A1.	Staff recommends that a minor change be made to section (g) in order to clarify that this regulation is not meant to prohibit bicycles from riding on vehicular roadways in parks.
A2.	Staff recommends a change to section (h) to differentiate the rules and regulations that apply to bicycles on vehicular roadways in parks, and paths in parks. In addition, there are two minor wording changes that clarify the intent of the regulation.
A3.	Staff recommends a change to (i) to clarify that the regulation is not intended to prohibit multiple riders on legal multiple rider devices, or on passengers in bike trailers.
A4.	Staff recommends that (j) be deleted because there are some situations where there is a bike rack available but it is inconvenient or in a location which could be seen as a security issue to the bicycle owner. Staff does not believe that it is necessary to require bike rack use at all times, so long as the bike is in compliance with section (k).
A5.	Staff recommends adding to (k) to include trees and vegetation as possible property that could be damaged by bicycles.

Title 10 Vehicles and Traffic

A6.	Staff recommends that this regulation be deleted because it duplicates California Vehicle Code section 21200.

Chapter 12 Driving Regulations:

10.12.030 - Clinging to Motor Vehicles

A7.	Staff recommends that this regulation be deleted because it duplicates California Vehicle Code section 21203.

10.12.080 - Restrictions on use of freeway or expressway.

A8.

This regulation specifies that bicyclists may operate a bicycle along Central Expressway however Lawrence Expressway is not mentioned. Staff recommends modifying the regulation to include that any bicyclist may bicycle on any expressway within the boundaries of the City of Sunnyvale. This is consistent with the new policies that are being developed by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department, Bicycle Accommodation Guidelines as part of the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study.

Chapter 44 Freeway Access:

10.44.010 - Restrictions on use of county expressways - exceptions.

A9.

Staff recommends changing the title to "Restrictions on pedestrian use of county expressways". Staff also recommends changing the wording of this regulation so as to be less location specific, and more descriptive regarding the conditions that would allow or prohibit pedestrian activity. Currently, the regulation lists locations along County Expressways where people may walk. This change would eliminate the list of locations and add language that describes conditions under which a pedestrian may walk on a County Expressway. This is consistent with the new policies that are being developed by the County of Santa Clara Roads and Airports Department, Pedestrian Accommodation Guidelines as part of the Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study. This revision will not effect existing pedestrian access in any way. It will simply make the existing regulation easier to understand.

Chapter 52 Pedestrians and Crosswalks:

10.52.060 - Pedestrians standing in roadways.

A10.	Staff recommends that this regulation be deleted because it duplicates California Vehicle Code section 21954.

10.52.070 - Pedestrians standing on sidewalks.

A11.

Staff recommends rewording the regulation in order to specify the unwanted behavior of impeding the flow of pedestrian traffic rather than identifying locations on the sidewalk where pedestrians are permitted to stand. The intent of the regulation remains the same, however it would be more clearly stated that people who stand on a sidewalk must not block the flow of pedestrian traffic.

Chapter 56 Bicycles:

The following four recommendations relate to the Sunnyvale bicycle licensing program. Currently the Municipal Code states that it is unlawful to operate a bicycle in Sunnyvale unless it has been licensed. The Department of Public Safety uses this program as an education tool as well as a tool to return stolen property when possible. The BPAC has communicated concerns that the program could be used to justify searches and property confiscation without probable cause. The following staff recommendations are meant to address these concerns. In addition, the Committee has communicated concerns regarding the type of educational material that is distributed as part of the program and the extent that public safety officers are able to teach bicycle safety to those who apply for a license. Based on these concerns, staff plans to work directly with the BPAC to make the program one which they consider more valuable. Lastly, the Committee has expressed a desire to change the current mandatory bike licensing program, to a voluntary bike licensing program. This issue is discussed as part of BPAC recommendation B2.

A12.	Staff recommends that information be added regarding the intent of the license, as well as reassurance that the absence of a bike license is not used as probate for random investigation.

10.56.040 - License- Duration

A13.	Staff recommends that this regulation be deleted because it duplicates California Vehicle Code section 39001(c).

