the risk of expansive soils. Therefore, the Plan would not result in unstable geologic units or soils and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? 721
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
48 According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Web Soil Survey, multiple soil types that occur in Milpitas have a potential for shrinking and swelling behavior (NRCS 2020). In areas underlain by expansive soils, the shrinking and swelling of soil can disrupt or damage paved surfaces. Proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects located within existing paved rights-of-way would be unlikely to experience substantial shrink-swell from soil movement. However, proposed Class I, IIIB, and IV shared-use paths on previously unpaved ground could endanger trail users if expansive soils are present and cause the ground to crack. For these projects, site-specific geotechnical investigations would be required. The impact of expansive soils would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would be required to reduce potential hazards from expansive soils.

GEO-1 Expansive Soils
If a Class I, IIIB, or IV shared-use path project listed in the Plan is located in an area mapped as having expansive underlying soil, the City shall ensure that a site-specific geotechnical investigation is conducted by a qualified engineer. The investigation shall identify hazardous conditions and recommend appropriate design factors to minimize hazards. Such measures could include concrete slabs on grade with increased steel reinforcement, removal of highly expansive material and replacement with non-expansive import fill material, or chemical treatment with hydrated lime to reduce the expansion characteristics of the soils.

With implementation of this mitigation measure, expansive soils would be remediated on a sitespecific basis, and potential impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
None of the projects listed in the proposed Plan would involve the construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils that are unique, unusual, rare, uncommon, diagnostically important, or are common but have the potential to provide valuable scientific information for evaluating evolutionary patterns and processes, or which could improve our understanding of fossil chronologies, the ecology and geographic distribution of fossil organisms, or the history of geologic layers. Evaluating the potential for impacts to paleontological resources from implementing the Plan involves three distinct steps: 1) identify the geologic units that occur (i.e., are mapped at the surface or may be directly underlying mapped units) within the study area; 2) determine the paleontological sensitivity of mapped or underlying geologic units; and 3) determine if the active transportation projects proposed in the Plan have the potential to disturb paleontologically sensitive geologic units.
722
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 Paleontological Resource Potential
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010) describes sedimentary rock units as having a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. While these standards were written specifically to protect vertebrate paleontological resources, all fields of paleontology have adopted these guidelines, which are given here verbatim:

I. High Potential (sensitivity) – Rock units from which significant vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources.

These units include but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations that contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere in their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. Sensitivity comprises both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical; and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. Areas that contain potentially datable organic remains older than Recent, including deposits associated with nests or middens, and areas which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as significant.

II. Low Potential (sensitivity) – Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous, but have not yielded fossils in the past, or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic, phylogenetic species and habitat ecology. Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow determination that some areas or units have low potential for yielding significant fossils prior to the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in institutional collections and will not require protection or salvage operations. However, as excavation for construction proceeds, it is possible that significant and unanticipated paleontological resources might be encountered and require a change of classification from Low to High Potential and, thus, require monitoring and mitigation if the resources are found to be significant.

III. Undetermined Potential (sensitivity) – Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are considered to have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.

IV. No Potential – Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources.

Existing Conditions
Milpitas is situated in the middle of the Coast Ranges, one of 11 major geomorphic provinces in California (California Geological Survey 2002). A geomorphic province is a region of unique topography and geology that is distinguished from other regions based on its landforms and geologic history. During the Cenozoic era, the area of the present-day Coast Ranges was covered by seawater and a thick deposit of marine to nonmarine shale, sandstone, and conglomerate accumulated on the Franciscan basement rock (Bartow and Nilsen 1990). Later, during the late 723
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
50 Miocene to Pliocene eras, a mountain-building episode occurred in the vicinity of the present-day Coast Ranges, resulting in their uplift above sea level. Subsequently, from the late Pliocene to Pleistocene eras, extensive deposits of terrestrial alluvial fan and fluvial sediments were deposited in the Coast Ranges (Norris and Webb 1990).

Paleontological Impact Analysis
There could be fossils of potential scientific significance and other unique geologic features that remain undiscovered in the City or are not recorded. Class I, IIIB, and IV trails or trail connections may require excavation in previously undisturbed areas. Ground-disturbing construction associated with an active transportation project could uncover previously unknown paleontological resources.

Damage to or destruction of a paleontological resource would be considered a potentially significant impact under local, state, or federal criteria. Although most projects would occur in highly disturbed urban areas where excavations are unlikely to encounter intact geologic sediments, widening of the right-of-way, excavation for new trails, or creating new trail connections carries potential to impact intact geologic units that may yield paleontological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level by requiring paleontological resource studies for projects in high sensitivity geologic units within the Plan Area and further requirements to avoid or reduce impacts to such resources on a project-byproject basis.

Mitigation Measures
GEO-2 Paleontological Resource Studies
The City of Milpitas shall require the following specific measures for individual bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects that could disturb geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity:

Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to any excavations, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to review all project plans where ground disturbance is expected, as well as areas mapped as Pleistocene deposits at the surface, to determine if paleontologically sensitive units could be impacted. A qualified professional paleontologist is defined by the SVP standards as an individual preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is experienced with paleontological procedures and techniques, who is knowledgeable in the geology of California, and who has worked as a paleontological mitigation project supervisor for a least two years (SVP 2010). If it is determined that no paleontologically sensitive units could be impacted, then specific project impacts shall be deemed less than significant and no further mitigation would be required. If it is determined that a paleontologically sensitive unit could be impacted, then the subsequent mitigation measures provided here shall be followed as a minimum standard. a. The qualified professional paleontologist shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources and design a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Program (PRMMP) for the project, which outlines the procedures and protocol for conducting paleontological monitoring and mitigation. Monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor who meets the minimum qualifications per standards set forth by the SVP. The PRMMP shall address the following procedures and protocols:
 Timing and duration of monitoring
 Procedures for work stoppage and fossil collection
 The type and extent of data that should be collected with any recovered fossils 724
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51  Identify an appropriate curatorial institution
 Identify the minimum qualifications for qualified paleontologists and paleontological monitors
 Identify the conditions under which modifications to the monitoring schedule can be implemented
 Details to be included in the final monitoring report.

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the qualified paleontologist or his or her designee shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the time of a preconstruction meeting at which a qualified paleontologist shall attend.

Paleontological Monitoring. Paleontological monitoring should be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) in previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivities including Pleistocene alluvial deposits when excavations exceed 5 ft below ground surface. b. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual who has experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a paleontological resources monitor. The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the qualified paleontologist and the location and extent of proposed ground disturbance. If the qualified paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions at the surface or at depth, he/she may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot-checking or cease entirely. c. Fossil Discoveries. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A qualified paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the qualified paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources:
d. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are discovered, all work in the immediate vicinity should be halted to allow the paleontological monitor, and/or lead paleontologist to evaluate the discovery and determine if the fossil may be considered significant. If the fossils are determined to be potentially significant, the qualified paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) should recover them following standard field procedures for collecting paleontological as outlined in the PRMMP prepared for the project. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontologist and not disrupt construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. In this case the paleontologist should have the authority to temporarily direct, divert or halt construction activity to ensure that the fossil(s) can be removed in a safe and timely manner. If fossils are discovered, the qualified paleontologist (or paleontological monitor) shall recover them as specified in the project’s PRMMP.

Preparation and Curation of Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged, significant fossils should be identified to the lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection (such as the 725
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
52 University of California Museum of Paleontology), along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the qualified paleontologist.

Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the qualified paleontologist should prepare a final mitigation and monitoring report outlining the results of the mitigation and monitoring program. The report should include discussion of the location, duration and methods of the monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any recovered fossils, and the scientific significance of those fossils, and where fossils were curated. The report shall be submitted to the City of Milpitas. If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

With implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 to protect paleontological resources, the Plan would have a less than significant impact on such resources.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
726
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth’s atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits Earth’s surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it in all directions.

GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices.

GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021).3 Anthropogenic activities since the beginning of the industrial revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere that trap heat. Since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and 3 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25. 727
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
54 nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2021.

Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018).

Regulatory Framework
In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and costeffective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017).

Other relevant state laws and regulations include:
 SB 375: The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) was assigned targets of a 10 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles from 2005 levels by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles from 2005 levels by 2035. ABAG adopted the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (ABAG RTP/SCS) in July 2017, which meets the requirements of SB 375
 SB 100: Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.  California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24): The California Building Standards Code consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes 728
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, and handicap accessibility for persons with physical and sensory disabilities. The current iteration is the 2019 Title 24 standards. Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. Part 12 is the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which includes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of residential and non-residential structures.

The City of Milpitas adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2013 to guide Milpitas to be a more sustainable community by reducing GHG emissions and establishing a “qualified greenhouse gas reduction strategy” (City of Milpitas 2013). In addition, the CAP provides guidance for adapting to anticipated effects of climate change. The CAP includes five key sectors— energy use, vehicle miles, waste production, water usage, and off-road activities. The CAP incorporates best practices to produce a blueprint for achieving GHG emissions reduction in Milpitas and ultimately, to comply with AB 32 and SB 375. The 2013 Baseline Inventory identified the on-road transportation sector as the largest source of emissions in Milpitas, encompassing approximately 50 percent of overall community emissions. The nonresidential energy (29 percent), residential energy (10 percent), solid waste (8 percent), off-road equipment (2 percent), light rail (<1 percent), water and wastewater (<1 percent), and direct wastewater (<1 percent) sectors represent the other GHG sectors included in the CAP. The City is currently in the process of updating their 2013 CAP to meet recent GHG regulatory requirements.

Impact Analysis
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Individual projects under the Plan do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).

Many proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan would include minor surface treatments like restriping of lines and enhancing crosswalks, which would not involve construction activity that generates GHG emissions. However, some projects, such as Class I trail improvements along creeks, would require grading and paving activity to widen paved areas or construct new shared-use paths. The use of trucks to haul soil and grading equipment for earth movement typically emits the greatest amount of GHG emissions during construction. Because the Plan provides a list of projects for future implementation, not for immediate construction, the precise timing of construction and the list of construction equipment for individual projects is not precisely known at this time. At this programmatic level of analysis, construction-related emissions are speculative; such emissions depend on the characteristics of individual active transportation projects. BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2017) have no thresholds for determining plan-level impacts from 729
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
56 construction emissions. Therefore, construction emissions would not exceed an applicable planlevel threshold.

This section analyzes the Plan’s long-term effect on GHG emissions by a qualitative discussion of its consistency with applicable plans and policies to reduce emissions. This approach is consistent with guidance from the BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for plan-level analysis. The BAAQMD’s 2017 Plan sets goals to reduce vehicle emissions and contribute to protecting the climate. The Plan would be consistent with these goals because it would facilitate walking and biking as substitute modes of travel for driving motorized vehicles. Currently an estimated 78.3 percent of Milpitas residents drive alone to work, and another 12 percent carpool (City of Milpitas 2021a). Combined, approximately 90 percent of residents drive to work. By contrast, it is estimated that only 1.4 percent of residents walk or bike to work. By improving connectivity and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists, the Plan would make active transportation a more viable alternative to driving for people who work locally. The proposed improvements also would make it easier for people to reach local Bay Area Regional Transit (BART) stations without driving and then commute to regional work sites in the greater Bay Area. This would address the so-called “first-mile/last-mile” problem where it is difficult for people to move between a transit stop and an origin or destination. Furthermore, a long-term increase in walking and bicycling behavior in Milpitas would offset any emissions from constructing new active transportation projects or from additional electricity use for light fixtures.

Therefore, as discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the Plan would be consistent with the primary goals of the 2017 Plan.

The 2017 Plan also contains 85 control strategies aimed at reducing air pollution and protecting the climate in the Bay Area. Applicable control measures to the Plan are measures TR2 (Trip Reduction Programs) and TR9 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Facilities). Control Measure TR2 encourages trip reduction policies and programs in local plans and Control Measure TR9 encourages planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in local plans.

By improving connectivity and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians, the Plan would make it easier for people to commute by cycling and walking, consistent with Control Measure TR2 to reduce work trips by motor vehicle. Planning for bicycle and pedestrian facilities at a local level would be consistent with Control Measure TR9. Pedestrian projects listed in the Plan also focus on closing sidewalk gaps and enhancing safety and accessibility to schools and transit. By planning for safe routes to schools and transit, the Plan would facilitate the City’s efforts to get funding for individual pedestrian safety projects, consistent with Control Measure TR7. Implementation of the Plan also would not preclude any planned transit or bicycle pathways, and would not otherwise disrupt regional planning efforts to reduce VMT and meet federal and State air quality standards. Therefore, the Plan would not hinder implementation of any 2017 Plan’s control measures.

