A group of Sunnyvale residents feels their concerns about the removal of parking along their street is being drowned out by a vocal cyclist lobby.
At its Oct. 16 meeting, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) considered an item that aims to increase Sunnyvale’s bicycle connectivity. During that meeting, the BPAC voted to recommend the city council remove parking along Hollenbeck Avenue.
But a group of area residents said the BPAC and other cycling groups are not considering the full impact on the area, failing to look at the bigger picture.
“It’s not like we’re against the cyclists or against bike lanes,” Sandhya Panicker, a Hollenbeck Avenue resident, said. “It’s just so biased at this point … It almost seems like we’re being ignored, like we are entitled.”
The notion that eliminating parking will make the street safer or that it is purely for the benefit of those living in the area is a misnomer, Panicker and others said. With three schools, three churches and three parks, many people — not just those living along Hollenbeck Avenue — use the street for parking.
Eight residents interviewed for the story said adding bike lanes will not address the problem without first adding traffic calming measures.
“It is very hard for any council members to say no to any change. If they make these changes without reducing the speed, it’s actually increasing the safety issue,” said Ann Haren. “If you draw stripes, people will feel safer, but they actually won’t be safer.”
Service workers like gardeners, cleaners and caregivers often carry heavy tools and equipment, so they rely on having nearby parking, many said.
The lack of parking will also require utility workers for the power company, Comcast, AT&T and Xfinity to have to leave the area where they are working for lunch or breaks, they said.
Further, disabled and elderly people will have to walk farther to go to church or the park. Delivery people and rideshare drivers will have nowhere to park and will likely end up double-parking, creating a safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists alike.
At the BPAC meeting, city employees recommended removing parking on one side of the street, but the BPAC took a more aggressive approach, opting to recommend eliminating it on both sides. A survey of area residents showed that 57% opposed eliminating parking.
The stretch of Hollenbeck Avenue traverses Districts 1 and 3 — the districts of Vice Mayor Linda Sell and Council Member Murali Srinivasan.
In an email, both council members wrote that they’ve been meeting with residents to hear their concerns. However, both wrote that they couldn’t discuss the matter prior to the item coming to the city council.
To get the city’s attention, 100 neighbors to the project signed a petition opposing it and flooded the council chambers at the Nov. 18 meeting, speaking during oral communications, items not on the agenda.
Despite the coordinated effort, sources said they have gotten only vague responses and dismissals, mostly pointing to the city meeting requirements.
Simply saying the law doesn’t require something, Susan Selna said, is “lazy.” She called the matter a “community issue, not a biking issue.”
Vikaram Jayaraman called the city’s approach so far an “agenda without common sense.”
“It just seems like egos at this point instead of practical solutions,” he said. “We are all for constructive solutions. This just seems unilateral.”
Tiffany Oho said she worried that such big changes would damage the neighborhood’s character. It will adversely affect those already struggling with a lack of parking, she added.
Lakshmi Ramanathan said the city should study traffic and parking more comprehensively. The city’s current tactic, she said, lacks a “holistic” approach.
Additionally, Haren said, the issue’s framing often fails to contextualize what is at stake.
“If you ask people if they want chocolate cake, people will say yes,” she said. “But if you ask people if they want chocolate cake that costs $5 million, they are going to say no. That is what we are talking about.”
The council will hear the item at its Dec. 2 meeting.
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Related Posts:
Sunnyvale Upgrades Bike Connectivity
Sunnyvale Council Takes Action on Tasman Drive Pedestrian-Bicycle Improvements Study
Council Narrowly Approves Bike Lane Road Modifications
Hi – I’m a neighbor in Fairbrae and I bicycle on Hollenbeck frequently and it is dangerous for even myself as an experienced vigilant cyclist. This article omits key information about the over arching strategy for Sunnyvale to accommodate growth through its Active Transportation Plan. Hollenbeck is currently a big gap as there are lanes to the south of Alberta and to the north of Danforth. There is strong majority support for Option 1 because it makes everyone safer. There is ample parking in single family home driveways and garages or side streets. The bigger picture is that Sunnyvale is growing by 30,000 residents in the next decade and without folks changing their mode of transit the result will be gridlock and that will harm everyone in the City. Option 1 can be enhanced to included delimiters which would implement the traffic calming the residents are calling for. Couple this with improved sight lines and the built environment will be both calm and safe.
