In addition, we would like to share our perspectives about the two recommendations for the State Legislature and thus provided our input on them (Item #2.1 and #2.2 on Attachment A).
VTA will utilize its Auditor General to monitor and provide input on development and implementation of the corrective actions to help ensure they are both effective and incorporate best practices.
Lastly, in keeping with our continuous commitment to transparency, the Report will be included for public review at a future VTA Board meeting following CSA issuance of the final report scheduled for June 18, 2024. It will also be available on the VTA website.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our response.
Sincerely,
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
VTA Board of Directors
68 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Responses to California State Auditor (CSA) Audit 2023-101 of VTA Chapter 1 - VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight Of Capital Projects and Better Inform the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes CSA Recommendation VTA Response
1.1 To ensure that VTA’s board is fully informed
when approving projects, VTA should
update its planning procedures by
December 2024 to do the following:
a) Establish a threshold estimated
project cost that defines when
project planning must include the
performance of a cost benefit
analysis.
b) Conduct a cost benefit analysis for
all capital projects that meet or
exceed that cost threshold.
VTA agrees.
VTA will define and implement a cost
threshold for when a cost-benefit analysis
must be completed.
In addition, VTA will continue to follow
Caltrans’ Value Analysis process and prepare
value analysis studies for projects that are
$25 million and higher.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
1.2 To help ensure that it develops reliable cost
estimates for its capital projects, VTA
should develop procedures by December
2024 to do the following:
a) Document the methodology for
developing its capital project cost
estimates, including costs other than
those directly related to the design and
construction of the project.
b) Estimate the anticipated operation and
maintenance costs for capital projects
in development.
VTA agrees.
a) VTA will document our methodology
for developing our capital project cost
estimates including costs for all
phases of the project.
b) VTA includes anticipated operating
and maintenance costs in our Capital
Project Request Forms required for
every project and will document the
procedures in estimating these costs.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
1 69
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A2 of 8
Chapter 1 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
1.3 To help ensure that the board can monitor
cost and project schedules, VTA should
develop procedures by December 2024 to
monitor project costs and schedules
against pre-construction estimates and
present this information as part of its semi-
annual report to both the Capital Program
Committee and the board. This report
should provide status updates on the
agency’s existing capital projects and
identify deviation from projects’
preconstruction estimates.
VTA agrees.
VTA currently monitors project costs and
schedule and is currently enhancing its project
status reporting to the Capital Program
Committee and board. The project budget and
schedule at the time of contract award will be
monitored and reported, and procedures
documenting this process will be developed.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
70 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Page A3 of 8
Chapter 2 - Legislative Changes Could Increase the Transparency and Effectiveness of VTA's Board
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
2.1 (State legislature)
To ensure that VTA’s appointing powers
appoint directors based on their relevant
qualifications, the Legislature should
amend state law to require that VTA’s
appointing powers make public, consistent
with applicable privacy protections, their
rationales for the appointments they make
to VTA’s board, including a description of
the appointee’s relevant experience and
qualifications related to transit and
transportation.
This recommendation to amend state law for
this requirement is not supported by VTA.
Although the importance for requiring appointing
authorities to make public the rationales for their
VTA Board appointments is strongly supported,
VTA feels that the same results can be
accomplished via a simpler, faster method and
thus instead recommends amending the VTA
Administrative Code to add a provision requiring
appointees to the VTA Board to complete a
questionnaire before they can be sworn in. This
public facing questionnaire will document their
qualifications, availability, relevant experience
(including business, finance, project
management, and any other pertinent areas). In
addition, the questionnaire will require an
attestation from the appointee confirming their
understanding and willingness to perform the
responsibilities and requirements of a VTA
Board Member. Furthermore, the appointing
authority will be required to provide attestation
indicating review and understanding of the
considerations, requirements, and for serving on
the VTA Board as well as the questionnaire from
its appointee.
2 71
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A4 of 8
Chapter 2 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
2.2 (State legislature)
To make VTA’s term lengths more
consistent with those of its peer transit
agency boards and to help increase the
overall experience and stability of board
membership, the Legislature should amend
state law to increase the length of VTA
directors’ terms to four years.
