City of Sunnyvale

Meeting Minutes - Final

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory

Commission

Thursday, March 20, 2025

6:30 PM

Online and Council Chambers, City Hall,

456 W. Olive Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94086

Public Participation

6:30 P.M. BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Beagle called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m.

SALUTE TO THE FLAG

Chair Beagle led the salute to the flag.

ROLL CALL

Present 7 -

Chair Bryce Beagle

Vice Chair Arwen Davé

Commissioner Alex Bonne

Commissioner Geeta Gollakota

Commissioner Dan Hafeman

Commissioner Leia Mehlman

Commissioner Jonathan Wilson

Council Liaison Le (present)

STUDY SESSION

25-0495

Hollenbeck Bike Lane Study

Erik Trujillo, Traffic Engineer and Ollie Zhou from Hexagon, gave a presentation.

Highlighting the following:

- Project Description

- Recap of Public Outreach Round 1

- Data Analysis Summary

- Preliminary Alternatives

- Next Steps

- Online Survey

Commissioner Mehlman asked about the following:

- What period was the safety analysis covering?

- Were the collisions analyzed strictly vehicle-to-vehicle, or did they include

vehicle-cyclist incidents?

- What is the breakdown between vehicle-vehicle collisions and vehicle-cyclist

collisions?

- How many of the cyclist-involved collisions were attributed to the cyclist versus the

driver?

- Were there any pedestrian-vehicle interactions included in the safety analysis?

- Do we have a design plan for the Hollenbeck Avenue and Remington Drive

left-turn lane intersection?

- Has a design plan been forwarded for that intersection change?

- Has the design plan been approved, or is it still in the planning phase?

- How can vehicle and cyclist interactions be planned if the bike lane disappears at

that intersection?

- Are there any planned improvements beyond the existing curb-to-curb layout?

- Would the left turn lane accommodate both vehicles and cyclists?

- If Alternative 1 were approved and funded by City Council, would the intersection

left turn changes occur first, or has that project already been funded?

- Who are the primary users of parking - retail customers, residents, or others?

- What areas have the highest parking density?

- What time of day sees the highest parking utilization?

- Do we know the difference in parking utilization between daytime hours and other

times?

- Are there any retail centers along the proposed project area on Hollenbeck

Avenue?

- Are there any parks along the proposed project area on Hollenbeck Avenue?

- Do the proposed 5 to 6-foot bike lanes in Alternative 2 include the gutter?

- How much parking does Alternative 2 aim to preserve?

Mr. Trujillo, Mr. Zhou and Lillian Tsang, Principal Transportation Engineer,

responded.

Commissioner Bonne asked about the following:

- Was the parking data collected at midnight a single event, or was it gathered

multiple times?

- What is the standard deviation of the parking data?

- Can the partial funding allocated to the left turn lane project be reallocated to the

current project under consideration?

- What happens if the left turn lane project is canceled?

- Did the design for Option 1 include a 3-foot buffer?

- Was any type of physical barrier considered for the 3-foot buffer, or is it just a

painted buffer?

- Is the challenge with a Class IV bike lane due to the need for a continuous barrier,

or could it be installed in segments?

- Would flexible posts, like those used in some traffic-calming measures, be a viable

option for a barrier?

- What is the concern with implementing a barrier - does it impede vehicle traffic?

- Since driveways don’t cover the full width of a lot, wouldn’t there be room between

them for flexible barriers?

- Is there a guideline for what level of inconvenience is considered acceptable for

relocated parking?

- Since the City promotes active transportation, why is walking after parking

considered an issue?

- Have the presenters biked on Hollenbeck Avenue at night, in the morning, or

during rush hour?

- Do personal observations from biking the area influence a preference for one

alternative over another?

- Since state law allows jaywalking, was the impact of requiring residents to cross

the street from parking considered?

- Would alternative parking on only one side of the street have speed-reduction

benefits?

- Was the potential inconvenience of crossing a busy road factored into the decision

for alternative parking options?

- Does the City have an estimated cost per collision event, whether it involves

vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians?

- Can the financial impact of collisions help weigh the cost of the proposed

alternatives?

- Is there broader data on the financial impact of collision events that could inform

this decision?

Mr. Trujillo, Mr. Zhou, Ms. Tsang and Angela Obeso, Interim Transportation &

Traffic Manager, responded.

Vice Chair Davé asked about the following:

- Were the left turn lanes intended to support bus turning at Remington Drive, or

was that a misunderstanding?

- Was vehicle traffic data discussed in the presentation?

- Bicycle traffic data was noted, but was vehicle traffic data also included?

Mr. Zhou responded.

Commissioner Gollakota asked about the following:

- Has public feedback from the two or three sessions been summarized for the

commission?

- Which intersections or stretches of Hollenbeck Avenue cannot accommodate bike

lanes?

- Does the stretch between Danforth Drive and Harvard Avenue have longer

walking distances after parking?

- Is the section between Remington Drive and Harvard Avenue excluded due to

Knickerbocker Drive being in between?

- Slide 17 mentioned a six to seven-minute walk near Fremont Avenue - where will

vehicles be parked in this section?

- Are there any bus stops in that area that might obstruct the bike lane?

- Would Alberta Avenue and The Dalles Avenue be the streets where parking is

relocated if it is removed from the project area?

- Given that many people park on The Dalles Avenue when visiting Serra Park due

to its small parking lot, is there confidence that displaced parking can be

accommodated on The Dalles Avenue or Alberta Avenue?

- When a bus stops in the bike lane, what is the expected behavior for a cyclist? Do

they stop behind the bus or merge into the vehicle lane?

- Will the section near bus stops be considered a shared lane for bicyclists?

Mr. Trujillo, Mr. Zhou and Ms. Tsang responded.

Commissioner Hafeman asked about the following:

- Was any study conducted on the utilization of residential driveways?

- How many residents with available driveways are choosing to park on the street

because street parking is free?

- When considering parking reallocation, did the study analyze whether switching

parking sides should only occur at four-way intersections rather than mid-block?

- Were any studies conducted on actual vehicle speeds compared to the posted

speed limit of 25 mph?

