The URL can be used to link to this page

10-19-2022 Final BPC PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION AGENDA This will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location Wednesday, October 19, 2022 7:00 PM Teleconference Meeting TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION TO HELP STOP THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 In accordance with Government Code 54953(e), this will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID-19. Members of the public wishing comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways: 1) E-mail comments by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 19 to the Commission at bikepedcommission@cupertino.org. These e-mail comments will be received by the commission members before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting. 2) E-mail comments during the times for public comment during the meeting to the Commission at bikepedcommission@cupertino.org. The staff liaison will read the emails into the record, and display any attachments on the screen, for up to 3 minutes (subject to the Chair’s discretion to shorten time for public comments). Members of the public that wish to share a document must email bikepedcommission@cupertino.org prior to speaking. 3) Teleconferencing Instructions Members of the public may observe the teleconference meeting or provide oral public comments as follows: Oral public comments will be accepted during the teleconference meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item. To address the Commission, click on the link below to register in advance and access the meeting: Page 1 1 BPC 10-19-2022 1 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda October 19, 2022 Online Register in advance for this webinar: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_AZ0X2g0uShSqQ2FEZQFpDw Phone Dial 669 900 6833 and enter Webinar ID: 925 0397 1324 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak) Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number. Or an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) 213.19.144.110 (Amsterdam Netherlands) 213.244.140.110 (Germany) 103.122.166.55 (Australia) 69.174.57.160 (Canada) Meeting ID: 925 0397 1324 SIP: 92503971324@zoomcrc.com After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Please read the following instructions carefully: 1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer. 2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation. 3. When the Chair calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. 4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to Page 2 2 BPC 10-19-2022 2 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda October 19, 2022 attend this teleconference 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, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, 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. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: August 17, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the August 17, 2022 Minutes A - Draft Minutes 2.Subject: September 21, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the September 21, 2022 Minutes A - Draft Minutes POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission and 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 on the agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS 3.Subject: Future Agenda Items (Ganga) Recommended Action: Develop and Maintain a List of Future Agenda Items for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 4.Subject: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website (Ganga) Recommended Action: Review Objectives and Messaging on, and Potential Updates to, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website NEW BUSINESS 5.Subject: Traffic Adaptive and Multi-Modal Count Pilot Program (Mitchell) Recommended Action: Receive Final Report on Traffic Adaptive and Multi-Modal Count Pilot Program Page 3 3 BPC 10-19-2022 3 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda October 19, 2022 6.Subject: Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Stillman) Recommended Action: Receive Update and Provide Direction for Bicycle Facilities Improvements Work Plan Item STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 7.Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Recommended Action: Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities FUTURE AGENDA SETTING ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this 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, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, 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. 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, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 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. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website. 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 4 4 BPC 10-19-2022 4 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11606 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 1. Subject: August 17, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes Approve the August 17, 2022 Minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™5 BPC 10-19-2022 5 of 70 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION August 17, 2022 Draft Minutes The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Jack Carter (VC), Gerhard Eschelbeck, Ilango Ganga (C), Erik Lindskog Absent: Grace John Staff: David Stillman, Staff Liaison Others Present: Cherie Walkowiak, Safe Routes to School Coordinator APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. July 20, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Eschelbeck moved, seconded by Vice Chair Carter to approve the July 20, 2022 minutes as presented. MOTION PASSED: 4-0, John Absent POSTPONEMENTS No Postponements ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Byron Rovegno, public speaker spoke about the $5 million given to the City of Cupertino to rebuild the bridge on McClellan Road. He wanted an underpass added for that bridge to the list of discussion topics. Vice Chair Carter stated the Linda Vista Trail was not open for bicyclists, but it could be used for pedestrians. Yuko Shima, public speaker spoke about the intersection on Stevens Creek Boulevard and Saratoga Sunnyvale and how students were crossing this intersection. This was 6 BPC 10-19-2022 6 of 70 unsafe. She suggested having crossing guards or posting a sign saying, “no right of way.” Chair Ganga commented there was already a discussion about the Stevens Creek Boulevard Phase 2 and there was a discussion of an upgrade of this intersection. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS David Stillman, Transportation Manager noted there was one Written Communication, but it was posted to the website, and it related to an item that is on this agenda. Yuko Shima, public speaker spoke about the safety of cars and pedestrians at the intersection on Bandley Drive and Stevens Creek Boulevard. OLD BUSINESS 2. Future Agenda Items (Ganga) Carmen Road Bridge Education on How to Use Two-Stage Left Turn Boxes Path between Lincoln Elementary and Monta Vista High School The Impact of Semi-Rural Designation on Bike and Ped Projects/Priorities Adaptive Traffic Signal Pilot Update Multi-Modal Traffic Count Pilot Update Reassess the Intersection at Bubb Road/McClellan Road Stevens Creek Boulevard, Phases 1-3 Legally Allowed Behavior at Stop Signs for Bicyclists Vision Zero Lead Pedestrian Walk Interval Lawson Middle School Bike Path Input from Seniors on the Bicycle Pedestrian Improvements Bollinger Road Safety Corridor Project AB 43 – Summary and how Commission can support implementation Bicycle Licensing (to prevent bike theft) Improvement of existing Class IV Bike Lanes, including maintenance Bicycle Facilities (Workplan Item) Review Objectives for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website - Update as Needed 3. 2022 Cupertino Fall Bike Fest (Walkowiak) Cherie Walkowiak, Safe Routes to School Coordinator gave a presentation on the 2022 Cupertino Fall Bike Fest. She discussed the roles of the volunteers, the timing of when people needed to be at the Bike Fest, the bike ride update and Sheriff activity. She requested feedback on a ride chaperone meeting date, possibly September 7 or 8, and feedback on the time for the chaperones to arrive at the festival. 7 BPC 10-19-2022 7 of 70 Ms. Walkowiak wanted the ride chaperones to meet at 5:30 p.m. on September 8. All Commissioner’s agreed. Chair Ganga noted there was another event happening on that same day of the Fall Bike Fest and wondered if the events could join. Ms. Walkowiak said it was not safe to hold the two festivals together. Commissioner Eschelbeck asked if there were any activities happening after the rides and if the two bike rides would return at different times. Ms. Walkowiak said the short ride would start at 10:30 a.m. and the long ride at 11 a.m. In the past people were not as engaged after the bike ride. Vice Chair Carter requested road markers for the ride. Chair Ganga asked if there were any booths discussing bicycle safety. Ms. Walkowiak agreed to ask the Sheriff to discuss this. All Commissioners were fine with the general chaperone meeting happening at the festival at 9:30 a.m. Commissioner Lindskog volunteered for the short bike ride and to train bike blender volunteers. Vice Chair Carter suggested stops on the long bike ride. Ms. Walkowiak noted there could be space constraints at some of the stops so there will be preregistration for the long ride, and the registration will be capped at 25. Chair Ganga said the family ride had two stops in the past, he suggested having it short, so people did not get lost. NEW BUSINESS 4. Cristo Rey Drive Bicycle Striping Improvements (Stillman) David Stillman, Transportation Manager gave a presentation on Cristo Rey Drive Bicycle Striping Improvements. Vice Chair Carter wondered how many children took this road. Mr. Stillman did not see lesser experienced bicyclists on Cristo Rey Drive. Commissioner Eschelbeck wondered about the cost. Mr. Stillman said the cost varied based on the option listed in the recommendation. For just sharrows it would cost a few thousand dollars, the option with the bike lanes and the center line being moved would cost between $30-40,000, which did not include any signage. The City of Cupertino’s 8 BPC 10-19-2022 8 of 70 portion was funded through the General Fund and the other half would come from MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District. He noted that the stretch of roadway being discussed was about half a mile Chair Ganga wanted to know if this project was identified as part of a Class 2 Bike Lane in the Bicycle Transportation Plan. Mr. Stillman said yes, and it was a Tier 3 project. Susanna Chan, Assistant General Manager, MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District (MidPen.) voiced her support for implementing bike improvements on Cristo Rey Drive. MidPen. was prepared to share the cost with the City. She understood this improvement was lower on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s (Commission) priority list but hoped that the cost share would move this item up on the priority list. Vice Chair Carter liked the proposal of the part-time bike path and part time sharrows but wondered if this proposal was confusing because the bike path would disappear and then reappear. Commissioner Eschelbeck agreed. He preferred the bike path be laid out all the way and understood one foot would be gained if there were alternating bike path and sharrows. Mr. Stillman said the centerline offset could be whatever the Commission decided. He noted it would be about 1-2 feet, it was not going to be more. Commissioner Lindskog repeated the option of having more space going uphill and wondered if there was a wider vehicle lane or a wider bike lane. Mr. Stillman explained the road was 30 feet from curb to curb through the entire segment. Commissioner Lindskog wondered what the benefit was of having a wider road surface going uphill. Mr. Stillman replied that it was an alternative because otherwise there would be 10-foot vehicle lane next to a five-foot bicycle lane, resulting in two minimum width lanes next to one another. To provide an extra margin of safety, either the vehicle lane or the bicycle lane could be widened. Commissioner Lindskog wondered if the other lane would have sharrows or would it also have a bike lane. Mr. Stillman said there could be sharrows or a bike lane downhill. Commissioner Lindskog thought if the road was not shared with cars downhill, it would make sense to make the bike lane wider on the downhill. Vice Chair Carter pointed out there was 30 feet to work with, the minimum for a vehicle was 10 feet on each side. If the bike lane was wider on one side, it would reduce the bike lane on the other side resulting in a non-standard lane. Vice Chair Carter said they would