We have concerns with the ability for this
recommendation to be implemented due to the
following:
• Term limit variations between VTA’s 16
appointing authorities (the 15 cities in Santa
Clara County and the County of Santa Clara)
• Variations in appointment cycles and lengths
of the numerous appointing authorities
• Four-year term could discourage qualified
applicants unable to fulfill entire extended
term
• Could adversely impact jurisdictions sharing
one seat – doubles rotational interval if that
appointment method is utilized
• Two current 2-year terms = one proposed 4-
year term
Also, VTA, as a transportation agency (transit,
state-required congestion management agency
(CMA), and sales tax implementing authority)
has somewhat different responsibilities and
priorities from a transit-only Board but was only
compared against transit-only boards.
VTA will continue its ongoing but recently
enhanced efforts to illuminate the advantages
and encourage appointing authorities to appoint
individuals able to serve multiple terms.
VTA will also continue its practice of encouraging
appointing bodies to reappoint members to
successive terms, wherever feasible. In
addition, VTA will strengthen our engagement
with alternate board members by including them
in appropriate board activities, including
educational opportunities.
3 4
3 3
72 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Page A5 of 8
Chapter 2 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
2.3 To ensure that VTA receives stakeholder
input on the SCIP, the agency should
ensure that it presents all subsequent
updates to the SCIP to the appropriate
advisory committees, solicits their input,
and presents that input to the board.
VTA agrees.
Target Date: The Strategic Capital
Investment Plan (SCIP) update
is anticipated for late 2025.
2.4 To ensure that it more effectively
safeguards against a breach of fiduciary
duty, VTA should complete the following by
December 2024:
a) Establish a policy requiring relevant
staff, including the secretary’s office, to
report to the FPPC those directors
who do not submit their Form 700s in
a timely manner.
b) Establish a process for verifying
whether directors have completed
their biennial ethics training and
following up to remind those who have
not done so to complete the training.
VTA agrees.
a) VTA staff, in consultation with Santa
Clara County Filing Officer, will
develop the policy and procedures to
ensure timely reporting of Board
Member Form 700 non-filers to the
Fair Political Practices Commission
(FPPC).
b) VTA staff will develop a
comprehensive solution that will
monitor the submission of Board
Member biennial ethics training and
that will include a reminder system.
Target Date: 12/31/2024 for both
73 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A6 of 8
Chapter 3 - VTA Should Adopt Several Additional Practices to Optimize Its Financial Health and Strategic Direction
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
3.1 To help ensure financial viability, VTA
should determine by June 2025 the extent
to which it can rely on revenue sources that
are less uncertain than sales tax revenue.
In reaching this determination, VTA should
consider taking action to increase its
farebox recovery ratio by, for example,
raising fares or cutting expenses. VTA
should then pursue any additional revenue
sources it identifies to the extent possible.
VTA agrees.
VTA is in the process of finalizing a
comprehensive Long Range Financial Plan
that will review the viability of all VTA’s
revenues and their sustainability, inclusive of
operating cost efficiencies to improve
financial metrics such as farebox recovery.
Target Date: 6/30/2025
3.2 To improve VTA’s forecast of future
financial scenarios, VTA should begin
forecasting multiple expense scenarios for
its transit fund by December 2024 and use
those scenarios to create a projection of
expenses to present to the board. Further,
it should incorporate into these projections
any anticipated increases in operational
costs because of capital projects.
VTA agrees.
VTA is nearly complete in developing a more
robust modeling tool to assist in long range
financial planning.
The Long-Range Financial Plan will enable
VTA to understand the external economic
factors and the risk they pose to our major
revenue sources, like sales tax. We will be
able to run scenarios based on various
internal cost assumptions, revenue trends
and external economic factors and how they
all impact VTA’s fiscal position.
This plan will also address total cost of
ownership for capital projects and include
assumptions for operating costs related to
those projects.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
74 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Page A7 of 8
Chapter 3 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
3.3 To ensure that VTA is consistent in its
budget monitoring and oversight, VTA
should adopt documented procedures by
December 2024 that include, at a
minimum, the following:
a) A process that VTA will use to examine
variances between budgeted and
actual amounts of revenues and
expenses.
b) The use of quarterly variance reports
by both the board and VTA staff, and
expectations for appropriate actions to
be taken when the significant
deviations are identified.
c) Assignments that show which staff will
be responsible for performing and
reviewing variance analyses, and
ensure continuity of these reviews
when there is turnover in key
management positions.
