BPC 08-18-20211
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
FINAL MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
August 18, 2021
Final Minutes
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Jack Carter, Maanya Condamoor, Gerhard Eschelbeck (Chair) Ilango Ganga
(Vice Chair), Erik Lindskog
Absent: None
Staff: David Stillman, Staff Liaison
Others Present: Marlon Aumentado, Assistant Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. July 21, 2021 Minutes
Commissioner Carter motioned to approve the minutes as presented, Commissioner
Lindskog seconded the motion. Motion passed 5‐0.
POSTPONEMENTS
No Postponements.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Pranav Bollineni, Student Speaker requested a letter of recommendation for his research
and presentation at the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meeting on July 21, 2021.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The amended PowerPoint from the Crash Data Analysis from the July 21, 2021 Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission Meeting was added into the record.
OLD BUSINESS
2. Future Agenda Items
Carmen Road Bridge
Public places for bike racks
Education on how to use two‐stage left turn boxes
2
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
Path between Lincoln Elementary and Monta Vista High School
Next steps for commission Work Plan Item
Touchless pedestrian push buttons
The impact of semi‐rural designation on bike and ped projects/priorities
Adaptive traffic signal pilot update
Multi‐modal traffic count pilot update
Rental Bicycle Discussion
Junipero Serra Trail
Reassess the Intersection at Bubb Rd/McClellan Rd
Vision Zero
Issues with Concrete Barriers
3. McClellan Road Separated Bike Lane Project, Phase 3 (Aumentado)
Marlon Aumentado, Assistant Engineer indicated that Phase 3 completed the gap in the
McClellan Road (McClellan) Separated Bikeway Project (Project.) Phases 1 and 2 were
completed in 2019 and 2020. There was a grant received for construction in the amount
of $1 million and the City received the right‐of‐way dedication from 10490 and 10495
South De Anza Boulevard (De Anza). He was looking for feedback from the Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission (Commission) on the design elements.
David Stillman, Transportation Manager noted that 8 Phase signal operation was not
likely going to proceed. Staff was going to keep the split phase operation due to the
queueing on the approach of the west side of the intersection because it was extending
too far back, prohibiting left and through movements for vehicles. He noted some
aspects that will add a delay to that intersection were the crosswalk on the southern
side of the McClellan/De Anza intersection and keeping the split phase operation.
Mr. Stillman noted the next phase was to proceed with 35% drawings, which gets into
the engineering design portion of the project.
Chair Eschelbeck wondered if it was possible to have the center eastbound lane on
McClellan be a left turn and straight lane. Mr. Aumentado explained that the center
lane and the right lane would then have to merge once they reached the other side of
the intersection.
Commissioner Lindskog perceived a risk in making a left turn from McClellan headed
northbound because the bicyclist needed to make a big left turn, meaning being on the
outside of the vehicle on the far right of the intersection. He thought that might not be
obvious to the bicyclist. Mr. Aumentado noted there were green bike‐boxes
implemented for less confident bicyclists, where more confident bicyclists could take
3
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
the vehicle lane to turn left. Mr. Stillman said the proposal was safer because if a
bicyclist needed to make a left turn, the bicyclist would be on the right side of the bike‐
box, and there would be a natural movement into the northbound bike lane on De
Anza, without any conflicts with vehicles. Right now, the lane is more dangerous
because it is a shared left through lane.
Vice Chair Ganga asked about the green bike‐box on the far right on McClellan going
eastbound because most bicyclists will follow the bike path when crossing De Anza. Mr.
Aumentado thought that was a good comment and would ask the consultant about
that. Commissioner Carter was hesitant to take the bike box out until there was
confirmation that the bike lane was big enough to handle multiple bikes.