Most of the houses on Hollenbeck Ave are 60 years old and have been remodeled many times, garages have been converted to living spaces, recreational spaces, etc. Many of the homes are housing multigenerational families and they do have more than two or three cars.
There are perfectly fine bike lanes on Mary Ave, much wider street and the whole network of safer streets between Hollenbeck and Mary Ave.
I wonder what happens when you reach El Camino, which street is the next target? It cannot be Pastoria Ave, it’s narrow and filled with parked cars.
I would think that if someone is genuinely scared to ride a bike on our street, they would use a safer route.
Those who say that street parking is a privilege are the ones who enjoy that privilege themselves.
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec, 2 to have your voice heard.
Enforce the law!
Compel these lawbreakers to undo their illegal garage conversions!
Restore precious parking!
Yes the city is growing and those moving in are driving not biking! They work all over the Bay. They are driving their EVs all over. No one is biking
People do bike on Hollenbeck, but not very many, because it is dangerous for bicyclists. We have seen increases in road use by bicyclists when safe bike lanes are installed. Not everyone is going to ride a bike, but it makes sense to have safe facilities for those who choose to use a mode of transportation that does not pollute.
All ourTeslas are clean energy! The excuse of pollution is mute!
According to 2020 census almost 20% of Sunnyvale population is the age of 60 or older. Let’s change their commuting habits and get these people on bikes and out of their cars. Great idea
While I can’t tell if you are actually supportive of having seniors ditch their cars for bike or not. I can assure you that it would be helpful on many levels. Riding bikes helps with longevity and overall heath. We absolutely need people to ditch cars to stave off the climate disaster staring us in the face. We need street to be safe for all who choose to use them, not just car drivers.
Go tell your 75 year old grandmother she needs to bike more! And your 80 year old grandfather who had Parkinsons. Not every can or wants to ride a bike!
Not everyone can or wants to drive a car!
People who can’t ride a bike or trike safely certainly can’t drive safely!
Nobody supporting these bike lanes is suggesting that everyone has to go on a bike. But if we create safe infrastructure for cyclists that encourages people to ride, more people will choose to travel by bicycle, and there will be less congestion and less pollution. It will benefit both the people who ride bikes, and those who do not. Bike lanes will not prevent anyone from using a car, nor will they interfere with the use of a car. The goal is to give people a choice to ride a bicycle safely if they want to.
Heck yeah! Jessie is right! Get these geezers out of their three-ton, 100mph cars before they kill someone.
Bikes, trikes, and recumbents with battery boosts for all 60+.
Sunnyvale is a bit behind Mtn View with bike lanes. We have converted El Camino Real to a dedicated bike street. Useless as I have rarely seen any bikes on it. Worst design too as they added white barrier post and no parking along the entire street. Looks like it may continue into Sunnyvale soon as they have moved the lane markers a foot or two. Now haw will the trucks an buses have room to maneuver ? . Some lanes are so small carg have to ride over the green bike lane markings? who sized them? Then check out the ugly mess on California street. We have parking mixed with bike lanes but some are along the one lane street calming lane and others along the curb. There are plastic barriers and some look to be cement walls. Paint is everywhere trying to mark legal parking and not. I do hate the Evelyn street calming design as during rush hour.. it is far from a rush with 1 mile backups at the main intersection Even the Java street design backs up but that may be due to the light rail trains.
I bike on those streets and I never get stuck in traffic
Wasting time in traffic jams is YOUR choice, Dank.