VTA agrees.
Although VTA has been following this
practice and presenting variance reports to
internal stakeholders, finance committees,
and the VTA board, we have not had
documented procedures guiding the process
of quarterly variance reviews with internal
divisions.
We are working on finalizing a procedure for
the budget office that will document the
aforementioned process, use of the reports,
and staff responsible for this
recommendation.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
3.4 To ensure that it is informed about VTA’s
performance against key financial
indicators, the board should require VTA
staff to regularly report on specified
financial metrics---including its farebox
recovery ratio, trips per revenue hour, and
operating cost per revenue hour---
beginning in December 2024 or sooner.
VTA agrees.
VTA is in the process of identifying the
various metrics to share and the cadence of
reporting. Certain operational metrics, which
have financial implications, are presently
shared with committees and will be
incorporated in full Board reports. It is
anticipated that this will be an iterative
process as VTA and the Board refine the
reporting needs.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
5 75
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A8 of 8
Chapter 3 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
3.5 To ensure that VTA has a current strategic
plan that incorporates best practices, VTA
should create a comprehensive strategic
plan by December 2025 that includes
goals, measurable objectives, strategies,
and performance measures to track
progress. It should also adopt procedures
to ensure monitoring of progress on the
strategic plan and regular reporting to the
board.
VTA agrees.
VTA will prepare a comprehensive strategic
plan. VTA staff will develop a workplan and
schedule for the development of the five-
year strategic plan for Board approval by the
end of 2024. The strategic plan will be
completed according to the schedule
adopted by the Board.
Target Date: Strategic Plan development
work plan and schedule by
12/31/24.
Completion schedule for
Strategic Plan will be
determined and defined in
Board-approved work plan,
and that timetable will be
communicated to the State
Auditor immediately following
Board approval of the
schedule.
3.6 To help ensure that the CEO is guiding VTA
to achieve its goals, the board should
formally adopt by June 2025 the new
evaluation process for its CEO and amend
VTA’s Administrative Code to document the
process. The evaluation process should
include performance expectations for its
CEO based on the agency’s objectives,
including the goals in VTA’s most current
strategic plan. All subsequent updates to
the evaluation process and its goals and
metrics should be formally approved by the
board.
VTA agrees.
Development of a revised evaluation
process for the GM/CEO that includes
expectations, goals, and performance
metrics is underway and any subsequent
updates to the evaluation process will be
formally approved by the board. In addition,
the VTA Administrative Code will be updated
accordingly to reflect the revised process.
Target Date: 6/30/2025
76 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Comments
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on VTA’s response to our audit.
The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of its response.
VTA asserts that it includes anticipated operating and maintenance costs in its request forms for every capital project. However, as we discuss on pages 15 and 16 of our report, for the three capital projects we reviewed in which VTA expected to incur operation and maintenance costs, we did not identify such estimates in the request forms. Moreover, as we describe on page 16, we found that VTA could not clarify which of its divisions was responsible for estimating operation and maintenance costs.
VTA’s suggested alternative to our recommendation, which it had not proposed to us before submitting its response letter, would create a split set of responsibilities that is not advisable. If adopted, VTA’s approach would result in a situation in which appointing powers would continue to be responsible for selecting, to the extent possible, individuals who met the experience requirement we describe in the text box on page 24, and the appointees would be responsible for public disclosures of their experience levels. Because VTA’s proposal would separate responsibility for making an appointment decision from the accountability for why appointing powers make these decisions, we believe the proposal is less preferred than our recommendation.
Under our recommendation, the responsibility to appoint and the responsibility to describe the rationale for that appointment would belong to the same entities:
the appointing powers. For this reason, we stand by our recommendation on page 36 that the Legislature amend state law to require specific disclosures from the appointing powers.
VTA indicates that several factors would make implementing a four‑year term for its directors difficult. Most of these factors were among the reasons VTA decided not to pursue a four‑year term in response to the 2019 study of VTA’s structure we describe on page 29 or were shared with us by VTA during this audit. Accordingly, we were aware of these factors during our audit, did not find them persuasive, and still made our recommendation that the Legislature amend state law to increase VTA directors’ term lengths.