The Plan also would be consistent with State targets for reducing GHG emissions. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan to achieve the target of cutting statewide emissions 40 percent from 1990 baseline levels encourages using streets for active transportation as one measure to reduce emissions from transportation (CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, policies that increase active transportation “will need to play a greater role as California strives to achieve its 2030 and 2050 climate targets.” The Plan would implement this approach at a local level, consistent with State policy to reduce GHG emissions in compliance with SB 32 and Executive Order B-55-18, eventually achieving statewide carbon neutrality by 2045.

The Milpitas 2040 General Plan contains several policies that promote bicycle and pedestrianoriented development (City of Milpitas 2021b). Policy LU-4.2 calls for efforts to reduce regional VMT through active transportation, which the Plan does by planning for trail, bicycle, and pedestrian 730
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 improvements. The Plan would support and implement Policy CIR-2.1, which promotes a multimodal transportation system that encourages walking, bicycling, or transit use, by planning that multimodal system. Policy CIR-3.1 calls for coordination with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and BART to support safety and access to their station, which the Plan does by recommending and planning for improvements that allow safe access to transit.

The Milpitas CAP contains several goals and measures that support bicycle and pedestrian-oriented development, with which the Plan is consistent (City of Milpitas 2013). Measure 6.1 and 6.2, support connectivity along transit corridors and nodes and ensure a pedestrian-friendly environment around BART and light rail stations. The Plan would support these measures because the goal of the Plan is to provide more active transportation infrastructure that connects to BART and VTA stations. CAP Measure 7.2 encourages the initiation of a complete streets program that fosters pedestrian and bicycle activity, by setting out a plan to make active transportation safer. The Plan is consistent with this measure because it would result in complete streets throughout Milpitas. CAP Measures 7.3 and 7.4 encourage implementation and maintenance of infrastructure from the Bikeways Master Plan and outreach to promote bicycle use. This Plan is an updated and comprehensive version of and the Bikeways Master Plan that incorporates trails and pedestrian improvements and was formulated with the input of the community. Therefore, the Plan is consistent with CAP Measures 7.3 and 7.4.

In summary, the Plan would have a less than significant impact on the environment from GHG emissions, and would not conflict with applicable plans to reduce GHG emissions.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
731
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
58 This page intentionally left blank.
732
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
b. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within

0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment? □ ■ □ □
e. For a project located in an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would
the project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area? □ □ ■ □
f. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ □ ■
g. Expose people or structures, either
directly or indirectly, to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires? □ □ □ ■
733
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
60 a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
None of the proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan would involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials other than the routine use of chemicals during construction (e.g., fuel and engine fluids for equipment, paint, and asphalt) and would not create conditions which could lead to the release of hazardous substances. Users of new active transportation facilities would be subject to a very small risk of exposure to upset and accident conditions from the release of hazardous materials being transported on adjacent travel lanes for motor vehicles.

However, this is not a reasonably foreseeable risk to pedestrians and bicyclists. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? As shown in Figures 20, 21, and 22 of the Plan, many bicycle and crosswalk projects listed would be located within one-quarter mile of schools. These are considered “safe route to school” projects, which improve connectivity and safety for students traveling to and from schools. Ground disturbance during construction of these projects could temporarily expose students and staff to emissions of fugitive dust. However, construction activity would be temporary, which would reduce the time of exposure to dust emissions. Bicycle and pedestrian projects near schools also would be constructed in linear pathways, which would reduce the amount of construction time near schools as construction proceeds along the proposed alignment. Therefore, construction within one-quarter mile of schools would be short-term and would result in minimal fugitive dust emissions. In addition, the projects would not involve hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials beyond the routine temporary use of fuel and engine fluids for construction equipment and the application of materials like asphalt and paints. The potential impact to schools would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
According to databases of hazardous material sites maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor) and the California State Water Resources Control Board (GeoTracker), Milpitas has the following types of hazardous sites that are still active or need further investigation: leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs), school cleanup sites, voluntary cleanup sites, corrective action sites, evaluation sites, and state response sites (DTSC 2021, SWRCB 2021).

These sites are dispersed across many parts of Milpitas but have clusters along Montague Expressway between interstates 880 and 680, and along Milpitas Boulevard between Montague Expressway and Calaveras Boulevard. Many of these sites are located at industrial facilities that would not be affected by the construction of active transportation projects on public rights-of-way.

However, proposed projects that involve the disturbance of soil at or near listed hazardous materials sites could potentially expose people and the environment to hazardous substances. For 734
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 example, a proposed Class IV separated bikeway would be installed on Milpitas Boulevard, an area currently near identified hazardous material sites. Therefore, the impact related to listed hazardous material sites would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be required to identify listed hazardous material sites on and near proposed bicycle and pedestrian improvements located near hazardous materials releases, to mitigate for hazardous contaminants where necessary.

HAZ-1 Hazardous Material Sites Investigation and Remediation Prior to construction of any active transportation project listed in the Plan that requires ground disturbance, the City shall consult lists of hazardous material sites maintained by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the County of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Compliance Division. Where a proposed improvement is located on or adjacent to an identified site, follow up Phase I, and as appropriate, Phase II hazardous waste site investigations shall be completed, and any contaminants shall be remediated to concentrations below applicable screening-level thresholds for human health. The investigation and, if necessary, remediation shall be conducted under the supervision of the County of Santa Clara Hazardous Materials Compliance Division or the City. No disturbance of contaminated soil shall be permitted unless an approved site cleanup and remediation plan has been implemented for the identified hazardous waste sites. Any ground disturbance shall be preceded by advance notification of and approval by the City.

By implementing Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the City would investigate hazardous material sites and remediate contaminants, where applicable, so that people are not exposed to concentrations exceeding screening-level thresholds. This would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? The nearest publicly available airport to Milpitas is Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport, which is located approximately four miles southwest of city limits. Milpitas is outside the Airport Influence Area for the airport, as mapped in Santa Clara County (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2011). Therefore, the Plan would be located outside the scope of an airport land use plan and more than two miles from the nearest airport, and it would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise from airport activity. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The proposed active transportation projects would augment Milpitas’ existing circulation system, giving people better multi-modal options to escape from a hazard. Although construction could temporarily close travel lanes, no streets would be permanently closed or blocked under the Plan.

Therefore, the Plan would not impair the implementation or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
735
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
62 NO IMPACT
g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
As discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, the Plan would not result in the exposure of people to significant risks associated with very high fire hazard severity zones. Furthermore, the proposed active transportation projects would almost entirely be located in urbanized or low-lying parts of Milpitas that are not prone to high fire risk. Therefore, the Plan would not result in a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

NO IMPACT
736
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 10 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade surface
or ground water quality? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin? □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which
would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(ii) Substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site; □ □ ■ □
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or □ □ ■ □
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? □ □ ■ □
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
risk release of pollutants due to project
inundation? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of a water quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater management
plan? □ □ ■ □
737
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
64 a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Proposed active transportation projects that would be constructed within an existing paved right-ofway, such as Class III and IIIB bicycle routes and boulevards, most Class II and IIB bike lanes, and crosswalk enhancements, would not degrade ground water quality because they would not result in additional runoff or pollutants. However, ground disturbance outside existing paved rights-of-way, especially grading and vegetation removal for Class I shared-use paths, and for Class II or Class IV bike lanes that require roadway widening, may result in soil erosion. In addition, converting pervious surfaces into paved facilities could increase the amount of runoff from urban areas and thus decrease water quality.

The proposed active transportation projects may be subject to stormwater requirements under the Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Order Number R2-2009-0074) for the San Francisco Bay Area. This permit is intended to reduce the discharge of pollutants in the City’s municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). The MS4 permit was issued jointly to the City and other local agencies in the regional Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (California Regional Water Quality Control Board 2009). To achieve compliance with the regional program, and thus with the conditions of the most recently issued MS4 permit, the City has adopted local regulations. Specifically, Chapter XI-16, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control, of the Milpitas Municipal Code gives legal effect to requirements of the NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater runoff from the City’s municipal storm sewer.

To comply with Provision C.3 of the NPDES permit, all project applicants must submit a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP must be prepared under the direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects. Conditions of approval for development projects include the installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for site design and stormwater treatment.

Under Section XI-16-5 of the Milpitas Municipal Code, the City makes it unlawful to discharge nonstormwater into the municipal sewer system. Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-16-12 requires that properties adjacent to a watercourse complies with Santa Clara Valley Water District and Water Resources Collaborative “Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams” for all development, construction, and maintenance activities. Further, Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-16-6 requires regulated projects to design and construct Low Impact Development source control, site design, and stormwater treatment measures in order to reduce water quality impacts of urban runoff from a given project site for the life of the Plan.

In addition, if a proposed active transportation facility included in the Plan would involve disturbance of an area over one acre in size, it would be required to comply with NPDES Construction General Permit Requirements, which would limit peak post-project runoff levels to pre-project levels. Grading activity for some proposed Class I shared-use paths or Class IIB and Class IV bikeways, among other bicycle facilities listed in the Plan, may disturb more than one acre. For such projects to comply with the Construction General Permit, the City would have to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which includes BMPs to control erosion and sediment. Construction BMPs could include silt fencing, fiber rolls, stabilized construction entrances, stockpile management, and solid waste management. Post-construction stormwater performance standards are also required.
738
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 Compliance with existing regulatory requirements would ensure that the proposed active transportation projects would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not create substantial runoff water or otherwise degrade water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Some proposed active transportation projects would use water during operation. Comfort stations along Class I trails could include restrooms or water foundations, and new landscaping and shade trees next to active transportation facilities would require irrigation. The proposed water stations could incrementally increase demand for groundwater in Milpitas. However, Milpitas does not use groundwater to meet customer demands under normal conditions and reserves groundwater supply for emergencies in the event that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) cannot deliver contracted water supplies (City of Milpitas 2020). The City has two existing groundwater wells, one of which is active. Both wells include chlorine disinfection facilities but are solely for emergency water supply purposes. Because of the small scale of additional water demand and lack of current sourcing from groundwater, the additional use of potable water would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Therefore, the Plan would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

Proposed active transportation projects that would be constructed within existing paved rights-ofway, such as Class III bicycle routes and boulevards, most Class II bike lanes, and crosswalk enhancements, would not result in new impermeable surfaces and thus would not interfere with groundwater recharge. However, new facilities constructed outside of existing paved rights-of-way, such as Class I shared-use paths and Class II bike lanes that require roadway widening, would increase the volume of impermeable surfaces in Milpitas. As a result, the proposed facilities could marginally reduce groundwater recharge and increase the amount of surface runoff. However, projects that disturb at least one acre would comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit by implementing BMPs to maintain or replicate the pre-development hydrologic regime.

Implementation of required BMPs would minimize impacts related to groundwater recharge.

Therefore, the Plan would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge.

Milpitas is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which is responsible for preparing the Water Quality Control Plan for the region (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses of water in the region and establishes narrative and numerical water quality objectives. The State has developed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), which are a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can have and still meet water quality objectives established by the region. As discussed under Item a, active transportation projects listed in the Plan that would disturb at least one acre would be required to comply with the State’s Construction General Permit, which would minimize and avoid water quality impacts associated with soil erosion and stormwater runoff from project sites. Furthermore, projects proposed along creeks would be designed with consultation from Valley Water to ensure preservation of water quality. Implementation of proposed active transportation projects would not 739
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
66 violate water quality objectives for beneficial uses in the vicinity of a given project site or exceed TMDLs. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with a water quality control plan.

The City overlies the Santa Clara Subbasin and the Plan Area is located within the Santa Clara Plain groundwater management area (City of Milpitas 2020). In September 2014, the California Legislature enacted comprehensive legislation aimed at strengthening local control and management of groundwater basins throughout the state. Known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), the legislation provides a framework for sustainable management of groundwater supplies by local authorities, with a limited role for state intervention when necessary to protect the resource. According to a July 2020 Groundwater Condition Report, SCVWD assessed that groundwater storage is above average (City of Milpitas 2020). Further, according to the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, annual pumping would not exceed 200,000 acre feet per year. The long-term average groundwater pumping is 103,000 acre feet per year (City Milpitas 2020).