Mr. Zhou responded.

Commissioner Wilson asked about the following:

- In Alternative 1, the bike lane width may vary by up to a foot while preserving the

buffer. Was there consideration of keeping the bike lane at no less than 6 feet and

removing the buffer when necessary?

- How many transitions occur along the length of the study zone in Alternative 2?

- Was there interest in implementing Alternative 2 only in high-utilization parking

areas (above 80%) while applying Alternative 1 to the rest of the study zone to

minimize transitions and maximize safety?

- Could a hybrid approach be considered, using Alternative 2 where parking is in

high demand and Alternative 1 elsewhere?

- Are there any comparative examples of bike lane implementations in similar

high-residential neighborhoods, such as Mary Avenue? What outcomes might be

expected if Alternative 1 is implemented with zero parking?

- Given the issues with bike lane transitions on Wolfe Road, what lessons could be

applied here?

- Has there been a case where a high-traffic, non-arterial street was converted to

have no parking at all, and what were the results?

Mr. Zhou and Ms. Tsang responded.

Chair Beagle asked about the following:

- Left turn lanes onto Remington Drive are included in the design due to the

Downtown Specific Plan’s Environmental Impact Report (EIR). How binding is the

requirement to install them?

- What would be required for the City Council to reconsider and remove the turn

lanes if the original rationale is no longer valid? Would a new environmental review

be necessary?

- What was the initial rationale for including the turn lanes? Was it based on an

anticipated increase in corridor traffic?

- Where was the anticipated increase in traffic expected to come from?

- When the future traffic projections were made, was the installation of bike lanes

considered, or was it assumed the corridor would remain without them?

- Could bike lanes induce higher bicycle traffic and reduce car traffic, making the

turn lanes unnecessary?

- Regarding increased walking times, residents near Serra Park already experience

limited parking availability. Would their experience with constrained parking supply

mean the impact of these changes is less severe compared to other sections?

- How many residences in the entire corridor would lose direct access to public

street parking?

- How does the number of affected residences compare to the number of daily

corridor users, including current bicycle traffic?

- For the segment between Alberta Avenue and The Dalles Avenue where walking

time is estimated at 6-7 minutes, how many residences would be impacted?

- The City has zoning requirements for garages and driveways. Is it reasonable to

assume most residences in the affected area have off-street parking?

- Which sections of the corridor would require 11-foot travel lanes instead of 10-foot

lanes?

- Even where space allows, is the plan to keep travel lanes at 10 feet whenever

possible?

- Was the option of converting the road to a one-way street considered to

accommodate both bi-directional bike lanes and on-street parking?

Ms. Tsang, Ms. Obeso and Mr. Zhou responded.

Commissioner Mehlman asked about the following:

- Is the intersection at Remington Drive and Hollenbeck Avenue controlled? Is it a

four-way stop or a two-way stop?

- The provided image does not appear to show a signal at Remington Drive and

Hollenbeck Avenue - can clarification be provided?

- How will the planned addition of left turn lanes at Remington and Hollenbeck be

incorporated into the existing design?

- Is the intersection of Torrington Drive and Hollenbeck Avenue signalized?

- Would Alternative 1 require the removal of left turn lanes at Torrington Drive and

Hollenbeck Avenue? If so, why?

- Could a left-turn bike box be considered at Torrington Drive and Hollenbeck

Avenue?

- Would left turns at Torrington Drive and Hollenbeck Avenue be one-stage or

two-stage?

- How will the planned addition of left turns at Remington Drive and Hollenbeck

Avenue function within the existing signal?

- Would left turns at Remington Drive and Hollenbeck Avenue be two-stage or

single-stage?

- Would any additional traffic calming measures be introduced under Alternative 3?

- Since 23% of current collisions are speed-related, could speed reduction

strategies improve safety under Alternative 3?

- Class III bike routes have speed restrictions - is that being factored into the

analysis?

- Is the primary purpose of the alternating parking layout in Alternative 2 to reduce

pedestrian street crossings?

- If parking were removed from one entire side of the street instead, what would be

the impact on street crossings?

- What is the expected reduction in vehicle speeds under Alternative 2?

- What is the longest uninterrupted stretch where the alternating parking design in

Alternative 2 would be applied?

- For the longest segment (Danforth Drive to Harvard Avenue, approximately 1,200

feet), how long would it take for a pedestrian to walk from one end to the nearest

intersection to cross safely?

- The reported bicycle volume was measured over a 14-hour period - what were the

exact collection hours?

- Was the bicycle volume data collected during the school year? Was weather a

factor?

- Is there corresponding vehicle volume data for the same time period?

- Were any cyclists interviewed to determine their demographics (e.g., adult vs.

child)?

Ms. Tsang, Mr. Zhou and Ms. Obeso responded.

Commissioner Hafeman asked about the following:

- Was Remington Drive a four-lane road when the study for the left turn lanes was

conducted, or was it after the reduction to two lanes?

- Did the study take into account the traffic situation during school drop-off and

pick-up times, especially for Challenger School?

- Was school traffic considered in all three options presented?

Mr. Zhou responded.

Commissioner Gollakota asked about the following:

- In Alternative 2, parking is on the right side of the bike lane. Has the option of

placing parking on the left side of the bike lane been considered?

- Would placing parking on the left side provide better protection for the bike lane

from traffic speed?

Mr. Zhou responded.

Chair Beagle asked about the following:

- Why is a buffer required when it's a parking-protected bike lane but not when it's a

non-protected bike lane?

- Does Alternative 2 align with the City policies, specifically General Plan LUTE

LT-3.8 and LT-3.9?

Ms. Tsang and Ms. Obeso responded.

Chair Beagle called for a recess at 8:02 p.m. Chair Beagle reconvened the meeting

at 8:15 p.m.

Council Liaison Le introduced herself to the commission.

Kathryn Besser, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Emphasized the importance of aligning actions with the Climate Action Plan, which

includes ambitious goals such as reducing driving miles by promoting biking,

walking, and other forms of transportation.

- Stressed the need for action on plans, highlighting the importance of taking steps

that align with the 2050 goals rather than focusing on outdated priorities such as

parking.