Vice Chair Ganga noted that if a bicyclist wanted to turn left, heading north on De Anza
using the bike lane, there needed to be a place for them to wait so they do not block
bicyclists going straight because right now there was not enough signal time to get
across the street to Pacifica Drive (Pacifica). Mr. Aumentado said he would make note
of the timing. He reminded the Commission that there may be more of delay with the
proposed improvements.
Vice Chair Ganga thought when cars were heading south on De Anza, making a left on
Pacifica, the road was narrow. Cars needed more space to turn left. Mr. Aumentado
reassured the Commission there was enough space.
Vice Chair Ganga asked about visibility for bicyclists on the bike path taking a right
from Pacifica, heading northbound on De Anza. Mr. Aumentado said visibility was a
consideration. Vice Chair Ganga suggested some striping stating a yield for bicyclists
coming from Pacifica because they might meet a bicyclist coming from the southbound
side of the intersection, heading northbound on De Anza.
Vice Chair Ganga asked how a bicyclist would make a right from McClellan onto
southbound De Anza and how the bicyclist would get from the green bike lane to make
the right on De Anza. Mr. Aumentado said a shift was needed for the bicyclist to make
a right; he would add that to the diagram. If a bicyclist was going straight, they would
stay in the green bike lane, if they needed to make a right turn on De Anza, they would
shift lanes before the intersection to prepare to turn. Commissioner Carter suggested
shared lane markings in the far‐right lane for cars making a right on De Anza from
McClellan.
4
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
Mr. Stillman wanted the Commission’s consensus to accept the additional delays with
the installation of the crosswalk on the south side of the intersection. He expected a
10% increase in delay overall along the De Anza corridor, and a 50‐60% increase in
delay at the De Anza/McClellan intersection, during the p.m. peak hours. Chair
Eschelbeck asked if the delay was expected in both directions. Mr. Stillman said once
the crosswalk was added, that would add about a 40 second delay every time a
pedestrian wanted to cross, which would be frequent. Traffic was going to be worse
with this improvement.
Commissioner Carter questioned whether there was a documented need for the
crosswalk. Mr. Stillman said that depended on how “need” was defined. There had
been a request for this crosswalk over the years but there was not an official study done
for the demand for the crosswalk. Vice Chair Ganga noted that the improvement would
cause quite a delay at the intersection. Chair Eschelbeck foresaw that cars would take
other routes and cause more delays surrounding that intersection.
Commissioner Lindskog thought a crosswalk was a good idea, plus it was good for
traffic to be slower on De Anza. Commissioner Carter inquired where the proposed
crosswalk would lead to because most people were probably headed to the Library.
There were not many businesses that the crosswalk led people to. Vice Chair Ganga
agreed and thought most people went to the Library. Chair Eschelbeck asked if there
were any use cases because he thought Commissioner Carter had a good point. Mr.
Stillman did not have any use case data; he was unclear where people were crossing to
as well. Vice Chair Ganga thought it was good to quantify the need of the pedestrian
patterns for the crosswalk.
Commissioner Carter asked if the crosswalk was cheap to add on the first phase of
planning. Mr. Stillman said ultimately it would be the same amount. If it was going to
be added later, the signal modifications needed to be done now, and then they would
be ready to turn on when they made the crossing functional. Chair Eschelbeck asked if
there was a way to test this scenario without the crosswalk in place before the
Commission made a decision. Mr. Stillman said that was a good idea, but traffic
patterns were unpredictable right now.
Chair Eschelbeck asked if a vote was needed regarding the crosswalk. Mr. Stillman said
the discussion was helpful, but he ultimately wanted a vote on the crosswalk. He
wondered if there was a way to move forward with 35% design and put the crosswalk
on a back burner. He suggested revisiting the crosswalk later, when there was more
information, to try to ascertain the demand/impact for the crosswalk, and then a
5
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
decision could be made before the construction phase. He suggested him and his team
coming up with some good information for the Commission to weigh their decision,
and then vote on the crosswalk later. Chair Eschelbeck agreed. Mr. Stillman added that
it will be another year before this project went into construction, so maybe he could
proceed with the design as shown, and then sometime in the next year, staff could test
out the need for the crosswalk. The Commission was fine with that.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Cupertino Vision Zero Program (Stillman)
David Stillman, Transportation Manager presented on Vision Zero. Vision Zero is a
strategy to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries, while increasing safety and equitable
mobility strategies. The strategy is to build collaboration among stakeholders, collect
and analyze data, prioritize equity and community engagement, manage speeds, and
set timelines. Vision Zero is in the Work Plan for the City Council.