Moreover, VTA’s response to our recommendation is generally the same as its response to a similar recommendation we made in 2008. At that time, we found that VTA directors’ tenure was shorter than the tenures of directors at comparable transit agencies. In response, VTA stated that it would encourage appointing powers to reappoint directors to consecutive terms. However, as Figure 6 on page 27 shows, VTA’s directors continue to average shorter tenures compared to their peers. The fact that VTA’s prior corrective action has not had the effect VTA desired over this nearly 16‑year period was a key component of the analysis that led us to make our recommendation to the Legislature.
1 2
3 77
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
VTA is incorrect in its assertion that we compared it against boards of agencies with only transit responsibilities. As referenced in Figure 6 on page 27, we compared the average tenure of a VTA director against the average tenure of directors at three peer agencies, including the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), which is also a congestion management agency (CMA). Moreover, Table 5 on page 28 explains the reason why it was not possible to compare VTA and OCTA with respect to their term lengths. Finally, VTA’s response does not make clear why having different responsibilities from other agencies is a reason why its term lengths should be shorter than most of its peers.
VTA asserts that it is following the practice of presenting variance reports to internal stakeholders. However, our review determined otherwise. As we state on page 47, we attempted to review evidence of variance report meetings over a period of two fiscal years for three of VTA’s divisions, for 24 total reports. However, VTA could provide evidence of only two of these reports. Nonetheless, we look forward to VTA’s implementation of our recommendation to document procedures that detail its variance review process.
4 5
78 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
From: Harry Neil
To: Public Comments; R "Ray" Wang; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen Subject: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:42:49 AM
Attachments: Stevens Creek Vision Phase 2 Coalition Letter.pdf Stevens Creek Vision Petition.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Attached are the coalition letter and petition in support of adoption of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study.
I hope you will take the input of residents, local businesses, and community leaders to heart.
Thank you,
Harry
To:
Cupertino Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Clara Mayor and City Councilmembers
San José Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Stevens Creek Boulevard is one of Santa Clara County’s most important corridors – not only a major
road
but
also
a
place
for
people
to
live,
work,
shop,
study,
play,
and
worship.
All
residents,
young
or
old,
drivers
or
pedestrians,
transit
riders
or
cyclists,
rich
or
poor,
deserve
a
corridor
that
works
for
them.
Travel
on
Stevens
Creek
should
be
safe,
easy,
and
efficient
for
all
while
also
helping
reduce
our
community’s
carbon
emissions.
To
realize
this
vision,
the
cities
of
Cupertino,
Santa
Clara,
and
San
José,
along
with
Santa
Clara
County
and
the
Santa
Clara
Valley
Transportation
Authority
formed
the
Stevens
Creek
Corridor
Steering
Committee
which
spent
two
years
reviewing
the
best
possible
options
for
the
future
of
the
corridor
with
extensive
community
input.
The
Committee
unanimously
approved
a
“Recommended
Plan”
that
would
transform
Stevens
Creek
to
support
the
safe,
efficient,
sustainable
mobility
that
all
users
deserve.
We, the undersigned, urge the County of Santa Clara, VTA, and the Cities of Cupertino, Santa
Clara,
and
San
José
to
approve
and
implement
the
Stevens
Creek
Corridor
Steering
Committee’s
Recommended
Plan.
The
plan
includes
physical
infrastructure
improvements
that
allow
significantly
more
people
to
travel
the
corridor.
These
include
enhanced
sidewalks
and
street
trees,
safer
pedestrian
crossings,
protected
bike/mobility
lanes,
and
simple
transit
speed
and
reliability
upgrades
that
will
improve
the
passenger
experience
and
attract
more
riders.
All
these
improvements
will
make
Stevens
Creek
Boulevard
truly
work
for
everyone
and
make
it
easier
for
more
people
to
get
where
they
need
to
go,
all
while
improving
safety,
reducing
traffic,
and
avoiding
pollution.
The recommended improvements are proven tools for enhancing safety and quality of life on suburban
corridors.
They
also
align
with
Cupertino's
General
Plan
goals
of
promoting
walking
and
biking,
better
local
and
regional
transit
connections,
and
building
an
attractive
Heart
of
the
City.
Cupertino’s
section
of
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
is
already
home
to
some
protected
bike
infrastructure.
