Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/2025 City Council Regular Agenda Packet March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 1 of 3 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Thursday, March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL 7351 ROSANNA STREET, GILROY, CA 95020 Chair: Manny Bhandal: manny.bhandal@cityofgilroy.org Vice Chair: Brian Dauenhauer: brian.dauenhauer@cityofgilroy.org Commissioners: Patricia Bentson: patricia.bentson@cityofgilroy.org Stefanie Elle: stefanie.elle@cityofgilroy.org Annedore Kushner: annedore.kushner@cityofgilroy.org Adriana Leongardt: adriana.leongardt@cityofgilroy.org Monica Valdez: monica.valdez@cityofgilroy.org Staff Liaison: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director | sharon.goei@cityofgilroy.org Written comments can be submitted by email to planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org. Please note that written comments will not be read out loud, but will be part of the written record. Comments by the public will be taken on any agenda item before action is taken by the Planning Commission. Persons speaking on any matter are asked to state their name and address for the record. Public testimony is subject to reasonable regulations, including but not limited to time restrictions on particular issues and for each individual speaker. A minimum of 12 copies of materials should be provided to the Clerk for distribution to the Commission and Staff. Public comments are limited to no more than three-minutes, at the Chair’s discretion. Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to the City of Gilroy, Community Development Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division by 1:00 pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commissioners prior to or at the meeting and are available for public inspection at the Planning Division counter at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street. Any correspondence received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after the 1:00 pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as practicable. In compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), the City will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (408) 846-0491. A sound enhancement system is available in the City Council Chambers. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Page 2 of 3 March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM If you challenge any planning or land use decision made at this meeting in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing held at this meeting, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Please take notice that the time within which to seek judicial review of any final administrative determination reached at this meeting is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for Public Hearing will be heard when the presiding officer calls for comments from those persons who are in support of or in opposition thereto. After persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and brought to the Planning Commission level for discussion and action. There is no further comment permitted from the audience unless requested by the Planning Commission. A Closed Session may be called during this meeting pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) if a point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the City on the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation against the City. Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of Administration at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street during normal business hours. These materials are also available with the agenda packet on the City website at www.cityofgilroy.org KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE GILROY OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE. Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, task forces, councils and other agencies of the City exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE, TO RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF THE ORDINANCE OR TO REPORT A VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, CONTACT THE OPEN GOVERNMENT COMMISSION STAFF AT (408) 846-0204 or by email at cityclerk@cityofgilroy.org. 1. OPENING 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Three-minute time limit). This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons desiring to address the Planning Commission on matters not on the agenda. The law does not permit the Planning Commission action or extended discussion of any item not on the agenda except under special circumstances. Comments on any agenda item may be emailed to the Planning Division at planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org or mailed to Community Development Department at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020. Comments received by the Planning Division by 1:00pm on the day of a Planning Commission meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission prior to or at the meeting and available for public inspection with the agenda packet located in the lobby of Planning Division at City Hall, 7351 Rosanna Street prior to the meeting. Any correspondences received will be incorporated into the meeting record. Items received after 1:00pm deadline will be provided to the Planning Commission as Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Page 3 of 3 March 13, 2025 | 6:00 PM soon as practicable. All statements that require a response will be referred to staff for reply in writing. PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RELATED PROJECT APPLICATIONS WILL BE HEARD CONCURRENTLY AND ACTION WILL BE TAKEN INDIVIDUALLY. COMPANION PROJECTS UNDER NEW BUSINESS WILL BE TAKEN UP FOR ACTION PRIOR TO, OR IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RELATED PUBLIC HEARING. THIS REQUIRES DEVIATION IN THE ORDER OF BUSINESS AS NOTED WITHIN THE AGENDA. 5. CONSENT AGENDA 5.1. February 20, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1. Architectural and Site Review and Variance for removal of existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application No. AS 24-14 and V 24-01. 1. Staff Report: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I 2. Public Hearing: 3. Close Public Hearing: 4. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication: 5. Possible Action: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Based on its independent analysis, determine this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and b) Adopt a resolution approving the Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14; and c) Adopt a resolution approving the Variance permit application V 24-01. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1. VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update – Presentation by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 8.1. Civic Center Master Plan Community Workshops 8.2. Planning Division Staff Approvals 9. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT 10. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 11. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of April 3, 2025 at 6:00 PM Page 1 of 4 City of Gilroy Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM 1. OPENING Tonight’s meeting was called to order by the 2024 Chair, Manny Bhandal, at 6:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2024 Chair, Manny Bhandal, led the pledge of allegiance. 3. REPORT ON POSTING THE AGENDA AND ROLL CALL The agenda was posted on Thursday February 13, 2025, at 5:54 p.m. Attendance Attendee Name Present Patricia Bentson, Commissioner Manny Bhandal, Chair Brian Dauenhauer, Commissioner Annedore Kushner, Vice Chair Adriana Leongardt, Commissioner Monica Valdez, Commissioner Absent Stefanie Elle, Commissioner 4. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR 2025 A motion was made by Commissioner Valdez; seconded by Commissioner Dauenhauer to elect Commissioner Bhandal as the 2025 Planning Commission Chair. RESULT: Pass [6 – 0] MOVER: Chair Bhandal SECONDER: Commissioner Leongardt AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal ABSENT: Commissioner Elle A motion was made by Commissioner Kushner; seconded by Commissioner Leongardt to elect Commissioner Dauenhauer as the 2025 Planning Commission Vice Chair. RESULT: Pass [6 – 0] MOVER: Chair Bhandal SECONDER: Commissioner Leongardt AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal ABSENT: Commissioner Elle 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chair Bhandal opened public comments for items not on the agenda. February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Roy Flowers provided a public comment expressing concerns with the Hoey Ranch development area. There being no further speakers, Chair Bhandal closed public comment for items not on the agenda. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.1. January 16, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Chair Bhandal; seconded by Commissioner Leongardt to approve the consent agenda. RESULT: Pass [6 – 0] MOVER: Chair Bhandal SECONDER: Commissioner Leongardt AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal ABSENT: Commissioner Elle 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7.1. Two Tentative Map applications to subdivide approximately 6.7 acres into 42 single-family duet residential lots (TM 24-02) and approximately 41.36 acres into 84 single-family residential lots (TM 24-03) in the Glen Loma Ranch Specific Plan area 1. Staff Report: Melissa Durkin, Extra Help Planner 2. Public Comment: Chair Bhandal opened public comment. Roya Cruz provided a public comment opposing the approval of the applications due to concerns with the projects. Jeff Heid provided a public comment supporting the approval of the applications. 3. Close Public Hearing: There being no further speakers, Chair Bhandal closed public comment. 4. Disclosure of Ex-Parte Communication: None. 5. Possible Action: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Determine that Tentative Map applications TM 24-02 and TM 24-03 do not require independent CEQA review beyond EIR Addendum #2 because February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 3 of 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 are present; and b) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-02, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. c) Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-03, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. A motion was made by Commissioner Kushner; seconded by Commissioner Valdez to: Determine that Tentative Map applications TM 24-02 and TM 24-03 do not require independent CEQA review beyond EIR Addendum #2 because none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15162 are present. RESULT: Pass [6 – 0] MOVER: Commissioner Kushner SECONDER: Commissioner Valdez AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal ABSENT: Commissioner Elle A motion was made by Commissioner Kushner; seconded by Chair Bhandal to: Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-02, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. RESULT: Pass [6 – 0] MOVER: Commissioner Kushner SECONDER: Chair Bhandal AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal ABSENT: Commissioner Elle A motion was made by Commissioner Kushner; seconded by Commissioner Bentson to: Adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Tentative Map TM 24-03, subject to the findings, conditions, and mitigation measures provided in the draft resolution. RESULT: Pass [6 – 0] MOVER: Commissioner Kushner SECONDER: Commissioner Bentson February 20, 2025 | 6:00 PM Page 4 of 4 Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes AYES: Commissioner Bentson, Kushner, Leongardt, Valdez, and Vice Chair Dauenhauer, and Chair Bhandal ABSENT: Commissioner Elle 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1. FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 Planning Commission Workplan, Training, and Budget Request 1. Staff Report: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director 2. Public Comment 3. Possible Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission establish and recommend for approval by the City Council the Fiscal Year 2025-26 and Fiscal Year 2026-27 Planning Commission workplan, training, and budget request. Community Development Director, Sharon Goei. provided the Planning Commission with a presentation discussing the commission’s workplan, training, and budgeting. After receiving the presentation, the Planning Commission provided feedback and recommended for approval by the City Council the Fiscal Year 2026-27 Planning Commission workplan, training, and budget request. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 8.1. Planning Division Staff Approvals There was one architectural and site review application staff approval. 10. PLANNING DIVISION REPORT None. 11. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Andrew Faber informed the Planning Commission of a legal newspaper article out of Los Angeles on a case where the Planning Commission got the city in trouble through the denial of a housing project where the actions taken were not taken in good faith. 12. ADJOURNMENT To the Next Meeting of March 13, 2025 at 6:00 PM Chair Bhandal adjourned the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, CA 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 | Fax: (408) 846-0429 cityofgilroy.org |planningdivision@cityofgilroy.org Sharon Goei DIRECTOR DATE: March 13, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Vanessa Sanchez, Planner I SUBJECT: Architectural and Site Review and Variance for removal of existing 35-foot monopole and installation of a 65-foot monopole and related equipment located at 401 First Street, Application No. AS 24-14 and V 24-01 . RECOMMENDATION: Staff has analyzed the proposed project, and recommends that the Planning Commission: a) Based on its independent analysis, determine this project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3); and b) Adopt a resolution approving the Architectural and Site Review permit application AS 24-14; and c) Adopt a resolution approving the Variance permit application V 24-01. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Crown Castle, is requesting an Architectural and Site Review permit and Variance permit for to demolish an existing 35-foot tall monopole and install a new 65- foot tall monopole and related equipment consisting of (1) 6160 cabinet with two RP6651 Units and IXRE router, enclosure Bi60 Cabinet, double tri-sector collar with T-arms, six (6) antennas, two (2) hybrid cables, three (3) 4460 radio units, and three (3) 4480 radio units, located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Construction shall be contained within the existing leased area consisting of 275 square feet. The leased area shall maintain the existing six (6) bollards and a 6-foot-high wooden fence. The proposed wireless facility will be unstaffed and will be maintained and serviced as needed. The wireless facility will also be implementing the required safety plans and procedures. The project requires Planning Commission approval because the new monopole is requesting a height and setback variance. 2 BACKGROUND: Previous Approvals: The existing wireless facility was issued an approval in 2001 (Building Permit No. 01030203) for the construction of a 35-foot-tall monopole and associated equipment, within a 275 square foot leasing area located behind the existing commercial building at 401 First Street. Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses: The subject site (APN 790-32-004) is presently developed with a commercial building, associated parking and landscaping. The property also is developed with a 275 square foot leased fenced area that contains a 35- foot-tall monopole and associated wireless equipment located behind the commercial building. The site and surrounding land uses are as follows: LOCATION EXISTING LAND USE GENERAL PLAN ZONING Project Site Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) North Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) South Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) East Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) West Commercial Mixed Use Neighborhood Commercial (C1) Environmental Assessment: Section 15303 (Class 3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, categorically exempts from further environmental review, those projects involving “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures.” The proposed 65-foot-tall monopole is considered a small facility as there is no horizontal expansion of the existing leasing area and there is only the replacement of existing monopole and associated equipment involved. Filing of a Notice of Exemption (NOE) is not mandated; however, it reduces the statute of limitations for legal challenges under CEQA, from 180 days to 35 days. No further assessment is necessary for this proposal, and a NOE may be filed for the project. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS: General Plan Consistency: The City's General Plan designates the subject site for Mixed Use, which supports the proposed project request. As such, the proposal conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan. Key goals and policies which pertain to the proposed project are discussed below: POLICY # TITLE AND SUMMARY ANALYSIS PSF 1.8 Provision of Utilities Work with public, quasi-public, and private utility providers as practicable to provide adequate levels of service to city residents. The new wireless facility would improve telecommunication services to the public and emergency services personnel. 3 PSF 8.7 Telecommunication Technologies Support the implementation of telecommunication technologies to attract new businesses and meet the changing communication needs of City residents and businesses. The new wireless facility will improve 5G coverage and fill in a significant coverage gap for the residents of Gilroy. Zoning Code Conformance: The proposed wireless facility is located in the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. In accordance with the Gilroy City Code (GCC) Section 30.35.14, the proposed wireless facility may be permitted with an approved Architectural and Site Review Permit. The Architected and Site Review Permit may be approved at a staff level if it complies with all zoning regulations. However, because the project is proposing a monopole height greater than the allowed height for the C-1 zoning district and a smaller setback, a Variance Permit application is required. Applicable development standards for the project have been considered for the proposed project, as follows: STANDARD REQUIRED PROPOSED CONFORMS? Maximum Height 35 feet 65 feet No, Variance Minimum Front Setback 65 feet 81 feet Yes Minimum Interior Side Setback 65 feet 53 feet 4 inches No, Variance Minimum Street Side Setback 65 feet 48 feet 9 inches No, Variance Minimum Rear Setback 65 feet 53 feet 8 inches No, Variance Per Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(c)(1), a wireless facility is required to be setback at a minimum of the overall structure height from all property lines and/or a distance consistent with the required yard setbacks of the particular zone district. The C-1 zoning district has a front yard setback of 31 feet, side yard adjacent to street setback of 21 feet, and no minimum rear or interior side yard setback when surrounded by parcels within the same zoning district. The proposed wireless facility meets the minimum setback requirement of the zoning district. However, since the proposed monopole is 65 feet tall, the more restrictive setback is 65 feet from all property lines. This setback requirement is part of the variance request. Due to the size of the property, the 65-foot setback would not be able to be met. Additionally, per Gilroy Code section 30.35.19(d), wireless facilities proposed in commercial zoning districts shall meet the height limitation for the underlying zoning district unless a variance is obtained. The variance application must provide a written justification for the tower height and analysis for absence of alternatives that would have less of a visual impact. The applicant provided the following justification: - A height increase is needed to achieve the coverage and capacity of wireless services for the area. The additional height would allow for additional antennas and upgraded technologies. Additionally, emergency services would also benefit from the additional antennas at the new height. The site is an existing wireless facility, which would eliminate the need for a new cellular facility. 4 For viable alternatives, the applicant provided the following justification for other potential sites: - Crown Castle owns the existing tower and has a lease in place with the carrier (T-Mobile). The lease is locked in place for a certain number of years; therefore, Crown Castle would not look for another pole (site) to put these antennas on and lose that revenue. Although other sites were not analyzed, the applicant did provide a coverage map that showed that there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site, therefore colocation would not be an option. Additionally, the applicant did analyze the different coverage options at various heights: 32-feet RC placement height, 46-feet RC placement height, and 60-feet RC placement height. RC signifies the placement height of wireless technology equipment. The analysis showed that the 32-foot-tall monopole has a 851 population gain if updated technology was placed on the existing pole. The 46- foot-tall monopole can achieve a 2,016 population gain and the 60-foot-tall monopole is able to achieve 3,266 population gain. The 65-foot-tall monopole (60-foot RC placement) can provide greater coverage for the residential neighborhood south of First Street bordered by Wren Avenue to the West and Miller Avenue to the East. The applicant has provided a letter signifying their willingness to allow other carriers to co-locate on the facility wherever technically and economically feasible. The applicant provided the required Radio Frequency Compliance Report prepared by Young Km with Site Safe, dated May 2024. The Report deemed the proposed wireless facility to be complaint with FCC Rules and Regulations and outlines actions that the site must take. This includes installing proper signage, ensuring the site remains secure, and implementing proper radio frequency safety awareness training for personnel who need to access the site. Additionally, the monopole will be constructed out of non-flammable metal and shall be painted a flat color. The monopole will be conditioned to provide a color sample for Development Services Director approval. Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Project plans were routed to Engineering, Building, Police, and Fire representatives for internal review and comment. There were no concerns raised or conditions provided by TAC members. PUBLIC NOTICING: Property owner information (i.e. list, labels, and map) within 500 feet of the subject site were generated by the City of Gilroy using current ownership data. On February 28,2025 notices of this Planning Commission meeting were mailed to the property owners along with other interested parties and published in the Gilroy Dispatch at least 10 days prior to the meeting. In addition, the property has been posted with on-site signage notifying passersby of pending development, and the Planning Commission public hearing packets are available through the City's webpage. APPEAL PROCEDURE: In accordance with Section 30.51.50 of the Gilroy City Code, the Planning Commission's decision may be appealed, in writing, to the City Council within 20 days of adoption of the 5 resolution. Appeal forms may be obtained from the City Clerk and must be submitted with the appropriate fee before the end of the appeal period. Attachments: A. Draft Resolution of Approval, Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 24-14 B. Draft Resolution of Approval, Variance Permit V 24-01 C. Vicinity Map D. Project Plans E. Photo Simulations F. Radio Frequency Report G. Coverage Map Analysis AS 24-14 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE REVIEW PERMIT FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 35-FOOT-TALL MONOPLE AND INSTALLATION OF A NEW 65-FOOT-TALL MONOPLE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 401 FIRST STREET, APN: 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER AS 24-14) WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliott, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting an architectural and site review permit for the proposed demolition of an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and installation of a new 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment located within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (APN: 790-32- 004); and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15303 (Class 3) which applies to construction of small facilities; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the project approval is based is the Community Development Department, Planning Division. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the Architectural and Site Review Permit AS 24-14 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy City Code section 30.35.21 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) and 30.50.30 subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this Resolution: A. That either: (1) the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned will not significantly affect any visual resources, environmentally sensitive habitat and/or other significant City of Gilroy resources, including agricultural, open space, and community character resources; or (2) there are no other environmentally equivalent and/or superior and technically feasible alternatives to the proposed wireless telecommunications facility as conditioned (including alternative locations and/or designs) with less visual and/or other resource impacts and the proposed facility has been modified by condition and/or project design to minimize and mitigate its visual and other resource impacts. There are no environmentally sensitive habitats or other significant resources that would be Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 2 AS 24-14 impacted by the wireless facility. Additionally, the monopole will be painted a flat paint color to ensure that the pole blends in with the surrounding neighborhoods. Alternative heights for the proposed monopole were provided and the analysis displayed that the 65-foot-tall monopole would provide greater coverage to the population; B. That the site is adequate for the development of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and, for sites located in residential zoning districts or PUDs with residential uses, that the applicant has demonstrated that there are not environmentally equivalent or superior and technically feasible: (1) alternative sites outside residential zone districts or PUDs with residential uses; and/or (2) alternative designs for the proposed facility as proposed and conditioned. The site is not located in a residential zoning district or within a PUD with residential uses. The site is within the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, and commercial and industrial zoning districts are the preferred locations for new wireless facilities. Additionally, alternative heights for the monopole were analyzed for the site. C. That the subject property upon which the wireless telecommunications facility is to be built is in compliance with all rules and regulations of the City of Gilroy, including, but not limited to, zoning uses, subdivisions and any other applicable provisions of this article, and that all zoning violations have been abated and abatement costs, if any, have been paid. There are no zoning violations that currently exist at the site and the site is in compliance with the allowable uses of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district; D. That the proposed wireless communication facility as conditioned is in compliance with all FCC, FAA and California PUC standards and requirements; E. That the proposed use is properly located in relation to the general plan and to the community as a whole and to other land uses and to transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; and F. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity, or cause any damage, hazard, or nuisance to persons or property. Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 3 AS 24-14 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ Sharon Goei, Secretary Manny Bhandal, Chairperson Community Development Director Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 4 AS 24-14 EXHIBIT A AS 24-14 401 First Street PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for AS 24-14 is granted to demolish an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and install a 65-foot-tall monopole and related equipment as described in the staff report dated March 13, 2025, located at 401 First street (Assessor Parcel No. 790-32-004),as shown on Project Plans received by the Planning Division on December 12, 2024, prepared by Streamline Engineering for T- Mobile, dated January 10, 2024, with revision dates of February 27, 2024, and October 2, 2024, and consisting of 16 sheets. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval to demolish an existing 35-foot-tall monopole and install a new 65-foot-tall monopole is one year from the decision date, March 13, 2025, during which time the applicant shall submit application for building permits and pursue construction diligently to completion. If any development for which architectural and site approval has been granted has not submitted complete application for building permits within one (1) year from the date of notification of approval, pursued issuance of the permit and/or initiated construction within 6 months of the permit issuance, the approval shall be deemed automatically revoked. Once a permit has been issued for construction, work shall be completed within one (1) year. Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code. 3. WIRELESS FACILITY EXPIRATION. An approved wireless facility permit is granted for ten (10) years from the date of approval, upon which time this permit shall Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 5 AS 24-14 automatically become null and void. Should Developer desire to continue operation as granted herein, a new application or extension of such application must be requested in a timely manner and prior to the expiration date. 4. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS: If Developer, owner or tenant fails to comply with any of the conditions of this permit, the Developer, owner or tenant shall be subject to permit revocation or enforcement actions pursuant to the City Code. All costs associated with any such actions shall be the responsibility of Developer, owner or tenant. 5. INDEMNIFICATION: Developer agrees, as a condition of permit approval, at Developer’s own expense, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Gilroy (“the City”) and its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees and agents from any and all claim(s), action(s) or proceeding(s) brought against the City or its officers, contractors, consultants, attorneys, employees, or agents to challenge, attack, set aside, void or annul the approval of this resolution or any condition attached thereto or any proceedings, acts or determinations taken, including actions taken under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, done or made prior to the approval of such resolution that were part of the approval process. 6. FEDERAL AND UNIFORM CODE COMPLIANCE: Wireless Facility shall comply with all uniform codes, all FCC rules, regulations, and standards, and FAA requirements. 7. PAINT SAMPLE. Applicant shall provide paint samples for the proposed monopole and pole mounted equipment for Community Development Director consideration and approval. The paint sample must be a flat color. 8. MODIFICATIONS. Any proposed modifications to the wireless facility and/or this approval may require further review and/or planning entitlements subject to review by the Community Development Director or designee. The following conditions shall be addressed prior to issuance of any BUILDING PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT or IMPROVEMENT PLAN, whichever is first issued, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 9. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Developer shall include a plan sheet(s) that includes a reproduction of all conditions of approval of this permit, as adopted by the decision- maker. 10. CERTIFICATION OF BUILDING PERMIT PLANS: The project architect/engineer shall certify in writing that the architectural design shown in the building permit plans match the plans approved by the Community Development Director or designee/Planning Commission/City Council. Any changes must be clearly noted. The project architect shall also certify that the structural plans are consistent with the Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 6 AS 24-14 architectural plans. In the event of a discrepancy between the structural plans and the architectural plans, the architectural plans shall take precedence, and revised structural drawings shall be submitted to the Building Division. 11. COLORS AND MATERIALS: Plans submitted for building permit applications shall include all exterior wireless facility materials and colors to be used in construction. 12. SUBSEQUENT ENTITLEMENTS: Developer shall obtain necessary permits prior to initiating any new construction or modifications authorized under this approval, including but not limited to temporary construction trailers, temporary staging areas, model home sales offices, advertising signs of any kind, exterior and interior modifications. Developer shall pay all requisite fees in effect at the time of plan submittal and/or issuance, as applicable. 13. FENCES AND WALLS: All fencing and walls are to be shown on construction drawings submitted for building permit review, measured from adjacent grade to the top of the fence or wall. The design and location must comply with all setback requirements. The following conditions shall be met prior to RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL INSPECTION, or ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, whichever occurs first, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 14. PLANNING INSPECTION: Inspection by the Planning Division is required for the final completion of the project to ensure that the construction matches the approved plans. 15. BUSINESS LICENSE: Wireless operator shall obtain a City of Gilroy Business License. The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, or as otherwise specified in the condition. 16. CONSTRUCTION RELATED NOISE: To minimize potential construction-related impacts to noise, Developer shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the subject site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following measures at the construction site: a. Limit construction activity to weekdays between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction noise is prohibited on Sundays and City-observed holidays; b. Locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 7 AS 24-14 sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area; c. Construct sound walls or other noise reduction measures prior to developing the project site; d. Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment; e. Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines; f. Utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists; and g. Designate a “disturbance coordinator’ who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g. bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures be implemented to correct the problem.” 17. CONSTRUCTION RELATED AIR QUALITY: To minimize potential construction- related impacts to air quality, Developer shall require all construction contractors to implement the basic construction mitigation measures recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and shall include the following language on any grading, site work, and construction plans issued for the project site “During earth-moving, grading, and construction activities, Developer shall implement the following basic control measures at the construction site: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day; b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material onsite or offsite shall be covered; c. All visible mud or dirt tracked out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited; d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads or pathways shall be limited to 15 miles per hour; e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used; f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points; g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 8 AS 24-14 checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator; and h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.” The following conditions shall be complied with AT ALL TIMES that the use permitted by this entitlement occupies the premises. 18. COLLOCATIONS. The permittee shall be willing to allow other carriers and site operators to collocate transmission equipment with the wireless facility, to the extent such facility or portions thereof are owned or controlled by the permittee, whenever technically feasible and aesthetically desirable in accordance with applicable provisions in the City’s Municipal Code. 19. MAINTENANCE. Wireless telecommunication facility shall comply at all times with the following operation and maintenance standards: a. All facilities and related equipment, including lighting, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair, free from trash, debris, litter and graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible so as to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility or equipment as soon as practicable pursuant to Chapter 12.5. b. Facility shall be operated in such a manner so as to minimize any possible disruption caused by noise. Backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends or holidays, or between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. At no time shall equipment noise from any source exceed an exterior noise level of sixty (60) dB at the property line. c. Owner or operator of the facility shall routinely and regularly inspect wireless facility and associated equipment to ensure compliance with FCC standards and this approval. d. Owner or operator of the wireless telecommunications facility shall provide signage identifying the name and phone number of a party to contact in event of an emergency. The design, materials, colors, and location of signs shall be subject to design review. The signage shall be attached to the base of any utility pole or light standard to which microcells are affixed. 20. TRANSFER OF OPERATIONS. Any carrier/service provider authorized by the planning manager or by the planning commission to operate a specific wireless Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 9 AS 24-14 telecommunications facility may assign the operation of the facility to another carrier licensed by the FCC for that radio frequency; provided, that such transfer is made known to the director in advance of such operation and all conditions of approval for the subject installation are carried out by the new carrier/service provider. Further planning entitlements/review may be required. RESOLUTION NO. 2025-_ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GILROY APPROVING VARIANCE PERMIT, ALLOWING EXCEPTIONS TO SIDE AND REAR WIRLESS FACILITY SETBACKS AND EXCEPTIONS TO EXCEED THE HEIGHT LIMITATION OF THE C1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, FOR THE PROPOSED NEW 65- FOOT-TALL MONOPOLE ON AN APPROXIMATE 0.22-ACRE SITE LOCATED 401 FIRST STREET, APN 790-32-004 (FILE NUMBER V 24-01) WHEREAS, on July 17, 2024, Lisa Elliot, on behalf of Crown Castle, submitted an application requesting a variance permit to Gilroy City Code section 30.35.19 for exceptions to the wireless facility setbacks requiring wireless facilities to be setback a minimum of the overall height of the structure and to exceed the maximum height requirement of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district to allow a 65-foot-tall monopole; and WHEREAS, on December 20, 2024, the application submittal was accepted as complete for final processing; and WHEREAS, the project has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15303 (Class 3) which applies to construction of small facilities; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public meeting, at which time the Planning Commission received and considered the staff report as well as all evidence received including written and oral public testimony; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this project approval is based is the Community Development Department; Planning Division; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy has considered the variance application (V 24-01), in accordance with the Gilroy Zoning Ordinance, and other applicable standards and regulations; and NOW, THREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Gilroy hereby grants approval of the Variance Permit V 24-01 based on the following findings made pursuant to Gilroy City Code section 30.50.20(3) subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit A to this Resolution: 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to the property arising from the property’s size, configuration, and existing structures, that prevent the wireless facility from meeting the minimum 65-foot setback from all property lines. Additionally, the proposed coverage would not be able to be comparably obtained at the maximum allowable height of the C1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning district. Zoning districts that would allow a monopole height of 65 feet are not Resolution No. 2025-_ Page 2 located in the general vicinity of the coverage gap; 2. That because of such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of specified provisions of Zoning Ordinance would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of property in the same class or district. The literal enforcement of the wireless facility setback would cause hardship due to the lot’s configuration and existing conditions. Additionally, co-locating on an existing facility would not be possible as there are no other existing wireless facilities within 1,000 feet of the site. There is no zoning district within 1,000 feet of the site that would permit a 65-foot-tall monopole without going through the variance process. Most of the surrounding properties are zoned Neighborhood Commercial or Single Family Residential/Medium Density Residential. Installation of new wireless facilities on residential zoned properties are not preferred as it could impact the character of residential neighbor and has potential to pose a greater impact to public safety and general welfare; 3. The allowance of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to persons or property in the vicinity as the proposed wireless facility will comply with all FCC and FAA rules and regulations. Additionally, the wireless facility will be routinely maintained as needed, have all required signage, and implement a security plan to prevent unauthorized personnel from accessing the facility. The increase in telecommunication coverage would benefit the public and enhance the city’s emergency response network. 4. That the results of allowing the variances, as specified, will be in harmony with the general intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the commercial and industrial zoned properties are the preferred location for the installation of wireless facilities. There would be no impact on the existing business operations and parking as the work taking place will be within the existing 275 square foot lease area. Additionally, the new wireless facility would allow for future collocation for any interested carriers; and 5. That the granting of a variance will not constitute the granting of a special privilege greater than that provided for by the standard provisions of this chapter for other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district given that the proposed wireless facility will provide a necessary service to the public and the coverage could not be comparably obtained at a height lower than 65 feet. Resolution No. 2025-_ Page 3 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of March 2025 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: RECUSAL: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________________ ______________________________ Sharon Goei, Secretary Manny Bhandal, Chairperson Community Development Director Attachment: Exhibit A (Conditions of Approval) Resolution No. 2025-_ Page 4 EXHIBIT A V 24-01 401 First Street PLANNING CONDITIONS The following GENERAL conditions authorize specific terms of the project ENTITLEMENT. 1. APPROVED PROJECT: The approval for V 24-01 is granted for exemption to the side and rear wireless facility setback and height limitation to allow a 65-foot-tall monopole and associated equipment, located at 401 First Street (Assessor Parcel No 790-32- 004), as shown on Project Plans as received by the Planning Division on December 12, 2024 prepared by Streamline Engineering for T-Mobile, dated January 10, 2024, with revision dates of February 27, 2024, and October 2, 2024, and consisting of 16 sheets. Build-out of the project shall conform to the plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions. Any future adjustment or modification to the plans, including any changes made at time of building permit submittal, shall be considered by the Community Development Director or designee, may require separate discretionary approval, and shall conform to all City, State, and Federal requirements, including subsequent City Code requirements or policies adopted by City Council. 