City of Sunnyvale  
Meeting Minutes - Final  
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory  
Commission  
Thursday, May 15, 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 6:34 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  
Commissioner Gollakota arrived at 6:35 p.m.  
Council Liaison Le (present)  
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS  
Chair Beagle made an announcement regarding the Allyship Community Event.  
Vice Chair Davé gave a presentation, highlighting the following:  
- Conducted a preliminary study on major employers and areas with high job  
density in Sunnyvale.  
- Analyzed the largest concentrations of housing and identified a disconnect  
between housing and job centers.  
- Observed that many commuters likely travel from South Central Sunnyvale to the  
Upper Northeast.  
- Identified major barriers to commuting, including freeways, Valley Transportation  
Authority (VTA) light rail tracks, and high-speed intersections.  
- Noted that existing routes require navigating around difficult roads despite some  
usable paths.  
- Suggested enabling bike crossings over VTA light rail tracks.  
- Proposed exploring a bike trail along Sunnyvale Municipal Golf Course, which  
may allow access under the freeway.  
- Recommended improving dangerous intersections.  
- Encouraged BPAC to consider this topic as a future study issue with community  
input.  
Public Comment opened at 6:43 p.m.  
Adam Jung, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Suggested creating a bike route from Inverness Way to Reed Avenue on South  
Wolfe Road.  
- Noted the absence of a dedicated bicycle lane on that stretch.  
- Expressed concern about parked cars making the area dangerous for cyclists.  
- Mentioned that cyclists currently must take a detour for safety.  
Tim Oey, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Introduced himself as Chair of the Santa Clara County Roads Commission,  
speaking on his own behalf.  
- Noted that May is Bike Month and that the meeting day was both Bike to Work  
Day and Bike to Wherever Day.  
- Announced a large Energizer Station event at Sprouts on Saturday morning.  
- Mentioned a bicycle ride along El Camino Real to encourage cities, particularly  
Sunnyvale, to improve bike lanes and to celebrate completed lanes in Mountain  
View, Los Altos, and Palo Alto.  
- Invited the public to join the ride at 10 a.m. and enjoy refreshments at the  
Energizer Station.  
- Supported the previous speaker’s comments and emphasized the need for  
dedicated bike lanes on Fair Oaks Avenue and Wolfe Road.  
- Encouraged BPAC to work toward closing the gaps in the bike lane network  
Public Comment closed at 6:46 p.m.  
CONSENT CALENDAR  
1.A  
25-0630  
Approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission  
Meeting Minutes of April 17, 2025.  
Approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes of April  
17, 2025 as submitted.  
Public Comment opened at 6:46 p.m.  
No speakers.  
Public Comment closed at 6:47 p.m.  
Commissioner Mehlman moved and Vice Chair Davé seconded the motion to  
approve item 1.A.  
The motion carried with the following vote:  
Yes 6 - Chair Beagle  
Vice Chair Davé  
Commissioner Bonne  
Commissioner Gollakota  
Commissioner Mehlman  
Commissioner Wilson  
No 0  
Abstain 1 - Commissioner Hafeman  
PUBLIC HEARINGS/GENERAL BUSINESS  
2
25-0057  
Recommend to City Council to approve the concept plan  
(Alternative 2) to implement the improvements in two phases,  
find that the action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA  
Guidelines Section 15301(c) and Public Resources Code  
Section 21080.25(b)(1), and recommend that the City Council  
direct staff to include the concept plan as an unfunded project  
in the FY 2025/26 Budget pending future identification of  
funding.  
Commissioner Mehlman recused themself from this item, as they are a resident  
along the roadway.  
Thinh Le, Transportation Engineer, and Adam Dankberg from Kimley-Horn gave a  
presentation. Highlighting the following:  
- Project Overview  
- Existing Temporary Condition  
- Project Timeline  
- Existing Geometric Conditions  
- Traffic Analysis  
- Collision Analysis (Jan 2018 - Dec 2022)  
- Design Alternatives  
- Alternative 1: Multi-Use Path  
- Alternative 2: Sidewalk and Buffered Bike Lane  
- Summary of Engagement Rounds 1 & 2  
- Online Survey Findings  
- Coordination with Department of Public Safety (DPS) Emergency Access  
- Traffic Congestion – AM Peak Period Eastbound between Vienna Drive and  
Lawrence Expressway  
- Mobile Home Delivery  
- Midblock Crossings  
- Cost Estimates  
- Recommendation to City Council  
Commissioner Hafeman asked about the following:  
- Whether the queuing issue was analyzed in relation to Eastbound traffic making  
left or right turns onto Lawrence Expressway.  
- Why two left-turn lanes could not be preserved while reducing the straight-through  
lanes to one and whether this adjustment would mitigate queuing issues.  
- Whether the existing single Eastbound lane has been observed to create queuing  
issues.  
- If the single lane between Fair Oaks Avenue and Vienna Drive had impacted  
traffic volume compared to previous conditions.  
- Concerns about the phased approach to bike lane installation, questioning what  
would happen if phase one resulted in the bike lane ending abruptly, leaving  
cyclists without a safe continuation.  
- Whether the specified 5 to 8 foot bike lane width excluded the buffer zone.  
- If the width measurement accounted for the concrete drain pan and whether it  
could be specified as a one-foot drain pan instead of two feet.  
Mr. Le, Lillian Tsang, Principal Transportation Engineer, Angela Obeso, Interim  
Transportation and Traffic Manager, and Mr. Dankberg responded.  
Commissioner Bonne asked about the following:  
- Whether the daily traffic levels were analyzed over 24 or 12 hours, and if the study  
used single-day data or multi-day averages.  
- What is the peak number of cars per hour on average over 24 hours.  
- Whether both road halves in the measured section were single-vehicle or  
double-vehicle lanes.  
- How does the traffic volume compare to other streets and whether the numbers  
are considered moderate, high, or low by traffic planners.  
- What the quantitative meaning of "not significant impact to traffic flow" is.  
- When including the bike lane and buffer, what is the combined width in Alternative  
1?  
- How many trees would be impacted in Alternative 1 and whether combination of  
elements of Alternatives 1 and 2 was considered.  
- Why Alternative 1 does not allow for the same variance in width as Alternative 2,  
and whether restricting variance is due to potential overlap between bikes and  
pedestrians.  
- The current speed limit in the area and expected vehicle speeds under both  
options.  
- Whether speed limits would be reevaluated if either option is adopted.  
- Which option would result in drivers being more likely to adhere to the speed limit.  
- Whether a non-90-degree curb was considered for emergency vehicle passing in  
Alternative 1, and whether a sufficiently slanted curb could allow cars to slow down  
and partially use the sidewalk if necessary  
Mr. Dankberg, Mr. Le, Ms. Tsang, and Ms. Obeso responded.  
Commissioner Wilson asked about the following:  
- Whether the current queuing situation involves vehicles turning right onto  
Lawrence Expressway from the second lane present east of Vienna Drive.  
- Whether the removal of the second lane will force vehicles to queue in the only  
travel lane, potentially reducing the number of cars able to turn right onto Lawrence  
Expressway.  
Mr. Le responded.  
Vice Chair Davé asked about the following:  
- Whether emergency vehicles and trailer home moving vehicles, given their higher  
clearance, could traverse a curb that regular cars would try to avoid.  
- Whether there is a curb height that could discourage regular cars while still  
allowing larger vehicles to get through.  
Ms. Obeso responded.  
Commissioner Gollakota asked about the following:  
- Whether emergency vehicles could use the curb to access the bike lane in an  
emergency situation.  
- Whether regular vehicular traffic could also use the curb to make way for  
emergency vehicles.  
- Whether a curb design with a slight dip from the road, making it more difficult for  
regular cars to traverse but still accessible for emergency vehicles, would be  
feasible.  
- What the expected shared width would be for pedestrians and bicycles if  
Alternative 2 is adopted.  
Ms. Obeso and Ms. Tsang responded.  
Chair Beagle asked about the following:  
- Clarification on staff’s recommendation, confirming the three alternatives:  
separated bike paths, buffered bike lanes, and the no-build option.  