By
separating
cyclists
and
drivers,
both
now
travel
in
greater
safety
and
comfort.
However,
Stevens
Creek
is
still
a
major
high-injury
corridor,
as
identified
by
Cupertino’s
Vision
Zero
Action
Plan
and
Local
Road
Safety
Plan.
Right
now,
the
corridor
is
dangerous
to
cross
on
foot
or
with
a
mobility
device
–
over
20 collisions
resulting
in
death
or
severe
injury
occurred
on
or
near
Stevens
Creek
in
Cupertino
between
2012
and
2021.
Bus
and
car
traffic
currently
are
intermingled, slowing both down and creating congestion and frustration for users of both modes.
The
Stevens
Creek
Corridor
Steering
Committee’s
Recommended
Plan
tackles
these
problems
to
help
the
corridor
fully
realize
its
potential
as
a
space
for
all.
The corridor is shared between the cities of Santa Clara and San José between I-880 and San Tomas
Expressway
the
Stevens
Creek
Corridor
transitions
from
an
urban
boulevard
to
a
suburban
arterial
as
it
continues
towards
Cupertino.
As
this
section
is
further
developed,
providing
strong
infrastructure
to
support
mode
shift
away
from
automobiles
is
extremely
important.
One
of
the
county’s
most
patronized
destinations,
Santana
Row
and
Valley
Fair,
is
shared
between
the
two
cities
and
sees
the
second
highest
ridership
of
all
existing
stops
on
the
corridor,
with
hundreds
of
people
boarding
and
deboarding
at
the
stops
in
the
area.
Today,
this
section
of
the
Stevens
Creek
Corridor
is
a
traffic-clogged,
car-dependent
surface
highway
where
all
users
are
unsafe
and
cyclists
and
pedestrians
are
unwelcome.
Just
last
September,
a
pedestrian
was
killed
in
this
section
due
in
part
to
the
corridor’s
unsafe
design.
Implementing
dedicated
bus
lanes,
protected
bike
lanes,
and
safe
crossing
measures
from
the
Recommended
Plan
would
ensure
we
stop
traffic
deaths,
by
transforming
the
area
into
an
efficient
and
sustainable
multimodal
corridor
built
with
safety
as
the
top
priority.
As Stevens Creek Blvd becomes San Carlos St in Midtown San José, the corridor takes a different
form.
The
neighborhood
is
older,
more
urban,
and
denser.
These
attributes
make
it
more
transit
supportive
and
conducive
to
sustainable
modes
of
transportation.
Much
of
this
section
already
has
high
quality
street
crossings
with
pedestrian
median
islands.
The
City
of
San
José
must
go
further
to
encourage
mode
shift
in
this
part
of
the
corridor
with
protected
bike
lanes
and
dedicated
bus
lanes
that
make
the
neighborhood
more
efficient
and
more
sustainable
for
all.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s Recommended Plan is the result of years of staff
outreach
to
the
community
and
study.
The
implementation
of
the
plan
will
build
a
Stevens
Creek
Corridor
where
there
are
no
traffic
deaths,
and
everyone
can
travel
more
easily
and
more
sustainably
regardless
of
who
they
are
and
how
they
choose
to
get
around.
We
urge
you
to
take
this
excellent,
thoroughly-vetted
plan,
and
make
it
a
reality.
Sincerely,
Harry Neil, Transbay Coalition
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain
Alex Shoor, Catalyze Silicon Valley
Ash Kalra, California State Assemblymember
Marc Berman, California State Assemblymember
Patrick Ahrens, California State Assemblymember
Andrew Siegler, SURJ Santa Clara County
Cynthia Kaufman, Vasconcellos Institute for Democracy in Action Elif Ipekci, President, De Anza College Zero Waste Club Daniel Strokis, SCC4Transit
Dr. Omar Torres, President, De Anza College
Dr. Alicia De Toro, Chair, Environmental Studies, De Anza College Anna Cebrian, Illusive Comics & Games
Yvonne Thorstenson, Cupertino For All
Katelyn Gambarin, San Jose State University Associated Students Cassandra Magana, West Valley Community Services
Seema Lindskog, Chair, Walk Bike Cupertino
Chitra Dhingra, Director and Owner, Leapstart After School Jaria Jaug, President, Silicon Valley Young Democrats Joyce Cheung, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Cupertino Action Team Jorge Pacheco Jr., Santa Clara County Board of Education Trustee (Title For Identification Purposes
Only)
Sophia Commisso, Campbell Civic Improvement Commission Member ( Title For Identification Purposes
Only
)
Rob Moore, Vice Mayor, Town of Los Gatos ( Title For Identification Purposes Only)
Mayors
&
City
Councils
of
Cupertino,
Santa
Clara,
and
San
Jose;
Santa
Clara
County
Board
of
Supervisors
&
VTA
Board
of
Directors,
204
people
have
signed
a
petition
on
Action
Network
telling
you
to
We
Need
A
Safer
&
More
Transit-Friendly
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
NOW!.
