Special Meeting 6-19-19 PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
6:55 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, City Hall Conference Room C
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
SPECIAL MEETING
NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BICYCLE
PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission is hereby called for Wednesday, June 19, 2019,
commencing at 6:55 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of
conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading,
“Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 7:00 p.m. in City
Hall Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: April 17, 2019 minutes
Recommended Action: Approve April 17,2019 minutes
A - Draft Minutes
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission
on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most
cases, State law will prohibit the commission from making any decisions with respect to
a matter not listed on the agenda
ADJOURNMENT
Page 1
1
June 19, 2019Bicycle Pedestrian Commission AGENDA
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning
to attend the next meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability
that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48
hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance,
by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting
that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.
Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for
use during the meeting.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of
the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City
Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue during normal business
hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal
Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council,
Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as
supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are
accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are
hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written
communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall
constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to
the City.
Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is
described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of
that item. If you wish to address the members on any other item not on the agenda, you
may do so during the public comment.
Page 2
2
DRAFT MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
April 17th, 2019
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Jennifer Shearin, Pete Heller, Erik Lindskog, Gerhard Eschelbeck
Staff: David Stillman City Transportation Manager
Others Present: Roger Lee, Byron Rovegno, Ilango Ganga, Kathy Chole, Gary Wong,
Linda Wyckoff, Julia Miyakawa, Dinyar Dastoor, Wil Fluewelling, David Alessio, John
Liu
1.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Shearin moved to approve the February minutes. Seconded by
Lindskog. February minutes were approved. Commissioner Shearin moved to approve
the March minutes. Seconded by Lindskog. March minutes were approved.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
ORDERS OF THE DAY
1) Regnart Creek Trail
a.Roger Lee stated:
•He was impressed with the feedback receive from the public on the
trail including good turnout at the Walk Shop.
•The Trail’s goal is to provide a safe space for bicyclists and
pedestrians.
•Recognizes portions of the trail get close to the creek embankment
•There is 12 feet of width available throughout the trail distance
with 8’ paved.
3
•Water District will need to have adequate width to allow their
trucks to traverse the trail; this will determine where railings can
go.
•Railing could be removable or collapsible.
•There will be a meeting on April 23rd with the Water District to
discuss railings and negotiate where they are possible.
•Minutes from meeting with the Santa Clara Water District expected
by 19-April.
•Community meeting scheduled on April 24th to review progress of
design and feedback from Walkshop.
•Proceeding on planning to get to 65% design phase by May 21st.
•In advance of City Council meeting, Roger will return to Bike Ped
Commission on May 15th.
b.Public Comments from Gary Wong, David Allesio, Kathy Chole, Ilango
Ganga,
•Dinyar Dastoor: How was the cost estimate for Alternative 4
arrived at?
•David Stillman: $100K figure was based on costs for striping.
Roger Lee expects the number to be appreciably higher based on a
more realistic assessment of what is truly required.
•Ilango Ganga:
1.Railings are required for safety of children.
2.Setbacks are too close to homes. Need 10’.
3.Suggested looking at alternatives in view of definition of the
need.
•David Allessio:
1. Lives near library.
2.These trails would be a godsend.
3.We have prime real estate that is beautiful. It should
absolutely be opened to residents to give them the
opportunity to meet and enjoy in an auto-free setting.
•Gary Wong:
1. There are places that need more than just compacted gravel.
2. There is a grant deed from 1961 indicating there are areas
that are for flood control
3.Genuine issues of privacy and safety exist.
4.At one point the gates to the trail were open.
•Commission Discussion
1.Commissioner Erik
a.I am a daily user of the San Tomas Creek Trail.
4
b.There is no fence at all and no one is falling in.
c.People behave sensibly and cooperatively on the trail.
d. Quality is simply not comparable between on street
and cycling versus on a trail from a safety standpoint.
The consequences of a collision on the road are often
fatal.
e.The Trail area is unused space and would be valuable
to the community.
f.Proposal explained regarding reducing setback
distance on home owners land from fence to house.
This would be worth millions to homeowners since
they could build a larger house or monetize it when
they sell.
2.Commissioner Eschelbeck
a.Suggest lining the trail with hedges or trees to bracket
the trail.