- Confirmation that the project consists of two phases: west of Vienna Drive and  
east of Vienna Drive.  
- Whether the plan is to implement buffered bike lanes across both phases, starting  
with phase one.  
- Whether the previous single-phase buffered alternative was replaced with a  
two-phase buffered alternative.  
- Whether any consideration was given to a two-phase implementation of  
Alternative 1.  
- Whether Alternative 1 could be applied west of Vienna Drive and Alternative 2  
east of Vienna Drive, given concerns about mobile home deliveries and traffic east  
of Vienna Drive.  
- Whether the two-phase approach was analyzed before being proposed.  
- Concerns about emergency response times and whether the Department of  
Public Safety (DPS) is basing concerns on data analysis or general perception.  
- The trade-off between response time and overall corridor safety, noting fewer  
collisions would reduce the need for emergency responses.  
- Location of the nearest fire station in relation to the mobile home parks.  
- Whether Alternative 3 (no-build option) would maintain the current temporary bike  
lanes or result in their removal.  
- Whether shifting travel lanes to one side of the light rail tracks while placing  
separated bike lanes on the other side was considered.  
- Whether this configuration would accommodate mobile home deliveries while  
leaving emergency access unobstructed.  
- Continuation of Commissioner Bonne’s question regarding expected speed limits  
for each alternative.  
- Whether speed limit planning could be made an explicit design objective, ensuring  
the final design meets targeted speed limits.  
- How phase two of the project would be ensured or reevaluated after phase one is  
implemented.  
- Whether travel lanes in Alternative 2 would be narrowed to 11 feet like Alternative  
1, or if they would remain wider.  
- Whether intersection turn radii were designed to accommodate mobile homes.  
- Whether excessive turn radii could be adjusted for safety.  
- Whether mountable curbs or temporary barriers could be used to allow flexible  
turn radii when necessary for mobile home deliveries while maintaining safety in  
normal conditions.  
Ms. Obeso, Ms. Tsang, and Mr. Dankberg responded.  
Commissioner Gollakota asked about the following:  
- Where the traffic on Tasman Drive originates from during peak times, specifically  
whether it comes from mobile home parks, Vienna Drive, Fair Oaks Avenue, or  
Lawrence Expressway.  
- Whether communities with only one entry and exit point could have an additional  
outlet, or if the single-access design is a safety feature.  
- Whether barriers exist on either side of Tasman Drive that restrict vehicle  
movement, similar to those found on Frances Street along El Camino Real.  
- Whether such barriers could be adjusted as a simpler fix if traffic conditions  
worsen and access to Lawrence Expressway or Fair Oaks Avenue becomes more  
difficult.  
Mr. Le, Mr. Dankberg, and Ms. Obeso responded.  
Commissioner Wilson asked about the following:  
- Whether the study provided any data on current bicycle volumes on Tasman  
Drive.  
- Whether a comparison was available against a similar eastbound bicycle  
infrastructure corridor.  
- Whether a comparable road, such as Arques Avenue, has higher bicycle usage.  
- Whether there is a ballpark estimate for bicycle volumes on Tasman Drive  
compared to Arques Avenue.  
- Whether 30 bicycles per day is considered a low volume in relation to other  
comparable streets.  
Mr. Le, Mr. Dankberg, and Ms. Tsang responded.  
Commissioner Hafeman asked about the following:  
- Whether phase two would be canceled if traffic conditions are deemed  
unacceptable.  
- Whether the queuing problem between Fair Oaks Avenue and Vienna Drive will  
improve by reducing the lane count, allowing phase two to proceed safely.  
- Concerns about implementing only part of the bike lane in phase one, potentially  
creating a serious safety issue.  
- Whether phase one could instead involve closing both lanes completely while  
allowing sidewalk construction to proceed.  
- The risk that phase one is implemented but phase two is never completed due to  
public opposition or future council decisions.  
- Concerns about bike lane continuity and the negative impact of an incomplete  
bike network.  
- The potential advantage of testing a full lane closure in phase one to determine  
feasibility early rather than later.  
- Suggesting phase one as an experiment by closing both lanes first before  
committing to further changes.  
Ms. Tsang responded.  
Public Comment opened at 7:56 p.m.  
Victor Garza, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Strongly opposed all alternatives in the Tasman Pedestrian and Bicycle  
Improvement Study that would change Tasman Drive.  
- Stated that Tasman Drive is a major arterial corridor with a raised median and  
light rail in the center, not a quiet residential street.  
- Expressed concern that reducing Tasman from four lanes to one lane in each  
direction would cause severe congestion, delays, and dangerous traffic conditions.  
- Explained that he resides in Casa de Amigos Mobile Home Park and relies on  
Tasman Drive as his primary access point for entering and exiting his home.  
- Emphasized that the proposed changes would directly impact 1,700 homes and  
4,000 cars from Casa de Amigos and Plaza del Rey Mobile Home Parks.  
- Warned that the plan would create major traffic backups for thousands of  
residents and workers in the area, worsening daily commutes.  
- Stressed that there are no alternative entry and exit points for these mobile home  
parks other than Tasman Drive.  
- Raised concerns that the lane reduction would severely disrupt emergency  
services, including fire, ambulance, and evacuation routes, potentially putting lives  
at risk.  
- Noted that 613 additional mobile home residents and nearby apartment and  
condominium dwellers would also be negatively affected, as they rely on Tasman  
Drive for highway access.  
- Argued that additional restrictions on right turns would further choke traffic flow  
and increase congestion.  
- Opposed the notion that bike lanes must be added directly to Tasman Drive, citing  
his 25 years of experience in Casa de Amigos, where pedestrians and cyclists  
already travel safely within the park’s 15 mph speed limit and minimal traffic.  
Elena Feinsmith, member of the public, gave a presentation and commented on the  
following:  
- Has been a resident of Casa de Amigos since 1996, before the introduction of the  
light rail.  
- Representing Sunnyvale Safe Streets, highlighted concerns about safety issues  
on Tasman Drive.  
- Recommended implementing Alternative 1 from Fair Oaks Avenue to Vienna  
Drive and replanting trees that were previously removed, with phase two from  
Vienna Drive to Lawrence Expressway being evaluated after phase one.  
- Encouraged preserving the existing lane closure and considering a temporary  
closure between Fair Oaks Avenue and Vienna Drive on the north side until  
permanent construction is completed.  
- Stated that there are no permanent, continuous sidewalks or bikeways on  
Tasman Drive, which traps children, disabled residents, and car-less individuals in  
their neighborhoods.  
- Noted that some Casa de Amigos residents attempt to leave but find conditions  
too dangerous due to the lack of safe routes.  
- Shared photos of teenagers biking on Tasman Drive in heavy traffic moving  
between 40 and 60 mph.  
- Highlighted the challenges of pedestrians walking back from grocery stores and  
navigating a blind curve, which poses a serious safety risk.  
- Stated that speeding is frequent on Tasman Drive and cited multiple accidents,  
including one from the prior week, as evidence of the need for traffic calming  
measures.  
- Emphasized the importance of improving safety for children and the community,  
expressing appreciation for the efforts made to address the issue.  
Daniel Karpelevitch, member of the public, continued the presentation and  
commented on the following:  
- Emphasized the urgent need for improvements on the west half of Tasman Drive.  
- Stated that survey responses indicate strong community support for the project,  
with most respondents living nearby and wanting one of the proposed alternatives.  
- Noted that many residents would use Tasman Drive more if the project were  
implemented.  
- Supported staff’s recommendation to phase the project, addressing the west half  
of Tasman Drive first before the east half.  
- Highlighted the benefits of phasing, including lower costs and faster  
implementation of phase one compared to completing the entire project at once.  
- Identified the west side from Fair Oaks Avenue to Vienna Drive as the most  
dangerous segment in need of immediate attention.  
- Stated that phase one has near universal support, while opposition to the project  
is mainly related to phase two rather than phase one.  