- Urged the consideration of future needs in planning, particularly when it comes to

bike lanes and walking paths, to create safer transportation routes.

- Shared personal experience as a moderate cyclist who desires safe routes to

downtown Sunnyvale to reduce car dependency.

- Stated that safety is a priority for vulnerable groups, particularly children who need

safe routes to school to avoid accidents.

Paul Besser, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Frequently uses Hollenbeck Avenue to access Homestead Road or downtown and

prefers it over other routes, such as Mary Avenue or Sunnyvale Saratoga Road,

despite Hollenbeck Avenue's current safety issues.

- Expressed concerns about the safety of bike lanes on Mary Avenue, due to their

proximity to car doors, sharing a personal experience of being "doored" and

breaking a hand.

- Stressed the need for a safe route for cyclists to get downtown, encouraging

consideration of Alternative 1, which is seen as the most attractive option.

- As an experienced cyclist, stated that Hollenbeck Avenue is not safe for children or

inexperienced cyclists in its current state.

- Recommended that changes to Hollenbeck Avenue should prioritize 100% safety

and consistency along its length, with buffered bike lanes included in Alternative 1.

- Called attention to slide 26 in the slide deck, which refers to options other than

Alternative 1 as low bike safety, with Alternative 1 being the only "bike safety

option."

- Criticized Alternative 2 for creating inconsistency and introducing a door zone for

cyclists, and stated that Alternative 3, a Class III bike share lane, is not

recommended by Caltrans for safety.

- Urged consideration of Sunnyvale's Vision Zero goals, emphasizing that long-term

planning should include a network of safe routes for cycling, with Alternative 1 being

the best solution to achieve that.

Fawaz Tirmizi, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Strongly supports Alternative 1 and opposes Alternatives 2 and 3.

- Finds Hollenbeck Avenue acceptable but not ideal, and prefers it over Sunnyvale

Saratoga Road due to safety concerns and the inconvenience of Mary Avenue.

- Stated that cycling is not safe or attractive for the average person, especially those

not athletically inclined or experienced, making it difficult to recommend cycling to

others.

- Believes that Alternative 1 is a positive step toward making cycling more

reasonable and accessible for average people, enabling trips to downtown

Sunnyvale or schools while promoting health and reducing environmental impact.

- Noted that Alternative 1 aligns with efforts to reduce traffic and car-related

environmental issues, including lowering car maintenance costs.

- Highlighted that over 23% of collisions are speed-related, and Alternative 1 is

beneficial in addressing this issue by enhancing safety.

- Emphasized that infrastructure should be designed to benefit and ensure safety for

everyone, concluding that Alternative 1 is the safest option for the City.

Daniel Karpelevitch, member of the public, gave a presentation and commented on

the following:

- Stated that Alternative 1 is the only viable option, using a process of elimination to

show that Alternatives 2 and 3 are unsafe.

- Highlighted a forthcoming state law that will lower speed limits from 30 to 25 miles

per hour, making Alternative 3 unfeasible by the time it is built.

- Argued that Alternative 2, while seeming like a compromise, is deeply flawed, with

safety risks that cannot be mitigated by simply splitting the bike lane.

- Explained that during transitions, cyclists are placed behind parked cars, creating

a blind spot for drivers who check their mirrors before opening their doors, posing a

dooring risk.

- Emphasized that even with a normal bike lane and parking, the dooring risk

remains, making this design unacceptable.

- Noted that drivers will park in transition zones, further narrowing the bike lane and

forcing cyclists to merge into the car lane, which increases the risk of accidents.

- Concluded by pointing out that inattentive drivers will continue to drive into bike

lanes, creating an additional safety hazard.

Hans Bernhardt, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Mentioned biking on Hollenbeck Avenue for training and scouting routes for Bike

Sunnyvale community rides, including those for families and children.

- Shared a sign that promotes the message "Safe Streets Save Lives," highlighting

efforts to encourage more cyclists to wear reflective gear for visibility.

- Stated that safe streets are consistent streets, aligning with Paul’s earlier comment

on 100% consistency, with Alternative 1 being consistent and Alternative 2

inconsistent.

- Introduced the term “Sharrows are Scare Roads,” expressing opposition to

sharrows and suggesting they should be outlawed.

- Emphasized the growing size of Sunnyvale, increased traffic, speeding, and

distracted driving as reasons for needing a buffer between car lanes and bike lanes.

- Concluded by noting that as Sunnyvale grows, it is essential to maintain

accessible throughways for pedestrians and cyclists, ensuring the City is accessible

for all modes of transport.

Tim Oey, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Lives one block from Hollenbeck Avenue and bikes the route frequently.

- Highlighted the urgency of addressing climate change, noting transportation is

responsible for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in California.

- Emphasized the need to reduce vehicle miles traveled and increase walking and

biking, stating that changes to Hollenbeck Avenue are relatively easy compared to

other necessary changes.

- Stated that biking is inherently safe and rarely causes fatalities, whereas motor

vehicles kill over 40,000 people annually in the U.S. and billions of wildlife.

- Advocated for bicycling as a complete solution to climate change and safety, citing

benefits like mental and physical health, cost savings, and community engagement.

- Urged support for buffered bike lanes on both sides of Hollenbeck Avenue,

arguing that convenient, free parking is not worth the high cost in lives, injuries,

fear, and climate change.

- Mentioned a recent section of Sunnyvale Avenue next to the Whole Foods parking

lot with a 9.5-foot-wide lane that accommodates heavy bus traffic, showing that

narrower lanes can work for buses.

Sara Mohsin, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Is a student at Homestead High School and a resident of District 1, who primarily

uses biking as a mode of transportation.

- Does not bike on Hollenbeck Avenue due to safety concerns, noting there are no

dedicated bike lanes.

- Would use Hollenbeck Avenue for various trips if it were safer.

- Criticized Alternative 3 for having no bike lanes, forcing cyclists to share lanes with

cars and navigate around parked vehicles, which is dangerous given the high traffic

and speeds on Hollenbeck Avenue.

- Emphasized the need for Sunnyvale to provide a safe environment that

accommodates all modes of transportation, advocating for dedicated bike lanes on

Hollenbeck Avenue.