Additionally, the transportation projects facilitated by the Plan would not draw on groundwater, except in emergency conditions. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan and impacts related to groundwater would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c.(i) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
c.(ii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c.(iii) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Proposed active transportation projects that would be constructed within existing paved rights-ofway, such as Class III bicycle routes and boulevards and most Class II bike lanes, would not alter existing drainage patterns. New facilities located outside of existing paved rights-of-way, such as Class I shared-use paths and bike lanes that would require widening of roadways, could alter existing drainage patterns by introducing new impervious surfaces. However, proposed bicycle facilities would comply with erosion control systems and construction BMPs per the City’s MS4 permit. BMPs may include directing runoff to permeable areas, maximizing stormwater storage for reuse, and incorporating porous materials into the project design. Compliance with these requirements would ensure that stormwater would be captured and retained on-site, and would minimize the risks of erosion, flooding, or excess stormwater in the local stormwater drainage system. Further, the Plan recommends bioswales where vegetation is planted along trails, in order to capture stormwater. Proposed active transportation projects would cross drainages using existing infrastructure. Therefore, the Plan would have a less than significant impact related to drainage patterns.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
740
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 c.(iv)Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Proposed trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities constructed outside of existing paved rights-of-way would result in the addition of new impervious surfaces. However, proposed trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would not include any new structures such as bridge abutments that could impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, implementation of the Plan would not impede or redirect flood flows.

As designated by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the City of Milpitas contains areas within the 1 percent annual chance flood hazard zone (100‐year flood), the 0.2 percent annual chance flood hazard zone (500‐year flood), and areas of undetermined flood hazard (City of Milpitas 2020). The Plan Area is subject to flooding problems along the creeks in the Plan Area, including Calera, Penitencia, and Berryessa, alongside which trail or bikeway improvements are planned. In addition, portions of the City may be at risk of inundation from upstream dam failure, with very little warning time. Future flooding trends may also be influenced by changes in the frequency and magnitude of precipitation, sea level rises, and storm surge due to climate change. Severe storm events are projected to increase, and low‐lying areas near the San Francisco Bay may experience increased flood risk from the backwater effect from increasing sea levels and coastal storm surges, and could also increase riverine and localized flooding due to extreme precipitation events (City of Milpitas 2020).

Some proposed active transportation projects in the Plan would be located in the 100-year or 500- year flood zone, but the operation of bikeways and pedestrian facilities would not involve the use of pollutants that could be released during inundation and construction would be subject to BMPs in accordance with the NPDES permit. Proposed facilities also are not located near a large standing body of water that may be subject to a seiche, or standing wave. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
741
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
68 This page intentionally left blank.
742
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 11 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Cause a significant environmental impact
due to a conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The purpose of the proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan is to increase connectivity in the community of the Milpitas by improving bicycle and pedestrian access. Although the Plan would induce the redesign of some existing streets for improved multi-modal access, no new roads or other large or linear facilities that would physically divide existing neighborhoods would be constructed. Therefore, the Plan would not divide an established community, but rather would enhance its connectivity. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
The Plan was developed in coordination with the City’s existing General Plan and its recent General Plan update process. As discussed in Section 17, Transportation, the Plan would be consistent with multiple policies in the Circulation Element of the existing General Plan (updated in 2021) to improve pedestrian and bicyclist circulation. These policies are intended to reduce safety hazards in the circulation system and increase the share of active transportation users in Milpitas. Increasing active transportation would reduce environmental impacts associated with vehicle miles traveled by improving access to pedestrians and bicyclists, providing a substitute to driving. All projects listed in the Plan would also comply with policies in the adopted General Plan that are explicitly designed to avoid or mitigation environmental effects.

In addition, the Plan would also be consistent with the resilience and equity objectives in ABAG’s Plan Bay Area (2050): to have a safe, inclusive multimodal transportation system, to conserve natural resources, open spaces, clean water, and clean air, and to actively reduce the region’s environmental footprint. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, and Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Plan would facilitate a reduction in long-term air pollution and GHG emissions by encouraging people to substitute bicycling and walking for driving motor vehicles. The Plan would also further public health goals of increasing physical activity through bicycling and walking. 743
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
70 Therefore, the Plan would support ABAG’s objectives to enhance climate protection and create healthy and safe communities.

The Plan would be consistent with applicable local and regional plans and policies to reduce environmental impacts. This impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
744
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 12 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? There are four areas identified by the State Geologist as containing Regionally Significant Construction Aggregate Resources located in the foothills outside city limits (City of Milpitas 2020).

Given that the only known identified regional mineral resource areas within the Plan Area are already in operation and currently quarried there is no additional potential for resource extraction in this zone. Therefore, the Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a locally important mineral resource recovery site. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
745
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
72 This page intentionally left blank.
746
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 13 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or
permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity of the project in
excess of standards established in the
local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? □ ■ □ □
b. Generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. For a project located within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ ■ □
Overview of Noise and Vibration
Noise
Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2013).

HUMAN PERCEPTION OF SOUND
Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Caltrans 2013a).
747
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
74 Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not “sound twice as loud” as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans 2013a).

SOUND PROPAGATION AND SHIELDING
Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver.

The most obvious change is the decrease in the noise level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions.

Sound levels are described as either a “sound power level” or a “sound pressure level,” which are two distinct characteristics of sound. Both share the same unit of measurement, the dB. However, sound power (expressed as Lpw) is the energy converted into sound by the source. As sound energy travels through the air, it creates a sound wave that exerts pressure on receivers, such as an eardrum or microphone, which is the sound pressure level. Sound measurement instruments only measure sound pressure, and noise level limits are typically expressed as sound pressure levels.

Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this “shielding” depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA’s guidance indicates that modern building construction generally provides an exterior-to-interior noise level reduction of 10 dBA with open windows and an exterior-tointerior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011).

DESCRIPTORS
The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. Common noise descriptors are the equivalent noise level (Leq), Day-Night Average Level (DNL; may also be symbolized as Ldn), and the community noise equivalent level (CNEL; may also be symbolized as Lden).

Leq is one of the most frequently used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A-weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018).
748
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day.

Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level (DNL or LDN), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL or LDEN), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).4 The relationship between the peak-hour Leq value and the LDN/CNEL depends on the distribution of noise during the day, evening, and night; however noise levels described by LDN and CNEL usually differ by 1 dBA or less. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range (FTA 2018).

Groundborne Vibration
Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings or structures and vibration energy may propagate through the buildings or structures. Vibration may be felt, may manifest as an audible low-frequency rumbling noise (referred to as groundborne noise), and may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration-sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage.

Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020).

High levels of groundborne vibration may cause damage to nearby building or structures; at lower levels, groundborne vibration may cause minor cosmetic (i.e. non-structural damage) such as cracks.

These vibration levels are nearly exclusively associated with high impact activities such as blasting, pile-driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or excavation. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has determined vibration levels with potential to damage nearby buildings and structures; these levels are identified in Table 2.

Table 2 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage Type of Situation Limiting Velocity (in/sec)
Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1
Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2–0.3
Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4–0.5 Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0–1.5
Source: Caltrans 2020
4 Because DNL and CNEL are typically used to assess human exposure to noise, the use of A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA) is implicit. Therefore, when expressing noise levels in terms of DNL or CNEL, the dBA unit is not included. 749
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
76 Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. The vibration annoyance potential criteria recommended for use by Caltrans, which are based on the general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels, are described in Table 3.

Table 3 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response
Vibration Level (in/sec PPV)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources1 Severe 2.0 0.4
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity 1 Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.

Source: Caltrans 2020

SENSITIVE RECEIVERS
Noise exposure goals for various types of land uses reflect the varying noise sensitivities associated with those uses. Noise-sensitive land uses typically include residences, schools, libraries, places of worship, and long-term care facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes. There are noise sensitive land uses throughout the Plan Area.

Regulatory Setting
The City of Milpitas Noise Element contains Guiding Principles and Policies that are designed to include noise control in the planning process in order to maintain compatible land uses with acceptable environmental noise levels and protect Milpitas residents from excessive noise. The Noise Element establishes goals and policies that would apply to the proposed Plan. Goal 1 encourages the preservation of a nuisance-free environment by minimizing exposure to harmful and excessive noise levels. Goal 1 is supported by Policies N 1-1 , N 1-2, N 1-4, N 1-7, and N 1-8, which set land use compatibility noise standards, mitigation for excessive noise, and construction best practices.

To implement the City’s noise policies, the City adopted Chapter 213 Noise Abatement in the Milpitas Municipal Code. The City’s Noise Ordinance states that it is the City’s policy to regulate and control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying noise and vibration in the city to maintain public health, welfare, and safety. Milpitas Municipal Code Section V-213-3(b) prohibits construction between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays and weekends, and entirely on holidays:
a. Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise
Construction of the active transportation projects listed in the Plan would generate elevated noise levels on a temporary basis in the immediate vicinity of project sites. As shown in Table 4, average 750
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 noise levels associated with using heavy equipment at construction sites can range from approximately 76 to 88 dBA at 50 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment in operation at any given time and the phase of construction. The highest noise levels generally occur during excavation and grading, which involve using such equipment as backhoes, bulldozers, shovels, and front-end loaders. Although many active transportation projects would simply require restriping and signage, some projects would require heavy equipment for demolition and grading.

For example, crosswalk enhancements could involve jackhammering of existing pavement and concrete to extend curbs, upgrade curb ramps, and install pedestrian beacons.

Table 4 Typical Construction Noise Levels
Equipment
25 feet from
Source (dBA Leq)
50 feet from
Source (dBA Leq)
100 feet from
Source (dBA Leq)
200 feet from
Source (dBA Leq)
500 feet from
Source (dBA Leq)
Air Compressor 86 80 74 68 60
Backhoe 86 80 74 68 60
Concrete Mixer 91 85 79 73 65
Grader 91 85 79 73 65
Jack Hammer 94 88 82 76 68
Paver 91 85 79 73 65
Roller 91 85 79 73 65
Saw 82 76 70 64 56
Scraper 91 85 79 73 65
Truck 90 84 78 72 64
Note: pile drivers will not be used for active transportation projects.

Source: Noise level at 50 feet from Federal Transit Administration, 2018. Noise levels at 25 feet, 100 feet, 200 feet, and 500 feet were extrapolated using a 6 dBA attenuation rate per doubling of distance. Each noise level assumes the piece of equipment is operating at full power for the expected duration to complete the construction activity. The duration varies widely between each piece of equipment. Noise levels also depend on the model and year of the equipment used.

Noise levels from point sources such as equipment at construction sites typically attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Therefore, only areas within several hundred feet of construction sites would typically be exposed to perceptible construction noise levels. The Milpitas Municipal Code does not establish numeric standards for construction noise. However, construction noise that substantially exceeds existing ambient noise levels could disturb sensitive receptors, such as residences and schools.

Construction activity under the Plan would be required to comply with Section V-213-3(b) of Milpitas Municipal Code, which prohibits construction related activity between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. every day. This would prevent loud construction activity during evening and nighttime hours when nearby residences are most sensitive to noise. However, daytime construction noise could still disturb sensitive receivers. Therefore, the construction of active transportation projects could have a potentially significant impact on sensitive receivers from temporary increases in ambient noise levels.

Mitigation Measures
In addition to requirements for construction noise in the City’s Municipal Code, the following mitigation measures are required to reduce the exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise:
751
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
78 N-1 Noise Reduction Measures Near Sensitive Receptors The City shall ensure that, where residences, schools, or other noise-sensitive uses are located within 500 feet of construction sites for active transportation projects listed in the Plan, appropriate measures shall be implemented to reduce noise exposure to the extent feasible. Specific techniques may include, but are not limited to:
 Locating stationary noise-generating construction equipment as far from sensitive receptors as feasible.
 Installing temporary noise barriers to block and deflect noise.

N-2 Noise Control Equipment
The City shall ensure that equipment and trucks used for construction of active transportation projects listed in the Plan utilize the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).

N-3 Impact Equipment
The City shall ensure that impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for construction of active transportation projects listed in the Plan be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever feasible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatically powered tools is unavoidable, use of an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. When feasible, external jackets on the impact equipment can achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Whenever feasible, use quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than impact equipment operation.

With implementation of local noise control requirements and proposed mitigation, temporary construction noise would be reduced to the extent feasible. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Operational Noise
The operation of proposed active transportation projects could generate temporary, intermittent noise from human conversations and the use of bicycles near sensitive residential uses. However, these noise sources would not substantially increase ambient noise levels relative to existing roadway traffic. In areas without roadway traffic, such as proposed Class I paths along creeks or existing trails away from roadways, active transportation users would not be near sensitive receivers. Further, the substitution of bicyclist and pedestrian trips for motor vehicle trips on proposed facilities also would incrementally reduce traffic noise. Therefore, the impact from permanent increases in noise would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
752
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Noise
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
The use of heavy construction equipment can generate substantial vibration near the source. It is expected that construction of some proposed active transportation projects would generate temporary vibration from jackhammering to break up existing pavement, bulldozers for earthmoving, trucks loaded with construction materials, and vibratory rollers to even out the surface of new asphalt.