- Suggested using lessons from phase one to refine the approach for phase two  
and potentially improve alternatives.  
- Proposed deferring new restrictions on right turns until phase two.  
- Addressed concerns about emergency vehicle access, clarifying that response  
times to mobile home parks would not be affected by phase one, as the fire station  
serving those parks is located east of the project area.  
- Explained that phase one would not impact mobile home deliveries, allowing  
additional time to analyze phase two before proceeding.  
- Stated that phasing provides flexibility by allowing different priorities to be  
addressed separately for the west and east halves of Tasman Drive.  
Hans Bernhardt, member of the public, continued the presentation and commented  
on the following:  
- Is a Sunnyvale resident who frequently bikes on Tasman Drive to travel  
eastbound.  
- Compared Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 for phase one of the project.  
- Described Alternative 1 as safe and Alternative 2 as dangerous.  
- Stated that Alternative 1 provides flexibility for two-directional biking on both sides  
and is safer for children by keeping them separated from fast-moving traffic.  
- Argued that Alternative 2 places children near large, fast-moving vehicles,  
increasing the risk of head-on collisions and unsafe mid-block crossings.  
- Stated that Alternative 1 is more convenient for cycling, making trips to grocery  
stores and other destinations easier.  
- Warned that Alternative 2’s layout encourages cyclists to take risky mid-block  
crossings rather than using the designated path.  
- Cited a past fatal accident involving a pedestrian attempting a mid-block crossing.  
- Expressed concern that Alternative 2 would increase bicycle and vehicle head-on  
collisions due to cyclists traveling in the wrong direction on bike lanes.  
- Concluded that having designated bike lanes in both directions on both sides  
would be a safer option.  
Ari Feinsmith, member of the public, concluded the presentation and commented  
on the following:  
- Introduced himself as a lifelong resident of Casa de Amigos and a transportation  
industry professional.  
- Advocated for phase one Alternative 1 as the best solution for the west half,  
ensuring safe and convenient access for bicyclists and pedestrians.  
- Shared personal experiences growing up on Tasman Drive without safe walking  
and biking options, emphasizing the importance of providing these for future  
generations.  
- Highlighted benefits of phase one, including eliminating mid-block crossings and  
promoting active transportation through separated bikeways.  
- Noted minimal tree impact and proposed replanting trees removed from Tasman  
Drive as part of the project.  
- Recommended evaluating phase two after phase one is completed to account for  
potential changes in traffic patterns and public sentiment.  
- Urged immediate safety improvements, supporting a temporary north-side lane  
closure to address hazardous conditions without altering the existing intersection.  
- Concluded by endorsing Alternative 1 for phase one, supporting tree replanting,  
and maintaining lane closures until permanent construction is completed.  
- Encouraged advocates for safe bike lanes to join Sunnyvale Safe Streets in their  
mission to improve local infrastructure.  
Pat Carpio, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Is a resident of northern Sunnyvale living in a mobile home.  
- Expressed excitement about biking but avoids cycling in her neighborhood due to  
unsafe traffic patterns.  
- Prefers biking along Bay Trails for recreation on weekends.  
- Raised concerns about students crossing Tasman Drive to reach schools and the  
lack of safe transportation options for those living in mobile home parks.  
- Stated that many students do not have cars and need safe biking and walking  
infrastructure.  
- Advocated for Alternative 1, citing its greener, safer, and more inviting design that  
promotes future-oriented urban planning.  
- Recounted a firsthand experience of walking with a fellow trustee who was  
startled by the unsafe conditions students face when traveling to school or  
accessing public transit.  
- Highlighted how inconvenient and unsafe access points force people to take  
unnecessary risks.  
- Emphasized that not everyone has a vehicle, and biking and walking should be  
accessible, safe transportation choices.  
- Urged decision-makers to select Alternative 1, enhance greenery, and create an  
enjoyable environment for pedestrians and cyclists.  
Kathy Meagher, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Is a volunteer with Sunnyvale Urban Forest Advocates (SUFA), stating that SUFA  
is not committing to supporting either of the two design proposals at this time.  
- Expressed concerns over the potential loss of 12 to 66 mature trees along  
Tasman Drive and the possibility that they may not be replaced on site.  
- Stated that removing mature trees eliminates important health and environmental  
benefits they provide.  
- Warned that Alternative 1 could result in little to no shade along Tasman Drive,  
exacerbating the urban heat island effect as Sunnyvale experiences more frequent  
hot days.  
- Suggested that reduced shade could discourage bicyclists and pedestrians from  
using the new infrastructure as anticipated.  
- Urged the city to preserve as many trees as possible and ensure that any  
removed trees are replaced on site.  
Jason Feinsmith, member of the public, gave a presentation and commented on  
the following:  
- Is a resident of Casa de Amigos for 29 years and a supporter of Sunnyvale Safe  
Streets.  
- Advocated for implementing Alternative 1 in phase one, then evaluating phase  
two after it becomes operational.  
- Emphasized that phase one addresses concerns raised by opposition while  
significantly improving safety, tree preservation, and biking infrastructure.  
- Stated that completing phase one will eliminate the need for additional  
right-turn-on-red restrictions at intersections like Vienna Drive.  
- Highlighted that keeping two lanes on the east side of Tasman Drive will preserve  
emergency response times, as the area is served by Fire Station 6.  
- Expressed skepticism about phase two, describing it as less compelling  
compared to phase one.  
- Shared that he spoke with Judy Pavlick, a leader of the opposition committee, and  
found an opportunity for compromise by focusing on bike and pedestrian lanes on  
the west side in phase one.  
- Clarified that Alternative 1 in phase one is beneficial for tree preservation, as trees  
at risk are being removed independently of the project.  
- Stated that with this project, there is an opportunity to replant code-compliant  
trees along Tasman Drive.  
- Noted that traffic conditions under phase one would remain unchanged at Vienna  
Drive and Lawrence Expressway while improving at Fair Oaks Avenue due to  
stoplight timing adjustments.  
- Concluded that the plan for phase one represents a significant opportunity for  
safety improvements and compromise.  
Denise Gallardo, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Stated that the community has already made significant sacrifices with the  
introduction of VTA as an alternate mode of transportation.  
- Explained that Tasman Drive is classified as a commercial collector with a 40 mph  
speed limit, which would need rezoning or other measures to be lowered.  
- Referenced cities that have removed bike lanes due to issues such as false safety  
perceptions for bicyclists and pedestrians.  
- Raised concerns that pedestrians may step into traffic without realizing the risks  
posed by passing cars.  
- Stated that multipath use by pedestrians and bicyclists could slow traffic and  
potentially push cyclists into vehicle lanes.  
- Expressed concerns about the dangers of right-hand turn lanes where bike paths  
are present.  
- Highlighted maintenance challenges, stating that debris accumulates in bike lanes  
and they are difficult to sweep properly.  
- Warned that deflecting traffic from Tasman Drive could push congestion into  
nearby neighborhoods.  
- Noted that approximately 4,000 cars belong to residents of mobile home parks in  
the affected section.  
- Questioned the validity of the survey results, noting that only 324 responses were  
collected out of 4,000 residents.  
- Shared that Station 6, the nearest fire station, responded to 41 incidents within a  
seven-day period at Casa de Amigos and Plaza Del Rey mobile home parks.  
- Stated that she personally spoke with seven firefighters and one police sergeant,  
all of whom opposed the proposed changes.  
- Urged that tax dollars not be wasted on the project.  
Leia Mehlman, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Identified themself as the author of the study issue that initiated the Tasman Drive  
project and a resident of Casa de Amigos since 2006.  
- Expressed a personal desire for safe walking and biking infrastructure, particularly  
now that a supermarket is available in the area.  
- Stressed the need for a connected and usable bicycle and pedestrian network  
due to anticipated changes from the Moffett Park Specific Plan.  
- Cited the death of a pedestrian on Tasman Drive as evidence of the urgent need  
for sidewalks.  
- Clarified that mobile home parks have multiple entrances and exits, with deliveries  
conducted through Persian Drive for Casa de Amigos and another entrance further  
down Vienna Drive for Plaza Del Rey.  