This is a remarkably biased and sloppy article, beginning with interviewing eight people opposed, but not talking to any of the hundreds of people who have signed the petition in favor of bike lanes. Many of the statements show shown here are just not correct. Every house on this part of Hollenbeck has at least four on-site parking spaces; most have empty spaces in their driveways both during the day and at night, and the city survey showed that there are an average of nine empty parking spaces on very nearby side streets for every car currently parked on Hollenbeck. Installing bike lanes will not interfere with traffic calming. Thorough traffic and parking studies have already been conducted, and are available on the city website. This information was presented at numerous public meetings, and there was ample opportunity for feedback. Delivery people and rideshares will still have places to park, and there is no reason to expect people parking in the traffic lanes. Finally, there is no mention of the benefits of bike lanes anywhere in this article, including providing a safe way for students to get to school.
You are 100% wrong. The survey and petition says otherwise. Very tiny proportion need bike lane vs 70%+ have voted for option#3. Same goes for petition count as well. Learn facts before writing here.
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2 and have your voice heard.
You must not have access to the data because for all your arguments there is data against it. The city has data they collected that says residents overwhelmingly chose no bike lanes on Hollenbeck
The reporter doesn’t know what the Brown Act is or how it limits what a government body can discuss.
He’s not doing much to justify all the hand-wringing about the demise of local journalism. If this is what we’re losing, who cares?
You mean Sharlene Liu’s petition sent Tuesday, May 20, 2025 to the city without a single physical signature, address or date? (pages 192-197 of Full Agenda Packet). Just a list of names and statistics where they are broadly from (pasted below). Majority not on Hollenbeck or from the immediate neighborhood.
Contrast that to the Concerned Residents of Hollenbeck Avenue April 28. 2025 petition “Subject: Strong Opposition to Eliminating Street Parking on Hollenbeck Avenue with about 160 names, signatures, addresses and dates collected (pages 198-253 of the Full Agenda Packet).
From: Sharlene Liu
To: Council AnswerPoint
Subject: 163 people support Hollenbeck buffered bike lanes!
Date: Tuesday, May 20, 2025 12:18:46 AM
.
Name, name, name (no signatures/addresses/dates)
.
Residency of signers:
8 On Hollenbeck
51 Within 1/2 mile of Hollenbeck
81 Other Sunnyvale area
7 Cupertino
•••
This is in response to this subject if you are a person with disabilities living on these streets-
—a city cannot remove all street parking in a way that prevents disabled people from getting service or delivery, as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires accessible routes and services to be available. While cities can change parking regulations, they must provide accessible parking options and ensure access for people with disabilities, which often includes providing free, time-unlimited parking for those with a valid disabled placard or license plate.
Removing all parking would likely be a violation of the ADA, as it would effectively deny public access to services and businesses.
City regulations and ADA compliance
ADA requirements: The ADA mandates that cities provide accessible routes and services for people with disabilities. This includes ensuring that businesses and government facilities are accessible and that transportation services are available to everyone.
Accessible parking: Cities must ensure that there are enough accessible parking spaces available to meet demand. They cannot eliminate all on-street parking, especially in commercial areas, without providing alternative accessible options.
Disabled placard privileges: In many places, including California, a valid disabled placard or license plate allows the driver to park for free at metered spaces and in many other zones.
Removing all street parking would negate these privileges, which is not
permitted under current regulations.
Maintaining accessibility: Cities are required to maintain accessible parking and routes so that disabled people can access services and businesses, even if they cannot park directly in front of the entrance.
What cities can do
Reconfigure parking: Cities can reconfigure street parking to create more accessible spaces, improve pedestrian routes, or add new public transportation options.
Enforce parking rules: Cities can enforce parking rules and restrictions to ensure fair access for everyone, while still respecting the rights of disabled drivers.
What cities cannot do:
Remove all accessible parking: A city cannot eliminate all street parking without providing alternative accessible options that comply with the ADA.
Deny disabled drivers access to services: A city cannot remove all street parking in a way that prevents disabled people from accessing services or deliveries, as this would violate the ADA.
This is so true. The entire proposal is biased and only thinking about the biking lobby. So many absurd arguments made by bikers , and concerns of residents and those who use the parking for their livelihood, those who work here , totally ignored.