Similar to construction noise, vibration levels would vary depending on the type of construction project and related equipment use. In general, the construction of trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities projects would be unlikely to generate substantial vibration. Table 5 estimates vibration levels from equipment that may be used during construction of the proposed facilities.

Table 5 Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment
PPV (in/sec)
25 Feet 50 Feet 100 Feet
Vibratory Roller 0.210 0.098 0.046
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.042 0.019
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.035 0.017
Jackhammer 0.035 0.016 0.008
Source: Caltrans 2013b
As shown in Table 5, construction activity would generate vibration levels reaching an estimated

0.098 PPV at a distance of 50 feet, during paving of new trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.

Because this vibration level would not exceed 0.25 PPV, Caltrans’ recommended criterion for distinctly perceptible vibration from transient sources, it would not result in substantial annoyance to people of normal sensitivity. Construction activity that generates loud noises (and therefore vibration) also would be limited to normal weekday daytime hours, which would prevent the exposure of sensitive receptors to vibration during evening and nighttime hours. Furthermore, maximum vibration levels would not exceed the Caltrans criteria of 0.5 PPV for potential damage of historic and old buildings from transient vibration sources. Even if construction activity generated vibration as close as 25 feet from sensitive receptors, vibration levels reaching 0.21 PPV (as shown in Table 5) still would not exceed applicable Caltrans criteria for human annoyance and structural damage. Therefore, vibration would not be excessive, and this impact would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There is no airport within Milpitas, and the nearest public airport is the San Jose International Airport, which is approximately four miles south of the City. Milpitas is not located within one of the Airport Safety Zones, as identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the San Jose International Airport (Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission 2011). No private airstrips are in the vicinity of Milpitas. Therefore, the Plan would not expose active transportation users to excessive noise levels from aircraft. This impact would be less than significant. 753
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
80 LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
754
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 14 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population
growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (e.g., through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)? □ □ □ ■
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
people or housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
a. Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Implementation of the Plan would not involve the construction of infrastructure that could induce substantial population growth, such as new or increased capacity sewer or water lines, or the construction of new streets and roads, but rather would serve existing populations. While these local improvements would make the area more attractive to visitors, this would not be expected to result in a noticeable growth-inducing effect within Milpitas. Proposed on-street bicycle facilities and crosswalk and pedestrian enhancements also would be located within existing road corridors and would not require the extension of roads. In addition, because the proposed active transportation projects would be located in existing roadway corridors or open space areas, they would not require displacement of housing or people. No impact related to population and housing would occur.

NO IMPACT
755
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
82 This page intentionally left blank.
756
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 15 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ □ ■
4 Parks? □ □ □ ■
5 Other public facilities? □ □ □ ■
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Proposed Class I, IIIB, and IV shared-use paths listed in the Plan that would be located outside existing rights-of-way would provide public access to areas that are not currently accessible and could require expanded police and fire protection service in these corridors. However, new shareduse paths could also increase access for police and fire providers into areas with poor existing access. In addition, proposed active transportation projects would be located in the urbanized city of Milpitas, which is already served by police and fire protection. The proposed projects would not involve residential, commercial, or other development that could substantially increase demand for 757
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
84 police or fire protection services in Milpitas. Therefore, the Plan would have a less than significant impact related to these public services.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The Plan would facilitate active transportation improvements, not the construction of residences or places of employment that would increase the population of school-age children in Milpitas.

Because the Plan would not increase demand for school facilities, no impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The Plan would not facilitate the construction of residences or places of employment that would increase the service population for park facilities in Milpitas. However, it would improve public access to existing parks. Projects listed in the Plan would complete bicycle connections and improve pedestrian access to Starlite Park, Hall Memorial Park, Sandalwood Park, Oliver W. Jones Memorial Park, Cardoza Park, Murphy Park and Robert E. Browne Park. Therefore, the Plan would not have an adverse environmental impact from the construction of parks.

NO IMPACT
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? As discussed above, the Plan would not facilitate an increase in Milpitas’ population. Therefore, it would not increase demand for libraries or other governmental facilities. There would be no impact.

NO IMPACT
758
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 16 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ ■ □ □
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
As discussed in Section 15, Public Services, projects listed in the Plan would complete bicycle connections and improve pedestrian access to Starlite Park, Hall Memorial Park, Sandalwood Park, Oliver W. Jones Memorial Park, Cardoza Park, Murphy Park and Robert E. Browne Park. Therefore, the Plan would improve access to local parks in Milpitas. Improved access to local and regional parks could incrementally increase the number of visitors at these recreational facilities. However, the proposed active transportation projects would mainly serve existing residents and employees in Milpitas, and they would not increase the service population for local parks. Some current park users would be expected to switch travel modes active transportation, thereby reducing vehicle parking demand at some parks. In summary, it is not anticipated that improved access to parks would increase public use to the extent that would significantly accelerate or cause the physical deterioration of parks, requiring repair or expansion. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Certain active transportation projects proposed in the Plan, particularly Class I, IIIB, and IV shareduse paths, would serve as new recreational facilities. The construction of these recreational facilities could have adverse environmental impacts, as described elsewhere in this IS-MND, before the implementation of mitigation measures. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, impacts to special-status species, nesting birds, and wetlands and riparian communities during construction would be potentially significant. Section 5, Cultural Resources, notes that impacts to archaeological resources from ground disturbance could be significant. As discussed in Section 7, Geology and Soils, new bicycle paths on undisturbed soil could be subject to unstable conditions from expansive soils.

Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, also indicates that soil disturbance could expose people to hazardous contaminants. Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, notes that impacts to 759
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
86 Native American resources from ground disturbance could be significant. Mitigation measures in these respective sections would reduce potential environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
760
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87 17 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance
or policy addressing the circulation
system, including transit, roadway,
bicycle and pedestrian facilities? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b)? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The Plan builds on the goals and objectives outlined in the Circulation Element of the Milpitas General Plan. The General Plan guides the long-term physical development of the city, while the Plan would guide the city's implementation of recommendations that support the city’s vision for improved multi-modal connectivity
Transit Facilities
Proposed active transportation routes in the Plan would improve multi-modal access to transit facilities, specifically the Milpitas BART station and three light rail and numerous bus stops operated by the VTA. In addition, proposed crosswalk enhancements would improve safety for pedestrians accessing light rail and bus stops. The Plan would not affect the capacity of transit facilities to accommodate public demand. There are several applicable policies in the Circulation Element that the Plan supports. Policy CIR 1-8 and CIR 2-1 promote multi-modal transportation options that provide safety and equity and encourage walking or bicycling, which the Plan adheres to by recommending active transportation projects. Policy CIR 4-2 and 4-3 support walking and biking to transit options. The Plan is consistent with these policies by prioritizing active transportation improvements that link to transit stations. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with policies in the City’s Circulation Element to improve transit access.
761
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
88 Roadway Facilities
The projects listed in the Plan, by their nature, would have little to no impact on roadway circulation for motor vehicles in Milpitas. One of the Plan’s objectives is to reduce VMT by improving access for pedestrians and bicyclists, allowing people to substitute active transportation for driving. While increased bicycle activity on area roadways could incrementally increase travel times for motorized vehicles having to pass bicyclists or wait for them to cross intersections, this increase would be negligible and potentially offset by the reduction of local vehicle trips. Therefore, the Plan would not conflict with policies related to roadway facilities in the City’s Circulation Element, and it would not conflict with statewide policy to reduce vehicle miles traveled under CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Bicycle and Trail Facilities
The existing bicycle network includes 48 miles of bikeways, including 25 miles of Class II bicycle lanes, 15 miles of Class III designated bicycle routes, and 8 miles of Class I paved shared use paths (City of Milpitas 2021a). While there are 15 miles of Class III designated bike routes, most of these routes do not have signage or pavement markings to support bicyclists. On-street bikeways are primarily located along major roadways with higher posted travel speeds and traffic volumes; many are also designated as freight routes. Milpitas does not currently have other bikeway types, such as buffered bike lanes, bike boulevards, or cycle tracks. 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. 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.

The existing network of trails is primarily comprised of paved shared use paths. The trail network also includes unpaved paths and/or soft surface trails, located primarily within parks. 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 need repair and other routine maintenance, such as regular clearing of debris and vegetation. In addition to local trails and paths, two regional recreational destinations are also located near Milpitas. The Coyote Creek Trail, which includes both a paved path and soft surface trail, is a designated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail. Second, Ed R. Levin County Park to the east of Milpitas offers over 20 miles of unpaved trails. This park provides for recreational opportunities such as 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 are currently limited by active modes and rely heavily on motor vehicle use to access these regional trails. The Plan proposes a comprehensive set of improvements to address the aforementioned deficiencies in connectivity and safety.

The Milpitas General Plan Circulation Element contains several applicable policies that support trail and bicycle-oriented development, with which the Plan is consistent (City of Milpitas 2020b).

Policies CIR 1-8 and CIR 2-1 promote multi-modal transportation options that provide safety and 762
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Transportation
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 equity and encourage walking or bicycling. The Plan is consistent with those policies by recommending safe and equitable active transportation projects. Policy CIR 2-3 encourages the use of traffic calming strategies for safer active transportation options. The Plan is consistent with this policy by recommending spot and linear trail and bikeway improvements that shield users from vehicles. Policies CIR 4-2, CIR 4-10, and CIR 6-3 encourage a shift to active transportation use. The Plan is consistent with these policies since the Plan aims to design a safer active transportation system through infrastructure improvements that would encourage active transportation use. Policy CIR 4-2 and Policy CIR 4-3 encourage the creation of infrastructure that allows walking and biking to transit options. The Plan is consistent with these policies by prioritizing active transportation improvements that link to transit stations. Policy CIR 4-4 encourage the addition of secure bicycle parking to active transportation facilities. The Plan is consistent with this policy by recommending long term bicycle parking facilities. Policy CIR 4-5 and CIR 4-6 support active transportation improvements across creek channels, railroads, and roadways and eliminating gaps in pedestrian and bicycle networks. The Plan is consistent with these policies by prioritizing projects that create a safe east-west network of trail, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure. Therefore, the Plan would be consistent and would not conflict with Circulation Element policies that promote bicycle usage.

Pedestrian Facilities
The pedestrian 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. 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. Proposed pedestrian facilities in the Plan, such as spot improvements that make crossing State Route 237 safer, would comprehensively improve pedestrian access and safety in Milpitas. Applicable policies in the Circulation Element that the Plan supports includes those discussed under Bikeway Facilities above. Therefore, the plan would not conflict with Circulation Element policies that promote pedestrian facilities.

NO IMPACT
c. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? Collisions, particularly those resulting in serious injuries or fatalities, disproportionately impact people walking or bicycling in Milpitas. Serious injury or fatal collisions involving people walking or bicycling also primarily occurred on major roadways (City of Milpitas 2021a). When collisions do occur, the extent of their injuries is typically greater and increases exponentially with the speed of the roadway. The Plan would add geometric design features at existing intersections for the purpose of improving public safety for pedestrians and bicyclists. Crosswalk enhancements would include features such as curb extensions to shorten unprotected pedestrian crossings, raised crosswalks to indicate that drivers should slow down at intersections, and upgraded curb ramps to improve access for pedestrians with mobility restrictions. Instead of introducing hazards to the circulation system, proposed geometric features would decrease existing hazards. Potentially incompatible uses such as 763
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
90 farm equipment also are not proposed in the Plan. Therefore, no impact related to roadway hazards would occur.

NO IMPACT
e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Individual active transportation projects listed in the Plan would have to conform to local, State, and national standards and manuals, as applicable, regarding safety, proper design, emergency access, and construction. These standards would require proper emergency access as part of the design and through construction of projects. Adherence to these required design and construction standards would reduce potential impacts related to emergency access to a less-than-significant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
764
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)? □ ■ □ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ ■ □ □
As of July 1, 2015, California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52) was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, “tribal cultural resources.” AB 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).

PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as “sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe” and is:

1. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 765
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
92 AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources.