- Acknowledged concerns about DPS response times but indicated support for a  
phased project implementation.  
- Supported contiguous sidewalks on both sides of the street up to Vienna Drive to  
ensure safe pedestrian travel, particularly for schoolchildren.  
- Advocated for bike lanes, emphasizing the benefits of alternative transit beyond  
bicycles, including scooters and hoverboards.  
- Noted that mobile home residents are not permitted to walk dogs inside the parks,  
forcing them to cross the light rail tracks or travel to Vienna Drive, which is  
inconvenient.  
- Expressed commitment to seeing the project completed in some form.  
Kevin Jackson, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Acknowledged that residents along Tasman Drive would have strong opinions  
about the proposed changes, given its role as a significant cross-jurisdictional  
corridor connecting multiple destinations.  
- Stressed the importance of making Tasman Drive accessible to travelers using all  
modes of transportation.  
- Emphasized that the study aims to improve safety for environmentally friendly and  
healthier transportation options, encouraging more people to use them.  
- Warned against settling for minimal improvements, urging planners to consider  
future growth and evolving transportation needs.  
- Highlighted the increasing popularity of e-bikes and similar devices, which will  
lead to higher traffic in bike lanes and a greater speed disparity among users.  
- Recommended designing bike facilities that allow safe passing, similar to how  
motorists navigate traffic.  
- Clarified that BPAC’s role is advisory, providing recommendations to the city  
council rather than making final decisions.  
- Stated that BPAC’s real-world experience in sharing the road with motor vehicle  
traffic offers a unique and valuable perspective.  
- Urged BPAC to advocate for high-quality bike and pedestrian infrastructure that  
serves future users, rather than settling for bare-minimum solutions.  
- Encouraged BPAC to present a unified position to help influence the final  
outcome effectively.  
Sharlene Liu, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Supported implementing Alternative 1 in phase one on the west side, with phase  
two on the east side of Tasman Drive being evaluated later.  
- Emphasized that the City's ultimate goal should be to build a connected network  
that serves all residents.  
- Shared that canvassing in the study area revealed strong enthusiasm for  
improved walking and biking facilities due to the current lack of infrastructure.  
- Acknowledged concerns about change but argued that a phased approach allows  
residents to gradually adjust without major disruptions.  
- Suggested that DPS could use phase one as an opportunity to test emergency  
response adjustments, including evaluating how fire trucks navigate the new  
design.  
- Proposed the use of wide curb cuts to accommodate emergency vehicle access.  
- Stated that Alternative 1 is safer than Alternative 2, especially in the Northwest  
quadrant, where two-way bikeways are necessary for residents returning from  
Grocery Outlet.  
- Highlighted that Alternative 1 aligns with Caltrans Design Information Bulletin 94,  
which recommends multi-use paths for roads with a 40 mph speed limit, whereas  
Alternative 2 does not.  
- Pointed out that cyclists from outside the study area will likely be major users of  
the completed route, and the project must consider their needs.  
- Urged decision-makers to recognize the broader transportation benefits of  
Alternative 1.  
Judy Pavlick, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Raised concerns about the movement of mobile homes, stating that they are  
transported north from Fair Oaks Avenue to the mobile home parks rather than  
from Lawrence Expressway to Tasman Drive.  
- Spoke with Triple B Hauling and Glen at Alliance Mobile Home Park, who  
identified mobile home transportation as a major issue.  
- Explained that mobile homes are 15 feet wide and 66 feet long, transported on  
trucks with eight-axle carriers.  
- Expressed concerns that under Alternative 1, the 11-foot lanes would result in  
mobile homes hanging over the railroad tracks and bike paths.  
- Stated that Alternative 1 would require reducing the width of bicycle and  
pedestrian pathways to accommodate mobile home transportation.  
- Noted that mobile home movers must apply for a permit and must complete  
transport by 4 p.m. each day.  
- Explained that mobile home haulers refuse to move homes during nighttime hours  
due to safety concerns.  
- Suggested that Alternatives 1 and 2 need to be reevaluated to determine whether  
size adjustments could resolve transportation conflicts.  
- Stated that Alternative 1 may not be feasible at all due to the dimensions of mobile  
homes.  
- Shared that the owner of Alliance Mobile Home Park is strongly opposed to the  
proposed changes, citing significant impacts on his business.  
Doug Kunz, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Is a member of the Sustainability Commission speaking in a personal capacity.  
- Stated that on-road transportation is the largest contributor to Sunnyvale’s  
greenhouse gas emissions.  
- Emphasized the need for the City to provide safe and convenient biking and  
walking routes to reduce fossil fuel-powered auto use.  
- Urged the Council to close the gap in the safe walking and biking network along  
Tasman Drive.  
- Expressed support for both Alternatives 1 and 2, stating that they represent major  
improvements over current conditions.  
- Applauded staff’s phased approach, which prioritizes bike and pedestrian safety  
between Fair Oaks Avenue and Vienna Drive while allowing time to address  
community concerns about the east side of Tasman Drive.  
- Found arguments in favor of a multi-use path persuasive and supported  
Alternative 1.  
- Stressed that action is necessary, as maintaining the status quo would leave  
residents without safe walking and biking access to light rail and local businesses.  
- Concluded that while he supports Alternative 1, he also views Alternative 2 as a  
meaningful improvement.  
Tim Oey, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Is the Chair of the Santa Clara County Roads Commission, speaking in a  
personal capacity as a professional bicycle instructor who bikes Tasman Drive  
periodically.  
- Strongly recommended Alternative 1, supporting multi-use paths on both sides of  
Tasman Drive for phase one.  
- Expressed openness to Alternative 2 for phase two or postponing the decision to  
allow DPS easier access to Plaza Del Rey and Casa de Amigos.  
- Stated that Fire Station 6, located just east of the mobile home parks near  
Lawrence Expressway, has multiple access routes, including highway 237, Persian  
Drive, and highway 101.  
- Shared personal experience biking on multi-use paths in Helsinki and other  
European cities, as well as some American cities, noting their effectiveness.  
- Emphasized that Alternative 1 minimizes the need for bicyclists to cross streets  
unnecessarily, particularly for trips to and from Grocery Outlet at Fair Oaks Avenue  
and Tasman Drive.  
- Highlighted that separating bicyclists from motor vehicles using curbs significantly  
enhances safety, especially for children.  
- Advocated for prioritizing safety to prevent crashes rather than simply improving  
emergency response times.  
- Called for greater efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled and mitigate climate  
change, noting that transportation contributes 50% of greenhouse gas emissions.  
- Argued that every street in Sunnyvale should be a complete street, designed for  
safe travel by all modes of transportation.  
Tim Kerr, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Opposed both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, citing concerns that not enough  
consideration has been given to potential problems the changes could create.  
- Highlighted three major upcoming developments within a mile of the project area:  
the Kiely project, the Relative project near the stadium, and a high-density  
residential project at Sandia Avenue and Lawrence Expressway.  
- Warned that increased traffic from these developments would worsen existing  
congestion, particularly during morning and evening commutes.  
- Expressed concern that reducing Tasman Drive to one lane would exacerbate  
traffic backups as new residents move into the area.  
- Stated that both alternatives would create a "mess" and should be reconsidered,  
arguing that the road should be left as it is.  
- Questioned whether accommodating bicyclists was worth inconveniencing 4,000  
cars.  
- Opposed the removal of right-turn-on-red options, arguing it would create  
excessive delays for drivers leaving Plaza Del Rey and Casa de Amigos,  
particularly in emergency situations.  
- Suggested that residents could be stuck for 20 minutes or more waiting for the  
light rail, congestion, and signals to clear.  
- Recommended that Sunnyvale abandon the proposed changes and allocate  
funding to other projects instead.  
Stephen Meier, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Expressed support for Alternative 1 but focused his remarks on the Department of  
Public Safety’s (DPS) position regarding response times.  
- Criticized DPS for prioritizing minimal response time increases over broader  
safety improvements.  