The study is totally biased. Parking usage tracked during ‘peak’ biking hours. But parking is not at peak for 2 hours . Parking is used the entire day. Parking usage checked every 30 mins? Misses all the school drops and delivery stops that happen within 30 mins. Study done on one week in a good weather day, ignores that bikers are hardly there on summer, winters and rainy days. It’s like speaking to a wall.
The cake comment is so accurate. We are not against bikers, but to benefit a few people at the cost of inconvenience, safety concerns and livelihood of a larger group of people? At the cost of millions of dollars?
The parking usage was not just tracked during peak biking hours, it was checked in the mornings, afternoons, and late at night. Unfortunately, the raw numbers are not included in the staff report, but the staff kindly provided those to me, and I can assure you that it was a very large survey on multiple days and at multiple times. There were more than 5000 individual parking measurements made. It was a very comprehensive survey.
The entire opposition is biased and only thinking about the parking lobby. So many absurd arguments made by drivers , and concerns of residents and those who use bicycling for their livelihood, those who work here , totally ignored.
The NIMBYs are totally biased. Geriatric shut-ins who never go outside insisting that Fox News and their Reagan-era assumptions about who uses streets are real.
The cake comment is so accurate. We are not against drivers, but to benefit a few people at the cost of inconvenience, safety concerns and livelihood of a larger group of people? At the cost of millions of dollars?
Store your private property on your own land, not in the public right-of-way. What’s next, putting your spare refrigerator in the street? Your old couch?
Thank you Silicon Valley Voice for this article. It aptly brings out the concerns that the community along Hollenbeck has. Speeding or rather overspeeding on Hollenbeck is a grave concern and creating bike lanes without addressing this issue will further endanger the bikers and pedestrians safety. Also it will create immense problems for the seniors and service workers who live and work in this corridor . This street is not wide enough for safe bike lanes and if we disregard this, we are putting the bikers in immense danger and causing pain to the community in addition to wasting our city’s dollars which could have been used to improve broken bike lane infrastructure elsewhere in the city
This was such a disappointing article. Not a single interview with anyone who has ever ridden on Hollenbeck, nor any on the scene reporting. Perhaps the author should have ridden down Hollenbeck before taking a few loud car lobby members’ word as gospel.
Had the author done any research before hitting “Publish”, they would have found the detailed research and analysis the city did, as well as Sunnyvale’s General Plan which clearly states that transportation uses take priority over parking when it comes to decisions on how to allocate road space. Hollenbeck is simply too narrow to have parking and be safe at the same time. It’s that simple: parking or safety for all?
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2 and have your voice heard.
Safety vs. convenience.
Safety for ALL pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. You cannot improve the safety of one group while reducing the safety of others
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2 and have your voice heard.
The concerns voiced by the residents is genuine. The decision to remove parking has overlooked common daily use that includes elderly, utility services, caregivers and young children.
While no one is against safety of the bicyclists it needs to be addressed keeping other factors into consideration. The decision can’t be biased to any one group and should try to arrive at a middle ground that addresses the actual issue of safety of the pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles alike.
The type of bicycle accident occurring most frequently on Hollenbeck is “broadside.” This can be addressed by slowing speeds and improving crossings but not by adding bike lanes.
The areas of Hollenbeck with the highest rate of bike accidents already have bike lanes. Adding bike lanes will not address the chief safety risk of bicyclists on Hollenbeck, which is high speed.
Adding bike lanes also adds pedestrians crossing the street (residents, soccer players, church goers, etc) who now will park further away. With the high speed this makes the street less safe.
Removing parked cars removes the only bit of traffic calling in place making everyone less safe.
Thanks for highlighting this. It is a safety issue.
A is wrong.
Bike lanes and removing street parking prevent broadside crashes by improving the sightlines at intersections and driveways.
Cars parked in the street block car drivers’ views of cross traffic.
Eliminate street parking so drivers can stop T-boning (“broadsiding”) bicyclists.
The engineers know more than you.
“Adding pedestrians” is good. You want people to walk places instead of driving. I’m not sure how adding bike lanes adds pedestrians. If you mean that people will drive there and park on a cross street and walk to their final destination, they were already driving, parking, and walking! There’s literally no difference!