10.56.090 - Bicycle Frame or License Plate Mutilation

A14.	Staff recommends that this regulation be deleted because it duplicates California Vehicle Code section 39002(b).

A15.

Staff recommends removing the first sentence of this regulation. There was concern that this sentence could authorize Public Safety Officers to investigate ownership of a bicycle without probable cause that the bicycle has been stolen. This is not actually the case; however to avoid any uncertainty, staff recommends its removal.

10.56.130 - Equipment

A16.	This section duplicates the California Vehicle Code Section 21201. However staff recommends that it remain in the code because of its relation to bicycle riding in places other than public streets. Staff recommends that a sentence be added to clarify this.

10.56.140 - Riding on sidewalks and overhead pedestrian crossings

A17.

Staff recommends that this provision be revised to clarify that there could be some overhead crossings that allow bicycle use. In addition staff recommends that the City allow those 62 years of age and over to ride on the sidewalk. Staff believes this addition is appropriate because staff and the BPAC have heard from senior citizen members of the public who no longer feel comfortable riding their bicycles with the normal flow of traffic. Staff believes that there are qualities of the child and elderly bicycle rider that make them more vulnerable within the flow of traffic and therefore make it safer for them to ride in a more protected setting. Because of these qualities, staff believes that the protection that the sidewalk gives the cyclist outweighs the dangers of sidewalk bicycling.

10.56.150- Riders-Seats-Number

A18.	Staff recommends that a minor revision be made to the first sentence in order to relate it to bicycle riding on private property.

10.56.170 - Stunt riding prohibited.

A19.	Staff recommends clarifying this regulation to assure that it is not meant to prohibit stunt riding as part of officially sanctioned events, or in places clearly posting stunt riding as appropriate.

10.56.180 - Emerging from alley or driveway

A20.	Staff recommends that this regulation be deleted because it is covered by California Vehicle Code section 21200.

10.56.210 - Group riding.

A21.

Staff recommends deleting this regulation. Staff believes that there is no reason to prohibit riding abreast of another bicyclist since the rules on passing require bicyclists to move right to permit overtaking and that slow moving vehicles must keep as far to the right as practical if going slower than other traffic.

10.56.230 - Parking zones.

A22.	Staff recommends deleting the regulation that requires that bicycle parking zones be not more than thirty six-feet in length.

10.56.240 - Obedience to traffic control devices.

A23.

Staff recommends that this regulation be revised to state that bicyclists and pedestrians must obey the directions of all traffic control devices which are relevant to pedestrians and bicyclists, unless otherwise officially directed or particular circumstances make it unsafe to do so. The current regulation as written only specifies that signs indicating no right, left, or U turn must be obeyed by bicycles unless the bicyclists dismount. This revision expands this regulation to include all traffic control devices. A provision is also added clarifying that a person walking a bicycle is to be treated like a pedestrian.

10.56.250 - Riding on school grounds and playgrounds.

A24.

Staff recommends that this regulation be revised to state that it is unlawful to operate a bicycle in a reckless or irresponsible manner upon a playground or school ground where children are present. The current regulation requires a bicyclist to attain permission from a supervisor. However, it never mentions that it is unlawful for a person to operate a bicycle in an unsafe or dangerous manner. Staff does not believe that this is a strong enough regulation to prevent and enforce dangerous bicycling behavior and in a school zone. Staff believes that the proposed revision strengthens the ordinance.

10.56.260 - Bicycle lanes, route, and bikeways established.

A25.	Staff recommends including transportation as a reason for the City Council to establish bicycle paths. The current regulation only lists recreation and developing open space programs as justification for providing Class I bikeways.

10.56.280 - Bicycle paths- Class II use required and restrictions.

A26.	Staff recommends deleting this code because it is duplicative of Vehicle Code sections 21208 and 21209.

10.56.285 - Bicycle paths- Class I use required and restrictions.

A27.	Staff recommends updating this regulation so that it is consistent with the changes that are recommended for 9.62.040, and clarifying locational issues.