- Shared past concerns about DPS opposing traffic calming measures, stating that  
Chief Ngo initially resisted changes but later acknowledged there was no issue.  
- Accused DPS of obstructing safety improvements repeatedly without clear  
explanations for their position.  
- Called on DPS to shift focus toward proactive safety measures rather than  
maintaining response times at the expense of prevention.  
Deb, member of the public, commented on the following:  
- Expressed frustration that bike and walking lanes previously existed before the  
City installed VTA tracks in the center of Tasman Drive, removing those lanes.  
- Opposed further lane reductions, arguing they would be another mistake.  
- Stated that many residents rely on driving because they transport children to  
school and work, rather than using bicycles.  
- Clarified that school buses pick up children on Vienna Drive each morning, as  
schools are not close to the area.  
- Corrected a previous statement, clarifying that Plaza Del Rey has only two  
entrances and exits—one on Vienna Drive near Lawrence Expressway and another  
on Vienna Court, which requires traveling on Tasman Drive to access Fair Oaks  
Avenue or Lawrence Expressway.  
- Urged decision-makers to reconsider the project and return to the drawing board.  
- Criticized the project team for placing cones on the wrong side of the street and  
not listening to resident concerns.  
- Stated that an incident and fatality occurred on the Casa de Amigos side due to a  
pedestrian crossing where there was no sidewalk.  
- Emphasized that pedestrians should only cross where safe and argued that the  
blind turn area should have received safety measures instead.  
- Called for the project team to listen to residents before making final decisions  
affecting their roadway.  
Public Comment closed at 8:47 p.m.  
Chair Beagle called for a recess at 8:47 p.m. Chair Beagle reconvened the meeting  
at 8:59 p.m.  
Commissioner Hafeman commented on the following:  
- Initially had concerns about phasing but now understands the reasoning behind it.  
- Acknowledged the public’s input and private conversations that helped clarify the  
approach.  
- Stated that the selected phasing strategy is the right decision.  
- No longer objects to the phased implementation.  
- Expressed uncertainty about choosing between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.  
- Indicated that further comments would be shared as discussions continue.  
Vice Chair Davé commented on the following:  
- Shared a personal experience of being clipped by a car while cycling in a painted  
bike lane in a 15 mph zone, resulting in a concussion and a temporary loss of  
memory.  
- Expressed skepticism about the safety of painted bike lanes.  
- Stated a preference for Alternative 1 as the safer option.  
- Agreed with concerns raised by an audience member, emphasizing that if adults  
are not safe on the road, children are even more vulnerable.  
- Urged decision-makers to prioritize safety considerations in their evaluation of the  
project.  
Commissioner Bonne commented on the following:  
- Supported the view that painted bike lanes do not provide adequate safety,  
particularly on roads with high speed limits.  
- Shared a personal anecdote about being passed dangerously close by a large  
delivery truck while biking on an inadequate, debris-filled bike lane along Kifer  
Road.  
- Applauded the concept of raising bike and pedestrian paths for increased safety  
in Alternative 1.  
- Advocated for urban transportation design centered around human-powered  
vehicles rather than cars, given increasing population density and limited land  
availability.  
- Argued that expanding road space for vehicles is unsustainable, and instead,  
streets should prioritize higher-density transportation modes.  
- Compared the footprint and mass of cars versus bicycles, suggesting that  
bicycles allow for more efficient use of street space.  
- Encouraged taking additional space away from vehicle lanes while preserving  
trees, noting that shaded streets enhance pedestrian comfort.  
- Highlighted the cooling benefits of trees in urban environments, stressing their  
importance as temperatures rise.  
- Urged planners to preserve as many trees as possible and to choose Alternative  
1 for its separated bike and pedestrian paths.  
Commissioner Gollakota commented on the following:  
- Raised concerns about the high income disparity in Sunnyvale, noting that mobile  
home parks provide an affordable homeownership option for those unable to buy  
traditional homes.  
- Observed that many mobile home park residents also rent their homes.  
- Inquired whether the City has data on the age demographics of mobile home park  
residents, particularly whether the community skews toward senior citizens or has a  
more diverse mix.  
- Expressed that affordability forces many residents to commute long distances,  
with bicycles being a viable option for nearby destinations but cars being necessary  
for farther commutes.  
- Shared concerns about mobility-challenged individuals, including a friend who  
uses a wheelchair, and emphasized that alternative transportation options may not  
be accessible to everyone.  
- Suggested that the City explore opening certain closed pathways near Tasman  
Drive and Lawrence Expressway to improve mobility options, specifically  
referencing a previously closed opening on Persian Drive.  
- Proposed evaluating whether emergency vehicles, garbage trucks, and large  
vehicles could use alternative routes to avoid congestion and improve accessibility.  
- Acknowledged that mobile home parks have existing exit options and are not  
entirely isolated.  
- Expressed support for preserving trees and ensuring access to Grocery Outlet for  
residents who rely on biking or public transit.  
- Agreed that Tasman Drive feels narrow and unsafe for bicyclists and pedestrians,  
stressing that elevating pedestrian paths could improve safety but might increase  
risks for bicyclists.  
- Ultimately supported Alternative 1 as an option that meets mobility needs while  
maintaining safety and accessibility.  
Ms. Obeso responded.  
Commissioner Wilson commented on the following:  
- Questioned the potential tree impacts between phase one and phase two,  
seeking clarification on how many trees would be removed in each segment.  
- Asked whether the public's perception that tree removal in phase one is minimal  
was accurate or if the impact is evenly distributed between both phases.  
- Raised concerns about the necessity of a bidirectional shared-use path on the  
south side of Tasman Drive, suggesting that most residents seem primarily  
concerned with access to grocery stores.  
- Asked why a hybrid option of a sidewalk and bike lane (rather than a shared-use  
path) on the south side was not explored.  
- Inquired whether uniformity on both sides influenced the design decision.  
- Considered the cost differential between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, noting  
that Alternative 1 costs approximately $4 million more.  
- Suggested that a buffered bike lane and sidewalk already provide a significant  
safety improvement and questioned whether the additional investment in a  
shared-use path is justified.  
- Proposed that the $4 million might be better spent on additional bike lanes  
elsewhere in the city, such as on Hollenbeck Avenue.  
- Acknowledged that bidirectionality on the north side could improve pedestrian  
safety, citing a past fatality where a pedestrian was forced to cross at an unsafe  
location due to the absence of a continuous sidewalk.  
- Concluded that while bidirectionality may save lives, the higher cost for bike safety  
improvements may need further evaluation.  
Mr. Le and Mr. Dankberg responded.  
Chair Beagle commented on the following:  
- Asked City staff to clarify whether sidewalks and bike lanes existed prior to the  
installation of light rail on Tasman Drive and whether any infrastructure was  
removed.  
- Sought clarification on whether bike lanes were formally designated or merely  
shoulders used unofficially for cycling.  
- Requested a breakdown of survey results specific to mobile home park residents  
and their sentiment toward the proposed alternatives.  
- Asked for the total number of survey respondents who lived in mobile home parks.  
- Inquired about a detailed cost breakdown for each phase of the project, including  
Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, and whether a mixed approach was considered  
(Alternative 1 for phase one, Alternative 2 for phase two).  
- Expressed concerns about future cost increases if phase two is delayed by five or  
more years and requested a comparison of immediate versus long-term costs.  
- Reminded City staff and contractors about City's Land Use and Transportation  
(LUTE) Policy LT-3.6, which prioritizes pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users over  
single-occupant vehicles in transportation planning.  
- Criticized the emphasis on traffic congestion in decision-making, arguing that it  
may be receiving disproportionate weight over other considerations such as  
pedestrian and cyclist safety.  
- Stated that while state laws must be followed, traffic concerns should not  
overshadow safety priorities outlined in City policy.  
- Suggested that future decision-making should better align with policy LUTE Policy  
LT-3.6 rather than focusing excessively on vehicle traffic impacts.  
- Strongly supported staff’s recommendation to implement the project in two  
phases, emphasizing the importance of making progress rather than delaying  
improvements in pursuit of perfection.  