- Argued that Alternative 2 has inadequate bike lanes that are too narrow and lack

proper protection.

- Supported Alternative 1, stating it would increase accessibility for all pedestrians

and cyclists and allow more students to safely bike to Homestead High School.

- Mentioned that many of her friends avoid biking on Hollenbeck Avenue due to

safety concerns, contributing to overcrowding on Mary Avenue before and after

school.

- Urged the commissioners to consider Alternative 1 to provide a safe, protected

bike lane and protect the future of Sunnyvale.

Sharlene Liu, member of the public, gave a presentation and commented on the

following:

- A resident of District 1 who regularly bikes on Hollenbeck Avenue despite unsafe

conditions.

- Spoke on behalf of Sunnyvale Safe Streets, presenting a "happy face scale"

comparing the three alternatives.

- Recommended Alternative 1 as it meets Santa Clara Valley Transportation

Authority (VTA) bicycle technical guidelines, including a 4-foot bike lane with a

3-foot buffer.

- Suggested maintaining bike lane demarcation through intersections for safety,

which may require reconsidering left-turn lanes at Remington Drive.

- Acknowledged the necessity of removing street parking for Alternative 1.

- Addressed concerns from Hollenbeck Avenue residents about parking removal.

- Disputed the belief that people do not bike on Hollenbeck Avenue, stating that

both adults and children use the road.

- Emphasized that improving safety would encourage more people to bike.

Kevin Jackson, member of the public, continued the presentation and commented

on the following:

- A resident of District 1 who expressed concerns about Alternative 2, stating that

attempting to satisfy everyone results in a compromise that fails to meet all needs

effectively.

- Identified the door zone bike lane as the most common hazard in such designs.

- Noted that while Alternative 2 may meet Caltrans Highway Design Manual

minimum standards, those standards are not always appropriate, especially on a

busy collector street with vulnerable users.

- Highlighted the issue of parking pockets, where the bike lane angles out from the

curb, creating a transition zone that many drivers misuse for parking.

- Stated that illegally parked cars in transition zones force cyclists to swerve into

traffic, creating a dangerous situation with no effective enforcement solution.

- Emphasized that public streets are primarily for transportation and that safe access

should be the top priority.

- Urged support for Alternative 1 to ensure safety for all road users.

Marc Schaub, member of the public, continued the presentation and commented on

the following:

- Resident of District 1 who bikes to work almost daily along Homestead Road and

occasionally on Hollenbeck Avenue.

- Shared an observation of a cyclist weaving in and out of traffic, causing cars to

stop abruptly, illustrating the current dangers on Hollenbeck Avenue.

- Strongly opposed Alternative 3, stating it offers no improvement for drivers or

cyclists and could make conditions worse.

- Noted that sharrows and bike signage would lead to more cyclists in high-traffic

lanes, where vehicles travel between 30-40 mph, making it difficult for cars to pass

safely.

- Stated that cyclists would face increased honking and pressure from vehicles,

leading many to avoid connector streets and stick to residential roads instead.

- Emphasized that Alternative 1 provides buffers and eliminates the door zone,

protecting cyclists without negatively impacting drivers.

- Highlighted that Alternative 1 also improves driver visibility when entering and

exiting driveways.

Jon Blum, member of the public, continued the presentation and commented on the

following:

- Completed the discussion on Alternative 2, stating that it offers variable lanes with

no buffer and narrow parking lanes, causing car doors to open into the bike lane.

- Noted that frequent chicanes will likely result in parked cars overlapping into the

bike lane, similar to the design on Wolfe Road, which is widely disliked and avoided

by cyclists and drivers alike.

- Stated that Alternative 3 provides no advantages over the current situation, no

meaningful protection for cyclists, and no benefit to motorists, making it an

unnecessary expense.

- Addressed the argument that cyclists should use Mary Avenue instead of

Hollenbeck Avenue, showing that the detour would add about a mile to a one-mile

route.

- Compared the equivalent detour for cars, showing that in terms of travel time, it

would be like forcing drivers to take a three-mile detour, which most would find

unacceptable.

- Stated that safe bike routes benefit everyone by reducing congestion and

pollution, and more people would choose cycling if safer options were available.

- Emphasized that multiple schools are located on or near Hollenbeck Avenue, and

parents are reluctant to let their children bike due to safety concerns, underscoring

the need for safe routes.

Brenna Hall, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Expressed gratitude for the improvements made to Sunnyvale’s bike infrastructure.

- Stated that she and her husband use cargo e-bikes for most in-town errands and

are also road and gravel cyclists.

- Noted that Hollenbeck Avenue is a frequently used route for her family to reach

destinations.

- Shared that her daughter will attend Sunnyvale Middle School next year and will

need to ride on Hollenbeck Avenue for part of her route to school.

- Expressed surprise at the lack of bike lanes on Hollenbeck Avenue despite the

number of cyclists using the road.

- Described the challenges of either having to take the lane with upset drivers

behind her or navigating around cars pulling out without fully looking.

- Stated that while she, as an adult, can manage traffic interactions, a middle

schooler cannot safely do so, making the risk of dooring a significant concern.

- Expressed support for Alternative 1 and urged the Commission to consider it for

the safety of cyclists.

Susan Bremond, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Stated that as a resident near Hollenbeck Avenue, she avoids biking on the road

due to the lack of bike lanes and the need to navigate around parked cars by

moving into traffic.

- Expressed support for Alternative 1 from a bicyclist’s perspective.

- Discussed concerns from the perspective of a driver on Hollenbeck Avenue.

- Acknowledged that some residents are concerned about losing street parking.

- Suggested that many residents park on the street because they lack visibility when

exiting their driveways.

- Stated that without street parking, residents would likely park in their driveways, as

most have garages and driveways available.

- Emphasized the need to prioritize safety and consider future transportation trends,

including the increasing use of scooters.

- Encouraged Sunnyvale to adopt a future-oriented vision that prioritizes safe

infrastructure.

Chloe Dahl, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Introduced as a sophomore at Homestead High School and a resident of District 1.

- Stated that biking is her main mode of transportation to school and for recreation

with friends.