10.56.310 - Violation - Infraction

A28.	Staff recommends updating this regulation so that it is consistent with Vehicle Code section 39011.

A29.

Staff recommends adding the word "bicycle" to section (e) of this regulation. The current regulation states that any foliage on private property which interferes with vehicle or pedestrian access to any public street is considered a public nuisance. The code references vehicles and pedestrians, but does not mention bicycles.

A30.

At the February 20, 2003 BPAC meeting, a member of the public suggested the addition of a Municipal Code section regarding the operation of electric mobility devices, like the new "Segway" device, on the sidewalk. The California Vehicle Code leaves regulation of such devices to the discretion of local agencies. Staff believes that this is an issue for future consideration by the City Council. Staff has researched the reasoning behind the adoption of ordinances regulating the use of electric mobility devices on the sidewalk. It appears that in San Francisco, the ordinance was based mainly on public testimony rather than documented engineering or safety issues. Staff believes further experience with and research on the use of these devices is necessary before it would be appropriate for Sunnyvale to adopt such a prohibition.

BPAC Recommended Revisions

The following is a brief description of the BPAC recommended changes that have not been supported by staff. Additional detail, including the existing and proposed language of each recommendation, is provided in Attachment B.

B1.

The BPAC believes that debris boxes, trash collection stations and dumpsters in the street are possible hazards for bicyclists and recommends changing the ordinance to include the following regulations: 1. No residential carts, debris boxes, or dumpsters can be placed in a bike lane without proper bike lane closure and warning signs as recommended in the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook; 2. Debris boxes cannot be placed in the street where there is no on street parking allowed; 3. That there be a separate fee if a debris bin is placed in the street; 4. Active lighting shall be required on all dumpsters and debris bins placed on the street; and 5. That debris bins or dumpsters may not be placed on arterial or collector streets.

Staff cannot support this recommendation from the BPAC. Staff believes that the BPAC recommendation may stem from a faulty premise: that debris bins, trash collection stations and dumpsters in the street are hazards for bicyclists. In at least the last 12 years that the Sunnyvale refuse collection system has been in place, there has not been any reported accident or injury to a bicyclist that was caused by a refuse container in the street.

B2.

The BPAC recommends that bicycle licensing become a voluntary instead of mandatory action. The committee recommends that all codes related to the requirement of bike licensing be deleted. The BPAC feels that the Department of Public Safety is not equipped or trained to administer this program for adult bicyclists. The Committee also feels that the Department of Public Safety should work closely with the committee to improve and strengthen the program if it is to be a mandatory program.

Staff cannot support this recommendation from the BPAC. The issuance of a bicycle license is an important tool in bicycle safety. There are many reasons a bicycle license is issued. The first reason is to identify the bicycle not only through the physical fixture of an ID tag, but also through the recording of a serial number that can later be used to if a bicycle is lost or stolen. The second reason is to provide for the opportunity to allow for a regular inspection of the bicycle to ensure that the bicycle is in a safe and roadworthy condition. The third reason is that it allows for the opportunity to educate the bicycling public on the rules of the road and to help ensure the safe operation of the bicycle in a suburban setting. Staff recommends that the statutes for mandatory licensing of bicycles remain in place.

B3.

The BPAC recommends revising the prohibition of bicycle riding on sidewalks to allow for sidewalk riding by anyone subject to certain regulations that would be specified. The committee believes that in general, sidewalk riding is not safe and understands that there is a body of evidence that proves that bicyclists who ride on a sidewalk incur greater risk than those on the roadway do. Additionally, they understand that sidewalks are not designed with the safety and convenience of bicycle travel in mind, and they have not been designed for shared use between bicycles and pedestrians. However there are members of the Sunnyvale community, such as the elderly and the novice bicyclists, who are uncomfortable riding a bicycle in the street. Additionally, the regulation is seen as a deterrent for people who have never bicycled before and would like to begin to ride. For this reason, the BPAC recommends revising the ordinance to spell out actions that would constitute unsafe operation of a bicycle on a sidewalk, as was done in the State of Oregon, and require that all bicyclists on the sidewalk comply with the regulation. This will allow the people who do not feel capable of riding on the street the flexibility of riding on the sidewalk, with the stipulation that it be done consistent with strict regulations.