I am begging people to actually leave their homes and experience the cities they live in.
It seems we all agree that Hollenbeck could be made safer, but treating “buffered” bike lanes as the only solution overlooks an important point: a truly effective street design should be safe for everyone who uses it — cyclists, pedestrians, children, elderly, families, service personnel, and those with mobility needs.
I have been cycling on Hollenbeck for nearly 15 years now, so I fully understand the safety benefits that bike lanes can offer. At the same time, I believe it is important that safety for one group do not unintentionally reduce safety or accessibility for others. For example, asking children, seniors, or people with mobility challenges to walk from spots way farther away on the side streets and cross a busy road throughout the day creates its own set of risks and congestion issues. Whoever calls this a “minor inconvenience” is ignoring a large portion of the Community. We are a community, and the solutions we pursue should reflect that. Safety shouldn’t be a zero-sum decision. We should be thinking about how to protect everyone, not just one group.
Safety for everyone in the community Vs Safety for one specific group of cyclists.
This was such a disappointing article. Not a single interview with anyone who has ever ridden on Hollenbeck, nor any on the scene reporting. Perhaps the author should have ridden down Hollenbeck before taking a few loud car lobby members’ word as gospel.
Had the author done any research before hitting “Publish”, they would have found the detailed research and analysis the city did, as well as Sunnyvale’s General Plan which clearly states that transportation uses take priority over parking when it comes to decisions on how to allocate road space. Hollenbeck is simply too narrow to have parking and be safe at the same time. It’s that simple: parking or safety for all?
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2 and have your voice heard.
Bicyclists don’t pay for the roads. They don’t pay vehicle registration taxes; they don’t pay gas taxes. They are a “fetish cult” that revolves around wearing lycra fettish-wear and shaving their legs. They ignore all traffic laws. They hate people who own cars; they hate progress. They hate America.
As a senior citizen who walks every day and lives one block off of Hollenbeck, I will be at risk everytime I try to cross Hollenbeck because the bicycle fettish-cultists will plow through traffic lights and crosswalks. Sunnyvale Police should have sting operations to prosecute them, but they never will. Bicycles should have licence plates so us law-abiding pedestrians can report them to the police when they run lights.
Sunnyvale City council should not listen to these cultists simply because they can show up en mass at city council meetings.
The city is not taking into consideration the impact this will have on the safety of our seniors who often walk on hollenbeck to go to a Serra Park or walk grand kids to school and church. If they do pass the bike lanes they will create an unsafe environment for pedestrians. Easy lawsuit for anyone who gets injured. The lack of due diligence by the city is almost criminal. The consultants they hired even noted this is not a good idea.
Drivers don’t pay for roads.
Government debt and subdivision developers build roads.
Cars do more damage to pavement than any fuel, registration, and sales tax can ever pay to repair.
Bicycles and their riders do not damage roads, but our taxes service the debt we went into to build your stupid roads.
Plus, we own cars and pay those taxes, too.
I swear to God, you people have been saying the same nonsense for 40 years. Ronald Reagan has been a public urinal for twenty years now. It’s time to move on.
Why do you keep bringing up Reagan? What does he have to do with the useless and dangerous bike lane on Hollenbeck? Most of us were not born or were like 2 years old when he was president.
Nancy?
The Throat GOAT herself!
I am a resident who lives in Hollenbeck Ave, and the removal of street parking will affect my day to day life.
While we all support safety and connectivity, the current proposal feels unilateral and ignores the voices of the people who actually live here. A recent survey showed that 57% of residents oppose eliminating this parking, yet we are being steamrolled by a process that feels biased from the start.
1. It’s Not Just About Parking, It’s About People Proponents argue we have driveways, but they are missing the bigger picture. Who uses that street parking?
Service Workers: Gardeners, house cleaners, and caregivers who carry heavy equipment need close access.
The Elderly & Disabled: Asking our most vulnerable neighbors to walk further to get to church or the park is unfair and discriminatory.
Deliveries & Rideshares: Without curb space, drivers will likely end up double-parking, creating a new safety hazard for everyone—including the cyclists this plan is supposed to help.