- Expressed concerns about the safety of biking on Hollenbeck Avenue and how

she tries to minimize time spent on the road but finds it unavoidable.

- Highlighted that many kids face similar issues and that Hollenbeck Avenue

provides key access to Serra Park and Las Palmas Park, yet lacks bike lanes in

some areas.

- Shared a desire to bike with her younger sister to Las Palmas Park and for other

families to have the same opportunity.

- Urged support for Alternative 1, stating that Alternative 2 provides minimal

improvement as cyclists would still need to avoid the door zone.

- Stated that Alternative 3, leaving the road unchanged, would be irresponsible and

create a barrier in the City.

- Emphasized that prioritizing cars over active transportation hinders progress

toward a sustainable future.

- Described Alternative 1 as having the most significant impact by aligning with

Sunnyvale’s Vision Zero plan and providing a 3-foot buffer for cyclist protection.

- Noted that removing the parking lane eliminates the risk of dooring, which remains

an issue in Alternative 2.

- Stressed the Commission’s role in shaping the City’s priorities and urged support

for Alternative 1 on behalf of the future generation.

David Wessel, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Stated residency in District 1 near Hollenbeck Avenue but avoids biking on the

road despite biking daily.

- Shared experience as a bike mechanic with a strong commitment to expanding

bicycling in the community.

- Expressed concerns about the safety of Hollenbeck Avenue, stating that it is a

dangerous road for cyclists.

- Mentioned raising three children in Sunnyvale and keeping them from biking on

Hollenbeck Avenue despite their participation in softball at Serra Park.

- Emphasized the need for safer biking conditions, especially for children and older

adults.

- Shared personal experience as a 72-year-old cyclist, noting increased instability

while biking and the importance of buffered lanes for protection.

- Stressed that over 70% of bicyclist deaths result from collisions with motor

vehicles.

- Urged for the inclusion of buffers and bike lanes to enhance safety for cyclists of

all ages.

Amar Shah, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Stated residency in District 6 and voiced support for Alternative 1 over Alternative

- Expressed concerns about the narrow bike lane in Alternative 2, which places

cyclists between moving traffic and parked cars.

- Shared personal experience of being doored while cycling, emphasizing the

potential danger, especially at higher speeds.

- Stated that if Alternative 2 were implemented, would likely ignore the bike lane and

ride in the traffic lane instead, even if it slowed down cars.

- Acknowledged that not all cyclists have the confidence to take the lane, reinforcing

the need for Alternative 1 to ensure safety.

Mark Hlady, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Stated residency in Sunnyvale for 25 years and experience as a longtime cyclist.

- Uses a bike for commuting, exercise, and errands.

- Expressed appreciation for commissioners' detailed questions to staff, noting they

demonstrated thorough preparation.

- Supported Alternative 1 for the same reasons as others, emphasizing the

importance of safety.

- Avoids Hollenbeck Avenue due to unsafe conditions but acknowledged that many

cyclists don't have that option.

- Shared perspective as the head coach of a kids' cycling team.

- Noted that young cyclists are unpredictable, often swerving, talking to friends, or

jumping curbs.

- Emphasized that Alternative 2’s narrow bike lane is not suitable for children, as

they may not always be aware of dangers like car doors.

- Stated that Alternative 1 is designed for all cyclists, including inexperienced riders,

and would encourage more people to bike.

Steve Scandalis, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Stated that they and their neighbors were responsible for the traffic light at

Cascade Drive and Church of the Resurrection due to safety concerns.

- Expressed disappointment that existing issues on Hollenbeck Avenue were not

included in the project scope, stating this was the third time they had heard this

exclusion mentioned.

- Compared the project scope to an incomplete recipe, arguing that missing

elements would result in an ineffective outcome.

- Identified the worst section of Hollenbeck Avenue as between Fremont Avenue

and Alberta Avenue, where drivers treat it like a four-lane road.

- Reported frequent traffic violations, including vehicles crossing double yellow lines

and swerving around turning cars.

- Urged the City to rescope the project to include these issues, emphasizing that it

would not negate previous work but would provide a more comprehensive solution.

- Recommended increasing the number of speed limit signs and installing flashing

radar speed signs.

- Suggested adding controlled flashing lights similar to those near the high school at

key locations, including Cheyenne Drive and potentially Bend Drive, with Cheyenne

Drive being the most critical due to pedestrian crossings from Nimitz Elementary

School.

- Noted that crossing at The Dalles Avenue is difficult due to heavy traffic.

- Advised transportation staff to conduct traffic studies at different times, particularly

during peak park usage and Challenger School pick-up times.

Julia Liu, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Stated that they are a senior citizen who has lived behind Challenger School since

1985.

- Expressed appreciation that bike lanes on Hollenbeck Avenue are becoming a

reality.

- Noted that Hollenbeck Avenue is a key route to the library, City Hall, and

downtown.

- Shared that they occasionally bike there when feeling strong and brave but usually

chooses to drive.

- Recounted a frightening experience while biking, where they were squeezed

between a passing car, a parked car, and an oncoming bus.

- Voiced support for Alternative 1, calling it the safest option.

- Criticized Alternative 2 for the risk of dooring and for being "wishy-washy" due to

alternating parking zones.

- Suggested that if Alternative 2 is chosen, all parking should be placed on the same

side of the street to create at least one safer direction for biking.

- Concluded by stating that for the return trip, cyclists would have to rely on luck to

avoid dooring.

Doug Kunz, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Introduced themselves as a resident of City Council District 1 and a former Safe

Routes to School chair for Cumberland Elementary School PTA.

- Shared their involvement in walk and bike audits, as well as community events

aimed at promoting safe routes to school.

- Highlighted that the lack of bike lanes on Hollenbeck Avenue, south of Danforth

Drive, presented a key barrier for kids biking safely to Cumberland Elementary

School from neighborhoods south and east of the school.

- Mentioned that many teens around Cumberland Elementary School would benefit

from a safer, more direct bike route to Homestead High School, rather than traveling

via Mary Avenue.

- Strongly urged BPAC to support Alternative 1, emphasizing that buffered bike

lanes are the safest option for cyclists.