The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? The City of Milpitas prepared and mailed letters to local Native American tribes who have requested notification under AB 52. Nine tribes were notified, letters were mailed on November 17th, 2021 and one letter on January 14th 2022. Under AB 52, tribes have 30 days to respond and request consultation. The Tamien Nation responded on December 29th, 2021 and requested a consultation meeting with the lead agency. The City conducted the consultation meeting with the Tamien Nation on February 1, 2022. The meeting included discussion on including tribal recognition on trails proposed in the Plan based on historical and cultural significance. The Tamien Nation also requested early notification and involvement with the planning and design process of projects to provide consultation to potentially avoid mitigation measures (see Appendix B for meeting minutes). The City has agreed to this request.

However, it is possible that ground disturbance during construction of the proposed active transportation project would encounter unknown tribal cultural resources or known cultural resources that may be identified as tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Plan has the potential to significantly impact tribal cultural resources through ground disturbance and looting or vandalism of encountered resources. Mitigation is required to ensure that any unanticipated discoveries of tribal cultural resources are avoided or, where avoidance is infeasible, mitigated to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
TCR-1 Suspension of Work Around Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction of an active transportation project listed in the Plan, all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of the find shall be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find as a cultural resource and an appropriate local Native American representative is consulted. If the City, in consultation with local Native Americans, determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with local Native American group(s). The plan shall include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan shall outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the appropriate local Native American tribal representative and, if applicable, a qualified 766
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 archaeologist. Examples of appropriate mitigation for tribal cultural resources include, but are not limited to, protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource, protecting traditional use of the resource, protecting the confidentiality of the resource, or heritage recovery.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure TCR-1 would protect tribal cultural resources in the event of their discovery on construction sites, reducing the potential impact on such resources to a less-thansignificant level.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
767
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
94 This page intentionally left blank.
768
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 19 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
b. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple Dry years? □ □ ■ □
c. Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments? □ □ □ ■
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the
capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? □ □ ■ □
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste? □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Proposed active transportation projects that would be constructed within existing paved rights-ofway, such as most bike lanes, routes, and boulevards, and crosswalk enhancements, would be located on existing roadways and would not impact stormwater drainage. However, as discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, proposed trail, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities that would be constructed outside existing paved rights-of-way, such as shared-use paths and bike lanes that may require roadway widening, would increase the volume of impermeable surfaces in Milpitas. In 769
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
96 compliance with the NPDES Construction General Permit, such projects would be required to implement BMPs to maintain or replicate the pre-development hydrologic regime. Implementation of required BMPs would minimize impacts related to stormwater drainage.

Although some new facilities would include pedestrian-scale lighting that uses electricity, new bicycle and pedestrian projects would not exert substantial demand on utilities such as electric power and natural gas. Further, considering the proliferation of electric-powered vehicles, resultant reductions in VMT from implementation of the Plan could reduce the use of electric power.

Therefore, they would not result in the need to build new utility infrastructure. The Plan would have a less than significant impact related to the relocation or construction of utility infrastructure.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Water demand in Milpitas in 2020 was 3,073 million gallons. According to the City of Milpitas’ 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, the City projects demand to be approximately 3,925 million gallons in 2025, which would be met by combined supplies from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and Valley Water (City of Milpitas 2021c). Water supply in 2025 would fall short of demand by 1,385 million gallons by the third year; in 2030, supplies would meet demand for two dry years; in 2035 and 2040 water supply would meet demand for at least five consecutive years; and in 2045, water supply would meet demand for three consecutive dry years. The projection is based on estimated future population, growth of which would not be impacted by implementation of the Plan.

During the construction of active transportation projects listed in the Plan, water may be required on a temporary basis to wet down disturbed areas and minimize emissions of fugitive dust.

However, water use would be temporary occurring only during construction activities. Future development could include water bottle filling facilities or add additional landscaping and shade trees. The increase in water demand by active transportation users and landscaping would be small in scale relative to existing citywide use and would not substantially decrease water supplies. Any additional water demand would be offset by water rationing during drought years on an as-needed basis. Therefore, the Plan would have a less than significant impact on water supplies.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Construction of the proposed active transportation projects would not include new restrooms or septic systems that could generate additional wastewater. Although new restrooms could potentially be installed at staging areas for shared-use paths, they are not proposed as elements of the projects listed in the Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Plan itself would not affect the ability of wastewater treatment providers to accommodate wastewater generated in Milpitas. No impact would occur.

NO IMPACT
770
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 d. Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
The proposed active transportation projects would not lead to a permanent increase in solid waste generated in Milpitas. During construction, waste would be limited to debris from the removal of linear strips of existing pavement or subsurface material. Most individual facilities would involve surface treatments like the painting of stripes for bike lanes or markings for bike routes, and the installation of crosswalk enhancements, the construction of which would not generate a substantial amount of solid waste. Furthermore, the long-term use of new on-street facilities would not generate solid waste. Although trash cans may be installed on planned shared-use path segments, the disposal of waste by trail users would generate minimal additional solid waste for disposal at a landfill. The construction and operation of active transportation projects would not substantially increase solid waste generation. Impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
771
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
98 This page intentionally left blank.
772
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Wildfire
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 20 Wildfire
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan? □ □ □ ■
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and
thereby expose project occupants to
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? □ □ □ ■
c. Require the installation or maintenance
of associated infrastructure (such as
roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? □ □ □ ■
d. Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslopes or
downstream flooding or landslides, as a
result of runoff, post-fire slope instability,
or drainage changes? □ □ □ ■
a. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
c. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? 773
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
100
d. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
There are no very high fire hazard severity zones in or near the City of Milpitas (City of Milpitas 2020). There are high and moderate fire hazard severity zones in state responsibility areas directly adjacent to the eastern edges of the City, none of which are within the Plan Area. No proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan would be located near or in a very high fire hazard severity zone. The Plan would involve striping and signage for motor vehicles to share the road with bicyclists and would not alter the roadway’s capacity to accommodate emergency response vehicles or evacuations from Milpitas. Therefore, the Plan would not impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan related to wildfire. Further, the Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risk.

NO IMPACT
774
Item # 18.

Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory? □ ■ □ □
b. Have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that
the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ □ ■ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, certain proposed active transportation projects listed in the Plan could reduce the habitat of special-status species, disrupt nesting birds, and impair wetlands and riparian habitat. As discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the construction of active transportation projects would not impact historical resources; however, they may impact unanticipated archaeological resources. Potential impacts to biological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-56 to study, protect, and compensate for the loss of sensitive biological resources, including fish and 775
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
102
wildlife populations. Impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 for the protection and recovery of cultural resources if discovered on construction sites. Therefore, impacts to biological and cultural resources would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with implementation of identified mitigation measures.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections 1 through 20, the Plan would have no impact, a less than significant impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues. Cumulative impacts of several resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections above: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise, and Transportation (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). Proposed active transportation projects would reduce VMT and GHG emissions while improving overall air quality.

Therefore, the Plan would not result in a cumulative traffic impact. Cumulative noise impacts would be less than significant because proposed facilities would decrease traffic on area roadways. Other resource areas (wildfire, agriculture and forestry resources, mineral resources, and population and housing) were determined to have no impact. Therefore, the Plan would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. Several resource issues (e.g., geology, hazards and hazardous materials) are by their nature project-specific and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in Section 3, Air Quality, proposed active transportation projects would not result in a direct or indirect air quality impact. As discussed in Section 13, Noise, construction of the proposed facilities may affect nearby sensitive receptors, but implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 would reduce construction noise impacts by requiring noise control measures to the extent feasible, such as locating stationary construction equipment as far from sensitive receptors as feasible and using the best available noise control techniques on equipment. Similarly, as discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, construction of active transportation projects could occur on or near listed hazardous material sites, but implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce impacts by requiring assessment and remediation for any such active sites. Impacts to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
776
Item # 18.

References
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 References
Bibliography
BAAQMD. 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. http://www.baaqmd.gov/researchand-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status (accessed November 2021). _____. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed November 2021).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan.

December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2018. California Important Farmland Finder. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ (accessed November 2021). _____. 2021. Williamson Act Properties Map.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=1f39e32b4c0644b0915354c3e 59778ce (accessed December 2021).

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2021. EnviroStor database. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed November 2021).

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. February 2010. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18366&inline (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT13-069.25.2) September. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-13- 069.25.3). September 2013.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2019. List of Eligible and Officially Designated State Scenic Highways. August 2019. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/desig-and-eligibleaug2019_a11y.xlsx _____. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual (CT-HWANP-RT-20- 365.01.01). April. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmentalanalysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020-a11y.pdf (accessed November 2021).

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34134/CGS-2002-CaliforniaGeomorphic-ProvincesNote-36-PDF (accessed November 2021). 777
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
104
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1995. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources.

Published March 1995. https://scic.sdsu.edu/_resources/docs/manual95.pdf (accessed November 2021).

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2009. Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Order R2-2009-0074. October 14, 2009.
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/docs/phase1r2_200 9_0074.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Cepeda et. al. 2017. “Levels of Ambient Air Pollution According to Mode of Transport: A Systematic Review.” Lancet Public Health, January 2017, Vol 2: e23-34. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanpub/PIIS2468-2667(16)30021-4.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December 2011.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations_and_guidance/analysis_and_ab atement_guidance/revguidance.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no0123_0.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L.

Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Milpitas, City of. 2013. Climate Action Plan. Adopted May 7, 2013. https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/Climate_ActionPlan.pdf (accessed November 2021). _____. 2020. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Milpitas General Plan Update. Certified March 9, 2021. https://milpitas.generalplan.org/ (accessed November 2021). _____. 2021a. Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan. June 2021. https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/city-milpitas-bicycle-pedestrian-trails-plan/ (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021b. 2040 General Plan. Adopted March 2021.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57277b461d07c02f9c2f5c2c/t/60906e63495393116 04cae70/1620078198914/Milpitas+General+Plan_Final_online+version.pdf (accessed November 2021).
_____. 2021c Urban Water Management Plan. July 1 2021.
https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/_pdfs/Milpitas_2020_%20UWMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed November 2021).
778
Item # 18.

References
Final Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx (accessed November 2021)
Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission. 2011. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Santa Clara County San Jose International Airport. Amended November 16, 2016. https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/ALUC_SJC_CLUP.pdf (accessed November 2021).

Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. 2012. Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan. August 2012. https://scvhabitatagency.org/178/Santa-Clara-Valley-Habitat-Plan (accessed December 2021).

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. Bethesda, MD. Available at:
http://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member-Ethics/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx State of California. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/ (accessed November 2021).

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker database. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed November 2021).

United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. “Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases.” Last modified: April 2021. epa.gov/climateindicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases (accessed November 2021).

United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). 2021. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html (accessed November 2021).

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2021. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States: Interactive Fault Map.
https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=5a6038b3a1684561a9b0 aadf88412fcf (accessed November 2021)
List of Preparers
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.

Steven Svete, AIPC, LEED AP ND, Principal
Kari Zajac, MESM, Senior Environmental Planner
Jesse Voremberg, MS, Environmental Planner
David Brodeur, MS, Environmental Planner
779
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
106
This page intentionally left blank.
780
Item # 18.

Appendix A
Proposed Pedestrian, Bikeway, and Trail Improvements
781
Item # 18.

Table A-1 Proposed Pedestrian Improvements
Pedestrian Proj_Num 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 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 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 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 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 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
782
Item # 18.

Table A-2 Proposed Bikeway 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 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 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 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 $200,000 783
Item # 18.

Table A-3 Proposed Bikeway Spot 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 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 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 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 784
Item # 18.

Table A-4 Proposed Trail 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 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 Yosemite Dr Parc East Milpitas Blvd LOW LOW $300,000
Penitencia Creek Milmont Dr California Circle LOW LOW $800,000 785
Item # 18.

Table A-5 Proposed Trail Spot 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 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 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 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 $3,200,000 786
Item # 18.