Chair Eschelbeck said there were neighboring cities that were part of Vision Zero and
suggested hearing from them. Mr. Stillman said yes. Chair Eschelbeck thought that
would be beneficial for the whole commission.
Vice Chair Ganga felt the presentation was accurate. Engagement with the community,
education, infrastructure improvements and data collection were all important. He
looked into the City of San Jose’s model, as they have a Vision Zero Task Force which
meets every quarter and includes other stakeholders.
Commissioner Carter wanted to know how much of an impact this project was going to
have on implementations in the City, such as roundabouts, that citizens may not want.
Mr. Stillman reassured the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) that
community engagement was a huge part of this program. The focus of the program
would be to concentrate on locations in the City where there were serious injuries or
fatalities and look at measures to reduce risk in those areas.
Mr. Stillman wanted to identify next steps, like bringing staff from other organizations.
Vice Chair Ganga said once the Commission has the education of what Vision Zero is,
then a framework needed to be written. He suggested discussing foundational items
and what needed to be done with those.
Chair Eschelbeck inquired if a Subcommittee needed to be formed to accomplish more
work; he thought a Subcommittee could have a maximum of two Commissioners. Vice
Chair Ganga added that there could also be staff members that belong to the
Subcommittee. They could meet regularly and report back to the full Commission.
6
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
Commissioner Carter thought it was good to identify the structure, like what could the
Commission do differently from what they are doing right now. Chair Eschelbeck did
not think there was a need for Guiding Principles but thought Vision Zero could stand
on its own. He thought there could be areas identified in the future that need to be
evaluated and then adjustments could be made.
Chair Eschelbeck suggested thinking about whether the Commission wanted to form a
Subcommittee. Vice Chair Ganga agreed and wanted to make sure it was within the
legal framework. Mr. Stillman confirmed two members of the Commission could
discuss with staff but not with other Commissions.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
5. Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All)
David Stillman, Transportation Manager remarked that the Bubb Road Separated
Bikeway Project was nearly complete. School was back in session. Cherie Walkowiak,
the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Coordinator was educating students and ensuring
there was adequate staffing for crossing guards. Staff was moving forward with the
McClellan Road Phase 3 and the Stevens Creek Class 4 Separated Bike Lane Phase 2
projects. Staff was preparing for modifications on the intersection of Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Wolfe Road for the protected right turn phasing. Staff was working on a
schedule for the Phase 3 of the Bike Boulevard Project. Work was going to begin next
month on the Carmen Road Bridge right‐of‐way; he needed to work with the property
owner, which was keeping the City from having clear right‐of‐way access.
Commissioner Lindskog reported on the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Bicycle
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meeting on August 11, 2021.
Commissioner Carter reported on the SR2S Meeting for August 2021.
Chair Eschelbeck said Commissioner Lindskog was scheduled for the meeting updates
next month but was not able attend. Commissioner Condamoor agreed to swap with
Commissioner Lindskog.
Vice Chair Ganga requested an update on the Bike Fest. Mr. Stillman reassured the
Commission that Ms. Walkowiak would return to the Commission next month for an
update.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
7
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
Regular Meeting
August 18, 2021
SUBMITTED BY:
____________________________
David Stillman, Staff Liaison
Note: Any attachments can be found on the Cupertino Website
https://www.cupertino.org/our‐city/agendas‐minutes