- Advocated for maximizing street space to provide convenient and safe

transportation for all modes of travel.

Marcia Rasi, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Introduced themselves as a 7-year resident of Sunnyvale and the sole user of a

bicycle for transportation around the City.

- Thanked the commission for the presentation and questions regarding the

alternatives.

- Expressed support for Alternative 1, stating that Hollenbeck Avenue is the most

direct and easy route to visit friends and parks, but they currently avoid it due to

safety concerns with cars.

- Mentioned that with Alternative 1, they would feel comfortable using Hollenbeck

Avenue for their trips.

Jennifer Shearin, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Introduced as a frequent cyclist in Sunnyvale.

- Urged the commission to choose Alternative 1 with bike lane buffers for

Hollenbeck, as it would be much safer for cyclists than the other options.

- Shared an example comparing cycling on Homestead Road (without buffers) and

De Anza Boulevard in Cupertino (with buffers), highlighting the safety provided by

buffers in separating cyclists from fast-moving cars.

- Criticized Alternative 2 for exposing cyclists to the risk of being doored by cars,

which could result in serious or fatal accidents.

- Stated that Alternative 3, which would leave cyclists sharing lanes with drivers, is

the least safe option.

- Emphasized the importance of prioritizing safe and accessible transportation

options for all modes in Sunnyvale.

Angela Rausch, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Introduced as a past member of BPAC and expressed full support for Alternative 1.

- Thanked the commission for the questions raised during the discussion.

- Recalled the removal of parking on Maude Avenue, emphasizing the importance of

continuing the commitment to safety.

- Highlighted the need for the removal of the "pork chop" on Fremont Avenue, calling

it a significant and overdue improvement, especially for pedestrian safety.

Ari Feinsmith, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Shared personal experience of growing up in Sunnyvale, unable to bike to school

due to safety concerns, and how biking to community college later brought a sense

of freedom.

- Emphasized the opportunity to change the future for the next generation of

children, highlighting how building Alternative 1 would provide safe biking options

for thousands of current and future students in Sunnyvale.

- Stressed that children deserve both freedom and safety.

- Pointed out that Hollenbeck Avenue has the potential to become the best

north-south bicycle corridor, with slower traffic and many destinations such as

schools, churches, businesses, and parks.

- Stated that safety should always be the top priority in road design, as biking on

dangerous roads can lead to accidents.

- Noted that there have been 5 collisions involving bicycles on this corridor in recent

years, calling it unacceptable and avoidable.

- Acknowledged concerns about parking but argued that the impact would be

minimal, citing a City survey that showed parking usage averages 20% along the

corridor.

- Referenced a similar situation on Sunnyvale Avenue, where parking was removed

in 2022 to improve cyclist safety.

- Urged support for Alternative 1.

Vivek Bhalgat, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Expressed support for Alternative 3 or possibly no bike lane support for Hollenbeck

Avenue.

- Noted that while five accidents had occurred on Hollenbeck Avenue, none

involved a car being at fault, questioning the potential for dramatic safety changes.

- Highlighted that the street has a 30 mph speed limit and is narrower compared to

streets like Mary Avenue, making it difficult to support a bike lane alongside a car

lane.

- Argued that Hollenbeck Avenue has lower traffic volume compared to other

streets, suggesting that if biking were truly unsafe, the numbers would be much

higher.

- Urged the City to consider the concerns and inconvenience of residents who

already live on the street, advocating for their priorities to be prioritized as well.

Ira Maheshwari, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Emphasized that while safety for cyclists is important, the safety of pedestrians

and residents seems to be overlooked.

- Stated that Alternatives 1 and 2 would increase pedestrian presence on the road,

which could lead to more accidents due to jaywalking and unsafe crossing

behaviors, especially on an already busy road.

- Expressed concern that Alternative 2's parking configuration would cause drivers

to circle around searching for spots, adding to congestion on an already busy street.

- Highlighted the lack of adequate street lighting, making it unsafe to walk to cars at

night.

- Pointed out that the sidewalks are uneven, making them unsafe for wheelchair and

stroller users.

- Urged prioritization of pedestrian and resident safety.

Public Comment closed at 9:08 p.m.

Commissioner Mehlman commented on the following:

- Expressed appreciation for the public's participation and encouraged more

engagement.

- Stated support for Alternative 1, emphasizing the City's commitment to safety and

simplicity, in line with City policy and the Keep It Safe and Simple (KISS) principle.

- Argued that the City is not in the business of subsidizing parking infrastructure for

residents, as roads are primarily intended for transportation for everyone.

- Acknowledged that sidewalk and pedestrian infrastructure are important but are

outside the scope of this project, suggesting these could be addressed in future

projects, including improvements for differently-abled pedestrians.

- Referenced a study showing that parking utilization is highest at night, indicating

that the parking is primarily used by residents or visitors, with little retail on the road

that requires curbside parking.

- Responded to the argument that there aren't enough cyclists using the route to

justify changes, noting that cyclists, like pedestrians, prefer safe, well-lit, and clearly

defined routes.

- Supported Alternative 1 as the most logical alternative, citing the City’s Climate

Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan for a safe, connected bicycle and

pedestrian network.

- Addressed concerns about the upcoming intersection changes, stating that the

design could be adjusted at that time to ensure safety for all road users.

- Criticized the feasibility of other alternatives, particularly Alternative 2, for its

impractical design with alternating parking and potential safety hazards for cyclists.

- Expressed concern about the challenges on trash days with bins in the bike lane,

noting that a buffered bike lane could mitigate this issue by directing residents to

place bins in the buffer zone.

- Stated that Alternative 3 was not even a viable option for consideration.

Commissioner Bonne commented on the following:

- Expressed appreciation for the opinions shared by the engaged public.

- Cited surveys by VTA, which indicated that the two main reasons people do not try

biking are concerns about safety and the high speed of driving cars.

- Stated that Alternative 1 would address both concerns by potentially reducing the

speed limit and increasing the feeling of safety for cyclists on the road.

- Shared personal experience biking on Hollenbeck Avenue, describing it as one of

the most unpleasant streets for cycling due to the need to weave in and out of traffic

or take the lane.

