Unclear to me. Does this mean bikes are banned at these parks, Rengstorff Park, Klein Park, Rex Manor Park, the Senior Garden, Whisman Park and other sites? All of them or just parts? If partial, how will it be marked? Who would enforce? Could the city council vote to tell the police and city officials not to enforce any bike ban beyond putting up signs? Though there wasn't a city council vote or discussion on it, ignoring and non-enforcement seems to be the method used for enforcing the smoking bad on Castro Street the last few years -- just walk by all the people sitting outside places smoking.

Why does the SFPUC care if our network of bicycle trails have poor connectivity? Shouldn't they just care whether we maintain the land in a way that works with their pipes?

Do government agencies pay property taxes or is SFPUC not a government agency?

@Taxes - That question was asked during the meeting. While a government agency, SFPUC has to pay taxes on properties outside of San Francisco County.

Homeowners in the San Antonio area may want to get their properties annexed to Palo Alto and then sell them for an extra million dollars.

Put in the park, put in a "walking" trail, and put up a sign banning bikes, and then write the agreement so that it's the SFPUC which will be responsible for "enforcing" the ban which they won't do. Revisit in a couple years, and when they finally remove the restriction take the signs down. But don't scuttle the whole deal.

Got to wonder if the "no bike trail" policy is linked to the Target parcel and its legal dispute with the SFPUC (Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.: 1-12-CVC-227801 ?)

And what problems are the 27 trees causing?

Long ago when i worked as a park commissioner in Los Altos we got the Hetch hetchy right of way for a bike route to Palo Alto. I goes from Los Altos Avenue to Arastradero in Palo alto. It crosses Adobe Creek and parallels the Alta Mesa Cemetary. Why now no bikes. It is a paved wide trail and is used a lot. it seems very inconsistent to now not allow bikes. These trails should connect. It is a very good off-road route to work for employees at Gunn Hi or the industry in the Stanford lands.

Not allowing bicycles seems silly. Can we turn off the pipe so San Franciscans drink sea water instead?

Could someone please explain to me what good it is to have this park if it's going to cost money, reduce clean air (by removing trees) and be useless to residents? It sounds like a big lose-lose to me.

Maybe they want it to "SAAAY" bikes are banned, but have no care at all about anyone enforcing it.
I would guess, (right or wrong) that liability goes up when you allow cyclists, so this way, they just put up 2 signs saying No Bikes Allowed
If an accident happens involving a bike and lawyers get involved, they can just point to the No bikes allowed sign, shrug their shoulders and walk away.

They want to be able to freely and easily use aerial survey of the pipeline so at times trees can and do inhibit that. I'm sure the plan was to just to let them eventually die, or maybe remove only if necessary, but now they can get them down at the cities expense.

May we please have the city consider using at least 50% of this new park as a community garden. Mtn View only has one (for non-seniors) and the wait list is nearly a decade long.
Thank you.

"We are altering the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further."

Darth Vader said it best.

Web Link

Amazing when the people own land and then aren't allowed to use it.

About the only reason I can think of for banning bikes is construction/maintenance of the bike path would mean bringing in heavy vehicles. The reason for the trees, I would imagine, is that tree roots can mess up pipes.

Their reasoning stated back in the 70's was that tree roots could be a problem with the pipes. Only shrubs were allowed then. so that is at least consistent with their former rules. But bikes should be allowed. Maybe the city needs to install a paved bike and walking trail like the one in Los Altos.

Cutting off the water that is the supply for Mountain View certainly does not make sense.

Nice way to support sustainability Mountain View.

Does this ban include unicycles? What about hover-boards, pogo sticks, skateboards, scooters, and inline skates?

I hope people remember that the developer who built housing next to this property was given concessions for promising to develop this park (right next to his property which would largely benefit his tenants) and has not had to do anything.
The citizens of Mountain View get screwed by big developers yet again, but in a whole new way!