The reasoning behind the Sunnyvale ordinance is based strictly on the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. It has been staff's understanding that the safest way for a person to ride a bicycle is with the flow of normal traffic, following the same rules and regulations of motor vehicles. This method makes the bicyclists actions predictable and visible for both motorists and pedestrians. This view has been substantiated by studies and guidelines.

B4.

The BPAC recommends that the regulation that requires bicycles parked in the street be parked in a manner such that some portion of the bicycle touches the curb, should be deleted. They feel that this requirement is arbitrary. The BPAC proposes a requirement that no bicycles be parked in such a way as to impede traffic as a sufficient alternative.

Staff does not support this BPAC recommendation. The California Vehicle Code 21210 provides that local authorities may prohibit bicycle parking in designated areas of public highways. In addition, it specifies that a bicycle cannot be left on its side on a sidewalk. The Department of Public Safety needs a readily determined method of assessing the situation and the current criterion (one wheel touching the curb) is an objective measure that Public Safety Officers can easily refer to. The provision mirrors California Vehicle Code section 22502 that requires a motorcycle, while parked on the street, to have one tire or fender in contact with the curb. Staff recommends that the code remain as written because it gives a concrete, non-subjective regulation to enforce.

B5.	The BPAC would like a new regulation requiring that if a lane is narrowed below the standard width during temporary construction that a sign "Bikes Allowed Use of Full Lane" be posted.

Staff does not support this recommendation. Contractors and City crews follow the regulations specified in the Caltrans Traffic Manual and the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook regarding construction zone traffic controls. The city's encroachment provision section 13.08.190 (c) specifically states that "Warning signs, lights and other safety devices shall conform to the requirements of the California Vehicle Code and the traffic sign manual issued by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), or other recognized, applicable standards." The BPAC-proposed sign is not a warning sign, it is a regulatory sign and therefore it should not be used in construction zones as a warning sign. Additionally, the sign has not been approved by the California Traffic Control Devices Commission and is therefore not in the Caltrans Traffic Sign manual. This proposition also exceeds the intent of the study, which is to update obsolete regulations. Utilizing this Municipal Code update as a means to enact non-standard unapproved regulations is inappropriate.

B6.	Bike access to drive though windows  The BPAC agrees with staff that this regulation is not within the scope of this study issue, and that further study of possible impacts and benefits is required before staff or the BPAC could recommend the introduction of such ordinances.
B7.	Bike parking requirement for all new developments in Sunnyvale. The BPAC agrees with staff that this regulation is not within the scope of this study issue, and that further study of possible impacts and benefits is required before staff or the BPAC could recommend the introduction of such ordinances.
B8.	Speed bumps regulation in private development to assure that they have cuts for bicyclists and that they are properly marked for visibility. The BPAC agrees with staff that this regulation is not within the scope of this study issue, and that further study of possible impacts and benefits is required before staff or the BPAC could recommend the introduction of such ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no fiscal impact associated with the staff recommended revisions to the Municipal Code.

PUBLIC CONTACT

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee considered this item at its August 15, 2002 meeting. Additionally the item was also discussed at the June 20, July 18, August15, November 21, December 19, 2002, and the February 20, 2003 BPAC meetings, which are open to the public. This item was also posted with the Council Agenda. Reports to Council are also available at the City Library and the City’s Web Site.

ALTERNATIVES

Adopt the staff recommended revisions A1-A28 of Title 9, Title 10, and Title 13 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code, as reflected in the accompanying ordinance. Do not adopt the staff recommended revisions and make no changes to the Sunnyvale Municipal Code. Modify the staff recommended revisions A1-A28 of Title 9, Title 10, and Title 13 of the Sunnyvale Municipal Code. And, or modify some or all of the BPAC recommended revisions B1-B7.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends Alternative #1.