- Expressed appreciation for the public’s input and endorsed a phased approach  
that begins with Alternative 1 in phase one (separated bike paths) and Alternative 2  
in phase two (buffered bike lanes).  
- Acknowledged concerns from residents about the impact of 4,000 vehicles from  
mobile home parks on traffic but noted that staff does not foresee significant  
congestion increases, at least for phase one.  
- Argued that providing safe biking and pedestrian infrastructure may reduce  
residents' reliance on cars over time, potentially lowering the number of vehicles  
used daily.  
- Stressed the importance of ensuring phase two is not overlooked or indefinitely  
postponed, recommending that the council establish a structured plan to revisit and  
implement the second phase.  
- Suggested incorporating temporary bike lanes on the north side of the tracks,  
complementing existing south-side bike lanes, before permanent phase one  
construction begins.  
- Advocated for preserving and adding trees as part of the final project design.  
- Summarized preferred recommendations:  
- Alternative 1 in phase one: separated bike paths.  
- Alternative 2 in phase two: buffered bike lanes.  
- Temporary bike lanes on the north side west of Vienna Drive before permanent  
phase one construction.  
- Tree preservation and replanting.  
Ms. Obeso and Mr. Dankberg responded.  
Commissioner Hafeman commented on the following:  
- Expressed understanding of the rationale for bi-directional bike and pedestrian  
paths west of Vienna Drive, noting that alternative buffered bike lanes could lead to  
cyclists riding in the wrong direction due to long detours.  
- Raised concerns about the potential loss of trees and the lack of clarity on the  
number of trees impacted in phase one.  
- Highlighted emergency vehicle accessibility as a critical issue, questioning  
whether emergency responders from Fire Station 6 would face obstacles under the  
proposed design.  
- Stressed that cars typically move to the right to allow emergency vehicles through,  
but the presence of raised paths could make this difficult, potentially forcing  
vehicles onto pedestrian spaces.  
- Considered whether buffered bike lanes could still allow cars to shift temporarily  
for emergency access but noted that pedestrians might be easier to manage than  
cyclists in such situations.  
- Expressed discomfort with accepting emergency vehicle complications as a  
necessary tradeoff for improved bike and pedestrian safety.  
- Suggested that emergency access concerns might be why buffered bike lanes  
were ultimately favored as the preferred choice.  
- Called for further discussion and a solution that ensures emergency response  
operations are not compromised.  
- Maintained that while bike and pedestrian safety is a priority, it should not come at  
the cost of efficient emergency response services.  
Mr. Le responded.  
Vice Chair Davé commented on the following:  
- Requested clarification on the rationale behind recommending buffered bike lanes  
for phase two.  
- Asked staff to provide a timeline update on the study progress.  
- Confirmed that the BPAC would not review the project again before it is presented  
to the City Council.  
Chair Beagle and Mr. Le responded.  
Commissioner Wilson commented on the following:  
- Continued discussions regarding the potential impact of tree removal, requesting  
clarification on maneuverability constraints when implementing a shared-use path.  
- Asked whether shared-use paths provide limited flexibility to avoid trees  
compared to other configurations.  
- Confirmed that the 12-foot width standard applied consistently in city projects,  
leaving little room for adjustments around tree roots.  
- Questioned whether minor modifications could help preserve certain large trees  
but acknowledged that overall flexibility is limited.  
- Raised concerns about the speed limit on Tasman Drive west of Vienna Drive,  
noting its curvy layout and potential implications for traffic flow.  
- Highlighted that staff’s speed analysis showed minimal travel time differences  
when reducing lanes but questioned whether a buffered bike lane might trigger a  
speed reassessment.  
- Suggested that a speed limit reduction from 40 mph to 30 mph could lead to  
cascading traffic impacts beyond just travel time delays.  
- Asked whether a 10 mph speed reduction could result in more substantial delays  
than currently estimated.  
- Noted that while the analysis suggests minimal travel time differences, there  
remains uncertainty regarding future speed adjustments under the buffered bike  
lane recommendation.  
- Recognized that if a speed limit reduction becomes necessary, the full extent of  
traffic impacts remains an open question that may need further evaluation.  
Mr. Dankberg and Ms. Tsang responded.  
Commissioner Bonne commented on the following:  
- Re-examined the math regarding vehicle counts, noting that Casa de Amigos has  
915 homes, suggesting an estimated two to three cars per household, totaling  
fewer than 3,000 cars.  
- Stated that Tasman Drive accommodates 4,000 to 5,000 cars over a 24-hour  
period, with peak traffic at less than 700 cars per hour.  
- Concluded that there is no significant mass exodus of residents, and traffic flow  
would not be severely impacted by either alternative.  
- Highlighted the City’s goal of creating induced demand for biking and walking  
while depressing demand for vehicles to reduce congestion.  
- Argued that encouraging more citizens to shift from driving to biking or walking  
benefits everyone, including drivers who remain reliant on their vehicles.  
- Supported Alternative 1 as a solution that would promote a more balanced,  
sustainable transportation system.  
Commissioner Hafeman moved and Commissioner Gollakota seconded the motion  
to recommend the following:  
- Phase One: Implementation of mixed-use paths.  
- Phase Two: The final design will either include mixed-use paths or buffered bike  
lanes.  
- Temporary Bike Lane: Before construction begins, the north-side lane should be  
closed to create a temporary bike lane, complementing the already closed  
south-side lane.  
- Lane Closures: One lane on each side of the corridor will be temporarily closed  
for bicycle use.  
- Closure Boundaries: The temporary closure will span the area between Vienna  
Drive and Fair Oaks Avenue.  
Commissioner Hafeman spoke to their motion, emphasizing the importance of the  
mixed-use path and explaining that there are no cross streets in the area. He  
stressed the need to ensure that children on bicycles and older residents using  
electric bikes or other mobility devices can safely commute to the grocery store  
without having to take long detours to Vienna Drive before returning. For him, this  
was the primary reason why the mixed-use paths were crucial.  
Regarding the potential impact on trees, he acknowledged that while some  
members of the public stated that trees would not be significantly affected on the  
west side, the study did not confirm this. However, he suspected that most of the  
tree-related concerns would likely arise in phase two rather than phase one.  
He also addressed concerns about emergency vehicle access, noting that the fire  
station is located to the east. Based on this, he believed that most emergency  
vehicles, including police cars, would likely approach from the Lawrence  
Expressway side. Consequently, the likelihood of emergency vehicles needing to  
use the mixed-use path would be minimal. He suggested that, if necessary, the  
path could be sloped to allow emergency vehicles to access it more easily.  
Commissioner Wilson's asked about the following:  
- Asked staff for clarification on how funding constraints might affect the project  
timeline.  
- Noted that Sunnyvale has historically faced challenges in securing construction  
funding.  
- Pointed out that the project is currently listed as an unfunded item in the  
2025–2026 budget.  
- Questioned whether the cost difference between Alternative 1 and Alternative 2  
would significantly impact the timeline for beginning construction.  
- Sought staff’s opinion on whether recommending Alternative 1 might delay the  
start of initial construction due to the higher cost associated with that option.  
Ms. Obeso responded.  
Chair Beagle commented on the following:  
- Expressed strong support for the proposal, particularly Alternative 1 in phase one.  
- Highlighted that this project presents a rare opportunity to implement protected  
bike lanes or separated bike paths since there are no driveways in the area, which  
is a common limitation in other projects.  
- Emphasized the importance of access to grocery stores, light rail stations, nearby  
restaurants, and future bike infrastructure, including the East Channel Trail.  
- Stressed that connections to existing and future biking facilities are critical,  
especially on the west side of the project area.  
- Considered the west side to be the most important part of the project.  
- Expressed a preference for prioritizing quality in implementation, supporting a "do  
it right" approach rather than rushing the process.  