2. PERMIT EXPIRATION: The expiration date of this approval is one year from the decision date, March 13, 2025. If the applicant does not receive a building permit for the installation of the new 65-foot-tall monopole within one year of this approval, then the variance shall automatically expire and have no further force and effect. Upon application, an extension of time may be granted by the Community Development Director or designee. Should Developer intend to request an extension to the permit expiration date, Developer must submit to the Planning Division a written application with applicable fees prior to the expiration date. Only timely requests may be considered pursuant to the City Code. 3. RELATED ENTITLEMENTS: This permit is subject to the findings and conditions of approval of concurrent related entitlements AS 24-14 or any subsequent amendments. Note: Map is for reference purposes only. 401 First Street 4,514 City of Gilroy, GIS Services 0.1 1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere 0.07 Miles0.10 City of Gilroy VICINITY MAPSHEET INDEXCODE COMPLIANCEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONSHEETDESCRIPTIONREVREVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.DRIVING DIRECTIONSPROJECT INFORMATIONSCALE: N/ATNSITE LOCATIONGOLDEN HILLS POTTERY401 FIRST STREET, GILROY, CA 95020BUN 880511401 FIRST STREETSF54025ART-MOBILE WEST LLCPROJECT - CELL TOWER REPLACEMENTGOLDEN HILLS POTTERY& T-MOBILE EQUIPMENT UPGRADET-1.1TITLE SHEETGILROY, CA 95020········· REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.T-1.2NOTES REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.A-1.1OVERALL SITEPLANTN REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.TNA-1.2EQUIPMENT PLAN REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.A-2.1ANTENNA PLANTN REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.A-3.1ELEVATIONS REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.A-4.1DETAILS REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.A-5.1CABINETSPECIFICATIONS REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.S-1.1STRUCTURALDETAILS REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.E-1.1ELECTRICAL PLAN REVDESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:PROJECT NO:IT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS THEY ARE ACTING UNDER THEDIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEER, TO ALTER THIS DOCUMENT.Vendor:Licensee:ENGINEER:SITE NO:-88051101/10/24CD 90%Issued For:880511GOLDEN HILLSPOTTERY0APPROVED BY:ISSUE STATUSTHESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAINTHE PROPERTY OF STREAMLINE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN INC. WHETHER THE PROJECTSFOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE ARE EXECUTED OR NOT. THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONSSHALL NOT BE USED BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY ON OTHER PROJECTS WITH OUT PRIORWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ENGINEER. Copyright 2009, STREAMLINE ENGINEERING ANDDESIGN INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.C8445 Sierra College Blvd, Suite E Granite Bay, CA 95746Contact: Kevin Sorensen Phone: 916-660-1930E-Mail: kevin@streamlineeng.com Fax: 916-660-1941SEADN. GEORGE-401 FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020-CAD1200 CONCORD AVE, SUITE 500CONCORD, CA 94520PREPARED FORRR02/27/24CLIENT REV1D.H.10/02/24PLANNING COMMS2T.T.E-1.2GROUNDING PLAN& DETAILSTN 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northwest from First StreetProposed View 1 Existing proposed replacement monopole proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx ©2024 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking northeast from First StreetProposed View 2 Existing proposed replacement monopole proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property ©2024 Google Maps Accuracy of photo simulation based upon information provided by project applicant. Looking southwest from Hanna Street Proposed View 3 Existing proposed replacement monopole proposed equipment xxxxxxxxxxx 401 First Street Gilroy CA 95020 880511 Golden Hills Property ©2024 Google Maps 475 Sentry Parkway W, Suite 200, Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 office info@sitesafe.com ● www.sitesafe.com Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile Site ID – 880511 Application ID – 660152 Site Name – GOLDEN HILL POTTERY Site Compliance Report 401 First Street Gilroy, CA 95020 Latitude: N37-00-48.99 Longitude: W121-34-39.28 Structure Type: Monopole (Proposed) Report generated date: May 15, 2024 Report by: Young Kim Customer Contact: Candice Conger T-Mobile is compliant and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes. © 2024 Site Safe, LLC, Blue Bell, PA sealed 15may2024 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile GOLDEN HILL POTTERY - 880511 Radio Frequency (RF) Site Compliance Report 401 First Street, Gilroy, CA 95020 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................... 3 2 SITE COMPLIANCE ............................................................................................ 4 2.1 SITE COMPLIANCE STATEMENT ............................................................................. 4 2.2 ACTIONS FOR SITE COMPLIANCE ......................................................................... 4 3 ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 5 3.1 RF EXPOSURE DIAGRAM .................................................................................... 5 4 ANTENNA INVENTORY ..................................................................................... 8 5 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION ............................................................................. 10 APPENDIX A – STATEMENT OF LIMITING CONDITIONS ......................................... 11 APPENDIX B – ASSUMPTIONS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................. 12 GENERAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................. 12 DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................... 13 APPENDIX C – RULES & REGULATIONS ................................................................... 15 EXPLANATION OF APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS ............................................ 15 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENT EXPLAINED.............................................................. 15 APPENDIX D – GENERAL SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 16 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .................................................................................... 17 APPENDIX E – REGULATORY BASIS ........................................................................ 18 FCC RULES AND REGULATIONS .............................................................................. 18 APPENDIX F – SAFETY PLAN AND PROCEDURES ................................................... 20 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 3 1 Executive Summary Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile has contracted with Site Safe, LLC (Sitesafe), an independent Radio Frequency (RF) regulatory and engineering consulting firm, to determine whether the proposed communications site, 880511 - GOLDEN HILL POTTERY, located at 401 First Street, Gilroy, CA, is in compliance with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations for RF exposure. This report contains a detailed summary of the RF environment at the site including: •Diagram of the site •Inventory of the make / model of all antennas •Theoretical MPE based on modeling This report addresses exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in accordance with the FCC Rules and Regulations for all individuals, classified in two groups, “Occupational or Controlled” and “General Public or Uncontrolled.” T-Mobile is compliant with the FCC Rules and Regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65, and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes. T-Mobile proposes to make modifications to an existing site. The proposed antennas are noted as “Proposed” in the antenna table under Section 4. This document and the conclusions herein are based on the information provided by T-Mobile. If you have any questions regarding RF safety and regulatory compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Sitesafe’s Customer Support Department at (703) 276-1100. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 4 2 Site Compliance 2.1 Site Compliance Statement Upon evaluation of the cumulative RF exposure levels from all operators at this site, Sitesafe has determined that: T-Mobile is compliant with the FCC Rules and Regulations, as described in OET Bulletin 65, and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes. The compliance determination is based on theoretical modeling, RF signage placement recommendations, proposed antenna inventory and/or the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site. Any deviation from the proposed T-Mobile deployment plan could result in the site being rendered non-compliant upon further evaluation. 2.2 Actions for Site Compliance Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. If required, RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels. T-Mobile is compliant with the FCC Rules and Regulations and will remain compliant upon implementation of the proposed changes. Note: Ensure all existing signage documented in this report still exists on site. Note: For overall compliance, access to the site (i.e., access road, gate(s), climbing point(s), etc.) must be locked/restricted. Note: Sitesafe recommends that persons accessing any adjacent trees or properties in excess of 49' above ground level (i.e. landscape and arborist contractors or other maintenance workers) within 111' directly in front of the T-Mobile antennas are informed of areas where RF levels exceed the FCC General Public limit in the airspace 49' above ground level. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 5 3 Analysis 3.1 RF Exposure Diagram The RF diagram(s) below display theoretical percentage of the Maximum Permissible Exposure for all systems at the site. These diagrams use modeling as prescribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix B. The key at the bottom of each diagram indicates if percentages displayed are referenced to FCC General Public Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. Color coding on the diagram is as follows: This table displays the maximum theoretical percentage of the FCC’s General Public MPE limits: General Public Levels: Exposure Type: Maximum Spatial Average Reference Level: Antenna Ground T-Mobile:25,239.3% <1.0% Composite: 25,239.3% <1.0% Note: On the diagrams shown below, each level is marked with a height. For all diagrams that are marked as Spatially Averaged, the modeling program will spatially average the exposure within the area six feet above each set level. This provides an accurate spatial average of the percentage of the FCC’s MPE limits within an accessible area. In the RF exposure simulations below, all heights are reflected with respect to ground level. Each different area, rooftop, or platform level is labeled with its height relative to the main site level. Exposure is calculated appropriately based on the relative height and location of that area to all antennas. The analyzed elevations in the RF exposure simulations are as follows: •GROUND LEVEL = 0’ GATE MONOPOLE=65' AGL FENCE 6 1 3 5 2 4 ADJACENT BUILDING=12'AGLCAUTION Notice INF OR MA TIO N RF Exposure Simulation For: GOLDEN HILL POTTERY Composite View Sitesafe OET-65 Model Near Field Boundary: 1.5 * Aperture Reflection Factor: 1 Spatially Averaged 0 2.5 5 (Feet) % of FCC Public Exposure Limit 0-5 5-100 100-500 500-5000 5000+ AT&T MOBILITY LLC VERIZON WIRELESS T-MOBILE SPRINT DISH UNKNOWN CARRIER Barrier Signage Legend No-sign Notice Caution Warning Notice 2 Caution 2 Warning 2 Existing Barrier Proposed Barrier/Sign Remove Barrier/Sign /X N www.sitesafe.com 3/15/2024 4:10:12 PM MONPOLE=65' AGL FENCE BUILDING=12' AGL T-MOBILE=60' AGL (AT GATE) Notice INF OR MAT ION WARNINGCAUTION RF Exposure Simulation For: GOLDEN HILL POTTERY Elevation View – Southwest Sitesafe OET-65 Model Near Field Boundary: 1.5 * Aperture Reflection Factor: 1 Single Level (0) 0 15.1 30.2 (Feet) % of FCC Public Exposure Limit 0-5 5-100 100-500 500-5000 5000+ AT&T MOBILITY LLC VERIZON WIRELESS T-MOBILE SPRINT DISH UNKNOWN CARRIER Barrier Signage Legend No-sign Notice Caution Warning Notice 2 Caution 2 Warning 2 Existing Barrier Proposed Barrier/Sign Remove Barrier/Sign /X N www.sitesafe.com 5/15/2024 10:01:08 AM 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 8 4 Antenna Inventory The Antenna Inventory shows all transmitting antennas at the site. This inventory was provided by the customer and was utilized by Sitesafe to perform theoretical modeling of RF exposure. The inventory coincides with the site diagrams in this report, identifying each antenna’s location at 880511 - GOLDEN HILL POTTERY. The antenna information collected includes the following information: •Licensee or wireless operator name •Frequency or frequency band •Transmitter power – Transmitter Power Output (“TPO”), Effective Radiated Power (“ERP”), or Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (“EIRP”) •Antenna manufacturer make, model, and gain 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 9 The following antenna inventory was provided by the customer and was utilized to create the site model diagrams: Ant ID Operator Antenna Make and Model Type TX Freq (MHz) Technology Az (Deg) Hor BW (Deg) Ant Len (ft) Ant Gain (dBd) Power Power Type Power Units TX Count Misc Loss Total ERP (Watts) Z (ft) MDT (Deg) EDT (Deg) 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 600 5G 0 62.8 8 13.35 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4325.44 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 700 LTE 0 63.7 8 13.75 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4742.75 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 LTE 0 64.9 8 15.25 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 5359.45 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 5G 0 64.9 8 15.25 80.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 2679.72 60 0 0 1 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 2100 LTE/AWS1 0 59.4 8 16.45 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 7065.13 60 0 0 2 T-MOBILE (Proposed) Ericsson AIR6419 Panel 2500 5G 0 12.5 2.9 22.35 320.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 54973.07 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 600 5G 120 62.8 8 13.35 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4325.44 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 700 LTE 120 63.7 8 13.75 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4742.75 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 LTE 120 64.9 8 15.25 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 5359.45 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 5G 120 64.9 8 15.25 80.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 2679.72 60 0 0 3 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 2100 LTE/AWS1 120 59.4 8 16.45 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 7065.13 60 0 0 4 T-MOBILE (Proposed) Ericsson AIR6419 Panel 2500 5G 120 12.5 2.9 22.35 320.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 54973.07 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 600 5G 240 62.8 8 13.35 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4325.44 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 700 LTE 240 63.7 8 13.75 200.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 4742.75 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 LTE 240 64.9 8 15.25 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 5359.45 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 1900 5G 240 64.9 8 15.25 80.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 2679.72 60 0 0 5 T-MOBILE (Proposed) RFS APXVAALL24_43-U-NA20 Panel 2100 LTE/AWS1 240 59.4 8 16.45 160.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 7065.13 60 0 0 6 T-MOBILE (Proposed) Ericsson AIR6419 Panel 2500 5G 240 12.5 2.9 22.35 320.00 TPO Watt 1 0.00 54973.07 60 0 0 Note: The Z reference indicates antenna height above ground level (AGL). ERP values provided by the client and used in the modeling may be greater than are currently deployed. For additional modeling information, refer to Appendix B. Proposed equipment is tagged as (Proposed) under Operator or Antenna Make and Model. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 10 5 Engineer Certification The professional engineer whose seal appears on the cover of this document hereby certifies and affirms: That I am registered as a Professional Engineer in the jurisdiction indicated in the professional engineering stamp on the cover of this document; and That I, Michael A. McGuire, P.E., am currently and actively licensed to provide (in this state/jurisdiction as indicated within the professional electrical engineering seal on the cover of this document) professional electrical engineering services, as an employee of Hurricane Hill Development Company, PLLC, a duly authorized/registered engineering firm (in this state, as applicable) on behalf of Site Safe, LLC; and That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields; and That I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge as assembled by and attested to by Young Kim. May 15, 2024 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 11 Appendix A – Statement of Limiting Conditions Sitesafe will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect the site or property. Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, Sitesafe performed this analysis and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. Sitesafe cannot be held accountable or responsible for anomalies or discrepancies due to actual site conditions (i.e., mislabeling of antennas or equipment, inaccessible cable runs, inaccessible antennas or equipment, etc.) or information or data supplied by T-Mobile, the site manager, or their affiliates, subcontractors or assigns. Sitesafe has provided computer generated model(s) in this Site Compliance Report to show approximate dimensions of the site, and the model is included to assist the reader of the compliance report to visualize the site area, and to provide supporting documentation for Sitesafe’s recommendations. Sitesafe may note in the Site Compliance Report any adverse physical conditions, such as needed repairs, observed during the survey of the subject property or that Sitesafe became aware of during the normal research involved in performing this survey. Sitesafe will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because Sitesafe is not an expert in the field of mechanical engineering or building maintenance, the Site Compliance Report must not be considered a structural or physical engineering report. Sitesafe obtained information used in this Site Compliance Report from sources that Sitesafe considers reliable and believes them to be true and correct. Sitesafe does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. When conflicts in information occur between data provided by a second party and physical data collected by Sitesafe, the physical data will be used. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 12 Appendix B – Assumptions and Definitions General Model Assumptions In this site compliance report, it is assumed that all antennas are operating at full power at all times. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site. Sitesafe has further assumed a 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power. The site has been modeled with these assumptions to show the maximum RF energy density. Sitesafe believes this to be a worst-case analysis, based on best available data. Areas modeled to predict exposure exposure greater than 100% of the applicable MPE level may not actually occur but are shown as a worst-case prediction that could be realized real time. Sitesafe believes these areas to be safe for entry by occupationally trained personnel utilizing appropriate personal protective equipment (in most cases, a personal monitor). Thus, at any time, if power density measurements were made, we believe the real- time measurements would indicate levels below those depicted in the RF exposure diagram(s) in this report. By modeling in this way, Sitesafe has conservatively shown exclusion areas – areas that should not be entered without the use of a personal monitor, carriers reducing power, or performing real-time measurements to indicate real-time exposure levels. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 13 Definitions 5% Rule – The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general, at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limits. In other words, any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greater than 100% of the MPE limit is responsible for taking corrective actions to bring the site into compliance. Compliance – The determination of whether a site complies with FCC standards with regards to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from transmitting antennas. Decibel (dB) – A unit for measuring power or strength of a signal. Duty Cycle – The percent of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmission. A duty cycle of 100% corresponds to continuous operation. Effective (or Equivalent) Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna. Effective Radiated Power (ERP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to a half-wave dipole antenna. Gain (of an antenna) – The ratio, usually expressed in decibels, of the power required at the input of a loss-free reference antenna to the power supplied to the input of the given antenna to produce, in a given direction, the same field strength or the same power density at the same distance. When not specified otherwise, the gain refers to the direction of maximum radiation. Gain may be considered for a specified polarization. Gain may be referenced to an isotropic antenna (dBi) or a half-wave dipole (dBd) antenna. General Population/Uncontrolled Environment – Defined by the FCC as an area where RF exposure may occur to persons who are unaware of the potential for exposure and who have no control over their exposure. General Population is also referenced as General Public. Generic Antenna – For the purposes of this report, the use of “Generic” as an antenna model means the antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe will use its industry specific knowledge of antenna models to select a worst-case scenario antenna to model the site. Isotropic Antenna – An antenna that is completely non-directional. In other words, an antenna that radiates energy equally in all directions. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 14 Maximum Measurement – This measurement represents the single largest measurement recorded when performing a spatial average measurement. Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) – The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with acceptable safety factor. Occupational/Controlled Environment – Defined by the FCC as an area where RF exposure may occur to persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a condition of employment or specific activity and can exercise control over their exposure. OET Bulletin 65 – Technical guideline developed by the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology to determine the impact of RF exposure on humans. The guideline was published in August 1997. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) – Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. Radio Frequency Exposure or Electromagnetic Fields – Electromagnetic waves that are propagated from antennas through space. Spatial Average Measurement – A technique used to average a minimum of ten (10) measurements taken in a ten (10) second interval from zero (0) to six (6) feet. This measurement is intended to model the average energy a 6-foot tall human body will absorb while present in an electromagnetic field of energy. Transmitter Power Output (TPO) – The radio frequency output power of a transmitter’s final radio frequency stage as measured at the output terminal while connected to a load. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 15 Appendix C – Rules & Regulations Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations The FCC has set forth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1, Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE - General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy. It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with the FCC Rules and Regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions. OSHA has adopted and enforces the FCC’s exposure guidelines. A building owner or site manager can use this report as part of an overall RF Health and Safety Policy. It is important for building owners/site managers to identify areas in excess of the General Population MPE and ensure that only persons qualified as Occupational are granted access to those areas. Occupational Environment Explained The FCC definition of Occupational exposure limits apply to persons who: •are exposed to RF energy as a consequence of their employment; •have been made aware of the possibility of exposure; and •can exercise control over their exposure. OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. In order to consider this site an Occupational Environment, the site must be controlled to prevent access by any individuals classified as the General Public. Compliance is also maintained when any non-occupational individuals (the General Public) are prevented from accessing areas indicated as Red or Yellow in the attached RF exposure diagram. In addition, a person must be aware of the RF environment into which they are entering. This can be accomplished by an RF Safety Awareness class, and by appropriate written documentation such as this Site Compliance Report. All T-Mobile employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 16 Appendix D – General Safety Recommendations The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of 100% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management, building management, and other tenant operations. 1.All individuals needing access to the main site (or the area indicated to be in excess of General Public MPE) should wear a personal protective monitor (PPM), successfully complete proper RF Safety Awareness training, and have and be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment. 2.All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs. 3.The site should be routinely inspected and this or similar report updated with the addition of any antennas or upon any changes to the RF environment including: •adding new antennas that may have been located on the site •removing of any existing antennas •changes in the radiating power or number of RF emitters 4.Post the appropriate NOTICE, CAUTION, or WARNING sign at the main site access point(s) and other locations as required. Note: Please refer to RF Exposure Diagrams in Section 3.1 to inform everyone who has access to this site that beyond posted signs there may be levels in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. In addition to RF Advisory Signage, a RF Guideline Signage is recommended to be posted at the main site access point(s). The signs below are examples of signs meeting FCC guidelines. 5.Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner. 6. For a General Public environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 17 •Gray represents areas predicted to be at 5% or less of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions. •Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions. •Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas. •Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas. •Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas. 7. For an Occupational environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner: •Gray represents areas predicted to be at 1% or less of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas with no restrictions. •Green represents areas predicted to be between 1% and 20% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas with no restrictions. •Blue represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 100% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas assuming they have basic understanding of EME awareness and RF safety procedures and understand how to limit their exposure. •Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 1000% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas assuming they have basic understanding of EME awareness and RF safety procedures and understand how to limit their exposure. Transmitter power reduction and/or time-averaging may be required. •Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 1000% of the Occupational MPE limits. These areas are not safe for workers to be in for prolonged periods of time. Special procedures must be adhered to, such as lockout/tagout or transmitter power reduction, to minimize worker exposure to EME. 8.Use of a Personal Protective Monitor (PPM): When working around antennas, Sitesafe strongly recommends the use of a PPM. Wearing a PPM will properly forewarn the individual prior to entering an RF exposure area. Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits. Additional Information Additional RF information is available at the following sites: https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0 https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility- division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety OSHA has additional information available at: https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 18 Appendix E – Regulatory Basis FCC Rules and Regulations In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted regulations for evaluating the effects of RF exposure in 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 1.1310. The guideline from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology is Bulletin 65 (“OET Bulletin 65”), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Edition 97-01, published August 1997. Since 1996 the FCC periodically reviews these rules and regulations as per their congressional mandate. The FCC has reviewed these rules and regulations beginning in 2019 and have finalized their review in May 2021 with the US Court of Appeals. FCC regulations define two separate tiers of exposure limits: Occupational or “Controlled environment” and General Public or “Uncontrolled environment”. The General Public limits are generally five times more conservative or restrictive than the Occupational limits. The General Public limits apply to accessible areas where workers or the general public may be exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. Occupational or Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and where those persons exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. An area is considered a Controlled environment when access is limited to these aware personnel. Typical criteria are restricted access (i.e. locked or alarmed doors, barriers, etc.) to the areas where antennas are located coupled with proper RF hazard signage. A site with Controlled environments is evaluated with Occupational limits. All other areas are considered Uncontrolled environments. If a site has no access controls or no RF hazard signage it is evaluated with General Public limits. The theoretical modeling of the RF electromagnetic fields has been performed in accordance with OET Bulletin 65. The Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits utilized in this analysis are outlined in the following diagram: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000 Frequency (MHz)Power Density (mW/cm2)Occupational General Public 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 19 Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure (MPE) Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time |E|2, |H|2 or S (minutes) 0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6 3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6 30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6 300-1500 -- -- f/300 6 1500- 100,000 -- -- 5 6 Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure (MPE) Frequency Range (MHz) Electric Field Strength (E) (V/m) Magnetic Field Strength (H) (A/m) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time |E|2, |H|2 or S (minutes) 0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30 1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30 30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30 300-1500 -- -- f/1500 30 1500- 100,000 -- -- 1.0 30 f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density 475 Sentry Parkway W • Suite 200 • Blue Bell, PA 19422 703.276.1100 • info@sitesafe.com Page 20 Appendix F – Safety Plan and Procedures The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier. General Maintenance Work: Any maintenance personnel required to work immediately in front of antennas and / or in areas indicated as above 100% of the Occupational MPE limits should coordinate with the wireless operators to disable transmitters during their work activities. Training and Qualification Verification: All personnel accessing areas indicated as exceeding the General Population MPE limits should have a basic understanding of EME awareness and RF Safety procedures when working around transmitting antennas. Awareness training increases a worker’s understanding to potential RF exposure scenarios. Awareness can be achieved in a number of ways (e.g. videos, formal classroom lecture or internet-based courses). Physical Access Control: Access restrictions to transmitting antennas locations is the primary element in a site safety plan. Examples of access restrictions are as follows: •Locked door or gate •Alarmed door •Locked ladder access •Restrictive Barrier at antenna (e.g. Chain link with posted RF Sign) RF Signage: Everyone should obey all posted signs at all times. RF signs play an important role in properly warning a worker prior to entering into a potential RF Exposure area. Assume all antennas are active: Due to the nature of telecommunications transmissions, an antenna transmits intermittently. Always assume an antenna is transmitting. Never stop in front of an antenna. If you have to pass by an antenna, move through as quickly and safely as possible thereby reducing any exposure to a minimum. Site RF Exposure Diagram(s): Section 3 of this report contains RF Diagram(s) that outline various theoretical Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) areas at the site. The modeling is a worst-case scenario assuming a duty cycle of 100% for each transmitting antenna at full power. This analysis is based on one of two access control criteria: General Public criteria means the access to the site is uncontrolled and anyone can gain access. Occupational criteria means the access is restricted and only properly trained individuals can gain access to the antenna locations. 1 | T-Mobile Confidential SF54025A Coverage Plots 401 1st Street Gilroy, CA SF54025A L2100 Coverage – 60’RC SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE SF54025A SF54025A SF54025A L2100 Coverage – 46’RC SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE SF54025A SF54025A SF54025A L2100 Coverage – 32’RC SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITH THE SITE SF54025A L2100 Coverage – WITHOUT THE SITE SF54025A SF54025A SF54025A L2100 Standalone Coverage – 32’RC SF54025A L2100 Coverage – Standalone SF54025A SF54025A L2100 Standalone Coverage – 46’RC SF54025A L2100 Coverage – Standalone SF54025A SF54025A L2100 Standalone Coverage – 60’RC SF54025A L2100 Coverage – Standalone SF54025A SF54025A L2100 - Population Count Legend Pop Without Site Pop at 60’RC Pop at 46’RC Pop at 32’Rc Indoor Coverage 18,564 21,830 20,580 19,415 •The Proposed height 60 feet provides significantly more consistent coverage to central Gilroy in the vicinity of 1st street (Hwy 152). 32 feet antenna height shows a significant coverage hole in the residential neighborhood south of 1st Street bordered by Wren Ave to the West & Miller Ave to the East. This is clearly shown in slide 4. •3,266 Population gain with the addition of SF54025A at 60’ RC •2,016 Population gain with the addition of SF54025A at 46’ RC •851 Population gain with the addition of SF54025A at 32’ RC •At 32’ RC there is a reduction of 2,415 indoor pops covered in the city of Gilroy 9 Next Steps : Explore TEK Systems model Look at amendments post SLT approval Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update Gilroy Planning Commission March 2025 2 Background •VTA adopted the Countywide Bicycle Plan in 2018. It introduced bicycle superhighways. •Bicycle superhighways: High quality, uninterrupted, long-distance bikeway separated from motor vehicles that traverse across the county. 3 Example Design 4 2021 Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan The plan positioned Member Agencies to pursue grant funding •Map of the existing and proposed network •Design assumptions •Planning-level cost estimates by route •VMT reductions by route •Operations and maintenance guidance •Funding opportunities 5 2025 Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update •Updated segment statuses •Network expansion o New addition: Charleston/Arastradero Corridor •Updated VMT reduction •Updated costs ranges 6 2025 Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Monterey Road 7 8 Planning-Level Cost Estimate Ranges 9 VMT Reduction Estimates 10 Next Steps •Action item to recommend that the Board approve the Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan Update. •Staff will continue to work with Member Agencies to advance the network. VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 UpdateDraft Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Table of Contents 1.Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.Existing Trail Network Relationship to Bicycle Superhighways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3.Design Expectations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4.Bicycle Superhighway Network & Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5.Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 6.Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 7.Summary and Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 8.Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Appendix A – Funding Opportunities � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 48 Appendix B – Planning-Level Cost Estimates by Facility Type and Improvement � � � � � � � � � 49 Appendix C – Bicycle Superhighway Segments � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 50 Appendix D – VMT Reduction Methodology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 1 1. Introduction Bicycle Superhighways Over the last decade, Santa Clara County has seen a steady increase in bicycling and strong public support for better bikeways. There are now about 1,250 miles of bikeways in the county, including over 300 miles of bicycle paths that are entirely separated from motor vehicle traffic. Inspired by examples from both the U.S. and internationally, VTA has proposed to develop a network of bicycle superhighways that connect Santa Clara County. The network will enable people to bicycle from Gilroy to Palo Alto, and from East San José to Mountain View, on connected, low-stress bikeways. Ultimately, the bicycle superhighways will form the backbone of the county’s bicycle network, becoming integral to people’s mental map of Santa Clara County, alongside major roads, freeways, county expressways, and rail. In alignment with state and regional planning efforts, including Caltrans’ Bike Highway Plan and Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Regional Active Transportation Network, this network aims to establish comprehensive, high-quality bikeways across the county. Bicycle superhighways are low-stress, accessible, direct, and continuous routes that provide an efficient option for long-distance bike travel. They connect major commercial and employment destinations to local neighborhoods, nearby cities, and regional and local bikeways to create a consistent and accessible network. The bicycle superhighway network will allow people to travel quickly from city to city by bicycle in much the same way the County Expressway System allows people to travel quickly across the county by car. The bicycle superhighway network is intended to serve strong and fearless, enthused and confident, and interested but concerned bicyclists. Most sections of the network, especially the trails, may be used by students and families but the bicycle superhighways primarily focus on providing a high-quality option for commuters, errand-runners, and recreational or weekend riders. This network is not intended to replace or diminish the importance of local bicycle facilities. It is expected to connect to those local facilities and should support the goal of expanding the bike network across the county for all ages and abilities. The network will connect bicyclists to key destinations with few detours and stops. Overall, the bicycle superhighways will offer a positive experience for riders, be built with high- quality materials, and maintained to exceptional standards. Background In 2018, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) adopted the updated Countywide Bicycle Plan. The Bicycle Plan identifies a 950-mile network of Cross County Bicycle Corridors (CCBCs), which includes both existing and planned bikeways that cross the county and connect across jurisdictions. It also lists a subset of CCBCs that could potentially be upgraded to serve as bicycle superhighways. Since identifying potential bicycle superhighways, VTA staff have been collaborating with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, VTA’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and other stakeholders to determine specific alignments and understand the steps needed to implement the network. Plan Purpose This Implementation Plan (Plan) proposes specific alignments for a countywide network of 18 bicycle superhighways. It describes the implementation status of each bicycle superhighway, summarizes active efforts, and provides planning-level cost ranges for completing remaining segments. The Plan will assist local agencies and VTA in securing funding, planning, designing, and constructing the superhighway network. It will help position Member Agencies (local agencies in Santa Clara County) to pursue grant funding by identifying high-priority projects and demonstrating VTA’s support. VTA can assist Member Agencies by coordinating or leading efforts that span multiple jurisdictions. The Plan will also help VTA advocate for new and expanded funding sources to implement bicycle superhighways. Finally, the Plan aims to build public and political awareness, garner support for the network, and inspire more people to shift from driving to cycling. Outreach To transition from the conceptual bicycle superhighway corridors in the Countywide Bicycle Plan to a map of specific alignments, VTA worked closely with Member Agency staff and the VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. In spring and summer 2020, VTA met individually with city and county staff to Draft 2VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update refine alignments that support local plans. In August 2020, VTA presented the draft bicycle superhighway map to the Technical Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Committee, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for comment. Staff revised the map based on feedback and brought it to a BPAC interactive workshop in December 2020 for further input. Staff further modified the map and confirmed the changes with Member Agency staff. At the request of city staff, VTA presented the bicycle superhighway map to the bicycle and pedestrian advisory committees of Palo Alto and Los Altos. For the 2025 Update, VTA coordinated with Member Agency staff to revise bicycle superhighway alignments and implementation statuses. VTA also identified the need for a north-south bicycle connection in western Santa Clara County and consulted Palo Alto about including this additional route in the Plan. 2025 Update This document provides an update to the original Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan adopted in 2021. It includes updated segment statuses and outlines network expansions to enhance countywide connectivity. The Central Bikeway’s alignment was determined through the Central Bikeway Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis, completed in 2022. The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor, a new bicycle superhighway alignment located in Palo Alto, was added in this update. This corridor provides a crucial north-south connection and links with existing east-west bicycle superhighways. This document also provides updated cost estimate ranges and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction estimates for each bicycle superhighway. The revised plan underscores VTA’s ongoing commitment to enhancing and expanding the bicycle network across Santa Clara County. 2. Existing Trail Network Relationship to Bicycle Superhighways Exemplary bicycle paths in Santa Clara County, such as the Guadalupe River Trail, Coyote Creek Trail, San Tomas Aquino/Saratoga Creek Trail, Stevens Creek Trail, and Bay Trail, currently serve as high-quality bicycle commute routes. Counts show upwards of 2,000 weekday users on some segments. These paths offer long-distance, uninterrupted bicycle travel, with crossings over or under major roadways, freeways, and rail lines, and include wayfinding signage, informational kiosks, and amenities along the route. Many are supported by online and printed maps, as well as dedicated social media accounts managed by city staff. Although cities have not officially branded these bikeways as ‘superhighways,’ they effectively serve that purpose during commute hours. While many of Santa Clara County’s multi-use paths function as bicycle superhighways, challenges remain before they can fully meet the criteria. A major challenge is the conflict between high-speed bicyclists and other trail users. Most trails have posted speed limits of 15 miles per hour or less, but experienced bicyclists can easily reach speeds of 18 miles per hour on standard bicycles and over 20 miles per hour on electric-assist bicycles. This Plan supports maintaining safe, appropriate speed limits on multi-use paths through community education, effective enforcement, and necessary physical upgrades. Wider trails or designated walking and biking paths are recommended to separate trail users and enhance safety. Finally, the Plan excludes some trails with highly constrained conditions, such as the Los Gatos Creek Trail, from the superhighway network. Although these trails provide important bicycle connectivity, the likelihood of upgrading them to meet superhighway standards is remote. In such cases, the Plan identifies potential parallel on-street routes to provide an alternative. The County of Santa Clara’s Draft Active Transportation Plan envisions a significant expansion of bicycle facilities within Unincorporated County. It calls on the County to study the feasibility of Class I shared-use paths along all eight county expressways: Almaden, Capitol, Central, Foothill, Lawrence, Montague, San Tomas, and Oregon/Page Mill Expressways. Currently, 1.7 miles of Class I shared-use paths exist along the County expressways and three County expressways are part of the bicycle superhighway network. As paths along the expressways are built, they will integrate with the bicycle superhighway network. These paths will offer riders more route choices, improve overall connectivity, and support the county’s long- term vision of a seamless, high-quality bicycling infrastructure.Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 3 1 Level of stress (LTS) is a rating given to a road segment or crossing indicating the traffic stress it imposes on bicyclists. LTS analysis ranges from 1 to 4 with 1 being the least stressful (suitable for children) and 4 typically acceptable to those classified as “enthused and confident bicyclists” and equivalent to riding on a 35 mph road without bike lanes or a higher speed road with high traffic volumes and bike lanes. 