2. The “Safety” Paradox Painting a stripe on the ground doesn’t magically make a street safer. In fact, opening up the road by removing parked cars often encourages cars to drive faster if traffic calming measures aren’t added first. As one neighbor famously put it, “If you draw stripes, people will feel safer, but they actually won’t be safer.” We need a holistic approach that slows traffic, not just a coat of paint.
3. A “Holistic” Failure This plan affects three schools, three churches, and three parks. It ignores the reality of utility workers who need space to work on our power lines and internet. It ignores the character of our neighborhood. It feels like the city is asking us if we want “chocolate cake” (bike lanes) without telling us the cake costs $5 million (the massive disruption to our daily lives).
We are not anti-bike. We are pro-common sense. We want a solution that works for everyone, not just a vocal minority.
The bike lanes work for everyone. The general plan is the voice of everyone.
YOU are the vocal minority demanding special treatment.
Sunnyvale’s General Plan and LUTE are plans and policy guidance. NOT absolutes. Are subject to case by case considerations, balancing community needs, costs and other situations.
Data Driven Situations
=======
Hollenbeck Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume up to 13,500 weekdays and 9,730 weekends vs. 105 bicycles during 14-hour weekday bike count
Hollenbeck average 85th percentile speed of 34 MPH with bursts of 40+ MPH vs. posted 30 MPH limit is incompatible with increased bike use.
I am quite involved in our lovely community.
My kids biked to SMS and Homestead. They say that students would continue to use existing bike kanes even if Hollenbeck had bike lanes because Hollenbeck is the dividing line between Fremont High and Homestead High. As a result most Homestead students live closer to Mary and would take that as it puts them directly into campus.
2. Students from the north side of El Camino prefer Mary because the bike lane extends there but not on narrow Pastoria which has a lot of morning office and Cumberland elementary traffic.
Challenger school dropoff will be a huge mess if bike lanes are implemented. Traffic will backup big time.
Cumberland elementary parents park on Hollenbeck to walk their young kids to school. If they cannot, then traffic will back up on Hollenbeck trying to turn on Danforth and Harvard.
I agree that bike lanes on Hollenbeck will lead to chaos. Instead traffic calming is needed and more policing of reducing/enforcing speed limit would help everyone be safer.
I vote for a holistic approach. Hopefully the council members do not become single issue voters.
At this point, it’s hard for residents not to feel bulldozed. The way this bike-lane proposal is being pushed forward looks less like thoughtful city planning and more like a predetermined agenda where community input is treated as an inconvenience. When a committee ignores staff guidance and a majority-opposed resident survey, then escalates to removing all parking instead of one side, it’s no wonder people feel their concerns are being written off.
The message being sent is unmistakable: the people who live, work, and rely on this street every day simply don’t matter as much as rushing through a project that hasn’t been fully analyzed. And when residents raise practical issues — safety, access for seniors, service workers, delivery vehicles, neighborhood character — the response has been vague at best and dismissive at worst.
If the city expects the public to trust this process, then it owes the public something it hasn’t provided: full transparency and a real, comprehensive impact analysis, not selective reasoning that happens to support a predetermined outcome. A truly community-focused government doesn’t steamroll neighborhoods and call it progress.
We’re not asking the city to “slow down for our feelings.” We’re demanding that it stop acting like community opposition is a formality to brush past and start treating residents as legitimate stakeholders instead of obstacles.
Please attend the council meeting on Tuesday, December 2 at 7pm.
Sharlene Liu and Kevin Jackson of sunnyvalesafestreets.org are corrupt Sunnyvale residents who have vested interest in building bike lanes across the city. They lure minors in testifying in front of council at the city hall meetings in exchange of free community hrs.
The city officials very well know this but won’t take any action bec they might be equally corrupt.
There should be a formal investigation against the biker community leaders and their financials.
I agree. $5M of taxpayers money on such projects is questionable. Many residents have raised concerns on prioritizing this spending on other critical projects yet Bikers association are very adamant on this. It’s incredibly important that police should open up an investigation against the said individuals on potential fraud.