The motion carried with the following vote:  
Yes 6 - Chair Beagle  
Vice Chair Davé  
Commissioner Bonne  
Commissioner Gollakota  
Commissioner Hafeman  
Commissioner Wilson  
No 0  
Recused 1 - Commissioner Mehlman  
3
25-0223  
Recommend to City Council a Project for the Application of  
Transportation Development Act Article 3 Funding for Fiscal  
Year 2025/26  
Chair Beagle called for a recess at 9:55 p.m. Chair Beagle reconvened the meeting  
at 10:03 p.m.  
Ms. Tsang gave a report. Highlighting the following:  
- TDA Article 3 Funding for FY 2025/26  
- Project Proposals:  
- Install sidewalk on Poplar Avenue  
- Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) & Curb Extensions  
- Evelyn Avenue Multi-use Path  
- Implement Crossing improvements at the intersection of Gail Avenue & Iris  
Avenue  
- Convert remaining part-time bike lanes on Homestead Road into full-time bike  
lanes  
- Recommendation to City Council  
Commissioner Hafeman asked about the following:  
- Inquired about the rapid flashing beacons, specifically the one at Washington  
Avenue and Sunset Avenue.  
- Questioned whether the available $211,000 would be sufficient to purchase and  
install the beacon if the curb extension were not implemented.  
- Emphasized the urgency of addressing safety concerns at the crosswalk,  
describing it as both dangerous and heavily used.  
Ms. Tsang responded.  
Commissioner Wilson asked about the following:  
- Expressed confusion about the connection between the Evelyn Avenue multi-use  
trail and intercity transportation.  
- Noted that the study area is only about a mile and a half long.  
- Referenced a bullet point in support of funding for the Evelyn Avenue multi-use  
trail that suggested it would benefit VTA or another organization involved in intercity  
commuting.  
- Sought clarification on how the trail contributes to broader regional transportation.  
- Confirmed that the Evelyn Avenue corridor is already a major thoroughfare for  
intercity commuting.  
- Acknowledged that Mountain View is expected to extend the pathway further once  
Sunnyvale completes its portion.  
Ms. Tsang and Ms. Obeso responded.  
Chair Beagle asked about the following:  
- Asked about the components of the Evelyn Trail project, specifically whether it  
includes a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) at Evelyn Avenue and  
Pastoria Avenue .  
- Inquired about the meaning of "vertical separation" in the context of ADA  
requirements, confirming that it refers to an increased curb height rather than an  
additional offset.  
- Asked whether the City has a plan to secure alternative funding if Transportation  
Development Act (TDA) funding does not come through, or if the Evelyn Avenue  
Trail project would proceed without the planned improvements.  
- Questioned why staff recommended not using TDA funds for the Homestead  
Road Project (Project 5) and whether the alternative funding source would impact  
its implementation timeline. Expressed concern about potential delays,  
emphasizing the need for prompt completion.  
- Asked whether the bulb-out project (Project 4) could be done separately without  
stormwater improvements, acknowledging that bundling the two was done because  
they are in the same location.  
- Confirmed that funding is allocated specifically for the bulb-outs, while stormwater  
improvements were included as an additional efficiency measure.  
Ms. Tsang and Ms. Obeso responded.  
Vice Chair Davé asked about the following:  
- Asked for confirmation that Gail and Iris Avenues are near Braly Elementary  
School.  
- Asked for confirmation that the Poplar Avenue sidewalks are near Peterson  
Middle School.  
- Noted that both locations would contribute to safer routes for students traveling to  
school.  
Ms. Tsang responded.  
Public Comment opened at 10:21 p.m.  
No speakers.  
Public Comment closed at 10:21 p.m.  
Commissioner Mehlman commented on the following:  
- Recommended approving the funding.  
- Supported moving forward with the Evelyn Avenue Trail project, stating it is the  
best use of available funding.  
- Noted that other projects have designated funding sources and schedules,  
believing that approving this funding will not hinder any of them.  
Chair Beagle commented on the following:  
- Expressed full agreement on using the available funding, stating that the Evelyn  
Avenue Trail is the best option on the current list.  
- Noted that funds have been banked for a long time, allowing for investment in a  
large project, but emphasized a preference for allocating future funding toward  
smaller projects.  
- Acknowledged challenges with economies of scale, mentioning that smaller  
projects are harder to secure consultants for.  
- Recalled that funds were banked for three years for Poplar Avenue but ultimately  
not used for that project, suggesting that other projects could have been pursued in  
the meantime.  
- Advocated for allocating $600,000 to the Evelyn Trail.  
- Recognized that $211,000 remains and expressed a desire to find a project for  
those funds rather than continuing to bank them.  
- Acknowledged that many projects are expensive and that the Homestead signage  
project is the only one small enough to utilize the remaining funds.  
- Concluded that the situation effectively forces a choice to fund the Evelyn Avenue  
Trail while banking the rest, but stated a preference to avoid banking funds in the  
future.  
Vice Chair Davé commented on the following:  
- Asked whether there is an alternate source of funding for the Gail and Iris Avenue  
sidewalk extensions.  
- Sought input from fellow commissioners regarding their reasoning for prioritizing  
the Evelyn Avenue Trail project over sidewalk improvements near schools.  
Ms. Tsang and Chair Beagle responded.  
Commissioner Gollakota commented on the following:  
- Agreed with Vice Chair Davé, expressing a strong preference for prioritizing the  
Iris and Gail Avenue sidewalk extensions.  
- Emphasized that Braly Park, located next to Braly Elementary School, is highly  
popular among children due to its playground equipment and overall appeal.  
- Noted that many families frequently walk or bike from Iris Avenue to the park, and  
personal experience includes biking there with family members.  
- Highlighted concerns about the limited parking availability near Braly Park, as well  
as its popularity for school events, including end-of-year picnics.  
- Expressed the importance of increasing safety for children walking and biking  
around the area.  
- Mentioned frequent visits to Washington Park, describing it as a well-loved  
destination for children, especially after recent renovations that introduced sensory  
play elements.  
- Stressed that many children in the community live in apartments and have limited  
outdoor space, making safe access to parks even more important.  
- Supported sidewalk improvements on Poplar Avenue near Peterson Middle  
School, noting the lack of existing sidewalks and the need for safer routes for  
students.  
- Acknowledged that funding limitations may require banking funds for certain  
projects but preferred to see the available funding used for Iris and Gail Avenue  
sidewalk extensions if possible.  
Commissioner Mehlman commented on the following:  
- Asked for clarification on the cost breakdown, which includes a high-visibility  
crosswalk, curb extension, and separate stormwater infrastructure funding.  
- Questioned whether allocating $675,000 to the project would fully fund  
construction or only cover the design phase.  
- Sought details on the construction costs apart from design.  
- Asked whether Council has reviewed funding for this project.  
- Confirmed that the design phase is underway but sought clarification on whether  
the requested $600,000 is for actual construction.  
- Expressed confusion about the design phase being in progress while still needing  
construction funding, questioning whether this should have been accounted for  
earlier.  
- Inquired about the percentage of the project currently completed and whether any  
ground has been broken.  
- Questioned what the immediate effects would be if funding is not recommended  
by the commission or approved by Council, including potential project delays.  
- Raised concerns about the time limits on funding sources, specifically regarding  
the Evelyn Avenue project and TDA funding, asking whether state funding would  
expire or if the project would reach an impasse without additional resources.  
- Confirmed that the design for Iris Avenue is completed but questioned whether  
the recommended funding would cover all project elements.  
- Reminded commissioners that their decision is only a recommendation to Council,  
which has the final say on funding allocations.  
- Asked how long implementation would take if Council approves funding, clarifying  
whether it would take three years before construction begins or before completion.  
- Stressed the importance of considering all pros and cons of their decision,  
recognizing that Council may or may not follow their recommendation.  
Ms. Tsang and Ms. Obeso responded.  
Commissioner Wilson commented on the following:  
- Expressed a preference for using the TDA fund to enhance the Evelyn Avenue  
Trail rather than initiating a slightly improved ATP-compliant school crossing.  
- Suggested that the TDA fund would be better spent ensuring the high-quality  
completion of the Evelyn Avenue multi-use path.  