3. Design Expectations Santa Clara County’s bicycle superhighways aim to provide a safe, consistent, and memorable riding experience, whether on off-street or on-street facilities. Each superhighway will be designed to fit the local context, but the overall design should support low-stress riding, minimize conflicts with other users, prioritize bicyclists at intersections, provide clear wayfinding, ensure strong connectivity, and reduce or eliminate conflicts and wait times at major barriers. Bicycle superhighways along local roadways and paths should adhere to basic design principles outlined in Chapter 5 of VTA’s Countywide Bicycle Plan: •The lowest stress bicycle facility that is appropriate for the local context and community needs should be provided. •Facilities along local roads should strive to maintain a bicycle level of stress1 (LTS) of 1 or LTS 2, where the mainstream adult population feels comfortable bicycling. •Bicycle speeds on paths shared with pedestrians should not exceed 15 mph. •The bicycle facilities and bicycling experience should remain consistent across jurisdictional boundaries, through intersections, and through interchanges. •Bicycle wayfinding should be provided, such as on-street maps and signs at trail intersections. Maps and signs should identify the user’s current location and major landmarks or destinations. •All actuated signals along and across the facilities must detect bicyclists. •Access should be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. •Adequate lighting should be provided. •Facilities should be maintained, free of debris and other obstacles. Facilities separated from the adjacent roadway should be designed to permit road sweeping equipment to access the bikeway. •Sharp turns should be avoided as much as possible. •Bicyclist delay at intersections should be minimized. •Grade separation of major barriers should be considered. •Widths of bicycle facilities should be greater than the minimum. •Separation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic should be considered, where possible. •Intelligent transportation systems should be deployed to collect data, provide feedback to bikeway users, and facilitate travel along the corridor. •Wayside amenities should be provided as appropriate for the local context and needs of the community, including rest or gathering points adjacent to path of travel, for both on- and off-street facilities. •Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized or removed. •Branding and place making should be integrated into the bikeway as appropriate for the local context and needs of the community. •For paths along riparian corridors, suitable parallel on-street bikeways should be identified as detour routes in the event of path closure due to maintenance or flooding. •Bicyclists should feel joy as they travel along bicycle superhighways. The superhighways should provide a continuous route through engaging landscapes, expanding travel choices that increase access from local neighborhoods to natural areas, parks, and other destinations. Recommended Design Features by Facility Type This section outlines recommended design features for various types of bicycle facilities. These features were identified in collaboration with VTA Member Agencies as part of the 2018 Countywide Bicycle Plan and incorporate both national and international best practices and innovative designs. The recommendations align with, or exceed, the standards set in VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines. To ensure a low-stress bicycling experience, bicycle superhighways will primarily consist of off-street trails (Class I) and on-street separated bikeways (Class IV), with other facility types, such as buffered bike lanes or bicycle boulevards, used where necessary due to roadway constraints. While both Class I and Class IV facilities are designed to provide a comfortable and efficient riding experience, they serve distinct purposes.Draft 4VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Class I trails offer complete separation from motor vehicle traffic, often running along parks or open spaces. These paths provide uninterrupted long-distance travel, making them ideal for riders seeking a relaxed experience. However, they may require interactions with pedestrians and occasional crossings at roadways. Class IV on-street bikeways, in contrast, are physically separated lanes along roadways, offering direct access to urban destinations and commercial centers. While they ensure dedicated space for bicyclists, their integration into the street network requires careful intersection treatments to maintain safety and efficiency. Riders can expect a more direct, commute-friendly experience on Class IV bikeways, while Class I trails offer a more scenic and leisurely route for travel. Bicycle Paths Bicycle paths, also known as shared-use paths or trails, offer bicycle access that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Bicycle paths should be at least eight feet wide for one-way travel and ten feet wide for two-way travel. These paths may also be shared with pedestrians. When shared with pedestrians, bicycle paths should be wider (12 to 15 feet) and include a 15-mph speed limit for bicyclists. Grade separation is preferred at major intersection crossings, and bicycle-specific treatments are recommended wherever a bicycle path crosses a roadway. Examples include the Guadalupe River Trail and Stevens Creek Trail. Separated Bikeways Separated bikeways, also known as cycle tracks or protected bikeways, are on-street lanes designated exclusively for bicycles, separated from vehicles and/or on-street parking by a physical, vertical buffer. Separated bikeways are most appropriate on roadways with speeds of 25 mph or higher and moderate to high traffic volumes. The minimum recommended width is six to seven feet, with a minimum three-foot buffer for street-level facilities, or a five-foot bikeway with a 1.5-foot buffer for bikeways at sidewalk level. Narrower widths can be accommodated under exceptional circumstances. Separated bikeways should include signal detection and other intersection enhancements, with careful attention to potential conflicts at intersections and driveways. Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are on-street travel lanes designated exclusively for bicycles, marked with striping to differentiate them from adjacent vehicle travel lanes. Bicycle lanes are suitable for roadways with travel speeds of less than 35 mph and up to two vehicle travel lanes in each direction. Bicycle lanes should be at least six feet wide and equipped with signal detection and other enhancements at intersections. Buffered Bicycle Lanes Buffered bicycle lanes are classified similarly to standard bicycle lanes but include additional painted buffer space between the bicycle lane and adjacent vehicle parking and/or travel lanes. Examples include Welburn Avenue in Gilroy and Bird Avenue in San José. Bicycle Routes Bicycle Routes are designated routes where the bicycle travel lane is shared with vehicles. They are designated by signage and sometimes by a shared lane marking on the roadway. Bicycle routes are best suited to roadways with speed limits of 25 mph or less and one vehicle travel lane in each direction. Bicycle routes should only be part of the bicycle superhighway network if traffic volumes are very low and the roadway is designed to only accommodate low vehicular speeds. Bicycle Boulevards Traffic calming measures can be applied to designated bicycle routes to reduce speeds and limit vehicle volumes. This can upgrade a bicycle route to a bicycle boulevard. Intersection priority and vehicle speed control should be key considerations in designing a bicycle superhighway classified as a bicycle boulevard. The Amarillo-Moreno Bicycle Boulevard in Palo Alto is an example of a bicycle boulevard. Wayfinding A bicycle wayfinding system includes comprehensive signage, pavement markings, kiosks, maps, and apps in local languages to guide bicyclists to their destinations along preferred routes. Wayfinding for the bicycle superhighway network should be consistent and branded to emphasize its role as the backbone of the county’s bicycle network. Typically, wayfinding signs are placed at decision points along bicycle routes and at key destinations. Member Agencies should also provide directions to the network from distances of up to a mile away.Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 5 Bicycle Superhighway Alignments VTA worked with its 16 Member Agencies to identify 18 potential bicycle superhighway alignments. Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Status Existing Bikeway Local Support Existing Established bikeway with physical separation from motor vehicles, but may require enhancements like widening, intersection improvements, or wayfinding upgrades to meet bicycle superhighway standards The segment has received prior support and bicycle facilities have been built Planned May have a bikeway that is not physically separated or low-stress, or it may not have a bikeway at all Local plans endorse the development of a low-stress bikeway along the segment Requires further study to determine feasibility May or may not currently have a bikeway Local plans do not currently propose a low-stress bikeway along the segment Alignment TBD May or may not currently have a bikeway VTA and its Member Agencies recognize the need for a bicycle superhighway in the area, but a specific corridor has not yet been selected Table 1: Four Categories of Bicycle Superhighways Implementation Status 4. Bicycle Superhighway Network & Implementation Status Planning Work Done, Corridor Alignment Fairly Certain: 1. Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard 2. Bay Trail 3. Blossom Hill Road 4. Central Bikeway 5. Charleston Road/Arastradero Road 6. Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/ Tennant Avenue 7. Coyote Creek Trail 8. El Camino Real 9. Guadalupe River Trail 10. Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail 11. Story-Keyes Requires Further Study to Determine Feasibility or Specific Alignments: 12. East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue 13. East San José North-South Alignment 14. Junipero Serra Boulevard/ Foothill Expressway 15. Monterey Road 16. San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/ San Tomas Expressway 17. Stevens Creek Trail/Homestead Road/ Mary Avenue 18. Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue Figure 1 shows a map of these alignments. The alignments comprising the superhighway network are at various stages of completion. The map includes four categories, which are described in Table 1 below:Draft 6VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 2025 Basemap Legend Bike path o street Bike route or sharrow Bike Boulevard Bike lanes on street Separated bikeway Unpaved path Bicycle Superhighway Network Multiuse path Bike lanes on street Separated bikeway Bike Boulevard TBD Bikeway Type Bikeway Status Existing Requires further study to determine feasibility Alignment TBD. Final alignment may dier from those shown on map Planned 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 14 14 8 8 8 4 4 4 5 5 17 17 17 17 12 13 12 12 16 16 16 9 9 9 7 7 7 11 11 15 15 3 33 10 10 10 18 1818 6 6 15 13 15 Bicycle Superhighway Network Key 1. Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard 2. Bay Trail 3. Blossom Hill Road 4. Central Bikeway 5. Charleston Road/Arastradero Road 6. Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue 7. Coyote Creek Trail 8. El Camino Real 9. Guadalupe River Trail 10. Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacic Railroad Trail 11. Story-Keyes 12. East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue 13. East San José 14. Junipero Serra Boulevard/ Foothill Expressway 15. Monterey Road 16. San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/San Tomas Expressway 17. Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/Mary Avenue 18. Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 7 Los Gatos Boulevard Implementation Status Agencies San José, Campbell, County, and Los Gatos Destinations Rose Garden, O’Connor Hospital, Valley Medical Center, San José City College, Bascom Community Center, Del Mar High School, Bascom Light Rail Station, Los Gatos Creek Trail, Hamilton Shopping Center, Pruneyard Shopping Center VTA Involvement Lead (I-880 to Hamilton Avenue)/Provide planning support to lead agencies (from Hamilton Avenue to Blossom Hill Road) Length 6.8 miles total 0 miles currently built as trail or protected bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -1,400 Planning-Level Cost Range $$$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • VTA, partnering with the Cities of San José, Campbell, and Los Gatos and the County, completed the Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Study (Highway 85 to I-880) in 2021. • VTA, partnering with the Cities of San José and Campbell and the County, began designing the Complete Streets corridor from Hamilton Avenue to I-880 in 2022, funded by 2016 Measure B. • A $39 million California Active Transportation Program (ATP) grant has been allocated for construction of the I-880 to Hamilton Avenue segment once design work is completed. • San José plans to repave two miles of Bascom Avenue between Dry Creek Road and Highway 85 in 2025. The city is evaluating the feasibility of a road diet and potential parking removal to install quick- build Class IV bikeways. 1� Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard Proposes on-street bikeway between Hedding Street (San José) and Blossom Hill Road (Los Gatos). This project builds on the Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Corridor Study, which proposes separated bikeways along Bascom Avenue between I-880 and Highway 85. Additionally, the existing bike lanes on Los Gatos Boulevard south of Lark Avenue could be upgraded.Draft 8VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 1� Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard As of Summer 2024 ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Santa Clara Campbell Los Gatos San Jose Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Hedding StreetAvenue His t o r i c D e A n z a Trai l / U n i o n P a c i c Rail r o a d T r a i l Blossom Hill Road Hamilton Ave Los Gatos Creek Trail Highway 85 Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard Bascom AvenueLos GatosBoulevardAs of Summer 2024 ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 9 2� Bay Trail Off-street trail between Oregon Expressway (Palo Alto) and McCarthy Boulevard (Milpitas). The Bay Trail is a planned 500-mile biking and walking trail that surrounds the San Francisco Bay. In Santa Clara County, most of the Bay Trail is constructed and spans from Palo Alto to Milpitas along the shoreline and on top of levees. The Bay Trail continues across county lines, connecting to East Palo Alto and Fremont. There is one gap between North 1st Street and Zanker Road in San José, which the city plans to close. Bay Trail Agencies San José (to close existing gap), Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Association of Bay Area Governments) Destinations City of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto Baylands, Shoreline Park, North Bayshore businesses, NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Moffett Park businesses, Lockheed Martin Transit Center, VTA Light Rail Borregas and Crossman Stations, Sunnyvale Sports Complex and Baylands Park, businesses in North Santa Clara and North San José, McCarthy Ranch, City of Fremont VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agencies Length 18.6 miles total 17.5 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -8,600 Planning-Level Cost Range $ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • San José is working on Reach 9 of the Bay Trail on the western side of the city. The city submitted a grant for the bridge to connect across the Alviso Slough. • In 2024, MTC published the Bay Trail Gap Closure Implementation Plan, setting priorities for future work to complete the vision of a 500- mile Bay Trail.Draft 10VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Santa Clara San Jose Milpitas Sunnyvale Mountain View Palo Alto Bay Trail Bay T r a i l San Toma s Aqu inoCr e e k Tra i lEast ChannelTrail/BlaneyAvenueCoyo teCreekTra i l Charleston /ArastraderoCorridor Gu a d a l u p e R i v e r T r a i lStevens CreekTrail/ HomesteadRoad/Mary Avenue1st St Zanker Rd McCarthy Blvd ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Eas t San Jo séNor th -Sou thAlignmen t Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete As of Summer 2024 ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 2� Bay Trail As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 11 3� Blossom Hill Road Proposed on-street bikeway between Los Gatos Creek Trail and Coyote Creek Trail (San José). The bikeway will detour from Blossom Hill Road in Los Gatos. It will travel along Los Gatos Boulevard, Los Gatos Almaden Road, and Union Avenue before connecting back to Blossom Hill Road. There are bike lanes already installed on Blossom Hill Road between North Santa Cruz Ave and Camino Del Cerro in Los Gatos, as well as between Almaden Expressway and Snell Avenue in San José. The San José Better Bike Plan 2025 proposes separated facilities along the entire length of Blossom Hill Road within San José. Blossom Hill Road Agencies Los Gatos and San José Destinations Downtown Los Gatos, Blossom Hill Elementary, Leigh High School, Noddin Elementary, Dartmouth Middle School, Pioneer High School, numerous retail outlets and medical services along Blossom Hill Road, VTA Light Rail Blossom Hill Station, Oak Grove High School, Blossom Hill Caltrain Station VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agencies/Help lead agencies seek funding Length 11.5 miles total 0.5 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -1,600 Planning-Level Cost Range $$$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The US-101/Blossom Hill Road interchange project was completed in 2023. It features interchange modifications and a protected overcrossing for bicyclists and pedestrians. • Sections of Blossom Hill Road (Almaden to Cahalan, and Camden to Leigh) will be repaved, with plans for quick-build safety improvements, including bollard-separated Class IV bikeways, high-visibility crosswalks, and a radar speed sign. • Los Gatos, in partnership with San José, received a Safe Streets for All grant to conduct a complete street study of Blossom Hill, primarily focused in the Town of Los Gatos.Draft 12VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update San Jose Los Gatos US 101 Los Gatos Creek Trail Bascom Avenue/LosGatosBlvdGuadalupe RiverTrailCoyo t eCr ee kTra i l M o n t e r e y R d ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Blossom Hill Road Blossom Hill Rd Los Gatos Almaden Rd Blossom Hill Rd Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete As of Summer 2024 ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 3� Blossom Hill Road As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 13 4� Central Bikeway A proposed on-street bikeway located within the Santa Clara and San José city limits runs west to east along key corridors, including El Camino Real, The Alameda, Hedding Street, 10th/11th Street, Taylor Street, and Mabury Road, covering a total stretch of 10.8 miles. The Central Bikeway Alternatives Analysis and Feasibility Study was completed in 2022, resulting in the selection of the preferred alignment. The project will feature separated bike lanes throughout this corridor. VTA has secured State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding to advance project to the design and environmental review phase. The City of Santa Clara’s 2018 Bicycle Plan Update identifies the need for a Class IV Separated Bicycle Lane along the section of El Camino Real within the Central Bikeway alignment. Agencies San José, Santa Clara, and Santa Clara County Destinations Lawrence and Santa Clara Caltrain stations, office parks, Santa Clara University, Bellarmine College Prep, Santa Clara County Justice Center, Muwekma Ohlone Middle School, Berryessa BART Station, VTA Light Rail Berryessa Station, Penitencia Creek Park, Mineta San José International Airport, Earthquakes Stadium VTA Involvement Lead Length 10.8 miles total 0.7 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -4,200 Planning-Level Cost Range $$$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The Central Bikeway Alternatives Analysis and Feasibility Study is completed. The preferred alignment was selected. • VTA has secured funding to advance the project to the design and environmental review phase and is expected to begin in 2026. • Santa Clara City Council approved the removal of parking along most of El Camino Real within City limits in 2022. The City proposes to install a Class IV separated bikeway (striped buffer with bollards) along El Camino Real from Halford Avenue to Portola Avenue. In areas where private on- site parking is insufficient, parking will remain, and Class III shared-lane markings or bike detours will be considered instead. • Caltrans proposes Class IV separated bikeways between Lincoln Street and Pomeroy Avenue. The Caltrans project received conceptual approval in 2024 and will proceed to the Project Approval/Environmental Document phase, followed by the Design phase, before it is constructed.Draft 14VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Central Bikeway El Camino Real Hedding St Mabury RdSanta Clara San Jose Sunnyvale Piedmont Rd East San José North-South Alignment El Camino Real San TomasAquinoCreek TrailC o y o t e Cr e e k Tr a i l Gu a d a l u p e R i v e r T r a i l ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete As of Summer 2024 ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 4� Central Bikeway As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 15 5� Charleston/Arastradero Corridor On-street bikeway along Charleston and Arastradero Roads between Foothill Expressway and San Antonio Road and a to-be-determined connection from San Antonio Road to the Bay Trail. The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor is a heavily used residential arterial road that serves a connector in the southern section of Palo Alto. The segment between Foothill Expressway and San Antonio Road has been constructed and includes landscaped medians, curb extensions/bulb-outs, enhanced bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and traffic signal modifications consistent with the existing striping and roadway configuration. The recently constructed improvements along Charleston and Arastradero Roads between Foothill Expressway and San Antonio Road were in development for over 15 years, involving significant stakeholder outreach and community engagement. The City Council approved the concepts for the corridor in 2015, and the Architectural Review Board approved the landscape plans in 2017. Part of the project was funded by federal grants, necessitating a phased construction approach. Phase 1 encompassed the corridor section of Arastradero Road between Foothill Expressway and Clemo Avenue. Phase 2 involved West Charleston Road from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. Phase 3 of construction included two segments of the corridor: from Los Palos Avenue to Alma Street and from Middlefield Road to San Antonio Road. Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Agencies Palo Alto Destinations Various schools, several parks, shopping centers, community centers, senior living facilities, and a library. VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agency/Help lead agencies seek funding Length 3.1 miles total 2.5 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) TBD. The remaining alignment has not been determined Planning-Level Cost Range TBD. The remaining alignment has not been determined Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The segment between Foothill Expressway and San Antonio Road has been built. It includes landscaped medians, dedicated or buffered bikeways, and upgraded traffic signals with an adaptive traffic control system to optimize traffic flow.Draft 16VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Palo Alto Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway Bay Trail El Ca mino Real San Antonio Rd¯0 0.5 10.25 Miles Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Arastradero RdCharleston RdSan Antonio As of Summer 2024 ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill Charleston/Arastradero Corridor5� Charleston/Arastradero Corridor As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 17 6� Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue Proposed on- and off-street bikeway between the Coyote Creek Trail and Monterey Road (Morgan Hill). This project will involve paving and extending the existing Madrone Channel Trail to create a shared- use path from Cochrane Road to Tennant Avenue. Additionally, it would include upgrading the on-street facilities on Cochrane Road between the Coyote Creek Trail and the Madrone Channel Trail, as well as enhancing the facilities on Tennant Avenue to connect to Monterey Road. Cochrane Road Agencies Morgan Hill Destinations Shopping centers, Rancho Grande de Morgan Hill, South Valley Mushroom Farm, Morgan Hill Outdoor Sports Center, office parks VTA Involvement Help lead agency seek funding Length 5.4 miles total 2.9 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) 200 Planning-Level Cost Range $$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • Morgan Hill has paved the trail along the Madrone Channel between Main Ave and Tenant Ave using 2016 Measure B funds. Project include trailside amenities and crossing improvements.Draft 18VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Morgan Hill Main Ave Dunne Ave Cochrane Rd Mo n t e r e yRo a d Coyote Creek Trail Cochrane RdTenna nt A v eMa d r o n e C h a n n e l T r a i l ¯0 0.75 1.50.38 Miles Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete ¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 6� Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 19 7� Coyote Creek Trail Off-street trail between the Bay Trail (San José) and Cochrane Road (Morgan Hill). The Coyote Creek Trail is planned and partially developed as one of the longest trail systems in Santa Clara County, ultimately extending from the Bay to Morgan Hill. The existing trail is built out in four disconnected segments. 1. Milpitas Section: Paved — McCarthy Boulevard to Alviso-Milpitas Rd (2.0 miles) 2. Northern Reach (San José): Gravel – Highway 237 to Montague Expressway (2.3 miles) 3. Central Reach (San José): Paved – William Street to Phelan Avenue (2.0 miles) 4. Southern Reach (San José/County): Paved – Tully Road to Morgan Hill, near Anderson County Park (19.6 miles) Coyote Creek Trail Agencies Milpitas, San José, and the County of Santa Clara Destinations North San José businesses, Berryessa BART Station, San José High School, Happy Hollow Park and Zoo, Japanese Friendship Garden, History Park, Stonegate Elementary School, Hellyer Velodrome, Hellyer County Park, Coyote Creek Parkway, Charter School of Morgan Hill, Anderson Lake County Park VTA Involvement Help lead agencies seek funding Length 32.7 miles total 26.4 miles of existing trail VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -10,700 Planning-Level Cost Range $ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The City of San José has been awarded 2016 Measure B funds to design four trail segments: Montague Expressway to Brokaw Road, Old Oakland Road to Berryessa Road, Empire Street to Santa Clara Street, and Singleton Crossing near Tuers Road. • The trail connection between Selma Olinder and Phelan Road has been completed. • The connection from Phelan Road to Tully Road and from Mabury Road to Empire Street is anticipated to be constructed in the next year, by 2025. The Mabury-Empire segment will connect neighborhoods south of U.S. 101 to Berryessa BART via Mabury Road. • The City of San José Trails Program is actively working to close the remaining trail gaps, utilizing funding from sources such as the Active Transportation Program, Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities grants, 2016 Measure B, earmarks, and other resources.Draft 20VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Highway 237 Montague Expy Oakland Rd William St Phelan Ave Tully Rd Cochrane Rd Mabury Rd Coyote Creek Trail C o y o t e C r e e k T r a i l Morgan Hill San Jose ¯ As of Summer 2024 0 2.5 51.25 Miles Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Berryessa Brokaw Tully Rd Blossom Hill Rd William St Phelan Ave Alviso-Milpitas Rd (237) Montague Old Oak Cochrane Road/ Madrone Channel Trail/ Tennant Avenue Blossom Hill Road Central Bikeway Story-Ke y e s Bay Trail ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 7� Coyote Creek Trail As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 21 8� El Camino Real (Palo Alto-Mountain View-Sunnyvale) Proposed on-street bikeway between Palo Alto Avenue (Palo Alto) and Lawrence Expressway (Sunnyvale). The portion of El Camino Real within the City of Santa Clara is part of the Central Bikeway. Several cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties have made significant planning efforts to implement high-quality bike facilities along El Camino Real, including: • Atherton (Atherton El Camino Complete Streets Plan) • Caltrans (Caltrans District 4 Bike Highway Study) • Menlo Park (El Camino Real and Downtown Specific Plan) • Mountain View (El Camino Real Precise Plan and Streetscape Plan) • Redwood City (El Camino Real Corridor Plan) • Santa Clara (Draft EIR for El Camino Real Specific Plan Revision) • Sunnyvale (El Camino Real Corridor Specific Plan) Local agencies will need to make trade-offs when determining the roadway priority in certain segments of El Camino Real. As VTA’s highest ridership corridor, any project along El Camino Real should be compatible with fast, frequent, and reliable transit. This may require reallocating road space to provide a physically separated bikeway, with additional space needed at transit stops to accommodate bus boarding islands. Caltrans’ (El Camino Real) Pavement Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements project is under construction and will be completed in early 2025. The project will repave a nine-mile stretch of El Camino Real from the Sunnyvale/ Mountain View border to the Palo Alto/Menlo Park border. In addition to repaving the road, the project includes updates to sidewalks and curb ramps for ADA access, new signalized pedestrian crossings, right turn on red restrictions, and the addition of separated bikeways and bike lanes in Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos. While this project needs additional enhancements to meet Bicycle Superhighway Design expectations, it represents an important step toward a continuous bikeway on El Camino Real. Input from community, advocates, elected officials, and staff in Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, and VTA resulted in Caltrans incorporating additional bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements into the project. Agencies Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View, Sunnyvale Destinations Stanford Shopping Center, El Camino Park, Stanford University, Mayfield Soccer Complex, Sutter Health Palo Alto Medical Foundation - Mountain View Center, shopping centers VTA Involvement Lead/Provide planning support to lead agencies Length 12 miles total 0 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -3,400 Planning-Level Cost Range $$$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • Numerous planning efforts for El Camino have been completed. Most plans recommend physically separated bikeways: o Caltrans (Caltrans District 4 Bike Highway Study, underway) o Mountain View (El Camino Real Precise Plan and Streetscape Plan) o Redwood City (El Camino Real Corridor Plan) o Santa Clara (Draft EIR for El Camino Real Specific Plan Revision) o Sunnyvale (El Camino Real Corridor Specific Plan) o Peninsula Bikeway Study • Caltrans is repaving El Camino Real between Menlo Park/Palo Alto border to the Mountain View/Sunnyvale border. Anticipated completion is scheduled for winter 2024/2025. The project will install Class II bike lanes and Class IV separated bikeways. El Camino RealDraft 22VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update ¯0 1 20.5 Miles El Camino Real Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Los Altos Hill Santa Clara Los Altos Sunnyvale Mountain View Palo Alto Palo Alto Ave Los Altos Ave Bernardo Ave Lawrence Expy Halford AveEast Channel Trail/Blaney AvenueCentral BikewayCharleston/ArastraderoCorridorStevens Creek Trail/Homestead Road/Mary AvenueEl C a m i n o R e a l ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 8� El Camino Real As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 23 Guadalupe River Trail 9� Guadalupe River Trail The Guadalupe River Trail runs north-south adjacent to the Guadalupe River for nine miles, extending from Alviso to downtown San José. It then connects with the Los Alamitos Creek trail system, which spans an additional 5.5 miles between Chynoweth Avenue and Harry Road in South San José. The Guadalupe River Trail Master Plan envisions the completion of the trail between Virginia Street and Chynoweth Avenue, primarily located along Almaden Road and Almaden Expressway. This trail serves as a major bicycle commuter corridor. Agencies San José Destinations Alviso, office parks, Mineta San José International Airport, Guadalupe River Park, shopping centers, Downtown San José, Children’s Discovery Museum of San José, VTA Light Rail Virginia and Tamien Stations, Almaden Lake Park, Leland High School VTA Involvement Help lead agency seek funding Length 19.3 miles total 14.5 miles of existing trail VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -12,700 Planning-Level Cost Range $ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The City of San José was awarded 2016 Measure B funds to design and environmentally clear the Guadalupe River Trail between Virginia Street and Chynoweth Avenue, including five pedestrian bridges. • In 2024, VTA’s Trimble/De La Cruz/US 101 interchange redesign project was completed. It includes the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian path from the Guadalupe River Trail Trimble Road entrance to Central Expressway.Draft 24VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update As of Summer 2024 Guadalupe River TrailBlosso m Hill Roa d Bay Trail Story- K ey es Central Bike way ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Harry Rd SR 85 Virginia St Trimble/ De La Cr uz R d Guadalupe River Trail San Jose Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 9� Guadalupe River Trail As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 25 10� Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail Proposed on- and off-street bikeway between Rancho San Antonio Preserve (Cupertino) and Bascom Avenue (Los Gatos). The Historic De Anza Trail is a long-term initiative by the City of Cupertino to formalize the right-of-way owned by Union Pacific Railroad between Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and Joe’s Trail in Saratoga. This five-mile stretch is primarily composed of dirt and rocks and is currently used by pedestrians and some bicyclists. However, the railroad has not permitted trail planning to advance. This Plan recommends extending Joe’s Trail through Saratoga and Los Gatos to Bascom Avenue, with some segments potentially may need to be on-street to accommodate this extension. Historic De Anza Trail Agencies Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga Destinations Rancho San Antonio Park, office parks, Congress Springs Park, Rolling Hills Middle School VTA Involvement Lead/Provide planning support/Help lead agencies seek funding Length 9.2 miles total 2.7 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -1,300 Planning-Level Cost Range $ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • Saratoga received permits from the California Public Utilities Commission to reopen the pedestrian and bicycle crossing of Joe’s Trail at Guava Drive/ Fredericksburg Drive. As of 2024, the design has been completed. • VTA has hired a consultant to assist in determining what steps are necessary with UPRR to permit trail planning to advance.Draft 26VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Bascom Avenue/ Los Gatos Boulevard Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/ Mary Avenue ¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles Jo e ’ s T r a i l Saratoga Ave Rainbow Rd Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacific Railroad Trail Los Gatos Saratoga Cupertino ¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 10� Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 27 11� Story-Keyes In 2018, VTA adopted the Story-Keyes Complete Streets Study in collaboration with the City of San José. This study evaluated four miles of Willow Street, Graham Avenue, Story Road, and Keyes Street, extending from Highway 87 to Capitol Expressway. Project recommendations include bicycle boulevard treatments on Calle Willow and separated bikeway facilities on Keyes Street and Story Road, along with pedestrian and transit improvements. As one of VTA’s highest ridership corridors, the project will be compatible with fast, frequent, and reliable transit. Agencies San José Destinations Happy Hollow Park and Zoo, shopping centers, Emma Prusch Farm Park VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agency/Help lead agency seek funding Length 4.3 miles total 0 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -1,100 Planning-Level Cost Range $$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • San José was awarded Active Transportation Program and 2016 Measure B funds to design and construct bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements on Willow-Keyes streets between Lelong St and 3rd St. The project includes protected bikeway. • San José applied for One Bay Area Grant funding in 2022 and received partial funding of $45 million out of the original estimate of $62.7 million. The city is currently evaluating the corridor to value-engineer the project within the existing budget. This process involves refining the concept previously submitted by VTA. Keyes StreetDraft 28VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update San Jose Capitol Expy As of Summer 2024 Coyote Creek Trail Guadalupe River Trail Mon t e r e y R o a d ¯0 1 20.5 Miles Al m a d e n A v e Story-Keyes Story RdKeyes St ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete 11� Story-Keyes As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 29 12� East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue Proposed on- or off-street bikeway between the Bay Trail (Sunnyvale) and Prospect Road (San José). Throughout much of Sunnyvale, the corridor would be off-street, paralleling the Sunnyvale East Channel. It would transition to a mostly on-street facility south of Inverness Way, linking to Blaney Avenue in Cupertino. The Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes a separated bikeway along Blaney Avenue between Homestead Road and Bollinger Road, while the San José Better Bike Plan 2025 suggests bicycle boulevard treatments between Bollinger Road and Prospect Road. Implementing a continuous bicycle superhighway may require grade-separated crossings at several locations, including Highway 237, US 101, Caltrain, and Central Expressway. The feasibility of these crossings has yet to be determined. East Channel Trail Agencies Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San José Destinations Moffett Park, The King’s Academy, Fair Oaks Park, office parks, Braly Elementary School, shopping centers, Ortega Park, LP Collins Elementary School, R.I. Meyerholz Elementary School, Calabazas Park VTA Involvement Provide planning support/Help lead agencies seek funding Length 8.8 miles total 0 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -2,600 Planning-Level Cost Range $$$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • In 2021, VTA awarded the City of Sunnyvale 2016 Measure B funds to study the feasibility of a trail and under/overcrossings along the East Channel Trail. The feasibility study started in 2024 and will be completed in 2026. • The Santa Clara Valley Water District has a flood control project along the East Channel Trail that must be completed before developing the trail along the levee.Draft 30VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update ¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue El Camino Real Bay Trail Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacic Railroad Trail Cupertino Sunnyvale Blaney Ave¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue US 101 Prospect Rd Homestead Rd Duane Ave Stewart Dr 12� East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 31 13� East San José Alignment VTA is collaborating with the City of San José to identify a north-south alignment in East San José that would connect the Milpitas BART station to the Coyote Creek Trail in south San José. An on-street facility currently appears to be the most feasible option. Likely candidates for the alignment include King Road, Capitol Avenue/Expressway, or Jackson Street, but further evaluation is needed to determine the best route. King Road Agencies San José, Milpitas Destinations The Great Mall; Milpitas and Berryessa BART Stations; VTA Light Rail Milpitas, Cropley, Hostetter, Berryessa, Penitencia Creek, McKee, and Alum Rock Stations; Eastridge Mall; shopping centers; office parks; Mexican Heritage Plaza; PAL Stadium; Emma Prusch Farm Park; Independence High School; Regional Medical Center VTA Involvement Lead or provide planning support to lead agencies Length Between 10 and 12 miles total VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) TBD as the preferred alignment has not been determined Planning-Level Cost Range TBD as the preferred alignment has not been determined Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • VTA’s East Bay Regional Connector will extend light rail from its terminus at Alum Rock Avenue to the Eastridge Transit Center, featuring an eight-foot shoulder for bicyclists on Capital Expressway. • The City of San José’s En Movimiento Plan identifies and prioritizes specific transportation projects aimed at improving mobility. • The City of San José secured Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant funding for a Complete Streets Plan for King Road, which is near completion as of 2024. The Plan recommends Class IV bikeway and bus lanes along King Road. Additionally, the City received OBAG3 funds for a Complete Streets Study on Jackson Avenue, spanning from Alum Rock Avenue to Story Road. The study will focus on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian enhancements. • The Draft County Active Transportation Plan identifies a Class I path along Capitol Expressway and would also potentially explore at adjacent alignments possibilities such off-road facilities and trails.Draft 32VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update ¯0 1.5 30.75 MilesTrade Zone BlvdCoyote Creek Trail Bay TrailCentral BikewayStory-Keyes Co mplete Streets Project Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete K i n g R d San Jose J a c k s o n A v e C a p i t o l A v e / E x p y ¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill East San José North-South Alignment Berryessa Rd 13� East San José North- South Alginment As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 33 14� Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway Junipero Serra Boulevard begins at Alpine Road near the Stanford University Campus and transitions into Foothill Expressway at Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. Foothill Expressway continues south until it reaches Homestead Road in Cupertino. There is very high recreational biking on this alignment, which is facilitated by wide shoulders on the Expressway and bicycle lanes on Junipero Serra Boulevard. The alignment—particularly Foothill Expressway— is currently not suitable for less experienced cyclists. Agencies Palo Alto, Stanford, County, Los Altos, Cupertino Destinations Stanford University, Stanford Research Park, shopping centers, St. Simon Parish School VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agencies Length 9.3 miles total 0.4 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -1,500 Planning-Level Cost Range TBD as the type of bicycle facility has not been determined Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The County has initiated the Foothill Expressway Multi-modal Feasibility Study, which will identify preferred treatments for pedestrians and bicyclists. Junipero Serra BoulevardDraft 34VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road Charleston/ Arastradero Corridor Ju n i p e r o S e r r a B l v d F o o t h i l l E x p y ¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete ¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan HillAlpine Rd Palo Alto Stanford Los Altos 14� Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 35 15� Monterey Road The proposed on- and off-street bikeway will connect Keyes Street in San José to Monterey Frontage Road in Gilroy. The project is expected to feature on-street facilities in urban areas and off-street paths in rural segments. The City of San José has expressed interest in upgrading Monterey Road to a Complete Street, which includes exploring the concept of transit lanes. Future planning and design efforts will need to be compatible with the California High-Speed Rail project, which may operate as a blended service along the Caltrain corridor. Agencies San José, County, Morgan Hill, Gilroy Destinations Shopping centers; Capitol, Blossom Hill, and Gilroy Caltrain Stations; Edenvale Gardens Regional Park; office parks; Charter School of Morgan Hill; Britton Middle School; Gilroy Sports Park/Sharks Ice Center VTA Involvement Lead/Provide planning support to lead agencies Length 40.7 miles total 0 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -5,500 Planning-Level Cost Range $$$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • VTA, partnering with the City of San José, is leading the Monterey Road Transit Project. The project will implement Class 4 Protected Bike Lanes and a transit lane with bus boarding islands along Monterey Road, from Keyes Street to Ford Road near the Blossom Hill Caltrain Station. The project has completed the feasibility study phase and is currently in design. Monterey RoadDraft 36VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Keyes St ¯ As of Summer 2024 0 4.5 92.25 Miles Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Ford Rd Blossom Hill Road Mo n t e r e y R o a d Story-Keyes Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue Monterey Frontage Rd San Jose Morgan Hill Gilroy Monterey Road ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill 15� Monterey Road As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 37 16� San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/San Tomas Expressway The existing San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail runs from the Bay Trail to Homestead Road in Santa Clara. The County of Santa Clara plans to extend the trail adjacent to San Tomas Expressway to Stevens Creek Boulevard. This plan proposes further extending the trail to connect with the Los Gatos Creek Trail. Agencies Santa Clara, San José, Los Gatos, County Destinations Office parks, Levi’s Stadium, California’s Great America, Cabrillo Middle School, shopping centers, Campbell School of Innovation, Los Gatos Creek County Park VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agencies Length 10.8 miles total 5.6 miles of existing trail VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -5,200 Planning-Level Cost Range $ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The City of Santa Clara was awarded a Transportation Development Act grant to upgrade striping and signage for bicycle facilities along the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail. • The