3.Commissioner Lindskog
a. Several residents have gates from their yard with
access to the trail. For example, it is being used today
as a de facto private trail for those lucky enough to
live alongside it.
b.Alternative 4 has not been discussed in the BPC.
c.An alternative should at least be comparable to the
Trail in terms of safety since we know that cyclists are
commonly injured and even killed by vehicles. (We
know the ambience will be far less attractive for an
on-street facility.
d. Cars whip through Pacifica and La Mar. It is not safe
to route bicycles on high speed/traffic streets.
e.Along both La Mar and Pacifica any alternative
should be implemented as protected (Class 4) bike
lanes. Doing so would likely involve removal of
parking.
4.Commissioner Shearin
a.In favor of fences along the creek to address the fears
of parents. There have not been any safety issues
shown with other trails without railings between a
trail and creek; this would just be to ease concerns to
encourage use.
5
b. San Tomas Aquino and Saratoga trails which already
exist have far less width and align to creeks. There
are no reports of injuries from either.
c. Need to see an overhead view of where railings are
possible.
d. Asked whether the access point could be moved. Mr.
Stillman responded that’s not realistic due to very
expensive environmental review as it is a riparian
area.
e. Asked what the 1 on 1 meetings with residents are
like and whether residents have been willing to
discuss mitigation. Mr. Stillman responded, “they are
going well. We answer questions about the trail or
history. It has been very enlightening to get a better
understanding of concerns. Even with higher fence
doesn’t always mitigate concerns.” Met with all that
scheduled meetings. Others are less able/interested.
Primary concerns boil down to kids falling in the
creek; how to keep mischief off trail; vandalized
fences; noise.
f. Asked whether the trail can be opened as is just to
walkers. Mr. Stillman responded it would still need
to get the full Joint Use Agreement and be approved
by City Council. No difference to doing a full trail.
g. Asked what the plans for closing the gates are. Mr.
Stillman responded no plans for closing the gates.
h. Asked the cost of opening/closing the gates. Mr.
Stillman responded that info could be obtained.
Commissioner Shearin requested that it be available
by the next BPC meeting.
i. Asked whether the path could be lowered in places to
reduce visibility. Mr. Stillman responded there
would be very significant challenges with that
approach.
5. Commissioner Heller
a. Suggested that making perfection the enemy of the
good should be avoided. The city should employ a
scheme whereby fences would be installed where
there is enough room and leave gaps in the few places
where there is not enough width.
6
6. Commissioner Eschelbeck
a. Stated that while we are discussing Regnart Creek
Trail today, we are not planning a vote on the trail
today. That’s because we do not have sufficient
information about the options until we review the
65% design, which will be presented to the
commission at our May 15th meeting.
• Following the discussion Commissioner Lindskog proposed the
following motion. “The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is hereby
going on record as being opposed to Alternative #4 for the Regnart
Creek Trail. That is because Alternative #4 is not included in either
the Bicycle Transportation Plan or the Pedestrian Transportation
Plan, both of which are approved by City Council. Furthermore,
should any other alternative be considered, it must provide similar
safety characteristics as Alternative #1 by providing physical
separation between bicycles and automobiles. i.e., it must be
implemented as a Class 4 bicycle lane.”
The motion was voted on and passed 3-0 with Commissioners
Lindskog, Shearin and Heller in favor. Commissioner Eschelbeck
abstained.
2) BPC Work Plan
a. Mr. Stillman requested that feedback on the work plan be provided to him
prior to April 30th.
b. Mr. Stillman will compile the inputs and review them with the
commission during the meeting on May 15th. That meeting will be used to
finalize the plan.
3) Staff Report (David Stillman)
a. McClellan Class IV: Construction contract award approved by City
Council.
4) VTA BPAC
a. The expressways will be rebuilt. Commissioner Lindskog pointed out
that this will be the ideal time to add protected bikeways. Similarly,
where there is lane separation needed that should also apply to the
bikeways.
5) PR subcommittee
a. Discussed the Earth Day bike rides.
b. Decided to consolidate down to just the family ride to focus on the bigger
event.
c. Commissioner Shearin requested Cherie to promote the ride directly to
the schools in the future.
7
6) Bike to Work Day
a. Will be held May 9th.
b. Commissioner Lindskog agreed to acquire the coffee cake and food.
c. Commissioner Heller agreed to contact the Abundant Life Assembly of
God church to secure permission to place the tent in their driveway.
d. Commissioner Shearin will bring the coffee.
e. Commissioners Lindskog, Eschelbeck and Shearin agreed to man the
station.
NEW BUSINESS
1) Items for Future Meeting Agendas
a. None
2) Next Meeting – Information
a. May 15, 2019, 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:19PM.
SUBMITTED BY:
____________________________
Pete Heller, Commissioner
8