Please attend the council meeting on Tuesday, December 2 at 7pm.
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2 and have your voice heard.
(The ultimate irony- the captcha verification was to select bicycles.)
JG’s accusations of corruption are slanderous and completely untrue.
The city conducted a poll and 57% responded they were against the bike lane. The people of Sunnyvale have spoken . A panted bike lane will not create a safer ‘em for bikers and pedestrians.
One argument for the removal of parking is no one parks on the street. The consulting company said parking was not being utilized there are very few cars on the street so residents will not miss it since they are already not using it. So based on that statement there is no need for a bike lane they already have a clear path since home owners are not using the street parking, But wait they also say Hollenbeck is unsafe because they are forced to weave in and out of traffic to get around parked cars? But wait the report by the consultant said parking was highly under utilized no cars were on the street? So which story is Sunnyvale Safe Streets going with?
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 2 and have your voice heard.
The consultant documented parking utilization which was low, but not zero. Having bicycled many times on Hollenbeck, I can tell you that there are enough cars that I am forced to either swerve into the lane with the cars or come to a dead halt and wait for them to pass before I can continue. There is no contradiction here.
Furthermore, the consultant documented that there are many parking spaces available on nearby side streets a very short walk from Hollenbeck. At night, there are approximately 9 unused parking spaces on side streets within a 2 to 3 minute walk of Hollenbeck for every car currently parked on Hollenbeck. Finally, most houses on Hollenbeck have at least one empty space in the driveway both during the day and at night. Based on the location of the parked cars relative to those empty spaces, it is clear that many people who currently park on Hollenbeck could simply park in their own driveways.
Crooked Sharlene and her crew is running illegal campaigns. Ban them from the city.
Buffered bike lanes are sorely needed on Hollenbeck to keep bicyclists safer — both bike commuters as well as kids. We should not prioritize more convenient car parking over safety. Every house on Hollenbeck has at least 4 car parking spaces — 2 in their garage and 2 in their driveway. Many of the houses there have even more available off street car parking spaces. There are plenty of excess car parking spaces a short walk away on side streets. Many neighborhoods in Sunnyvale and elsewhere do fine without on street parking. Multiple city policies prioritize safe transportation on our streets over private vehicle storage. Cars kill far too many people in the US — 40,000 every year.
For those who say everyone should bike on Mary instead, would you be happier if Hollenbeck did not allow motor vehicle through traffic so all the cars had to use Sunnyvale Saratoga instead? Cars are much, much faster and it is much less of a detour for them to go to Sunnyvale Saratoga than for bicyclists to go to Mary. Some places in the US and many places in Europe are making it harder to drive motor vehicles and easier to bike and walk because motor vehicles are leading us and our kids down to a dead end — dead for our kids. We all must bike and walk more to reduce climate change. We must make our streets much safer as well as reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Many lives now and in the future depend on us making our streets safer, reducing climate change, and getting more people to exercise daily. Supporting buffered bike lanes is a vote for safety, for our environment, for health, and for our kids. A vote against buffered bike lanes is short term selfishness and shooting ourselves in the foot long term.
So based on your pollution argument cars should have the most direct route to create less pollution. If drivers we banned and had to drive a round about way across Mary we we create more pollution. So driving the direct route is the best. And bikers love the fresh air and exercise so taking the longer route is more exercise for them and a healthier life. Win win!
BPAC is fraud and they don’t care about residents safety. These guys are simply overprescribing on bike lanes where it’s not even needed.
Choose option 3 on the petition.
Fire Sharlene Liu and corrupt city officials pushing on bike lanes where agenda.
Sharlene Liu and her blind followers have taken advantage of silent majority residents and got their agendas implemented.
Some of us have first hand knowledge on how they manipulate people with fake data and misguide residents.
We are going to show their bad tactics on Dec 2nd. Get ready.
City’s population of bicycle riders is shrinking dramatically. No one is using existing bike lanes. Only 4-5 bike lane supporters are the one who are yelling on getting bike lanes implemented at the cost of taxpayers money.