City is also preparing the design for the Creek Trail Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase 1 Project, which will address pavement maintenance and rehabilitation along the San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail between SR 237 and Tasman Drive. • Santa Clara County is seeking funding for feasibility study and conceptual design for extending the trail from Homestead Road to Moorpark Avenue. San Tomas Aquino Creek TrailDraft 38VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update ¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/ San Tomas Expressway ¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill Bay Trail Central Bikeway Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue Los Gatos Creek Trail Homestead Rd Santa Clara San Tomas ExpySan Tomas Aquino Creek TrailAlignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete 16� San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/San Tomas Expressway As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 39 17� Stevens Creek Trail/Homestead Road/Mary Avenue This proposed project would combine three existing initiatives: the Stevens Creek Trail extension project, the Homestead Road Safe Routes to School project by VTA, and the Mary Avenue bicycle facility project by Cupertino. The existing Stevens Creek Trail runs between the Bay Trail and Heatherstone Way in Mountain View and from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road through Blackberry Farm Park and McClellan Ranch Preserve in Cupertino. The Joint Cities Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study, approved by the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Cupertino in 2016, evaluated four alignment alternatives for closing the gap between Heatherstone Way and Stevens Creek Boulevard. A preferred alignment was selected between Heatherstone Way and Fremont Avenue, with additional feasibility work needed for the segment between Fremont Avenue and Homestead Road. VTA’s Homestead Road Safe Routes to School project aims to provide low-stress bicycle facilities and improve sidewalks and intersections along Homestead Road, running east-west between Grant Road and Hollenbeck Avenue/Stelling Road. Cupertino recently completed the Mary Avenue project, which installed separated bikeways along Mary Avenue, running north-south between the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge and Stevens Creek Boulevard. These two projects are interconnected by the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge and will facilitate a connection to the Historic De Anza Trail via bikeways on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Additionally, the County has initiated the Foothill Expressway Multi-Modal Feasibility Study to explore the possibility of developing a bikeway along Foothill Expressway. Agencies Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, County Destinations Office parks, Mountain View High School, Landels Elementary School, Cupertino Middle School, Homestead High School, De Anza College VTA Involvement Lead/Provide planning support to lead agencies Length 10.9 miles total 5.1 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -2,600 Planning-Level Cost Range $$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • The City of Mountain View was awarded 2016 Measure B funds for the environmental clearance and design of the Stevens Creek Trail extension from its current terminus at Dale Avenue/Heatherstone Way to Remington Drive and Mountain View High School. Design work began in May 2024. • In 2022, the City of Sunnyvale installed improvements at the Homestead Road intersections with Mary Avenue and Kennewick Drive, including traffic signal upgrades to enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings. • Sunnyvale was also awarded 2016 Measure B funds to design and environmentally clear the Stevens Creek Trail from Remington Drive to Fremont Avenue. The city has a consultant team working on environmental clearance, final design, and coordination with Caltrans for this segment. • VTA awarded 2016 Measure B funds to design Safe Routes to School improvements on Homestead Road between Foothill Expressway and Hollenbeck/Stelling, with the project currently at 35% design. Homestead RoadDraft 40VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update ¯0 1.5 30.75 Miles Alignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete ¯0 5 102.5 Miles As of Summer 2024 San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/Mary Avenue Bay Trail El Camino Real Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacic Railroad Trail Junipero Serra Boulevard/ Foothill Expressway Mountain View Fremont Ave Dale Ave/Heatherton Way Los Altos Cupertino SunnyvaleStevens Creek TrailHomestead Rd Mary AveStevens Creek BlvdFoothill Blvd17� Stevens Creek Trail/Homestead Road/Mary Avenue As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 41 18� Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue This corridor links three separate bikeway planning efforts underway by Cupertino, Santa Clara, San José, and VTA with on- and off-street bikeways between Mary Avenue (Sunnyvale) and The Alameda (San José). The proposed Tamien Trail, located just south of I-280 in Cupertino, will provide an off-street bicycle and pedestrian facility that runs parallel to the existing Junipero Serra Channel and Calabazas Creek and provide a connection between the Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge and Vallco Parkway. It will connect to Pruneridge Avenue, but the exact alignment has not yet been determined. Pruneridge Avenue, located in Santa Clara, begins at Tantau Avenue and changes its name to Hedding Street at the San José border, where it will connect with the Central Bikeway Bike Superhighway. Agencies Cupertino, Santa Clara, San José Destinations Office parks, Eisenhower Elementary School, shopping centers, Bellarmine College Prep, Santa Clara County Justice Center, Muwekma Ohlone Middle School, Berryessa BART Station, VTA Light Rail Berryessa Station, Penitencia Creek Park VTA Involvement Provide planning support to lead agencies/Help lead agencies seek funding Length 8.5 miles total 0 miles of existing trail or separated bikeway VMT Reduction Per Weekday (2050) -1,900 Planning-Level Cost Range $$ Active Implementation Efforts (as of Summer 2024) • City of Cupertino awarded 2016 Measure B funds to design and construct Tamien Trail Central Segment (De Anza Boulevard to Wolfe Road) and to construct east segment (Wolfe Road to Calabazas Creek/Vallco Parkway) (Two awards). • VTA leading an interchange redesign project Wolfe Road/I-280 which will provide trail connections between Wolfe Road and planned Tamien Trail. Funded in part by 2016 Measure B. • The City of Santa Clara’s Complete Streets Study for Pruneridge Avenue between Pomeroy Avenue and Winchester Boulevard was approved in 2022.Draft 42VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update ¯0 1 20.5 Miles ¯0 5 102.5 Miles San Jose Mt. View Milpitas Gilroy Morgan Hill Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/ Mary Avenue East Channel Trail/ Blaney Avenue San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/ San Tomas Expressway Lawrence ExpresswayI-280 Bascom Avenue/ Los Gatos Boulevard Central Bikeway Pruneridge Ave Tamien Trail Hedding StAlignment TBD 1 – Concept 4 – Under Construction 5 – Built. May Need Upgrades to Meet Bike Superhighway Design Recommendations Cross Street/Segment Extent Connection to Another Bike Superhighway 2 – Feasibility Study Funded or Complete 3 – Environmental and Design Funded or Complete Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue As of Summer 2024 Santa Clara Cupertino 18� Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue As of Summer 2024 Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 43 5. Implementation Implementing the grand vision of a countywide network of bicycle superhighways will succeed only through a partnership between VTA and Member Agencies. Member Agencies have already made significant progress in constructing high-quality bikeways along several superhighway corridors. In fact, alignments were chosen in part to support and enhance these local projects. Appendix A lists a variety of existing funding sources for various phases of bicycle projects. Moving forward, the implementation of the bicycle superhighway network will primarily be led by Member Agencies and other agencies with land use authority. However, VTA will play a crucial role in organizing the vision, coordinating efforts across jurisdictional lines, and seeking funding sources to support the development of this network. VTA Involvement VTA recognizes that implementing this effort may require significant funding and staff resources. This Plan serves as a tool for VTA to advocate for new funding sources dedicated to bicycle superhighways. The implementation of the bicycle superhighway network will be a collaborative partnership between VTA and Member Agencies. As previously mentioned, Member Agencies will primarily be responsible for the design and construction of the network, given their roadway or riparian authority. VTA’s role will include coordinating and tracking progress, assisting with funding procurement, supporting outreach efforts, and leading feasibility studies to identify preferred alignments and designs. In certain cases—especially for larger projects that span multiple jurisdictions or necessitate coordination with Caltrans or other transit agencies—it may be appropriate for VTA to take the lead in environmental clearance, project design, and construction. VTA envisions three levels of involvement in the implementation of the bicycle superhighway projects presented in this Plan: 1. In some instances, VTA will support the efforts of Member Agencies and other entities through promoting outreach, serving on technical advisory committees, providing technical guidance, or writing support letters. 2. In some instances, VTA will provide funding to Member Agencies. 3. In other instances, VTA will lead project implementation. In these cases, VTA will manage the effort and Member Agencies may dedicate staff time or financial resources to the effort. These roles are not exclusive. VTA may lead, fund, or support each proposed superhighway project as they are implemented. Table 2 shows VTA’s anticipated level of involvement for each of the potential projects. This is subject to change and may differ by project segment. While projects are eligible for numerous sources of funding, Table 2 notes the projects that are on the 2016 Measure B Ten-Year Bicycle and Pedestrian Capital Project list. Projects on this list are eligible for 2016 Measure B funding for environmental clearance, design, or construction. These projects were selected through a competitive call for projects and approved by the VTA Board of Directors.Draft 44VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Table 2: VTA Level of Involvement in Priority Projects Planning and Policy Support VTA’s policies and plans can help define a vision for the transportation network. They can also support consistent implementation of projects that meet the needs of all users. Policies can address a broad range of topics, such as bikeway selection, funding, project development, planning, design, accessibility, and maintenance. Policies are also useful to guide and prioritize acceptable trade-offs.2 The bicycle superhighway network builds on Member Agency plans, and so for most segments, local agencies already have some level of planning and policy support for the project. Member Agencies can further support the bicycle superhighway effort by continuing to: •Prioritize implementation of bicycle superhighway alignments by allocating capital funds and staff time to implementation efforts. •Take advantage of opportunities to construct segments through conditions of development or integration into larger transportation projects. •Update local plans to formalize bicycle superhighway alignments within their jurisdiction. •Update local plans and design documents to support bicycle superhighway design expectations. •Ensure projects along bicycle superhighway alignments meet design expectations for bicycle superhighways. •Fund and prioritize maintenance of bicycle superhighways, including street sweeping for separated bikeways. •Develop policies and practices that reduce delay for bicyclists in areas where bicycle superhighways cross other transportation facilities. VTA can assist Member Agencies wishing to update their policies to be more bike-friendly and to prioritize bicycle superhighways. VTA can look for opportunities to expand funding, including policy and legislative change at the regional, state, and federal level. #Project Lead Planning Support On 2016 Measure B 10-Year List 1 Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard X X 2 Bay Trail X 3 Blossom Hill Road 4 Central Bikeway Study X 5 Charleston Road/Arastradero Road 6 Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue 7 Coyote Creek Trail X 8 El Camino Real X X X 9 Guadalupe River Trail X 10 Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail X 11 Story-Keyes X X 12 East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue X 13 East San José North-South Alignment X X 14 Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway X 15 Monterey Road X X 16 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail X 17 Stevens Creek Trail/Homestead Road/Mary Avenue X X X 18 Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue X 2 FHWA. Bikeway Selection Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf.Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 45 Transit and Bicycle Superhighways Several identified bicycle superhighway alignments are on major transit corridors: Bascom Avenue, Monterey Road, El Camino Real and Story-Keyes. It is possible to build bicycle superhighway quality bikeways and also provide high quality transit service on the same roadway. On these major transit corridors, VTA will work with Member Agencies so that transit access is integrated seamlessly into the bikeway design. VTA encourages other agencies to adopt a transit-first policy to establish a hierarchy on their roadways and to utilize VTA guidance for designing bus stops that integrate with bicycle facilities. Complete Streets projects that support both transit and biking have access to a greater variety of funding sources, including transit-specific funding programs. Planning-Level Cost Ranges Planning-level cost ranges were developed for all unbuilt sites and are summarized in Table 3. These ranges were estimated using standard planning-level costs by facility type, as detailed in Appendix B. Assumptions about facility type were informed by mileage and the most likely implementation scenario. Unless otherwise noted, estimates in Table 3 are in 2024 dollars. Actual project costs may vary based on final design treatments and alignments. Appendix C provides a more detailed costs by route segment. Table 3: Planning-Level Cost Ranges $: $5 million – $30 million $$: $30 million – $100 million $$$: Above $100 million Bike Superhighway Name Total Cost Range Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard $$$ Bay Trail $ Blossom Hill Road $$$ Central Bikeway $$$ Charleston/Arastradero Corridor TBD Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue $$ Coyote Creek Trail $ El Camino Real $$$ Guadalupe River Trail $ Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail $ Story-Keyes $$ East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue $$$ East San José North-South Alignment TBD Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway TBD Monterey Road $$$ San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/San Tomas Expressway $ Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/Mary Avenue $$ Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue $$Draft 46VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Table 4: VMT Reduction The methodology for this analysis can be found in Appendix D. VTA’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) targets a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources, in line with California’s climate goals. With an estimated reduction of 65,000 VMT per workday by 2050, this would eliminate 26 metric tons of carbon dioxide per day, equivalent to roughly 6,500 metric tons annually (assuming 250 workdays). This is based on CARB’s emission factors for passenger vehicles, which is about 404 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. This VMT reduction would contribute to the broader greenhouse gas reduction targets of both VTA and California. By developing extensive bike infrastructure, the Bike Superhighway Implementation Plan not only enhances regional active transportation options but also aligns with climate resilience goals. Route Name Total Mileage Avg VMT Change (by route) Bascom Avenue/Los Gatos Boulevard 6.8 -1,400 Bay Trail 18.9 -8,600 Blossom Hill Road 11.5 -1,600 Central Bikeway 10.8 -4,200 Charleston / Arastradero Corridor 2.5 -500 Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue 5.4 -200 Coyote Creek Trail 30.7 -10,700 El Camino Real 12.0 -3,400 Guadalupe River Trail 19.3 -12,700 Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail 9.2 -1,300 Story-Keyes 4.3 -1,100 East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue 8.8 -2,600 Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway 9.3 -1,500 Monterey Road 29.3 -5,500 San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/San Tomas Expressway 10.8 -5,200 Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/Mary Avenue 10.9 -2,600 Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue 6.7 -1,900 TOTAL 207 -65,000 Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction VTA calculated the estimated reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per day for all routes except the East San José alignment, as that route has not yet been finalized. The analysis indicates that, if the network is fully built by 2050, there could be approximately 65,000 fewer miles traveled by passenger vehicles per typical workday. Table 4 shows this calculation. Please note some numbers may be slightly off due to rounding. Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 47 6. Maintenance 7. Summary and Next Steps 3 Collection of Cycling Concepts, Cycling Embassy of Denmark, 2012. 4 Ibid. During conversations with Member Agency staff and the VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), maintenance of bicycle superhighways frequently came up as a challenging area. To provide high-quality bicycling conditions, bikeways – particularly separated bikeways and trails – need consistent, dedicated maintenance, and sweeping. Local agencies may need to purchase specialized equipment to sweep separated bikeways and allocate additional funding for maintenance. Bikeway users may not know what agency they should contact to report poor conditions. Some corridors have unhoused individuals taking up residence, which can increase maintenance needs. This section outlines general maintenance guidance, acknowledging that further work is needed to address these concerns. Maintenance Guidance Bicycle superhighways should be maintained, free of debris and other obstacles, and designed to permit sweeping equipment to access the bikeway. Bicyclists are particularly sensitive to poor-quality surfaces. Bicyclist comfort and safety is significantly reduced by the unpleasantness of bumpy surfaces. Pavement along the bikeway should meet a pavement condition index (PCI) of 80 or higher, indicating adequate quality for bicycling. All contractors should be informed that all asphalt repairs must be carried out so that there are no noticeable edges or differences in level to the existing asphalt.3 There should be a high service standard for bicycle facilities cleaning as well. VTA recommends paths be swept systematically according to the maintenance hierarchy, from twice a month to once every two months. In addition, extra sweeping is necessary during fall.4 VTA also recommends each Member Agency have a way to accommodate acute removal of dangerous objects and broken glass, outside of regularly scheduled cleaning, whether through 311, city-specific apps, a hotline, or other. More detail on maintenance within Santa Clara County can be found in the Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines. By implementing the proposed bicycle superhighway network, along with additional bicycle facilities, Santa Clara County can become internationally known for superb, sustainable infrastructure that could increase tourism, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and make our community healthier. VTA looks forward to working with our Member Agencies and other partners to continue developing a bicycle superhighway network that connects our cities and towns in healthier and more joyful ways. VTA anticipates updating this plan periodically as projects progress. Routes may be modified as feasibility is determined, and the implementation status maps will be updated as funding for implementation phases are secured. Draft 48VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Appendices Appendix A – Funding Opportunities A variety of sources exist to fund various phases of bicycle projects. Some of the major regional and statewide funding sources that can be used for construction or maintenance of bicycle or pedestrian improvements, along with competitive grant programs, are described below. Each jurisdiction may have separate local funding sources not listed here. Transportation Funds for Clean Air Funds in the Transportation Funds for Clean Air (TFCA) program, may be used on projects that reduce vehicle emissions, including trail and bicycle facility project development, and can also be used as a match for competitive grant programs. Funds are programmed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) through the Vehicle Trip Reduction Grant Program and VTA. One Bay Area Grant MTC’s One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) is a competitive grant program that targets investments in Priority Development Areas (PDAs). Member Agencies, the county, and VTA can use OBAG funds for transportation planning and bicycle-related improvements. Transportation Development Act Article 3 Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3) is programmed by VTA and provides annual funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Two percent of TDA funds collected within the county are used for TDA 3 projects. A portion of TDA 3 funding goes to local agency by formula, and per VTA Board action, the countywide portion is allocated to projects on the 2016 Measure B Ten-Year Bicycle/Pedestrian Capital Projects list. MTC requires that all projects be reviewed by a BPAC or similar body before approval. 2016 Measure B VTA administers the 2016 Measure B funds with a portion of funding programmed for bicycle and pedestrian projects. There are two bicycle and pedestrian program categories that could help implement bicycle superhighways through a competitive process: planning studies and capital projects. Planning studies call for projects are on a two-year cycle and capital projects are on a 10-year cycle with a chance for a mid-cycle call. Several segments of the Bicycle Superhighway alignments are eligible for the 10-year capital funding. California Active Transportation Program California’s Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a competitive grant program that is programmed by the California Transportation Commission (CTC). The program funds infrastructure and programmatic projects that aim to shift trips to walking and bicycling, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and improving public health. Competitive application cycles occur every two years. Eligible projects include construction of bicycling and walking facilities. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants are available to communities for planning, study, and conceptual design work to identify and evaluate projects, including conducting outreach or implementing pilot projects. Communities are typically required to provide an 11.47 percent local match, but staff time or in-kind donations are eligible to be used for the match provided the required documentation is submitted. Highway Safety Improvement Program Caltrans offers Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grants every one to two years. Projects on any publicly owned road or active transportation facility are eligible, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements. HSIP focuses on projects that explicitly address documented safety challenges through proven countermeasures, are implementation-ready, and demonstrate cost effectiveness. Solutions for Congested Corridors Program The purpose of the Solutions for Congested Corridors Program is to provide funding to achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to reduce congestion throughout the state. This program can fund a wide array of improvements including bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Eligible projects must be detailed in an approved corridor-focused planning Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 49 document. These projects must include aspects that benefit all modes of transportation using an array of strategies that can change travel behavior, dedicate right of way for bikes and transit, and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Funds are programmed by the CTC. Regional transportation planning agencies, county transportation commissions, and Caltrans are eligible to apply. Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program helps provide and maintain recreational trails and trail facilities for both motorized and nonmotorized trail use. Funds are programmed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Urban Greening Grants California Natural Resources Agency administers Urban Greening grant programs that support the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce GHG emissions and provide multiple benefits. Projects must include one of three criteria, most relevantly: reduce commute vehicle miles traveled by constructing bicycle paths, bicycle lanes or pedestrian facilities that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools. Eligible projects include green streets, green alleyways, and non-motorized urban trails that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools. Senate Bill 1: Local Partnership Program The Local Partnership Program is administered by the CTC. It provides local and regional agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other transportation-imposed fees to fund transportation improvement projects. Jurisdictions with these taxes or fees are then eligible for a formulaic annual distribution and a competitive grant program. Local Partnership Program funds can be used for a wide variety of transportation purposes including roadway rehabilitation and construction, transit capital and infrastructure, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and green infrastructure. In the 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 fiscal years, VTA was awarded a total of $15,435,000 unprogrammed funds through the formulaic annual distribution. VTA also applied for $50 million in the 2020 competitive program cycle. Appendix B – Planning-Level Cost Estimates by Facility Type and Improvement Table 4 shows the cost estimates for the bikeway type and other improvements. Costs are shown in 2024 dollars and only include construction costs. Actual project costs may differ depending on final design treatments and alignments. Table 5 shows the planning-level cost estimate ranges per segment based on an assumed 40% soft costs (e.g., design, environmental clearance) and 60% hard costs (e.g., construction, materials) split. Table 4: Planning-Level Construction Cost Estimates by Facility Type Bikeway Type Planning-Level Construction Cost Estimate (per mile) Bicycle Path (16 feet)$3,000,000 Separated Bikeway (7 feet)$1,300,000 Bike Lanes (5 feet)$150,000 Buffered Bike Lanes (5 feet)$280,000 Other Improvements Planning-Level Construction Cost Estimate Protected Intersection $1,600,000 Bus Boarding Island (60X10)$250,000 Bike/Pedestrian Bridge $20,000,000Draft 50VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Appendix C – Bicycle Superhighway Segments Table 5: Planning-Level Cost Estimates per Segment Name Street Name Extents Mileage Jurisdiction Existing Bikeway Proposed Bikeways Segment Status Total Cost Range Bascom Avenue/ Los Gatos Boulevard Bascom Ave Hedding St to Fruitdale Ave 1.5 San Jose/County No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design $$$ Bascom Ave Fruitdale Ave to Hamilton 1.1 San Jose/Campbell Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Bascom Ave Hamilton Ave to Dry Creek Rd 1.0 Campbell/San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Bascom Ave Dry Creek Rd to Samaritan Dr 2.2 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Los Gatos Blvd Samaritan Dr to Chirco Dr 0.9 Los Gatos No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Bay Trail Bay Trail Embarcadero Rd to Sunnyvale Baylands County Park 11.5 Palo Alto/Mountain View/ Sunnyvale Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations $Bay Trail Sunnyvale Baylands County Park to 1st St 3.2 Sunnyvale/Santa Clara/ San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Bay Trail 1st St to Zanker Rd 1.2 San Jose No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Bay Trail Zanker Rd to Dixon Landing Rd 3.1 San Jose/Milpitas Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Blossom Hill Road Blossom Hill Rd University Ave to SR 17 0.3 Los Gatos Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept $$$ Blossom Hill Rd SR 17 to Los Gatos Blvd 0.5 Los Gatos Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Los Gatos Blvd Los Gatos Almaden Rd to Blossom Hill Rd 0.4 Los Gatos/San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Blossom Hill Rd Union Ave to Almaden Expy 3.4 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Blossom Hill Rd Union Ave to Almaden Expy 3.4 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Blossom Hill Rd Almaden Expy to Monterey Rd 4.1 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Blossom Hill Rd Monterey Rd to US 101 0.4 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Blossom Hill Rd 101 to Coyote Rd 0.2 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Blossom Hill Rd/Silver Creek Valley Rd Coyote Rd to Coyote Creek Trail 0.1 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendationsDraft 51VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Name Street Name Extents Mileage Jurisdiction Existing Bikeway Proposed Bikeways Segment Status Total Cost Range Central Bikeway El Camino Real/The Alameda Lawrence Rd to Hedding St 4.6 Santa Clara/San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design $$$ Hedding St/11th St Hedding to Taylor 0.4 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Hedding St/10th St The Alameda to Taylor St 2.3 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Taylor St 10th St to 21st 0.7 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Taylor St 21st to Lenfest Rd 0.7 San Jose Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Mabury Rd Lenfest Rd to White Rd 2.1 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Charleston / Arastradero Foothill Expy to San Antonio Rd 2.5 Palo Alto Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations TBD TBD Charleston Rd to Bay Trail TBD Palo Alto TBD TBD Alignment TBD Cochrane Road/Madrone Channel Trail/Tennant Avenue Cochrane Rd Madrone Channel Trail to Saint Katherine Dr 1.2 Morgan Hill Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept $$Madrone Channel Trail Cochrane Rd to Tennant Ave 2.9 Morgan Hill/County Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Tennant Ave Monterey St to Condit Rd 1.2 Morgan Hill Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Coyote Creek Trail Coyote Creek Trail 237 to Montague Expy 2.3 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations $ Coyote Creek Trail Montague Expy to Oakland Rd 1.8 San Jose No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Coyote Creek Trail Oakland Rd to Wheel Park Dr 0.4 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Coyote Creek Trail Golden Wheel Park Dr to Mabury Rd 1.2 San Jose No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Under Construction Coyote Creek Trail Mabury Rd to William St 2.0 San Jose No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Coyote Creek Trail William St to 280 0.7 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Coyote Creek Trail 280 to Phelan Ave 1.4 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Coyote Creek Trail Phelan Ave to Tully Rd 1.3 San Jose No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Coyote Creek Trail Tully Rd to Cochrane Rd 19.6 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Appendix C – Bicycle Superhighway Segments Table 5: Planning-Level Cost Estimates per Segment Draft 52VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Name Street Name Extents Mileage Jurisdiction Existing Bikeway Proposed Bikeways Segment Status Total Cost Range El Camino Real El Camino Real County line (Sand Hill Rd) to Los Altos Ave 4.2 Palo Alto No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept $$$ El Camino Real Los Altos Ave to Bernardo Ave 4.0 Los Altos No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept El Camino Real Bernardo Ave to Sunnyvale Ave 1.4 Sunnyvale No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept El Camino Real Sunnyvale Saratoga Rd to Fair Oaks Ave 0.6 Sunnyvale Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept El Camino Real Fair Oaks Ave to Halford Ave 1.7 Sunnyvale No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept El Camino Real Halford Ave to Lawerence Rd 0.2 Santa Clara No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Guadalupe River Trail Guadalupe River Trail Bay Trail to Virginia St 8.6 Santa Clara Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations $ Guadalupe River Trail Virginia St to 85 4.8 San Jose No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Guadalupe River Trail and Camden Ave 85 to Harry Rd 5.0 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Guadalupe River Trail Camden Ave to McKean Rd 0.9 San Jose Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacific Railroad Trail Foothill Expy to Rainbow Dr 2.8 Cupertino No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Concept $ Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacific Railroad Trail Rainbow Dr to Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd 1.1 Cupertino/Saratoga Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacific Railroad Trail Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd to Saratoga Ave 1.6 Saratoga Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacific Railroad Trail Saratoga Ave to Los Gatos Blvd 3.7 Saratoga/Campbell/Los Gatos No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Concept Story-Keyes Willow St 87 to Almaden Ave 0.4 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design $$ Graham Ave Almaden Ave to Goodyear St 0.2 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Goodyear St/Keyes Graham Ave to 1st St 0.1 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Keyes St/Story Rd 1st St to King St 2.4 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Story Rd King Rd to Capitol Expy 1.2 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Appendix C – Bicycle Superhighway Segments Table 5: Planning-Level Cost Estimates per Segment Draft 53VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Name Street Name Extents Mileage Jurisdiction Existing Bikeway Proposed Bikeways Segment Status Total Cost Range East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue East Channel Trail Bay Trail to Caribbean Dr 0.2 Sunnyvale Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I)Built $$$ East Channel Trail Caribbean Dr to Tasman Dr 0.9 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study East Channel Trail Tasman Dr to US 101 0.5 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study East Channel Trail 101 to Fair Oaks Park 0.6 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study Britton Ave Fair Oaks Park to Wolfe Rd 0.2 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study East Channel Trail Wolfe Rd to Inverness Way 3.0 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study Finch Way Inverness Way to Homestead 0.3 Sunnyvale No existing bikeway Bike Boulevard (Class IIIB)Feasibility Study Blaney Ave Homestead Rd to Bollinger Rd 2.0 Cupertino Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd to Prospect Rd 1.1 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept TBD Prospect Rd to Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail TBD Saratoga No existing connection TBD Alignment TBD East San José North-South Alignment King Rd, Capitol Ave/ Expy, or Jackson Ave Bay Trail to Coyote Creek Trail TBD San Jose/Milpitas TBD TBD Alignment TBD TBD Junipero Serra Boulevard/ Foothill Expressway Junipero Serra Blvd County line to Stanford Ave 2.0 County Bike lane (Class II) Multiuse Path (Class I) or Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Concept TBD Junipero Serra Blvd Stanford Ave to Page Mill Rd 0.4 County Multiuse Path (Class I) Multiuse Path (Class I) or Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Concept Foothill Expy Page Mill Rd to Edith Ave 2.7 Palo Alto/Los Altos Bike lane (Class II) Multiuse Path (Class I) or Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Concept Foothill Expy Edith Ave to Magdalena Ave 4.2 Los Altos No existing bikeway Multiuse Path (Class I) or Separated Bike Lane (Class IV) Concept Monterey Road Monterey Rd Keyes St to Bailey Ave 11.4 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design $$$ Monterey Road Bailey Ave to Burnett Ave 4.5 San Jose No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Monterey Road Burnett Ave to Main Ave 2.2 Morgan Hill Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Monterey Road Main Ave to Dunne Ave 0.4 Morgan Hill No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Monterey Road Dunne Ave to Middle Ave 2.4 Morgan Hill Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Monterey Road Middle Ave to Monterey Frontage Rd 8.4 County/Gilroy No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/ San Tomas Expressway San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail Bay Trail to Agnew Rd 2.1 Santa Clara Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations $San Tomas Aquino Creek Trail/San Tomas Expy Agnew Rd to Homestead Rd 3.5 Santa Clara Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations San Tomas Expy Homestead Rd to Los Gatos Creek Trail 5.2 Santa Clara/Cupertino/ Campbell No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Concept Appendix C – Bicycle Superhighway Segments Table 5: Planning-Level Cost Estimates per Segment Draft 54VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update Name Street Name Extents Mileage Jurisdiction Existing Bikeway Proposed Bikeways Segment Status Total Cost Range Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/Mary Avenue Stevens Creek Trail Bay Trail to Dale Ave/Heatherstone Way 4.7 Mountain View Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations $$ Stevens Creek Trail Dale Ave/Heatherstone Way to West Remington Dr 0.8 Mountain View No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Stevens Creek Trail West Remington Dr to Fremont Ave 0.7 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Environmental and Design Stevens Creek Trail Fremont Ave to Homestead Rd 1.2 Sunnyvale No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study Homestead Rd El Sereno Ave to Mary Ave 1.0 Cupertino/Sunnyvale Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Mary Ave Homestead Rd to Meteor Dr 0.4 Cupertino Multiuse Path (Class I)Multiuse Path (Class I) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Mary Ave Meteor Dr to Stevens Creek Blvd 0.7 Cupertino Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Environmental and Design Stevens Creek Blvd Mary Ave To Historic De Anza Trail/ Union Pacific Railroad Trail 0.4 Cupertino Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Concept Foothill Blvd Homestead Rd to 280 0.3 Los Altos No existing bikeway Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Foothill Blvd 280 to Stevens Creek Blvd 0.8 Cupertino Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue Tamien Trail Stevens Creek Trail to Calabazas Creek 2.4 Cupertino No existing connection Multiuse Path (Class I)Feasibility Study $$ TBD Calabazas Creek to Lawrence Rd TBD Cupertino/Santa Clara No existing connection TBD Alignment TBD Pruneridge Ave Lawrence Rd to Pomeroy Ave 0.4 Cupertino/Santa Clara Bike lane (Class II)Bike Lane (Class II) Built – May need upgrades to meet bike superhighway design recommendations Pruneridge Ave Pomeroy Ave to Saratoga Creek 0.1 Santa Clara Bike lane (Class II)Separated Bike Lane (Class IV)Feasibility Study Pruneridge Ave Saratoga Creek to Winchester Blvd 2.1 Santa Clara No existing bikeway Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)Feasibility Study Hedding St Winchester Blvd to The Alameda 1.8 San Jose Bike lane (Class II)Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)Feasibility Study Appendix C – Bicycle Superhighway Segments Table 5: Planning-Level Cost Estimates per Segment Draft VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan 2025 Update 55 Appendix D – VMT Reduction Methodology The routes were divided into three categories (facility type): on-street, expressway, or trail. Then, a set of buffer sizes (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 miles) was used to estimate the captured households and total employments (also using the 2050 base scenario) for each route. Jointly utilizing results from the travel demand model and the buffer analysis, the VMT change rates weighted by lengths, captured households (by buffers), and captured employment (by buffers) were calculated. The final deliverable is a spreadsheet-based calculator (Excel). In addition to all the assumptions associated with the original VTA trip-based travel demand model (Version “VTATBM2023g8b”), additional key assumptions are listed below. • The project facility types are coded as follows: Class I Bike Path, NMT=3; Class II Bike Lane, NMT=2; Class III Bike Route, NMT=1; and Class IV Cycle Track, NMT=4, in the non-motorized traffic network of the VTA trip-based travel demand model. • The VMT change rate (“VMT change per mile per SE”) is calculated using the following formula. VMT Change Rate=VMT Change Rate*Length*(0.6*HH+0.4*Emp) The VMT Change Rate in the formula above is the weighted one based on users’ input. For example, if a route or sub-route is considered mainly as an on-street facility type, the weighted VMT Change Rate can be obtained by giving 90 percent, five percent, and five percent to the VMT Change Rate of trail, expressway, and on-street, respectively. The specific weights should be determined by users’ professional judgement, local knowledge, and expertise. The weights, 0.6 and 0.4, shall also be determined by users’ professional judgement and specific needs. The route type categories may have different weights if preferred. Specific for this set of coefficients, a slightly lower weight is given to the captured employment to reflect the typical situations where employment areas tend to lack bike facilities in the study area. Please note, the final VMT change estimation is the averaged estimates from the five buffer sizes. However, a user can also choose the estimate of a specific buffer size based on his or her professional judgement and local knowledge. Also, the user does not have to choose the estimate from the same buffer size for each route. Draft Architects, Designers, and Community Collaborators Please join us! Visioning the Gilroy Civic Center Master Plan For additional information, please visit, www.cityofgilroy.org/CCMP or scan QR code. Community Workshop #1 Open House & Gallery Information Walk Tuesday, March 4, 2025 9am or 6pm (two sessions) Community Workshop #2 Alternative Concepts & Visioning Sessions Tuesday, April 8, 2025 9am or 6pm (two sessions) Community Workshop #3 Preferred Concept & Visioning Sessions Tuesday, May 20, 2025 9am or 6pm (two sessions) Snacks and childcare will be provided. Community Workshop Series at the Wheeler Center, located at 270 W 6th Street The City of Gilroy is launching a project to modernize and reimagine the Civic Center by developing a new Civic Center Master Plan. The existing Master Plan, adopted in 2002, needs an update to address the increasing demands of the community, underutilized spaces, and aging facilities. The community is invited to participate in a series of workshops to share your ideas and priorities for a new civic center. Gilroy City Hall 7351 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 95020 408.846.0219 www.cityofgilroy.org Ryan Osenton Project Manager Direct: 408.846.0277 ryan.osenton@cityofgilroy.org Workshops will be conducted in English and Spanish Architects, Designers, and Community Collaborators ¡Favor de acompañarnos! Para más información, favor de visitar, www.cityofgilroy.org/CCMP o escanee el código QR. Taller Comunitario #1 Visita Comunitaria y Paseo Informativo por la Galería Martes, marzo 4, 2025 9am o 6pm (dos sesiones) Taller Comunitario #2 Conceptos Alternativos y Sesiones de Visualización Martes, abril 8, 2025 9am o 6pm (dos sesiones) Taller Comunitario #3 Concepto Preferido y Sesiones de Visualización Martes, mayo 20, 2025 9am o 6pm (dos sesiones) Habrá bocadillos y cuidado de niños. Serie de Talleres Comunitarios en el Centro Wheeler, ubicado en 270 W 6th Street La Ciudad de Gilroy está lanzando un proyecto para modernizar y reimaginar el Centro Cívico mediante el desarrollo de un nuevo Plan Maestro del Centro Cívico. El Plan Maestro actual, adoptado en el 2002, necesita una actualización para hacer frente al aumento de las demandas de la comunidad, a los espacios infrautilizados y al envejecimiento de las instalaciones. Se invita a la comunidad a participar en una serie de talleres para compartir sus ideas y prioridades para un nuevo centro cívico. Ayuntamiento de Gilroy 7351 Rosanna St. Gilroy, CA 95020 408.846.0219 www.cityofgilroy.org Ryan Osenton Gerente del Proyecto Directo: 408.846.0277 ryan.osenton@cityofgilroy.org Los talleres se realizarán en inglés y en español Visualizar el Plan Maestro del Centro Cívico de Gilroy Community Development Department 7351 Rosanna Street, Gilroy, California 95020-6197 Telephone: (408) 846-0451 Fax: (408) 846-0429 http://www.cityofgilroy.org TO: Planning Commission FROM: Sharon Goei, Community Development Director Ariana Fabian, Planning Technician DATE: March 13, 2025 SUBJECT: Planning Division Staff Approvals In conformance with Gilroy Municipal Code Sections 30.50.20(b) and 30.50.46, the following table lists all Minor Deviation approvals and all Architectural and Site approval/denial actions taken by the Planning Division since the last report was provided to the Planning Commission at its February 20, 2025 meeting.i APPROVED PROJECT # LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION None DENIED PROJECT # LOCATION PROJECT NAME & DESCRIPTION None AS = Architectural and Site Review VMD = Minor Deviation The current status of other planning projects is available online at: https://www.cityofgilroy.org/298/Development-Activity-Projects i Submitted in conformance with Gilroy Municipal Code Sections 30.50.20(b) and 30.50.46