Here
is
the
petition
they
signed:
Stevens Creek Boulevard is one of Santa Clara County’s most important corridors – not only a major road but also a place for people to live, work, shop, study, play, and worship. All residents, young or old, drivers or pedestrians, transit riders or cyclists, rich or poor, deserve a corridor that works for them. Travel on Stevens Creek should be safe, easy, and efficient for all while also helping reduce our community’s carbon emissions. To realize this vision, the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee which is composed of elected representatives from the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose, along with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority unanimously approved a “Recommended Plan” that would transform the corridor to support the safe, efficient, environmentally friendly mobility that all users deserve.
We, the undersigned, urge the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose as well as Santa Clara County and VTA to implement the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s Recommended Plan. The plan includes physical infrastructure improvements that allow significantly more people to travel the corridor. These include enhanced sidewalks and street trees, safer pedestrian crossings, protected bike/mobility lanes, and simple transit speed and reliability upgrades that will improve the passenger experience and attract more riders . All these improvements will make Stevens Creek Boulevard truly work for everyone and make it easier for more people to get where they need to go, all while improving safety, reducing traffic, and avoiding pollution.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s Recommended Plan is the result of years of staff outreach to the community and study, and will make a Stevens Creek Corridor where there are no traffic deaths, and where everyone can get around more easily, regardless of who they are and how they choose to get around. We urge you to take this thoroughly-vetted, excellent plan and implement it.
Y ou can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.
Thank you,
Transbay Coalition
1. Carter Lavin (ZIP code: 94610)
2. Sandhana Siva (ZIP code: 950124)
3. Filip Buca (ZIP code: 95124)
4. Anton Zhou (ZIP code: 95070)
5. Teri Scott (ZIP code: 95014-2148)
Y es better pedestrian
6. DUC ANH TUAN LE (ZIP code: 95132)
7. zoltan Earnst (ZIP code: 95070)
8. Richard MacDonald (ZIP code: 95129)
9. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 95014)
Please have more public transportation we need jt
10. Zeynep Sen (ZIP code: 94087)
I want faster bus service!!!!!
11. Rukiye Sen (ZIP code: 94087)
12. michael sun (ZIP code: 95014)
pretty please
13. Fatih Sen (ZIP code: 94087)
14. Yvonne Thorstenson (ZIP code: 95014)
15. Robin Fintz (ZIP code: 95014)
16. Donald Van Buren (ZIP code: 95014)
17. Nicole Phan (ZIP code: 95014)
18. Katina Yong (ZIP code: 95070)
19. Vance Miller (ZIP code: 95014)
20. Grant Miller (ZIP code: 95014-2629)
21. Neil Park-McClintick (ZIP code: 95014)
22. Kendra Toy (ZIP code: 94536)
Because I try to limit my car trips and carefully consider if driving is worth it (usually I try to only drive as a necessity), although there are things I might like to do in Santa Clara County, oftentimes I will stay home or choose a closer option. I would visit more if it were more transit and bike accessible. I believe Stevens Creek has a lot to offer, but until it is safer to get to outside of a personal vehicle, it won’t see much of my business.
23. Aaron Baucom (ZIP code: 94122)
I work in Cupertino and am discouraged from biking due to the lack of safe east west corridors with robust protective infrastructure.
