Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bikeway Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves bikeway planning recommendations for De La Cruz, Lick Mill and Scott; directs policy work on protected lanes
Summary
After public comment and a multi‑year outreach process, the council approved staff recommendations for bicycle facilities on De La Cruz, Lick Mill and Scott boulevards and authorized staff to proceed with design and construction funding. The vote was 4–0 with three councilmembers recused; the council also directed staff to return with a citywide
The City Council voted to approve staff’s recommended design concepts from the De La Cruz Boulevard, Lick Mill Boulevard and Scott Boulevard bikeway planning study and to proceed toward design and construction using federal grant funds. The recommendation was the outcome of a two‑year public outreach campaign, multiple Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) reviews and consultant analysis of corridor cross sections.
What the council approved: staff recommended corridor concepts that generally maintain on‑street parking while adding buffered bicycle lanes or buffered-plus‑parking‑protected lanes where feasible. Key elements included: • De La Cruz Boulevard (Montague to Trimble): move to a 2‑lane traffic section with a center turn lane plus buffered bike lanes and parking retained on both sides in most segments (staff used the label “2C” for the recommended concept). Staff said the southern commercial segment could include parking‑protected facilities in limited locations where driveways and sight lines allowed. • Lick Mill Boulevard: recommend 2‑lane sections with buffered bike lanes and parking on both sides in the city’s study area (staff’s “3B” concept in the presentation). • Scott Boulevard: a mix of cross‑section changes by segment. Sections where wider rights‑of‑way permit buffers would retain four lanes with buffered bike lanes; narrower sections would be reduced to three or two lanes with buffered bike lanes and center turn lanes as needed. The presentation summarized collision‑reduction potential, parking impacts and modest travel‑time changes.
Funding and timeline: staff reminded the council that the study is supported with a federal community project appropriation and that roughly $2.7 million has been appropriated to move into design and construction for the corridors. Staff said the city needs to complete design and reach construction contracting steps under the grant schedule; the council acknowledged a tight timeline.
Public safety, parking and maintenance concerns: councilmembers and members of the public raised maintenance, trash and drainage concerns for facilities that place bike lanes adjacent to curbs — an issue that can affect smaller‑wheel devices and tricycles. BPAC and many public speakers argued for parking‑protected or physically protected bike lanes for greater safety; other commenters, including residents, urged the city preserve street parking and called for increased traffic enforcement to reduce high speeds.
Recusals and vote: Authority Member (Council Member) Gonzales, Council Member Chahal and Vice‑Mayor Cox recused from the vote because of proximity to project areas and possible conflict of interest. The council vote on the staff recommendation carried 4–0 (Gilmore, Hardy, Jain, Park voting yes; Gonzales, Chahal and Cox recused).
Direction to staff: in addition to approving the corridor concepts, the council directed staff to develop a citywide policy on protected versus buffered bike facilities and to return at the earliest practical date with operational recommendations — for example, pavement‑clearance, sweep‑equipment options, sight‑distance standards and schedule for piloting protected treatments — so that the city can implement stronger physical protection where feasible.
Public comment: dozens of residents, bike advocates and neighborhood speakers addressed the council during the item. Many urged physically protected facilities and faster implementation; several residents said they wanted the city to preserve on‑street parking and to consider impacts during large stadium events.
Implementation steps: staff said design work will proceed to meet grant deadlines; if additional funding is needed it will be sought through the city budget and regional grant programs. Staff committed to providing more granular cost and parking‑impact information in the March 11 materials as the design phase begins.
Ending: the council’s approval moves the study’s concepts into design and positions the city to spend federal grant funds for implementation. The council also asked staff to bring a citywide policy and implementation timeline for protected lanes back to the council in the coming months.