Appendix B
Tamien Nation Consultation Meeting Notes
787
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas Engineering Division
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035 Phone: (408) 583-3300 www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov
Superior Customer Service  Open Communication  Integrity and Accountability  Trust and Respect  Recognition and Celebration AB-52 Consultation Service Meeting Page 1 of 1
City of Milpitas – Engineering Department
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, California 95035
Trails, Bikeway, and Pedestrian Master Plan
AB-52 Consultation Meeting Minutes
Date : February 1, 2022
Location & Time : Team Meeting, 3:30PM-4:00PM
Attendees :

Fanny Yu City of Milpitas
Erin David Alta Planning + Design
Leanna Flaherty Rincon Consultants
Quirina Geary Tamien Nation

1. OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Formal Request for Tribal Consultation letter (TN20211126-03) that the City received on December 30, 2021 from Tamien Nation regarding the Trails, Bikeway, and Pedestrian Master Plan Update Project (CP3448)

2. DISCUSSION
 City provided a brief overview of the project. This project is an update to the previous Trails Master Plan adopted in 1997 and the Bikeway Master Plan adopted in 2009. This new update will combine the two plans into one and is a planning document. It identifies potential improvements and programs. The planning document is to be used as a guideline for future projects.
 The CEQA document was prepared at a program-level and not a specific project-level, thus the information requested by Tamien Nation is not currently available.  Once a project is funded and ready for the design and construction, the City will conduct a site specific CEQA analysis, notify Tamien Nation, follow AB-52 process and provide any information as required.
 QG mentioned that some of the trails should include tribal recognition based on historical and cultural significance, interpretive signage, identify locations and potentially move signs or realign to avoid those tribal resources. May need monitor during project.  Record searches are not conducted during program level, record search to be completed during project and site specific CEQA analysis.
 Tamien Nation wants early notification and to be involved with the planning and design process of projects to potentially avoid mitigation measures.
 This information will be included into the CEQA IS-MND for this master plan update.

3. CONCLUSION
 QG confirmed that no further action is required from the City in response to the consultation service letter, dated December 29, 2021, and the consultation service pursuant to CEQA and AB-52 has been concluded.
788
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan (Plan) identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the Plan. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed project. As stated in Section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting an IS-MND.

The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure.
789
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
2 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Biological Resources Screening and Assessment
Prior to final design approval of individual
active transportation projects listed in the
Plan that involve ground disturbance in or
directly adjacent to natural habitat, or the
removal or trimming of trees, the City shall
have a qualified biologist conduct an analysis
of the project to identify biological
constraints and potential impacts to sensitive
biological resources, including potential
impacts to special-status plants, animals, and
their habitats, as well as protected natural
communities including wetland and
terrestrial communities and protected trees.

For those projects where ground disturbance
would not affect natural habitat (i.e., work is
limited to paved, ruderal, or developed areas
only), a desktop analysis to identify biological
constraints for the project may be sufficient.

This analysis shall include queries of agency
databases such as the CNDDB, the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare
and Endangered Plants of California, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC), USFWS Critical Habitat Portal, and
USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as
well as other relevant literature for baseline
information on special-status species and
other sensitive biological resources occurring
at the individual project site and in the
immediate surrounding area. The qualified
biologist shall determine, based on the
nature of construction activities, if a field
Confirm a qualified biologist is
retained to conduct a preliminary
biological analysis of constraints and
impacts for applicable individual
active transportation projects listed
in the Plan.

If an individual project listed in the
Plan has potential to adversely affect
protected biological resources,
confirm avoidance, minimization, or
mitigation of impacts.

During design
review of individual
active
transportation
projects, prior to
construction.

Prior to final design
approval for
avoidance and
minimizing impacts
to biological
resources. Prior to
project construction
for mitigation
approval. During
construction for
mitigation
implementation.

Once
As needed
during design
review for
avoidance
and
minimization
measures.

Once for
approval of
mitigation. As
needed
during
construction
for mitigation
implementati
on.

City of
Milpitas
790
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
reconnaissance is necessary for such projects
to completely assess biological constraints.

If the biologist identifies protected biological
resources within the limits of and/or
potentially adversely affected by the project,
the City shall first prepare alternative designs
that seek to avoid and/or minimize impacts
to the biological resources. If the project
cannot be designed without complete
avoidance, the City shall have the qualified
biologist identify the specific impacts to
special-status species, develop projectspecific avoidance and mitigation procedures to be followed to reduce biological impacts to
a less-than-significant level, identify any state
or federal listed species that would
necessitate coordination with the
appropriate regulatory agency (i.e., USFWS,
National Marine Fisheries Services [NMFS],
CDFW, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE])
to obtain regulatory permits, and implement
project-specific avoidance and mitigation
measures prior to and during any
construction activities.

Mitigation actions that may be required
should impacts to special-status species be
identified include:
 Pre-construction surveys to identify the
presence of special-status species within
and adjacent to work areas.
 Worker Environmental Awareness
Program training for all construction
personnel.
 Complete avoidance of special-status
species where and if possible. Avoidance
measures may include:
791
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
4 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
 Delimiting and flagging of specialstatus species avoidance buffer areas (Environmentally Sensitive Areas or
ESAs)
 Monitoring of construction activity
near ESAs
 Installation of special-status species
exclusion fencing.
 Relocation of special-status species out of
work areas (with applicable permits and
authorizations as necessary).
 Restoration of temporarily disturbed
special-status species’ habitat.
 Compensatory mitigation for impacts to
special-status species habitat at a
minimum ratio appropriate for extent and
quality of permanently disturbed habitat.

Mitigation ratios may vary from 1:1 to
5:1.

BIO-2: Construction Best Management Practices
Based on the results of the biological
resources screening and assessment required
by Mitigation Measure BIO-1 for certain
active transportation projects, and the extent
of potential impacts to special-status species,
the City shall incorporate one or more of the
following construction Best Management
Practices (BMPs) as recommended by a
qualified biologist into all grading and
construction plans:
 A 20 mile-per-hour speed limit shall be
designated in all construction areas to
minimize dust emissions and noise.
 All vehicles and equipment shall be
parked on pavement, existing roads, and
previously disturbed areas, and clearing
Confirm incorporation of appropriate
BMPs into all grading and
construction plans.

During design
review of individual
active
transportation
projects, prior to
issuance of grading
permits.

Once City of
Milpitas
792
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
of vegetation for vehicle access shall be
avoided to the greatest extent feasible.
 The number of access routes, number,
and size of staging areas, and the total
area of the activity shall be limited to the
minimum necessary to achieve the goal of
the project.
 Equipment washout and fueling areas
shall be located within the limits of
grading at a minimum of 100 feet from
waters, wetlands, or other sensitive
resources as identified by a qualified
biologist. Washout areas shall be
designed to fully contain polluted water
and materials for subsequent removal
from the site.
 Daily construction work schedules shall be
limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00
p.m. only (consistent with the City’s noise
ordinance).
 Mufflers shall be used on all construction
equipment and vehicles shall be in good
operating condition.
 Drip pans shall be placed under all
stationary vehicles and mechanical
equipment.
 All trash shall be placed in sealed
containers and shall be removed from the
project site a minimum of once per week.
 No pets are permitted on project site
during construction.
793
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
6 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-3: Riparian Communities
For trail projects located within or
immediately adjacent to natural areas, if the
initial screening of biological resources under
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 identifies the
presence of riparian communities within or
adjacent to a project site, the City shall
design or modify the project to avoid direct
and indirect impacts on these habitats, if
feasible. Additionally, the City shall minimize
the loss of riparian vegetation by trimming
rather than removal where feasible.

Prior to construction, the City shall install
orange construction barrier fencing to
identify environmentally sensitive areas
around the riparian area (50 feet from edge)
and other sensitive natural communities (50
feet from edge), or as defined by the agency
with regulatory authority over the
resource(s). The location of the fencing shall
be marked in the field with stakes and
flagging and shown on the construction
drawings. The fencing shall be installed
before construction activities are initiated
and shall be maintained throughout the
construction period. The following paragraph
shall be included in the construction
specifications:

The Contractor’s attention is directed to
the areas designated as “environmentally
sensitive areas.” These areas are
protected, and no entry by the Contractor
for any purpose will be allowed unless
specifically authorized in writing by lead
agency overseeing the bicycle
improvement project. The Contractor will
take measures to ensure that the
If an individual trail project would
impact riparian communities,
confirm the project is redesigned to
avoid the impact, if feasible.

Ensure riparian vegetation is
trimmed, not removed, where
feasible.

Confirm proper installation of
temporary fencing to protect
riparian areas from construction
activity.

Stabilize exposed soil/ slopes.

During design
review of individual
projects
During construction
Prior to
construction
Upon completion of
construction
Once
As needed
during
construction
Once
Once
City of
Milpitas
794
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Contractor’s forces do not enter or
disturb these areas, including giving
written notice to employees and
subcontractors.

Temporary fences around the
environmentally sensitive areas shall be
installed as the first order of work.

Temporary fences shall be furnished,
constructed, maintained, and removed as
shown on the plans, as specified in the
special provisions, and as directed by the
project engineer. The fencing shall be
commercial-quality woven polypropylene,
orange in color, and at least 4 feet high
(Tensor Polygrid or equivalent). The fencing
shall be tightly strung on posts with
maximum 10-foot spacing.

Immediately upon completion of
construction activities, the contractor shall
stabilize exposed soil/slopes. On highly
erodible soils/slopes, the contractor shall use
a non-vegetative material that binds the soil
initially and breaks down within a few years.

If more aggressive erosion control treatments
are needed, geotextile mats, excelsior
blankets, or other soil stabilization products
shall be used. All stabilization efforts should
include habitat restoration efforts.
795
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
8 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
BIO-4: Compensatory Mitigation
If individual trail projects located within or
immediately adjacent to natural areas involve
the disturbance of riparian communities
during construction, the City shall
compensate for the disturbance to ensure no
net loss of habitat functions and values.

Compensatory mitigation ratios shall be
determined on a project-by-project basis
during the project-level CEQA review once
project impacts have been determined.

Compensatory mitigation shall be at a
minimum ratio of two acres restored,
created, and/or preserved for each acre
disturbed. Compensation may comprise onsite restoration/creation, off-site restoration, preservation, or mitigation credits (or a
combination of these elements). The City
shall develop and implement a restoration
and monitoring plan that describes how the
habitat shall be created, the success criteria
that will be used to quantify mitigation
success, and the frequency and duration of
monitoring.

If an individual project would disturb
riparian communities, ensure no net
loss of habitat functions and values.

Ensure the compensatory mitigation
ratio is at minimum two acres
restored, created, and/or preserved
for each acre disturbed.

Ensure completion of a restoration
and monitoring plan.

Ensure implementation of the
monitoring plan.

During design
review of individual
projects, prior to
project construction
Prior to construction
Following project
construction
Once
Once
As needed
according to
the
monitoring
plan
City of
Milpitas
BIO-5: Jurisdictional Delineation and Restoration for Impacts to Waters and Wetlands For individual trail projects listed in the Plan,
if waters of the state or waters of the U.S. are
present within or immediately adjacent to
the area of construction, a qualified wetlands
biologist shall perform a wetland delineation
following the 1987 Army Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual and any
applicable regional supplements to the
Delineation Manual. The jurisdictional
delineation shall determine the extent of the
jurisdiction for CDFW, USACE, and/or
If an individual active transportation
project would be within or
immediately adjacent to protected
waters, ensure a qualified biologist is
retained to perform wetland
delineation. Ensure the preliminary
jurisdictional delineation is
submitted to the appropriate
responsible agencies.

Confirm impacts to waters and
wetlands are avoided or
Prior to final design
approval of
individual active
transportation
project.

Prior to final design
approval for
Once
Once for
mitigation
City of
Milpitas
796
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
RWQCB, and shall be conducted in
accordance with the requirement set forth by
each agency. The result shall be a preliminary
jurisdictional delineation report to be
submitted to the implementing agency,
USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, as appropriate,
for review and approval. Jurisdictional areas
shall be avoided to the maximum extent
possible.

Impacts to waters and wetlands shall be
mitigated through one or more options to
meet the required amount of mitigation
based on direct impacts from project
development under the mitigation ratios
outlined below. Mitigation for impacts to
waters and wetlands can be achieved
through the acquisition and in-perpetuity
management of similar habitat or through
the in-lieu funding of such through an
existing mitigation bank. Funding and
management of internal mitigation areas can
be managed internally. Funding and
management of off-site mitigation lands shall
be provided through purchase of credits from
an existing, approved mitigation bank or land
purchased by implementing entity and placed
into a conservation easement or other
covenant restricting development (e.g., deed
restriction). Internal mitigation lands, or in
lieu funding sufficient to acquire lands shall
provide habitat at a minimum 1:1 ratio for
impacted lands, comparable to habitat to be
impacted by individual project activity.

Compensatory mitigation for wetlands
communities can be combined with other
compensatory mitigation (e.g., sensitive
vegetation communities) as applicable.
appropriately mitigated.

If mitigation is achieved through
acquisition of similar habitat, ensure
the land is managed in perpetuity or
that credits are purchased at an
existing approved mitigation bank
through in-lieu funding.
avoidance and
minimizing impacts
to biological
resources.

Prior to project
construction for
mitigation approval.