- Argued that a protected bike lane and the reduction of traffic would make biking on

Hollenbeck Avenue much more appealing for both avid cyclists and those reluctant

to try due to safety concerns.

- Acknowledged the valid concerns of residents along Hollenbeck Avenue and

highlighted the benefits of making the street slower and reducing vehicle traffic,

including reduced noise and emissions.

- Suggested that a slower street would be more pleasant for walking and biking,

potentially reducing the need to use cars and encouraging residents to leave their

vehicles in driveways rather than on the street.

- Strongly supported Alternative 1 for these reasons.

Commissioner Hafeman commented on the following:

- Agreed that Alternative 1 is the only viable option among the three.

- Expressed concern about the proposal for Wolfe Road, referencing past

discussions about the swerving bike lanes there and personal experience biking on

it for five years.

- Stated that, without engineering data demonstrating how the bike lanes could be

made safer, the current proposal is unconvincing.

- Suggested an alternative Alternative 2, which would involve designating one side

of the road for parking, with homes on the other side unaffected or even benefiting

slightly.

- Suggested that residents would be no worse off than under Alternative 1, as they

could access parked cars from intersections or jaywalk if traffic is light.

- Recommended that a revised Alternative 2 be proposed or that a safe transition

plan for Wolfe Road be developed before BPAC reconvenes.

- Expressed surprise that there were few public comments advocating for parking

preservation, with only a weak indication of support.

- Highlighted the importance of gathering more information from residents about

driveway usage and parking habits, suggesting that people might avoid parking in

their driveways due to difficulty backing onto the street because of parked cars.

Chair Beagle commented on the following:

- Agreed that Alternative 1 is the strongest option, after reviewing the presentation,

hearing the public's input, and evaluating the options.

- Expressed opposition to Alternative 2, noting that the back-and-forth swerving by

riders and drivers in the bike lane creates conflict and risks, particularly with

"dooring" incidents.

- Explained that in such bike lanes, riders often end up in the travel lane for safety,

effectively rendering the bike lane useless.

- Suggested a preference for Alternative 3, where cyclists can take the full lane, as it

provides more freedom and safety.

- Criticized the visual representation of Slide 26.

- Encouraged City Council to reconsider adding turn lanes onto Remington Drive if it

meant sacrificing continuous bike lanes, arguing that such additions could induce

more car traffic and counter the benefits of the bike lanes.

- Criticized the staff’s comment that they couldn't assume on-street parking could be

absorbed by driveways, asserting that the focus should be on analyzing the impact

of parking on residents, specifically if they have extra parking capacity.

- Strongly expressed the belief that the City should stop subsidizing private car

storage on public property, in line with City policy, and reduce alternatives that

conflict with this policy.

- Concluded by reaffirming strong support for Alternative 1, deeming Alternatives 2

and 3 unsuitable.

Commissioner Gollakota commented on the following:

- Suggested that it would have been beneficial to have a summary of previous

public input, especially from a resident perspective, to get a full picture of concerns.

- Mentioned reviewing the map and observing the proximity of driveways and

parking situations in the area, noting that many houses have front yards large

enough to accommodate a third car if needed.

- Shared a personal example of living on a street without street parking, where the

driveway accommodates three cars, and sometimes relying on neighboring

driveways with permission for short-term use.

- Emphasized that her primary motivation for supporting Alternative 1 is the potential

to provide a safe route to Homestead and Fremont High Schools, addressing

transportation concerns for residents, especially for children attending these

schools.

- Acknowledged that while a more protected bike lane would be ideal, the number of

driveways makes that difficult.

- Considered the potential challenges of backing up from driveways into the street,

but believed it wouldn't be a significant issue on slower streets like her own.

- Concluded that she is also inclined to support Alternative 1.

Commissioner Wilson commented on the following:

- Expressed concern about the safety of Alternative 2, specifically regarding the long

stopping distance of many bicycles.

- Noted that under rainy conditions and with bikes that may not have

well-maintained brakes, it can be difficult to stop quickly.

- Highlighted the risk of a door suddenly opening in front of a cyclist, where the

likelihood of hitting the door before being able to stop is great, leading to a potential

swerving conflict with cars.

Ms. Obeso commented on the following:

- Apologized for the interruption, mentioning that the QR code for the survey had

expired, and clarified that staff was unaware QR codes could expire. They are

working on creating a new one.

- Explained that the new QR code will be posted when the updated presentation is

uploaded to the website.

- Informed the public that the survey can still be accessed by visiting the City

website, searching for transportation projects, and following the link for the

Hollenbeck project. The survey is available until the end of the month.

- Assured that the QR code will be fixed when the presentation is finalized online.

Chair Beagle called for a recess at 9:28 p.m. Chair Beagle reconvened the meeting

at 9:38 p.m.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

Public Comment opened at 9:38 p.m.

Daniel Karpelevitch, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Discussed the inefficiency of the intersection of Maude Avenue, Borregas Avenue,

and Sunnyvale Avenue, particularly the strange combination of two T-intersections

next to each other.

- Noted that the area is heavily used by cyclists traveling between Caltrain,

downtown, and northern Sunnyvale.

- Highlighted issues with signal timing and bike lane markings, as well as the lack of

clear markings for bike lanes through turns.

- Suggested that the intersection design should prioritize bike movements,

especially left turns onto Maude Avenue, over the current prioritization of a left-turn

lane into a private alley on Maude Avenue.

- Emphasized that while Maude Avenue, Borregas Avenue, and Sunnyvale Avenue

may be smaller streets, they serve as an important corridor for cyclists and should

be treated as bicycle priority roads.

- Advocated for separating bike and car routes to enhance safety and improve the

overall flow of traffic, similar to the approach used in the Netherlands.

- Stressed the importance of prioritizing bike infrastructure in the Sunnyvale Avenue

and Borregas Avenue area, drawing a comparison to Mathilda Avenue and Fair

Oaks Avenue.

Steve Scandalis, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Acknowledged the focus on bicycle infrastructure but emphasized that the study is

flawed due to the absence of key solutions to existing problems.