Ban these people and see the difference.
Sharlene Liu and her puppets have no f’ing clue how taxpayers money should be spent. They are all about spending this free money on their hobby instead of uplifting the society. It sickens us to the core when I see Sharlene and her puppies luring school kids into fake testimonies in front of the council.
Ban her out of the city.
City officials have completely lost their way in such projects. They are spending 10s of millions of dollars in exchange of something that doesn’t add any value.
No one… literally no one can provide answers on how many bikers will use this route if bike lane are implemented.
On the flip side, bikers don’t want to use the bike lanes on Remington or Sunnyvale Saratoga because they are too lazy to ride on these streets.
Ban these bikers and let’s use this money elsewhere.
Residents have repeatedly provided real data such as parking counts, traffic patterns, safety observations, and accessibility challenges, yet city officials have failed to respond or even acknowledge any of it. The community has put in time and effort to present facts rather than opinions, and it has been met with complete silence. When the people who live here do the work the city should be doing and are still ignored, the neglect becomes impossible to overlook.
Residents have not simply shared concerns. They have clearly described the serious pain points that these changes will create for seniors, families, workers, and anyone who depends on reasonable access to the street. Instead of engaging with these realities, some officials have acted as if these lived experiences do not matter. It is unacceptable for decision makers to push sweeping changes while dismissing the very people who will be most affected by them.
What makes this even more troubling is the complete absence of data from the city on how many cyclists will actually use the proposed bike lanes. There are no projected ridership numbers, no utilization estimates, and no evidence that removing parking and disrupting the neighborhood will meaningfully improve safety. Residents are expected to give up essential access and convenience based on assumptions rather than transparent analysis. If the city truly believes this project will provide the benefits it claims, then it should present the numbers to back it up.
The entire process feels rushed, opaque, and one sided. A change of this scale demands careful evaluation and genuine community involvement rather than a predetermined agenda that sidesteps important questions and ignores the people most directly impacted. Residents are not obstacles to be brushed aside. They are stakeholders, and it is long past time for the city to recognize that and act accordingly.
I have watched Sharlene Liu and her core group (including one council member who often gets called out for favoring bike lanes) meeting at her place and probably discussing how to get bike lane projects approved faster.
Worst part is they visit Cumberland and Cherry Chase and talk to minors without their parents consent and force them to sign petition.
Some school authorities have raised this concern. I hope someone takes an action against these people and the said council member is stripped off from the council.
Please attend the city council meeting on Tuesday, December 2 at 7pm and have your once heard.
Interesting! It would be priceless if you had pictures or security cam footage of Sharon having a so called “unbiased” city council member at her home for any type of meeting personal or business. Maybe some ethics concerns we may need to report and have investigated.
Sharlene Liu is a cancer to the society. She is always influencing city officials and council members with her demands. She visits school authorities during day time and distributes flyers and force them to sign off on petitions.
She is always carrying a camera and records everything. Be careful when is around you. She is likely to record you.
I concur with all comments on Sharlene and her committee. It’s really sad how city gives in to all her demands.
I hope the council members stop listening to her.
Sounds like city officials bow to her demands to shut her up. I can only imagine how annoying she can be and as a politician you have to smile and take if if you want the votes.
Interesting! It would be priceless if you had pictures or security cam footage of Sharon having a so called “unbiased” city council member at her home for any type of meeting personal or business. Maybe some ethics concerns we may need to report and have investigated.
So the price tag for this bike lane is $5M so in reality by the time it actually gets built it will be $10M. (And it won’t be the current mayors problem he will be long gone)
And the premise to build this is “if you build it they will come”. No one in the city has any data on what the forecasted usage will be, because it will be minimal! Is that how the city runs, build things and them hope and cross their fingers people will show up?
I am a bicycle rider, who lives in this neighborhood and even I think this is a bad idea. One of the arguments of the proposal is that kids need the lane to ride their bikes to school. If a kid is riding to school, it’s much easier to go through the neighborhood on the side streets. Based on my observing the traffic at 7 am, most kids get driven to school.