never split the bike lane to be four feet on one side and six feet on the other, they would have sharrows, which would mean no bike lane on one side. Mr. Stillman said if there was a bike lane striped, there needed to be at least 15 feet to the center line because the bike lane needed to be five feet and the vehicle lane had to be 10 feet. Commissioner Lindskog wondered if a five-foot bike lane downhill was wide 9 BPC 10-19-2022 9 of 70 enough. Chair Ganga noted that staff’s recommendation was to have a bike lane uphill and to have sharrows downhill. Vice Chair Carter only saw experienced bikers on this road. Chair Ganga remarked that if it was too steep, why not just go with sharrows. Commissioner Lindskog understood one of the concerns for the proposal was due to parking concerns. He suggested the Commission ride this path before they decide. Vice Chair Carter underscored this was not a ride for children. Commissioner Lindskog said if the Commission was only catering to experienced cyclist, then there was no need to do anything. Commissioner Eschelbeck thought five and five was a reasonable approach. Mr. Stillman pointed out there could be secondary benefits to striping bike lanes, one was possible speed reduction. Chair Ganga wondered if there were guidance between sharrows and a Class 2 bike lane. Mr. Stillman said there was no guidance one way or the other. Chair Ganga thought it could be confusing if there were Class 2 bike lanes and sharrows. Mr. Stillman clarified that he did not say it was not safe to stripe downhill, only that it could be uncomfortable for a bicyclist to be confined in a five-foot lane next to the gutter. A bicyclist’s tendency was to straddle the bike lane or just take the vehicle lane and share the road. Vice Chair Carter thought sharrows on both sides made drivers more alert and he was good with that. Chair Ganga supported having sharrows. He noted sharrows were less of an expense. Later, if the Commission saw a need, they could talk about another option. Commissioner Lindskog said continuing with a bike lane on both sides was a better option. Vice Chair Carter said the problem with the bike lane was it was very narrow. Chair Ganga asked the Commission if they had enough data to make the decision, or did they need more information. Vice Chair Carter said he had experience. Commissioner Eschelbeck suggested the Commission ride that road and push this item back a month; he supported either one of the options. Chair Ganga agreed. Chair Ganga wanted to know the cost of a Class 2 Bike Lane, in comparison with sharrows. Mr. Stillman said the cost was $10,000 if the center line was kept where it was, and over $30,000 if they shifted the center line. He recommended 10-foot and 5- foot lanes on both sides. Mr. Stillman noted that if the Commission liked the bike lane option over the sharrows option, then the recommendation would be to keep the bike 10 BPC 10-19-2022 10 of 70 lane consistent at five feet, the vehicle lane consistent at 10 feet and to keep the center line at the middle of the road. Chair Ganga recalled there would be a 50% cost share with MidPen. Mr. Stillman said the cost-sharing agreement would need to go to the City Council. Chair Ganga said Commissioners would make the ride and then this item would be brought back. 5. Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Stillman) David Stillman, Transportation Manager presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) on Bicycle Facilities Improvements, an item on the Commission and City Council work program for the current fiscal year. He was looking for some type of action tonight. Yuko Shima, public speaker wanted to know what bike amenities and facilities were. Chair Ganga asked if the City Council gave any guidance on how the money for this item would be spent. Mr. Stillman said no. Chair Ganga suggested maps online, as opposed to printed ones. He brought up that sometimes with bike racks there was a cost sharing agreement with the business, and he wanted to know if that was possible. Mr. Stillman said if bike racks were installed within the boundary of a private property, permission would be needed to install anything, regardless of the cost. His thoughts were to install them within the public right of way. Vice Chair Carter felt the City of Cupertino was not set up to facilitate safe and secure bike parking in the public right-of way. It should be close to where bike owners’ shop and dine. A facility or an amenity could be a bike rack, or it could be a bike repair station. When a business needed to remodel, they could install reasonable bike storage. Commissioner Eschelbeck inquired of an inventory of spaces where bike facilities could be installed in the public right of way. Mr. Stillman said there was no inventory. His thought was they would likely be installed on main streets, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard. There were generally wide park strip areas along those streets. Commissioner Eschelbeck suggested Phase 1 of this project include a map of where potential locations could be, then have this item come back to the Commission. Mr. Stillman said if the Commission wanted, he could come back with specific recommendations on locations. Commissioner Lindskog inquired if Walk/Bike Cupertino submitted a study on bike parking. He suggested converting car parking to bike parking. He did not suggest 11 BPC 10-19-2022 11 of 70 spending City money on bike racks, he suggested reviewing the Building Code and parking requirements and updating them to encourage bike parking. He noted that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) updated their bike parking recommendations recently, so Cupertino could compare with them. Chair Ganga suggested both: have staff come back with suggested locations and checking to see if businesses would be willing to convert some car parking to bike parking. Mr. Stillman cautioned against converting a car parking space to bike parking because there was usually minimum parking for new developments. Usually, businesses need every single space to meet their parking requirements. Commissioner Lindskog replied that was exactly what we wanted, to change requirement rules. Mr. Stillman agreed to look at the Code and see what changes were possible. Chair Ganga stated that would apply only to the future, not current developments. Commissioner Lindskog wondered if a Code change would apply to a certain redevelopment that might trigger a rearrangement of