- Suggested the installation of push-button flashing lights at crosswalks, particularly

at Cheyenne Drive, The Dalles Avenue, and possibly Bend Drive to improve

pedestrian safety.

- Highlighted the issue of speeding, with cars often exceeding the speed limit by 10

miles per hour or more, especially when crossing yellow lines or overtaking other

vehicles.

- Noted the danger of cars passing at high speeds (up to 45 mph) when others are

traveling at 30 mph, making the road unsafe.

- Stressed that bicycle lanes could help mitigate curb diving, a problem observed at

locations such as The Dalles Avenue, Cheyenne Drive, Cascade Drive, and Alberta

Avenue, where cars illegally pass at high speeds.

- Warned that curb diving could result in cars jumping the curb and potentially

injuring pedestrians, an issue that also affects bicycle lanes.

- Urged the commission to advocate for quicker solutions to these safety concerns,

such as speed reminders and radar signs that flash when drivers exceed speed

limits.

- Requested the commission to step beyond just advocating for bike lanes and

address the broader safety issues affecting all road users.

Public Comment closed at 9:46 p.m.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1.A

25-0477

Approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission

Meeting Minutes of February 20, 2025.

Approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of

February 20, 2025 as submitted.

Public Comment opened at 9:46 p.m.

No speakers.

Public Comment closed at 9:47 p.m.

Commissioner Hafeman moved and Commissioner Mehlman seconded the motion

to approve amended item 1.A., with the amendment clarifying that the narrow

eastbound bike lane under Mathilda Avenue was mistakenly referred to as the

westbound bike lane and correcting the statement about the staircase, which is

located on the eastern side, not the western side.

The amendment carried with the following vote:

Yes 7 -

Chair Beagle

Vice Chair Davé

Commissioner Bonne

Commissioner Gollakota

Commissioner Hafeman

Commissioner Mehlman

Commissioner Wilson

No 0

PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS

25-0442

Discussion on Projects for Transportation Development Act

(TDA) Article 3 Application

Thinh Le, Transportation Engineer, gave a presentation. Highlighting the following:

- Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Funding for FY 2025/26

- Discussion of Newly Added Potential Project

- Previously Discussed Potential Projects

- Next Steps

Commissioner Mehlman commented on the following:

- Suggested delaying the recommendation until the May meeting to allow more

information on the approval of the Poplar Avenue project for TDA funding, which

would provide the necessary context for a decision.

Commissioner Hafeman commented on the following:

- Expressed concern about the funding shortfall for the project.

- Stated that while the project may be approved, the additional funding required has

not yet been identified.

- Emphasized the importance of securing the extra funds before proceeding with

the project.

- Suggested that further discussion should not continue until the funding issue is

resolved.

Ms. Obeso responded.

Commissioner Wilson commented on the following:

- Noted that the action for tonight would have been to decide whether to bank or

not, but the decision would be to not bank, resulting in spending the money.

- Suggested that tonight's plan is option 2.

- Inquired about the new project to remove quick-build bollards, asking for

clarification on the rationale behind reversing the previous decision to add them.

- Highlighted the issue of narrow clearance around the bollards, which could pose a

hazard for cyclists with panniers or wider bikes.

- Shared personal experience of knocking down the bollards several times due to

narrow clearance.

- Expressed concern about the bollards being a hazard, especially for cyclists

traveling quickly.

Vice Chair Davé commented on the following:

- Supported Staff's suggestion to relocate the quick-build bollards, noting that by

the time cyclists reach the barrier, they are already going fast, which does not

prevent speed but aggravates the consequences of it.

Public Comment opened at 10:08 p.m.

Daniel Karpelevitch, member of the public, commented on the following:

- Mentioned living in North Sunnyvale and crossing the bridge regularly, noting that

the bollards feel unsafe even with normal handlebars.

- Expressed concerns about the narrow passage, overgrowth on fences, and the

discomfort it causes for less experienced cyclists, with a risk of crashing.

- Criticized the use of stop signs, suggesting they are unnecessary; recommended

using slow-down posts instead.

- Stated that the bollards should be removed quickly and inexpensively.

- Advocated for prioritizing improvements to the Evelyn Trail, mentioning the

challenges with Caltrain crossings and the discomfort of biking on Evelyn Avenue.

- Expressed hope that improvements to Evelyn Trail could be prioritized in the next

few years.

Public Comment closed at 10:11 p.m.

Commissioner Hafeman commented on the following:

- Expressed confusion about the table, noting that the table indicates eligibility for

TDA funding but recommends not using it.

- Pointed out that without the $190,000 currently under discussion, there would not

be enough money to build the sidewalk.

Ms. Obeso responded.

Commissioner Wilson commented on the following:

- Asked for clarification on Slide 5, specifically regarding the table of

recommendations.

- Inquired about the part-time bike lanes, which were preferred by Commissioner

Mehlman but listed as a "No" on the recommendation level.

- Requested staff to provide more information on this.

Commissioner Mehlman responded.

STANDING ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL STUDY ISSUES

NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS

-Commissioner Comments

No Comments.

-Staff Comments

Mr. Le commented on the following:

- Announced the upcoming Earth Day Festival on April 5 from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. at

City Hall, where the project team for the East Channel Trail Study will be present.

- Highlighted that there will be a bike rodeo hosted by the Safe Route to School

Coordinator during the event.

- Mentioned that the Mathilda Bike Lane Study survey is still ongoing and will close

on Monday, March 24.

- Reminded that the survey for the Hollenbeck Avenue project will close on March

31.

- Noted that the survey for the East Channel Trail Study will close on Saturday, May

31, and encouraged everyone to fill it out.

INFORMATION ONLY REPORTS/ITEMS

BPAC 2025 Annual Work Plan

Active Items List March 2025

2025 Deferred Study Issues

2026 Proposed Study Issues

Council Ranking of Study Issues 2025

Council Action on Budget Proposals 2025

25-0447

ADJOURNMENT

Chair Beagle adjourned the meeting at 10:42 p.m.

Public Participation Options

In person public comment:

Online participation:

Online public comment:

Written public comment:

Public review of items:

Planning a presentation for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission meeting?