- Recommended prioritizing the Evelyn Avenue project while noting that safety  
improvements for the school crossing would likely be addressed through other  
funding sources.  
Chair Beagle commented on the following:  
- Asked staff whether the Evelyn Trail and the Gail/Iris projects would have different  
impacts on workload, considering that the Department of Public Works has  
expressed concerns about capacity in recent discussions.  
- Inquired whether taking on both projects would burden staff to the point of  
affecting timelines for other ongoing initiatives.  
- Expressed equal support for both projects and stated willingness to recommend  
either to the City Council.  
- Reaffirmed enthusiasm for bulb-outs, emphasizing that any project incorporating  
them is a positive development.  
- Recognized the Evelyn Avenue Trail as a major project that would significantly  
benefit bicyclists, describing current road conditions as poor and in need of  
improvement.  
- Concluded that either project would be a good choice and expressed confidence  
in whatever recommendation is ultimately made, as long as it is one of the two  
options under discussion.  
Ms. Obeso responded.  
Commissioner Bonne moved and Commissioner Hafeman seconded the motion to  
accept staff recommendation Alterative 1.  
The motion carried with the following vote:  
Yes 6 - Chair Beagle  
Commissioner Bonne  
Commissioner Gollakota  
Commissioner Hafeman  
Commissioner Mehlman  
Commissioner Wilson  
No 0  
Abstain 1 - Vice Chair Davé  
4
25-0622  
Review FY 2025/26 Recommended Budget  
Mr. Le gave a summary report regarding the FY 2025/26 Recommended Budget.  
Commissioner Hafeman asked about the following:  
- Inquired about the status of supplemental items, confirming that they had not yet  
been decided.  
- Expressed surprise that staff’s recommendation for cleaning buffered or ATP  
stated "Class IV Separated Bikeways" involved relying on overtime sweeping.  
- Noted that overtime sweeping may help maintain existing ATP stated "Class IV  
Separated Bikeways" but does not address future expansion needs.  
- Predicted that funding constraints for overtime pay could become a barrier to  
implementing additional ATP stated "Class IV Separated Bikeways".  
- Shared disappointment that no progress had been made toward purchasing a  
dedicated bike lane sweeper, despite previous discussions.  
- Sought clarification on whether staff would avoid discouraging future ATP stated  
"Class IV Separated Bikeway" projects due to maintenance concerns.  
- Acknowledged that overtime pay could provide coverage for additional small  
segments of bike lane maintenance but would not be a sustainable long-term  
solution.  
- Expressed appreciation for recent staffing improvements in Public Works, noting  
that three new staff members were being added.  
Ms. Obeso responded.  
Chair Beagle asked about the following:  
- Inquired about how the overall transportation budget compares to the previous  
year.  
- Inquired about funding for shuttle programs, particularly in relation to active  
transportation and non-car mobility options.  
- Asked whether shuttle programs are included in this year's budget.  
Ms. Obeso, Ms. Tsang and Commissioner Hafeman responded.  
Public Comment opened at 11:04 p.m.  
No speakers.  
Public Comment closed at 11:05 p.m.  
5
25-0623  
Report and Discussion of Recent Santa Clara Valley  
Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle and Pedestrian  
Advisory Committee (BPAC) Meeting  
Commissioner Mehlman gave the meeting summary report regarding the following  
topics:  
- VTA is projected to run out of reserves by 2030 and will implement a hiring freeze,  
increase vacancy rates, and cut capital funding for transit projects in 2026–2027.  
- If a project isn’t on the pre-approved list of 32, funding won’t be available.  
- Suggested freezing vehicle lane expansions and redirecting funds to preserve  
transit services instead.  
- Federal funding for transit projects is uncertain, making it crucial to support VTA’s  
financial stability and encourage ridership.  
- Breakout workshops focused on updating VTA’s strategic plan and improving  
paratransit access.  
- Discussed funding gaps for paratransit riders, who must pay out-of-pocket for trips  
beyond three-quarters of a mile from transit stops.  
- Advocated for subsidies and improved infrastructure to make transit access  
equitable.  
- A Final report on the VTA Strategic Plan will be available in winter 2026.  
Public Comment opened at 11:13 p.m.  
No speakers.  
Public Comment closed at 11:14 p.m.  
Chair Beagle commented on the following:  
- Noted that VTA's budget challenges are not unique and that transit agencies  
across the Bay Area face similar financial difficulties.  
Commissioner Gollakota commented on the following:  
- Expressed concern over income disparities in the area and the heavy reliance of  
students on VTA transit.  
- Noted that Fremont Union High School District offered students the option to  
request bus passes based on their ZIP code.  
- Shared that during a recent VTA strike, the district had to hire four buses at  
significant cost to ensure student transportation.  
- Reported that the district receives approximately 700 bus passes, with at least  
400 distributed to students, though many still struggle with transportation.  
- Highlighted challenges for students participating in after-school activities due to  
limited VTA service.  
- Warned that the loss of VTA transit options could negatively impact students,  
citing cases of school dropouts caused by transportation difficulties.  
- Pointed out that there is no high school in northern Sunnyvale, making transit  
access even more critical for local students.  
Commissioner Mehlman commented on the following:  
- Highlighted the impact of transit funding on climate action goals, greenhouse gas  
reductions, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) targets.  
- Warned that financial challenges at the federal and state levels could hinder  
long-term sustainability, making recovery difficult.  
- Stressed that achieving emissions reductions and climate goals depends on  
maintaining robust transit systems.  
- Noted that efforts to implement a unified Bay Area transit pass require funding to  
address interagency coordination challenges.  
- Advocated for a single transit system covering Caltrans, VTA, and BART to  
simplify fare payments.  
- Expressed disappointment that federal funding plays such a critical role in transit  
agency operations.  
NON-AGENDA ITEMS AND COMMENTS  
-Commissioner Comments  
Commissioner Mehlman commented on the following:  
- Announced that the El Camino bike ride will take place on Saturday, May 17,  
starting at the Caltrain station in Santa Clara and proceeding to Menlo Park.  
- Mentioned providing medical support for the event.  
- Shared that the ride is approximately 17 miles, but participants can join at various  
points.  
- Directed interested riders to register on Eventbrite, even if the event appears  
waitlisted.  
- Recommended checking route maps at Bike Silicon Valley (bikesiliconvalley.org).  
- Encouraged participation to support efforts for a bicycle link along El Camino  
Real.  
- Expressed hope that strong turnout will help push for the El Camino Real  
Improvement Project.  
-Staff Comments  
Mr. Le commented on the following:  
- Announced that Sunnyvale hosted an energizer station for Bike to Work Day at  
Plaza Del Sol.  
- Encouraged participation in the ongoing survey for the Sunnyvale Caltrain Station  
Bicycle and Pedestrian Access Study, which closes on May 25.  
- Shared details about upcoming events for the East Channel Trail Study, including  
in-person workshops on June 12 at Sunnyvale Community Center and June 16 at  
Columbia Middle School Library, plus an online session on June 18.  
- Noted key budget meetings:  
- May 22 at 8:30 a.m. – Budget workshop with Council reviewing  
recommendations.  
- June 3 at 7 p.m. – Budget introduction and fee schedule review.  
- June 17 at 7 p.m. – Budget adoption and utility rate discussions.  
Ms. Tsang commented on the following:  
- Announced that city staff will host a pop-up event for the East Channel Trail on  
Saturday, May 17, at the Sprouts Supermarket Parking Lot, as part of the El  
Camino Real ride.  
- The Village Center Master Plan that was initially scheduled to be presented to the  
BPAC in April will instead go directly to the Planning Commission due to project  
deadlines.  
- The Planning Commission will review the plan on Monday, June 16, followed by  
City Council adoption on Tuesday, July 1.  
INFORMATION ONLY REPORTS/ITEMS  
25-0624  
25-0625  
25-0626  
BPAC 2025 Annual Work Plan  
Active Items List May 2025  
2025 Deferred Study Issues  
2026 Proposed Study Issues  
25-0627  
ADJOURNMENT  
Chair Beagle adjourned the meeting at 11:29 p.m.