During construction
for mitigation
implementation.
approval.

As needed to
monitor
purchased
habitat and
once for
purchasing
credits.
797
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
10 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Archaeological Resources Assessment
If cultural resources are encountered during
ground-disturbing activities for a proposed
active transportation project listed in the
Plan, work in the immediate area shall be
halted and an archaeologist meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for archaeology in
either prehistoric or historic archaeology shall
be contacted immediately to evaluate the
find. If necessary, the evaluation may require
preparation of a treatment plan and
archaeological testing for CRHR eligibility. If
the discovery proves to be significant under
CEQA and cannot be avoided by the project,
additional work such as excavating the
cultural deposit to fully characterize its
extent, and collecting and curating artifacts
may be warranted to mitigate any significant
impacts to cultural resources. In the event
that archaeological resources of Native
American origin are identified during project
construction, a qualified archaeologist will
consult with the City to begin Native
American consultation procedures.

If cultural resources are encountered
during grading, ensure work is halted
and retain an archaeologist to
evaluate find.

If significant resource cannot be
avoided, mitigate by collecting and
curating.

Consult with a qualified
archaeologist and ensure Native
American consultation procedures if
Native American archaeological
resources are identified during
project construction.

During grading for
individual active
transportation
projects
During grading for
individual active
transportation
projects
During ground
disturbing activities
for individual active
transportation
projects
As needed
during
ground
disturbing
activities
As needed
during
ground
disturbing
activities
As needed
during
ground
disturbing
activities
City of
Milpitas
798
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Expansive Soils
If a Class I, IIIB, or IV shared-use path project
listed in the Plan is located in an area
mapped as having expansive underlying soil,
the City shall ensure that a site-specific
geotechnical investigation is conducted by a
qualified engineer. The investigation shall
identify hazardous conditions and
recommend appropriate design factors to
minimize hazards. Such measures could
include concrete slabs on grade with
increased steel reinforcement, removal of
highly expansive material and replacement
with non-expansive import fill material, or
chemical treatment with hydrated lime to
reduce the expansion characteristics of the
soils.

If Class I, IIIB, or IV project is in area
with expansive soils, ensure a
qualified engineer is retained to
conduct a geotechnical investigation
of the project site that identifies
hazardous conditions.

Ensure recommended measures in
the report are implemented.

During design
review of active
transportation
projects
During construction
Once
As needed
City of
Milpitas
GEO-2 Paleontological Resource Studies
The City of Milpitas shall require the
following specific measures for individual
bicycle, pedestrian, and trail projects that
could disturb geologic units with high
paleontological sensitivity:

1. Retain a Qualified Paleontologist. Prior to
any excavations, a qualified
paleontologist shall be retained to review
all project plans where ground
disturbance is expected, as well as areas
mapped as Pleistocene deposits at the
surface, to determine if paleontologically
sensitive units could be impacted. A
qualified professional paleontologist is
defined by the SVP standards as an
individual preferably with an M.S. or Ph.D.
in paleontology or geology who is
Confirm a paleontologist is retained
for projects to be constructed in
areas identified as having high
paleontological to review project
plans. If the paleontologist
determines the project has the
potential to impact paleontological
resources review the Mitigation and
Monitoring Program, then ensure
recommended measures are
implemented.

Prior to ground
disturbing activities.

Once for
retaining a
paleontologis
t and
approving the
Mitigation
and
Monitoring
Program. As
needed
during
construction
City of
Milpitas
799
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
12 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
experienced with paleontological
procedures and techniques, who is
knowledgeable in the geology of
California, and who has worked as a
paleontological mitigation project
supervisor for a least two years (SVP
2010). If it is determined that no
paleontologically sensitive units could be
impacted, then specific project impacts
shall be deemed less than significant and
no further mitigation would be required.

If it is determined that a paleontologically
sensitive unit could be impacted, then the
subsequent mitigation measures provided
here shall be followed as a minimum
standard.
a. The qualified professional
paleontologist shall direct all
mitigation measures related to
paleontological resources and design a
Paleontological Resources Mitigation
and Monitoring Program (PRMMP) for
the project, which outlines the
procedures and protocol for
conducting paleontological monitoring
and mitigation. Monitoring shall be
conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor who meets
the minimum qualifications per
standards set forth by the SVP. The
PRMMP shall address the following
procedures and protocols:
 Timing and duration of monitoring
 Procedures for work stoppage and
fossil collection
for
recommende
d measures.
800
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
 The type and extent of data that
should be collected with any
recovered fossils
 Identify an appropriate curatorial
institution
 Identify the minimum
qualifications for qualified
paleontologists and
paleontological monitors
 Identify the conditions under
which modifications to the
monitoring schedule can be
implemented
 Details to be included in the final
monitoring report.

2. Paleontological Worker
Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP). Prior to the start of
construction, the qualified
paleontologist or his or her designee
shall conduct training for construction
personnel regarding the appearance
of fossils and the procedures for
notifying paleontological staff should
fossils be discovered by construction
staff. The WEAP shall be fulfilled at the
time of a preconstruction meeting at
which a qualified paleontologist shall
attend.

3. Paleontological Monitoring.

Paleontological monitoring should be
conducted during ground disturbing
construction activities (i.e., grading,
trenching, foundation work) in
previously undisturbed sediments
with high paleontological sensitivities
Ensure training for construction
personnel is conducted for active
transportation projects with high
paleontological sensitivity.

Confirm a qualified paleontologist
conducts paleontological monitoring
for active transportation projects
with high paleontological sensitivity
in previously undisturbed sediments
including Pleistocene alluvial
deposits when excavations exceed 5
feet below ground surface.

Ensure work is halted immediately in
the vicinity of a fossil discovery and
that a qualified paleontologist
evaluates the find before restarting
construction activity in the area.

Ensure
recommended
measures are
implemented during
construction.

Prior to project
construction
Once
As needed
during
grading
801
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
14 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
including Pleistocene alluvial deposits
when excavations exceed 5 feet below
ground surface.
a. Paleontological monitoring shall be
conducted by a qualified
paleontological monitor, who is
defined as an individual who has
experience with collection and
salvage of paleontological
resources and meets the minimum
standards of the SVP (2010) for a
paleontological resources monitor.

The duration and timing of the
monitoring will be determined by
the qualified paleontologist and
the location and extent of
proposed ground disturbance. If
the qualified paleontologist
determines that full-time
monitoring is no longer warranted,
based on the specific geologic
conditions at the surface or at
depth, he/she may recommend
that monitoring be reduced to
periodic spot-checking or cease
entirely.
b. Fossil Discoveries. In the event of
a fossil discovery by the
paleontological monitor or
construction personnel, all work in
the immediate vicinity of the find
shall cease. A qualified
paleontologist shall evaluate the
find before restarting construction
activity in the area. If it is
determined that the fossil(s) is
(are) scientifically significant, the
802
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
qualified paleontologist shall
complete the following conditions
to mitigate impacts to significant
fossil resources:
c. Salvage of Fossils. If fossils are
discovered, all work in the
immediate vicinity should be
halted to allow the paleontological
monitor, and/or lead
paleontologist to evaluate the
discovery and determine if the
fossil may be considered
significant. If the fossils are
determined to be potentially
significant, the qualified
paleontologist (or paleontological
monitor) should recover them
following standard field
procedures for collecting
paleontological as outlined in the
PRMMP prepared for the project.

Typically, fossils can be safely
salvaged quickly by a single
paleontologist and not disrupt
construction activity. In some
cases, larger fossils (such as
complete skeletons or large
mammal fossils) require more
extensive excavation and longer
salvage periods. In this case the
paleontologist should have the
authority to temporarily direct,
divert or halt construction activity
to ensure that the fossil(s) can be
removed in a safe and timely
manner. If fossils are discovered,
the qualified paleontologist (or
Ensure lead paleontologist evaluates
fossil discoveries for their potential
significance and follows procedures
outlined in the project PRMMP
During ground
disturbing
construction
activities
As needed
during
construction
803
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
16 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
paleontological monitor) shall
recover them as specified in the
project’s PRMMP.

4. Preparation and Curation of
Recovered Fossils. Once salvaged,
significant fossils should be identified
to the lowest possible taxonomic
level, prepared to a curation-ready
condition, and curated in a scientific
institution with a permanent
paleontological collection (such as the
University of California Museum of
Paleontology), along with all pertinent
field notes, photos, data, and maps.

Fossils of undetermined significance at
the time of collection may also
warrant curation at the discretion of
the qualified paleontologist.

5. Final Paleontological Mitigation
Report. Upon completion of ground
disturbing activity (and curation of
fossils if necessary) the qualified
paleontologist should prepare a final
mitigation and monitoring report
outlining the results of the mitigation
and monitoring program. The report
should include discussion of the
location, duration and methods of the
monitoring, stratigraphic sections, any
recovered fossils, and the scientific
significance of those fossils, and
where fossils were curated. The report
shall be submitted to the City of
Milpitas. If the monitoring efforts
produced fossils, then a copy of the
report shall also be submitted to the
designated museum repository.

Confirm salvaged fossils are
prepared and curated in a scientific
institution and procedures
consistent with the institution are
followed.

Review and approve the final
mitigation and monitoring report
submitted by the qualified
paleontologist and, if monitoring
efforts produced fossils, ensure a
copy of the report is submitted to
the designated museum repository.

During construction
Prior to project
operation
Prior to project
operation
Upon completion of
ground disturbing
activity
Once
Once
Once
804
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1 Hazardous Material Sites Investigation and Remediation Prior to construction of any active
transportation project listed in the Plan
that requires ground disturbance, the
City shall consult lists of hazardous
material sites maintained by the
California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC), the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
and the County of Santa Clara Hazardous
Materials Compliance Division. Where a
proposed improvement is located on or
adjacent to an identified site, follow up
Phase I, and as appropriate, Phase II
hazardous waste site investigations shall
be completed, and any contaminants
shall be remediated to concentrations
below applicable screening-level
thresholds for human health. The
investigation and, if necessary,
remediation shall be conducted under
the supervision of the County of Santa
Clara Hazardous Materials Compliance
Division or the City. No disturbance of
contaminated soil shall be permitted
unless an approved site cleanup and
remediation plan has been implemented
for the identified hazardous waste sites.

Any ground disturbance shall be
preceded by advance notification of and
approval by the City.

Ensure lists of hazardous material sites
are reviewed for any active
transportation project with ground
disturbance. Where projects may be
located on sites with potentially
hazardous materials ensure a Phase I
and/or Phase II investigation of the
project site is completed, as appropriate.

Review the Phase I and/or Phase II and
remediate according to the
recommendations in the report(s).

During design
review of individual
projects, prior to
construction.

Once City of
Milpitas
805
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
18 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
Noise
N-1 Noise Reduction Measures Near Sensitive Receptors
The City shall ensure that, where
residences, schools, or other noisesensitive uses are located within 500 feet of construction sites for active
transportation projects listed in the Plan,
appropriate measures shall be
implemented to reduce noise exposure
to the extent feasible. Specific
techniques may include, but are not
limited to:
 Locating stationary noise-generating
construction equipment as far from
sensitive receptors as feasible.
 Installing temporary noise barriers to
block and deflect noise.

Ensure noise reduction measures are
implemented for applicable active
transportation projects within 500 feet of
sensitive receivers.

During design
review of individual
projects
Once City of
Milpitas
N-2 Noise Control Equipment
The City shall ensure that equipment and
trucks used for construction of active
transportation projects listed in the Plan
utilize the best available noise control
techniques (including mufflers, use of
intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures
and acoustically attenuating shields or
shrouds).

Select and operate construction
equipment and trucks that use best
available noise control techniques.

During construction As needed
during
construction
City of
Milpitas
N-3 Impact Equipment
The City shall ensure that impact
equipment (e.g., jack hammers,
pavement breakers, and rock drills) used
for construction of active transportation
projects listed in the Plan be hydraulically
or electrically powered wherever feasible
Ensure that impact equipment is
hydraulically or electrically powered; that
an exhaust muffler is used; that external
jackets on impact equipment is used; or
quieter procedures are used, when
feasible and applicable.