parking. Mr. Stillman replied that any time a discretionary permit was required from a developer, that would be the City’s opportunity to put the requirement on the developer. Commissioner Lindskog suggested maybe both can be done, work on changing the Code requirements and use the money to install bike parking in the public right of way. Commissioner Lindskog wondered about incentives and suggested having the bike rack partially funded by the business owner and partially by the City. Vice Chair Carter said it first needs to be known where bike racks can be installed. He said a business owner would need some reason to move forward with this. Chair Ganga said it encouraged shoppers to visit their facility. Vice Chair Carter wanted to know where the bike racks could be installed, perhaps having a map, and then set up some new or changed development requirement on where bike racks could be installed. Chair Ganga said after a survey of potential bike parking facilities, then the Commission could look at businesses that were closer to that facility and a conversation could be had about a cost sharing arrangement. Commissioner Eschelbeck said for the sake of discussion, ‘facility’ means bike parking. Mr. Stillman said ‘facility’ could be anything, such as a repair kiosk. Vice Chair Carter noted that when talking about bike parking, electric bikes need to be considered because they have thicker larger wheels. Commissioner Lindskog said compiling every place where a bike rack could be installed in the City was a lot of work. He suggested it be demand driven. Maybe there could be a website and people can submit requests on where they want a rack installed. Mr. Stillman said it would probably be a lot of work to convince businesses to install 12 BPC 10-19-2022 12 of 70 bike racks. Commissioner Lindskog replied that the request could be made from a private person, which might help. Chair Ganga thought it was best for City Staff to come up with a list of proposed bike facility spots. Vice Chair Carter suggested there be six to 12 locations. He suggested there possibly be bike racks just around the proposed repair stations. Chair Ganga suggested identifying areas where bike facilities could be installed first. In addition, he suggested having staff come up with a draft guideline for future developments. A third item could be negotiating with nearby businesses to have a bike rack. Commissioner Lindskog noted that a bike facility could be shower and change facilities with bigger companies. Chair Ganga felt larger companies were already doing that, smaller companies may not be able to afford that. Vice Chair Carter felt requiring mandatory showering and changing facilities was like a company offering medical insurance; it was a benefit they offered. He did not feel comfortable requiring a company to have showers or such because they may not be able to afford it. Commissioner Lindskog was okay requiring a shower for bikers. Chair Ganga suggested leaving the shower and changing station to a future discussion. Yuko Shima, public speaker understood the discussion involved a bike parking rack at private facilities, but she suggested a parking lot next to a public library because children go to these places. Mr. Stillman did not need a formal action. He understood the Commission asked him to come back with a list of recommendations for bike facilities. Part two was to take a closer look at Building Codes, looking at requirements and regulations for developers for bike parking and bike facilities, and determining recommended changes. Chair Ganga said yes, the item could be brought back as one item or separate items. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 6. Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) David Stillman, Transportation Manager sent a Request for Proposal (RFP) a few weeks ago regarding the Lawson Middle School Bikeway item and expected responses this week. Staff was going to review those and hopefully select a consultant. Regarding Vision Zero, he was going to meet with a Project Manager next week to talk about RFP’s and advertising in the next month. He did not necessarily need Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) input on that. He suggested convening with the Vision Zero Subcommittee after he met with the Project Manager. He wanted to communicate and get feedback before he moved onto advertising the RFP. Chair Ganga suggested a 13 BPC 10-19-2022 13 of 70 Subcommittee meeting after the finalized RFP. Mr. Stillman said school was in session and due to some delays, staff was not able to have the bollards in place by Kennedy Middle School before school started. He hoped that would be in place within the next month. There were some new suggested Safe Routes to School (SR2S) maps for Eaton and Lincoln Elementary Schools, because of the school closures. Commissioner Lindskog reported on the VTA BPAC meeting for August 10. Chair Ganga reported on the Mayor’s meeting. Next month, Commissioner Eschelbeck was to attend the Mayor’s meeting and SR2S meetings. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:21 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: ____________________________ David Stillman, Staff Liaison Note: Any attachments can be found on the Cupertino Website https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/agendas-minutes 14 BPC 10-19-2022 14 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission August, 2021 Cupertino’s 2022 Fall Bike Fest Bicycle Pedestrian Commission August 17, 2022 Agenda Item #3 15 BPC 10-19-2022 15 of 70 Topics ●Ride Update ●Sheriff Activities Update ●Roles and Timing ●Feedback 16 BPC 10-19-2022 16 of 70 Two Bike Rides ●Fun family ride for younger riders ●2.5 miles, flat ●Park stops with fun activities ●Infrastructure tour ride for adults ●8 miles, some hill ●Showcase infrastructure projects 17 BPC 10-19-2022 17 of 70 Family Fun Ride Route Activity Stop 18 BPC 10-19-2022 18 of 70 Family Fun Ride ●Activities at ●Civic Plaza ●Wilson Park ●Creekside Park ●Raffle and prizes back at Civic Plaza ●Activities by Rotary’s Cycle for Change (C4C) team 19 BPC 10-19-2022 19 of 70 Infrastructure Ride Route Tour Stop Police Escort 20 BPC 10-19-2022 20 of 70 Infrastructure Ride -Points of Interest ●McClellan, Phases I –IV ●Orange Ave ●Steven’s Creek Blvd, Phases 1 –III ●Carmen Rd Bridge ●Homestead Corridor ●Homestead HS improvements ●DeAnza Bikeways 21 BPC 10-19-2022 21 of 70 Sheriff’s Office ●Activities They Will Provide: ●Speed gun activity ●Clinic: How to Prevent Bike Theft ●Long Ride Chaperone 22 BPC 10-19-2022 22 of 70 Roles and Draft Timeline ●Gerhart &Lisa ●8:30 a.m. –Train Registration Table Volunteers ●9:30 a.m. –Ride Chaperone Meeting ●11:00 a.m. –Long Ride ●Erik, Ilango, & Jack ●8:30 a.m. –Optional: help out at the festival ●9:30 a.m. –Ride Chaperone Meeting ●10:30 a.m. –Short Ride 23 BPC 10-19-2022 23 of 70 Feedback ●Ride Chaperone Meeting Date: September 7 or 8? ●Time for General Chaperones to Arrive at Festival: 9:30 a.m.? 24 BPC 10-19-2022 24 of 70 Thank you!! Cherie Walkowiak Safe Routes to School Coordinator cheriew@cupertino.org www.cupertino.org/bikefest 25 BPC 10-19-2022 25 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Cristo Rey Drive Bicycle Improvements August 17, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda Item 4 August 17, 2022 26 BPC 10-19-2022 26 of 70 History •Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District conducted Rancho San Antonio Multimodal Access Study 2021 •Considered viable TDM strategies •Six strategies approved by Board for implementation •Carpool-restricted parking lot •Improved signage •Consideration of shuttle and ride-hail programs •Improved bike facilities at, and bike access into, Preserve •Cristo Rey bike improvements consistent with final strategy •District approached City to partner on cost-sharing proposal for completing Cristo Rey improvements 27 BPC 10-19-2022 27 of 70 History •Cristo Rey Class II bike lanes identified as Tier III improvement in Cupertino Bike Plan •Opportunity to complete project this year with cost-sharing 28 BPC 10-19-2022 28 of 70 Aerial Vicinity Map Cristo Rey Drive I-280 Fo o t h i l l B l v d 29 BPC 10-19-2022 29 of 70 Challenges •Cristo Rey 30’ wide with substantial grade changes •Speed limit 30 mph •Moderately high vehicle speeds and volumes, variable bicycle speeds 30 BPC 10-19-2022 30 of 70 Options •Five primary striping alternatives •Install Class II bike lanes throughout, both directions •10’ vehicle lanes, 5’ bike lanes •Challenging for downhill riding •Install sharrows throughout, both directions •Doesn’t meet intent of bike plan •Provides minimal added safety benefit 31 BPC 10-19-2022 31 of 70 Options •Alternate Class II bike lanes uphill, sharrows downhill •Unusual configuration •10’ vehicle lane, 5’ bike lane uphill •Alternate Class II bike lanes uphill, sharrows downhill, widen lane on uphill (bike lane) side •Potentially awkward transitions •Highest cost due centerline relocation •Do nothing 32 BPC 10-19-2022 32 of 70 Alternating Bike Lane/Sharrow Scheme Cristo Rey Drive I-280 Fo o t h i l l B l v d 33 BPC 10-19-2022 33 of 70 Next Steps •City Council approval of cost- sharing agreement •Installation late Fall 2022 34 BPC 10-19-2022 34 of 70 Questions? 35 BPC 10-19-2022 35 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Bicycle Facilities Improvements August 17, 2022 36 BPC 10-19-2022 36 of 70 History •BPC proposed and City Council approved the following 2022/23 Work Plan Item: •“Increase the inventory of bicycle facilities and amenities, such as bike racks, citywide” •$50,000 budget •Staff requests direction on scope and expected deliverables of Item 37 BPC 10-19-2022 37 of 70 August 17, 2022 END SLIDE City of Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 38 BPC 10-19-2022 38 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11607 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 2. Subject: September 21, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes Approve the September 21, 2022 Minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™39 BPC 10-19-2022 39 of 70 DRAFT MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION September 21, 2022 Draft Minutes The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Jack Carter (VC), Gerhard Eschelbeck, Ilango Ganga (C), Grace John, Erik Lindskog Absent: None Staff: David Stillman, Staff Liaison Others Present: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. August 17, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes MOTION: Commissioner Eschelbeck moved, seconded by xx, to approve the minutes as presented. Vice Chair Carter commented that on the Bicycle Facilities Improvement section, fourth paragraph, it says “Vice Chair Carter felt the City of Cupertino was not set up to install bike facilities.” He meant the layout of the City of Cupertino was not good for bike parking facilities. If there were bike parking facilities, they needed to be in locations that were easily visible. David Stillman, Transportation Manager stated that the meeting minutes needed to reflect what was stated, not what might have been intended. Chair Ganga asked for a correction of what Vice Chair Carter wanted. Mr. Stillman interjected that staff could go back and see if the recording reflected what Vice Chair Carter said. If it did then the minutes needed to stay as they were, if it did not, then a correction could be made, per what was said in the recording. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND 40 BPC 10-19-2022 40 of 70 MOTION: Commissioner Eschelbeck moved, seconded by Vice Chair Carter to defer the August 17, 2022 minutes until the October Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meeting, pending review of Bicycle Facilities Item 5, paragraph 4. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 2. September 8, 2022 Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, and Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Joint Special Meeting Minutes Commissioner Eschelbeck felt these minutes did not state the substantive discussion that was had. In addition, the minutes did not reflect some of the key points that were discussed. He was not able to approve the minutes, due to the lack of the substantive discussion. Chair Ganga brought up that Commissioner Eschelbeck’s name was misspelled. He agreed with Commissioner Eschelbeck and said there was a lack of content. For example, page two the minutes stated commissioners asked clarifying questions but there was a substantial number of questions and answers that were not captured. It was not simply clarification that was needed, those questions and answers needed to be recorded. David Stillman, Transportation Manager recommended a vote be taken to approve or not approve the minutes. He suggested each Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) member make their own decision with a vote and then he would proceed with next steps. Chair Ganga suggested stating they be approved, pending corrections of comments. Mr. Stillman was in control of what happened to the Commission minutes, but the Joint Commission minutes had to be approved by two other commissions and he did not have full control of those. He recapped his suggestion to take a vote to approve the Joint Commission minutes. If they did not get approved, he suggested bringing them back next month, either with new minutes to approve or information on what was learned in researching the outcome. MOTION: Vice Chair Carter moved, seconded by Chair Ganga to reject the minutes as presented. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 MOTION: Vice Chair Carter moved, seconded by Chair Ganga to request revisions for the September 8, 2022 minutes as follows: 41 BPC 10-19-2022 41 of 70 1. Address the lack of details in comments 2. Address the lack of completeness of the meeting minutes 3. Correct the misspelling of Commissioner Eschelbeck’s name MOTION PASSED: 5-0 POSTPONEMENTS No Postponements ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None OLD BUSINESS 3. Future Agenda Items (Ganga) Carmen Road Bridge Education on How to Use Two-Stage Left Turn Boxes Path between Lincoln Elementary and Monta Vista High School The Impact of Semi-Rural Designation on Bike and Ped Projects/Priorities Adaptive Traffic Signal Pilot Update Multi-Modal Traffic Count Pilot Update Reassess the Intersection at Bubb Road/McClellan Road Stevens Creek Boulevard, Phases 1-3 Legally Allowed Behavior at Stop Signs for Bicyclists Vision Zero (Workplan Item) Lead Pedestrian Walk Interval (LPI) (start the pedestrian green before vehicles) Lawson Middle School Bike Path Input from Seniors on the Bicycle Pedestrian Improvements Bollinger Road Safety Corridor Project AB 43 – Summary and how Commission can support implementation (to what extent we can reduce speed limits) Bicycle Licensing (to prevent bike theft) Bicycle Facilities (Workplan Item) NEW BUSINESS 4. Cupertino’s Class IV Separated Bike Lane Experience (Stillman) 42 BPC 10-19-2022 42 of 70 David Stillman, Transportation Manager gave a presentation on the review of the Class IV Separated Bike Lane Experience. Vice Chair Carter observed that anyone doing any kind of work liked to park in the bike lane, which left no room for the bicyclist to escape. Commissioner Lindskog liked the design on McClellan Road. Important was the visual impact. The separations on McClellan Road looked nice. Regarding the trash cans, he preferred to place those on the driveways, if there was a park strip. Vice Chair Carter noted that trash cans were run robotically, so the arm of the machine needed to be long enough to grab the trash can. When the garbage can gets placed down by the machine, it needed to not fall over. Mr. Stillman noted some discussion he had with Recology (waste contractor of the City of Cupertino) a few years ago and they did not favor any solution which would have the machine arms of the garbage truck go across the bike lane. Vice Chair Carter did not like the McClellan Road solution because the bicyclist gets trapped in the bike lane and the concrete was just high enough for people to fall over but not high enough to prevent cars from coming in. McClellan Road was not like Bubb Road where a wide Class IV bike lane could be constructed. When there was debris in the bike lane the alternative was to take the road, which was dangerous for bicyclists. McClellan Road was tough to negotiate; in a perfect world, it should be made wider. The tradeoff for McClellan Road is whether it is a safe route for children or an efficient commute route. Commissioner Lindskog noted there was an award for the design of that bike lane. Vice Chair Carter remarked bicyclists he talked to did not like the design. Commissioner Lindskog mentioned that bicyclists he talked to liked the design on McClellan Road. Commissioner Eschelbeck did not have a preference between the two design choices, either precast or cast in place. Both served a purpose. The thing on McClellan Road that he would change were the openings, places where a person could go in and out because the current design made a person feel trapped; the gap was too small. If the gaps could be made wider, that would be good. The other issue was cleanliness, debris in the bike lane. A third point was to measure the use, such as were there times of day where it was used more often. It was always good to measure success. Chair Ganga liked the pre-cast option. The second point was improving the aesthetics because it looked like a block of concrete and there needed to be enough escape points, especially for children. Regarding the left turn boxes, he was not sure how useful they were; it was hard for more than one bicyclist use at a time. Regarding the ‘no right turn’ signal, they were more easily seen at night than during the day. Maybe that was why people did not pay attention to them. 43 BPC 10-19-2022 43 of 70 Vice Chair Carter pointed out cars block the bike lane. People wanting to make a right turn were stopping in the green zone at Bubb Road and McClellan Road; right now, cars were stopping in the bike lane, which was dangerous. Chair Ganga wanted to see the design implemented for the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus stops. He referenced a raised bike lane so people could cross over to the island. Mr. Stillman confirmed that was planned on Stevens Creek Boulevard. Chair Ganga was anxious to see if it was practical once it was installed. Chair Ganga questioned whether there was information on the bollards, as opposed to the concrete barriers. He noted that bollards were used in quick builds to test something out and see if it was useful before something more permanent was installed. Also, it was better to have the plastic bollards installed than to not have anything installed. Vice Chair Carter said none of the solutions discussed will prevent a car from coming in the bike lane. Mr. Stillman said there was a location in front of Homestead High School where some posts were used in the buffer to create a kind of Class IV separation. A similar construction was to occur on Bubb Road, in from of Kennedy Middle School. The bollards were only done on short segments, such as on bridges or in front of schools. Commissioner Lindskog commented on special traffic lights for bicyclists. Maybe there was a situation where cars on the right had to give their right-of-way to cyclists. This preserved the flow for the cyclists. Vice Chair Carter said one problem could be people were preoccupied and did not pay attention to changes in traffic. Commissioner Lindskog remarked that changing the way cyclists crossed the side-streets made it easier for the cars and the cyclists to see one another. This was done by recessing the place where the cyclist crossed the side street. 5. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website (Stillman) David Stillman, Transportation Manager gave a presentation on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website. Chair Ganga brought up that the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission) web page was last amended in 2015 and there was a goal for 2025 to establish a mission statement, including measurable objectives to be achieved by the end of 2025. He wondered if there was data on the mission statement and understood there were some percentages in the 2016 Bicycle Plan. Mr. Stillman answered that there was data regarding biking to schools but there was not data regarding biking overall. The City of Cupertino had not recently applied to the League of American Bicyclists to upgrade our standing. He added that there was data going to and from schools. Vice Chair Carter remarked on “expand intra-city trips for errands and leisure by adults and seniors … etc.” It was hard for him to imagine what that meant, so it was hard to measure. Mr. Stillman agreed. 44 BPC 10-19-2022 44 of 70 Chair Ganga commented that if the objectives cannot be measured, there needed to be a baseline, which was a way to measure accomplishing the goals and how far the City was from their goals. Mr. Stillman commented that the first two objectives listed on the website could be quantified but the second two were very difficult. Commissioner Lindskog commented that the last bullet could be measured with a survey. Mr. Stillman said yes if the employer was willing to participate. Commissioner Lindskog suggested the last bullet be changed to “Expand bicycle pedestrian commuting to and from Cupertino.” Vice Chair Carter agreed and added the goals were good, there just needed to be a way to know they were accomplished. Commissioner Eschelbeck said there were two points to discuss, one had to do with the measurability of the goals, the second dealt with refining the wording. Vice Chair Carter said it was easier to measure traffic in the bike lane than it was to determine where the bicyclist was headed, except with schools. Mr. Stillman relayed counts can be made at intersections where there is video detection, but it would still not be known where people were going or coming from. Chair Ganga thought there should be objectives that were more measurable, and they should align with what is being done in terms of developing the bicycle pedestrian facilities. Commissioner Eschelbeck commented on measurability related to the website and suggested eliminating specifics and have it say to conduct regular measurements. One important aspect related to facilities was, were the facilities being used and how often. McClellan Road was a good candidate to measure growth in bike traffic. Vice Chair Carter agreed; if more people road their bikes, then the Commission succeeded, it did not matter where they were riding from. Chair Ganga thought it was important to have a base line to measure success against. Then there needed to be a plan in place to achieve the goals. Commissioner Eschelbeck wondered if there was a way to measure traffic and how many traffic cameras were in place to perform traffic counts. Mr. Stillman said there were video detection cameras at a dozen or more intersections and a lot of those video systems could perform counts. Commissioner Eschelbeck wondered if older data was available. Mr. Stillman said data would only be collected if the system was configured or told to do so. Chair Ganga questioned Mr. Stillman about the multi-model traffic count pilot and wondered if there was anything learned from that. Mr. Stillman said it was learned that the traffic adaption portion of the pilot was not very beneficial but the multi-model counts could still be performed for bicyclists and pedestrians. Commissioner Eschelbeck asked if a motion was needed. Mr. Stillman said no, he just wanted to have an idea of where to do the monitoring. He could then bring information back to the Commission as an update for multi-model counting Chair Ganga thought that was a good idea, that way there could be a baseline for the data. Mr. Stillman shared a bike counter he saw in Boston and asked the Commission if they wanted him to investigate something like that. 45 BPC 10-19-2022 45 of 70 Commissioner Eschelbeck asked if those counters were permanent or mobile because he would want something like that in an area where improvements were recently made. Mr. Stillman said the ones he had seen were permanent. Vice Chair Carter felt the counters should be mobile because they could be placed in certain areas around the City and become a reminder to people to be aware of bicyclists and pedestrians. Chair Ganga thought objectives two through four were the same. They collaboratively stated the Commission wanted to increase commute trips of bicyclists and pedestrians. The Commission needed to consider adding two other points, such as current projects and safety improvements. He suggested the Commission revisit the objectives on the website and rewrite them, as the Commission was not ready for the text today. Vice Chair Carter mentioned that if there was data, he suggested it be related to commuting to work or school, based on time and strategic locations. Commissioner Eschelbeck suggested one blended number that showed the increase of traffic and bicycle/pedestrian activity. The Commission needed to come up with a number that was doable. Chair Ganga said there needed to be changes to the objectives that were more measurable and second, there needed to be a way to collect data. He suggested each Commissioner make up some proposals and then bring them back for discussion. Commissioner Eschelbeck summarized that the website was good as is, but the objectives needed to be updated. That required a Subcommittee from Commissioners bringing back suggestions for the objectives. A second point was to update the profiles of the Commissioner’s. Independently, separate from the website, there was discussion of data measurements. Commissioner Eschelbeck and Chair Ganga agreed to be a Subcommittee to update the website. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 6. Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) David Stillman, Transportation Manager, mentioned some upcoming events and Engage Cupertino pages for the Capital Improvement Programs group. The Fall Bike Fest was happening September 24. Mr. Stillman reported that staff applied for three highway safety improvement grants on projects that came out of the Local Road Safety Program (LRSP.) Commissioner Eschelbeck asked for feedback on the LRSP to come back to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (Commission.) Mr. Stillman continued that a second grant applied for was the ‘Safe Streets for All’ Federal grant, related to the Bollinger Road Corridor for $360,000. This money allowed work to continue from the Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study. This proposed money was to get the project to the design documents for improvements along the corridor. Regarding Vision Zero, he reviewed the draft Request For Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to do the Vision Zero study; he 46 BPC 10-19-2022 46 of 70 planned on having a final RFP and scope within the next week. He suggested convening a meeting with the Subcommittee, so they were able to review the scope and RFP and discuss thoughts and edits. Regarding Lawson Middle School, staff hired Hexigon to perform the study. Commissioner Lindskog gave a presentation about the VTA BPAC meeting on September 7. Chair Ganga discussed the Mayor’s meeting and Safe Routes to School meeting (SR2S.) Commissioner Eschelbeck attended in September. Commission John was scheduled to present on Mayor’s Meeting and SR2S meeting for October. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: ____________________________ David Stillman, Staff Liaison Note: Any attachments can be found on the Cupertino Website https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/agendas-minutes 47 BPC 10-19-2022 47 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Cupertino’s Class IV Separated Bike Lane Experience September 21, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda Item #4 September 21, 2022 48 BPC 10-19-2022 48 of 70 Design Features •Bike Lane Width •Varies, 5’ to 7’ •Buffer Type •Precast concrete •cast-in-place concrete •flexible posts •Parked cars •Buffer Width •Varies, 1.5’ to 2’ for concrete and flexible posts •8.5’ for parking lane buffer 49 BPC 10-19-2022 49 of 70 Design Features •Treatment at driveways and unsignalized intersections •Driveway ingress/egress maneuverability •Termination of buffer for weaving zone •Treatment at signalized intersections •Control of right-turning vehicles •Positive control vs. yield control •Termination of buffer for weaving zone •Vehicle lane width •Minimum 10’ •Generally adjacent to or within 6” of buffer 50 BPC 10-19-2022 50 of 70 Design Features •Left-turn two-stage bike boxes at signalized intersections •Trash pickup accommodation in residential areas 51 BPC 10-19-2022 51 of 70 Bubb Road •Precast concrete buffer, 1.5’ wide •7’ bike lane •4’ shy distance 52 BPC 10-19-2022 52 of 70 Mary Ave East side: •6’ bike lane •3’ buffer w/posts •8.5’ parking West side: •8’ bike lane •3’ buffer •16’ parking 53 BPC 10-19-2022 53 of 70 Stevens Creek Blvd •Precast concrete buffer 1.5’ wide •0.5’ shy distance •7’ bike lane 54 BPC 10-19-2022 54 of 70 Stevens Creek Blvd •Positive control of right turns at major intersections 55 BPC 10-19-2022 55 of 70 McClellan Road Ph 1 •Cast-in-place concrete buffer 1.5’ wide •Flexible posts on overcrossing •5’-7’ bike lane •Right turn yield at major intersections 56 BPC 10-19-2022 56 of 70 McClellan Road Ph 1 -Residential •Cast-in-place concrete buffer 1’ wide on 4’ wide valley gutter •6’ bike lane •Trash bins placed in bike lane, bikes detour to adjacent sidewalk 57 BPC 10-19-2022 57 of 70 McClellan Road Ph 2 •Cast-in-place concrete buffer 1.5’ wide •6.5’ bike lane •Buffer at grade for trash bins 58 BPC 10-19-2022 58 of 70 Pacifica Dr •Cast-in-place concrete buffer 1.5’ wide •7’ bike lane •Buffer at grade for trash bins 59 BPC 10-19-2022 59 of 70 Experience •Precast installation quicker and easier than cast- in-place. No significant cost difference •Sweeping labor-intensive. Narrow sweepers unavailable or ineffective •Driver perception of narrower travel lanes •Frequent replacement of leading reflective posts •Narrower bike lanes difficult for bicycle passing •Trash pickup challenges in residential areas 60 BPC 10-19-2022 60 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission September 21, 2022 61 BPC 10-19-2022 61 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website September 21, 2022 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda Item #5 September 21, 2022 62 BPC 10-19-2022 62 of 70 BPC Webpage (1 of 2) 63 BPC 10-19-2022 63 of 70 BPC Webpage (2 of 2) 64 BPC 10-19-2022 64 of 70 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission September 21, 2022 65 BPC 10-19-2022 65 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11608 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 3. Subject: Future Agenda Items (Ganga) Develop and Maintain a List of Future Agenda Items for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™66 BPC 10-19-2022 66 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11609 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 4. Subject: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website (Ganga) Review Objectives and Messaging on, and Potential Updates to, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Website CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™67 BPC 10-19-2022 67 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11610 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 5. Subject: Traffic Adaptive and Multi-Modal Count Pilot Program (Mitchell) Receive Final Report on Traffic Adaptive and Multi-Modal Count Pilot Program CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™68 BPC 10-19-2022 68 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11611 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 6. Subject: Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Stillman) Receive Update and Provide Direction for Bicycle Facilities Improvements Work Plan Item CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™69 BPC 10-19-2022 69 of 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item 22-11612 Agenda Date: 10/19/2022 Agenda #: 7. Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/12/2022Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™70 BPC 10-19-2022 70 of 70