During construction As needed
during
construction
City of
Milpitas
806
Item # 18.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
to avoid noise associated with
compressed air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools. Where use
of pneumatically powered tools is
unavoidable, use of an exhaust muffler
on the compressed air exhaust can lower
noise levels from the exhaust by up to
about 10 dBA. When feasible, external
jackets on the impact equipment can
achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Whenever
feasible, use quieter procedures, such as
drilling rather than impact equipment
operation.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1 Suspension of Work Around Tribal Cultural Resources In the event that cultural resources of
Native American origin are identified
during construction of an active
transportation project listed in the Plan,
all earth-disturbing work in the vicinity of
the find shall be temporarily suspended
or redirected until an archaeologist has
evaluated the nature and significance of
the find as a cultural resource and an
appropriate local Native American
representative is consulted. If the City, in
consultation with local Native Americans,
determines that the resource is a tribal
cultural resource and thus significant
under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be
prepared and implemented in
accordance with state guidelines and in
consultation with local Native American
group(s). The plan shall include
avoidance of the resource or, if
Ensure earth-disturbing work is halted
near discovered tribal cultural resources.

Retain an archaeologist to evaluate the
find, consult with the local Native
Americans to coordinate tribal
consultation, determine what
archaeological monitoring or other
measures are required, such as a
mitigation plan, and implement required
mitigation.

During construction As needed
during
construction
City of
Milpitas
807
Item # 18.

City of Milpitas
Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan
20 Mitigation Measure/
Condition of Approval Action Required Monitoring Timing Monitoring
Frequency
Responsible
Agency
Compliance Verification
Initial Date Comments
avoidance of the resource is infeasible,
the plan shall outline the appropriate
treatment of the resource in
coordination with the appropriate local
Native American tribal representative
and, if applicable, a qualified
archaeologist. Examples of appropriate
mitigation for tribal cultural resources
include, but are not limited to, protecting
the cultural character and integrity of the
resource, protecting traditional use of
the resource, protecting the
confidentiality of the resource, or
heritage recovery.
808
Item # 18.

Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient, and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 10th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3265
F 415.934.5770
TTY 415.554.3488
Natural Resources and Lands Management Division
April 18, 2022
Fanny Yu, Associate Civil Engineer
City of Milpitas Engineering Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Re: City of Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Plan Update – Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Yu:

Thank you for the notice of intent to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the above-referenced project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). We appreciate the opportunity for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to provide comments prior to the Milpitas City Council’s consideration of adoption of the MND.

The City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) owns in fee the great majority of the SFPUC ROW land in the City of Milpitas. The primary use of the SFPUC ROW land is for the delivery, operation, maintenance, and protection of its drinking water supply system. Secondary uses of ROW lands devoted to these purposes may be permitted only if those uses do not in any way interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future operations or the security of those systems.

The proposed City of Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Trail Plan Update (Plan) proposes to extend the existing Hetch Hetchy Trail on the SFPUC right-of-way (ROW) to the boundary with the City of Fremont. The existing Hetch Hetchy trail on the SFPUC ROW was authorized through an SFPUC permit with the City of Milpitas. In addition, ROW parcels along Escuela Parkway are proposed for use as a pedestrian and bicycle trail. These ROW parcels are currently authorized through an SFPUC permit with the City of Milpitas for the purpose of landscaping. Each of the SFPUC parcels included in the Plan must be evaluated to determine if the proposed trail would interfere with the 809
Item # 18.

SFPUC Comments April 18, 2022
Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Update MND Page 2
SFPUC’s access and use of its ROW land for utility operations, including existing surface water utility facilities and appurtenances. The City of Milpitas should not assume that the SFPUC ROW parcels are available for a proposed trail until after the SFPUC has vetted each specific proposal through our Project Review process to determine whether the proposal conforms with our policies.

Background
The SFPUC manages approximately 60,000 acres of watershed land and 150 miles of pipeline ROW in three Bay Area counties. These lands are part of the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System providing water to approximately 2.7 million customers. The SFPUC monitors and protects its lands by reviewing proposed projects and activities that may affect SFPUC lands and infrastructure for consistency with SFPUC policies and plans.

San Francisco, through the SFPUC, operates several active water transmission pipelines within the Milpitas city limits, typically in 80-foot-wide ROWs. These pipelines serve millions of water customers and include the Bay Division Pipeline (BDPL) Nos. 3 and 4, which include the existing Hetch Hetchy Trail. The ROW's primary purpose is to serve as utility corridors for water transmission.

Comments Regarding the Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration First, the SFPUC should be listed as a responsible agency since it is foreseeable that improvements could be proposed on the SFPUC ROW property, which could result in a discretionary action by the SFPUC that would require the SFPUC to draft Responsible Agency findings pursuant to CEQA.

In addition, SFPUC land use policies should be included in the land use analysis of the MND. Land use and planning analyses under CEQA generally consider the compatibility of a project with neighboring areas, change to or displacement of existing uses, and consistency of a project with relevant local land use policies. The magnitude of land use conflicts or compatibility issues depends on the extent to which a project physically divides an established community or conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect such that an adverse impact on the environmental occurs.

The SFPUC maintains policies to help inform how and in which instances its ROW can serve the needs of public agencies, private parties, nonprofit organizations, and developers while maintaining the safety and security of the pipelines that run underneath the ROW. SFPUC policies pertain to land use and structures, recreational use, utilities, vegetation, and water efficiency. Construction of structures on the ROW is generally prohibited, with prohibitions on structures or improvements that require excavation, bored footings, or concrete pads that are greater than 6 inches deep. No structures may be placed directly on top of a pipeline or within 20 feet of the edge of a pipeline. No utilities may be installed on the ROW running parallel to SFPUC’s pipelines; utilities may run perpendicular to pipelines with SFPUC approval.

According to SFPUC’s Interim Water Pipeline Right of Way Use Policy for San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties (copy attached), the SFPUC typically issues 5-year licenses for use of its property, with a form of rent and insurance required upon signing. These licenses are revocable, 810
Item # 18.

SFPUC Comments April 18, 2022
Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Update MND Page 3
meaning that SFPUC can revoke them prior to the 5-year expiration. The licensee (user of SFPUC property) is to maintain landscaping and equipment to ensure that water is used efficiently. Water runoff leaving a landscaped area due to low head drainage, overspray, broken irrigation hardware, or other similar conditions is prohibited. Structures on the ROW are generally prohibited under SFPUC’s policies.

The SFPUC’s Right of Way Integrated Vegetation Management Policy (copy attached) was established to manage vegetation on the transmission, distribution, and collection systems within SFPUC’s ROW so that it does not pose a threat or hazard to the system’s integrity and infrastructure or impede utility maintenance and operations. These policies include regulations on the types of plantings that are permitted to occur within each zone of the ROW, regulations on annual grass and weed management, and policies pertaining to vegetation removal.

Comments Regarding the Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Update The SFPUC ROWs are primarily used for utility purposes and are vital to the reliable operation of a regional water system. The SFPUC has policies that limit third-party uses and improvements on San Francisco property due to the presence of high-pressure, subsurface water transmission lines and appurtenances and other infrastructure located above-grade. Please see the attached Interim Water Pipeline ROW Use Policy and Integrated Vegetation Management Policy for more information about restrictions on the ROW.

Certain secondary uses by third parties on SFPUC property are allowed under a fee-based lease or license agreement requiring payment of fair market value to the SFPUC. Such a secondary use may occur only if the SFPUC determines that the secondary use benefits the SFPUC and does not in any way interfere with, endanger, or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.

The SFPUC prohibits any use on its ROW property that:

1. Cannot be removed promptly, to allow SFPUC construction, maintenance, or emergency repairs of its facilities.

2. Would conflict with SFPUC legal obligations to adjoining property owners or tenants.

Some SFPUC parcels in the City of Milpitas could be subject to easements or other agreements held by adjoining landowners or third parties which may present conflicts with the proposed trail. Further research by the SFPUC’s Real Estate Services is needed, but it is possible that certain SFPUC parcels may not be available for trail use.

3. Would conflict with the resolution of unauthorized third-party encroachments that currently exist on some SFPUC ROW parcels.

4. Would create an unreasonable burden for the SFPUC (or its ratepayers) in the use of its property for utility purposes. The SFPUC reasonably anticipates that its property in the City of Milpitas will be available for future utility infrastructure and capital projects.

Revocable licenses and leases issued by the SFPUC contain standard language requiring any lessee or licensee of SFPUC lands to mitigate the effects for the disruption of its recreational use on SFPUC lands, even if the SFPUC is causing the disruption of 811
Item # 18.

SFPUC Comments April 18, 2022
Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Update MND Page 4
the recreational use. This includes required mitigation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

5. Is otherwise inconsistent with SFPUC plans and policies.

This list is not exhaustive. The SFPUC retains the right to disallow any use that, at the SFPUC's sole discretion, may interfere with, endanger or damage existing or future SFPUC operations, security, or facilities.

Because the Plan includes an extension of the Hetch Hetchy Trail in Milpitas to the City of Fremont boundary, we are providing the following information about our interactions with Fremont regarding the use of the SFPUC ROW for trail purposes. Recently, the City of Fremont proposed a trail over the SFPUC ROW for BDPL Nos. 3 and 4 called the Hetch Hetchy North-South Trail. This proposed trail would extend 5.75 miles from Mission Boulevard and Palm Avenue to the City of Milpitas. The SFPUC provided comments on Fremont’s trail proposal and noted that some of the maps in the draft Fremont plan were potentially misleading because they suggested some level of agreement between the SFPUC and City of Fremont after only minimal contact with us (i.e., a single presentation without any commitment from the SFPUC). At this point, the City of Fremont has not submitted anything for the SFPUC for review beyond the conceptual plan distributed to the public (which was the subject of our comment letter). Because the Fremont Trail Strategy Plan was conceptual and there was not adequate time for SFPUC to review it through our normal process, the SFPUC could not support the proposed trails on the ROW in Fremont in our comment letter.

Just as we asked the City of Fremont, we also ask the City of Milpitas to prominently state in all public documents that any proposed use of the SFPUC’s ROW is subject to review and approval by the City and County of San Francisco through its SFPUC.

Since Fremont’s proposed Hetch Hetchy North-South Trail that would extend to the boundary with Milpitas has not yet undergone a proper review by the SFPUC, it would be premature for the SFPUC to consider approval of an extension of the Milpitas Hetch Hetchy Trail to connect with Fremont’s trail.

SFPUC Project Review Process
Proposed projects and other activities on any San Francisco property must undergo the Project Review Process if the project will include construction; digging or earth moving; clearing; installation; the use of hazardous materials; other disturbance to watershed and ROW resources; or the issuance of new or revised leases, licenses and permits. This review is done by the SFPUC's Project Review Committee (Committee).

The Committee is a multidisciplinary team with expertise in natural resources management, environmental regulatory compliance, engineering, water quality and real estate. Projects and activities are vetted by the Committee for consistency with SFPUC plans and policies.

In reviewing a proposed project, the Committee may conclude that modifications or avoidance and minimization measures are necessary. Large and/or complex projects may require several project 812
Item # 18.

SFPUC Comments April 18, 2022
Milpitas Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan Update MND Page 5
review sessions to review the project at significant planning and design stages.

To initiate the Project Review process, please download and fill out a Project Review application at https://sfpuc.org/construction-contracts/lands-rights-of-way and click the tab labeled Project Review and Land Use - Bay Area. Please submit the completed application to [email protected] and it will be scheduled for the next available Project Review meeting.

If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me or my staff, Casey Rando, Senior Environmental Compliance Planner, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Tim Ramirez
Division Manager
Attachments: 1) SFPUC Interim Water Pipeline ROW Use Policy 2) ROW Integrated Vegetation Management Policy
C: Steve Ritchie, Angela Cheung, Annie Li, Rosanna Russell, Neal Fujita, Ellen Natesan, Casey Rando, Lindsay Revelli, Anna Fedman, Angie Alexander, Jane Lavelle, Lisa Wayne, Emily Read, Joanne Wilson
813
Item # 18.

Printed on Recycled Paper
Sent Via Electronic Mail
April 18, 2022
Ms. Fanny Yu
Associate Civil Engineer
City of Milpitas Engineering Department
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
[email protected]

CITY OF MILPITAS NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION FOR THE PROPOSED CITY OF MILPITAS TRAIL, PEDESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE MASTER PLAN – DATED MARCH 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2022030515)
Dear Ms. Fanny Yu:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) for the Proposed City of Milpitas Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, work in close proximity to mining or suspected mining or former mining activities, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, importation of backfill soil, and/or work on or in close proximity to an agricultural or former agricultural site.

DTSC has review comments on the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the document, Trail, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Master Plan, Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated March 2022 and prepared by the City of Milpitas with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. DTSC recommends that the discussion of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 - Hazardous Material Sites Investigation and Remediation be clarified to require 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. Also, in the event that any previously unknown 814
Item # 18.

Ms. Fanny Yu
April 18, 2022