24. Daniel Perry (ZIP code: 95014)
Love the bus
25. Philip Nguyen (ZIP code: 94089)
26. Rachel Shaw (ZIP code: 95126)
27. Joaquin Domingo (ZIP code: 90604)
28. Martin Horwitz (ZIP code: 94122)
29. JL Angell (ZIP code: 95672)
30. Andrew Siegler (ZIP code: 95112)
31. Martha Booz (ZIP code: 94803)
32. Victor Silva (ZIP code: 95129)
33. Damaris Triana (ZIP code: 94089)
34. Caephren McKenna (ZIP code: 94609)
35. Paarth Varshney (ZIP code: 95129)
36. Haojun Li (ZIP code: 95110)
37. Alejandra Bellavance (ZIP code: 95037)
38. Savita Nataraj (ZIP code: 95118)
39. thalia lubin (ZIP code: 94062)
Anything that makes our paths and roadways safer for bikes, pedestrians and the disabled is a good idea!
40. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94112)
41. Serena Myjer (ZIP code: 95125)
42. Michael Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
43. Toby hyun (ZIP code: 95008)
44. Chris Ferderer (ZIP code: 95118)
45. Andrea Horbinski (ZIP code: 94708)
46. Holly Hodges (ZIP code: 94087)
I am on Stevens Creek multiple times a week for shopping and leisure and hope for safer bicycle lanes and more buses! The redesign with cycle lanes and bus lanes will make it even more accessible.
47. Gui Andrade (ZIP code: 94110)
Biking on Stevens Creek Boulevard has always felt nerve-wracking for me, with cars speeding past and barely any protection for cyclists. Whenever I’ve taken the bus, it’s been painfully slow, stuck in the same traffic as cars with no way to move faster. It’s frustrating that it feels unsafe and inefficient no matter how you try to get around—I’d love to see real changes that make it safer and quicker for everyone.
48. Margaret Okuzumi (ZIP code: 94087)
Please advance this important Measure A project that was promised to voters.
49. Mitchell Evans (ZIP code: 95129)
50. Truman Lindsey (ZIP code: 95125)
51. Kevin Ma (ZIP code: 94040)
52. Ann Dorsey (ZIP code: 91325-3844)
53. Ann Wawrose (ZIP code: 95112)
54. Andrea Gera (ZIP code: 95120)
55. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 90043)
56. Paul Williams (ZIP code: 94608)
57. Pranavi Gandham (ZIP code: 95128)
58. Zach Kimble (ZIP code: 95128)
59. Hailee Baluta (ZIP code: 95136)
60. Eileen Conner (ZIP code: 94041)
61. Daniel Strokis (ZIP code: 95128)
62. Jason Roberts (ZIP code: 94086)
63. David Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
Please help make the streets safer.
64. Seth Barberee (ZIP code: 95117)
65. Moss Goguen (ZIP code: 95120)
66. Saydee Rich (ZIP code: 95123)
67. Ryan Globus (ZIP code: 95126)
68. AJ cho (ZIP code: 94579)
69. Lauren Murdock (ZIP code: 93110)
70. David Sanchez Godinez (ZIP code: 94107)
My partner's family lives in Saratoga and we use Steven's Creek regularly when we visit. The street is not designed for anyone outside of a high speed vehicle to use, limiting both its capacity and the desire of people to use the road in other ways. Making the road safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and public transit users will have a massively positive effect for everyone, including people driving personal vehicles.
71. Kevin Nilhoan (ZIP code: 94030)
I have previously lived on Bascom and Stevens creek. I rode my bike often, but it was very not safe. I would have used my bike much more if there were protected bike lanes.
72. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94133)
73. Nader Elziq (ZIP code: 95051)
74. Tracie Johnson (ZIP code: 95050)
75. Hermione Ma (ZIP code: 95014)
I bike a lot and would really enjoy more protections for bikers on the road.
76. Cindy Guan (ZIP code: 95014)
77. Nicole Feskanich (ZIP code: 95014)
I also think various signs with bike laws/rules would be nice.
78. Pamela Wells (ZIP code: 95070)
79. Andrew Wagner (ZIP code: 95126)
80. L Nelson (ZIP code: 95038)
81. Ryan Parimi (ZIP code: 95054)
82. David Griffith (ZIP code: 95192)
I urge for implementing common sense improvements to sidewalks and adding street trees, safer pedestrian crossings, protected bike/mobility lanes, and simple transit speed and reliability upgrades that will improve the passenger experience and attract more riders to mass transit.
83. Daisy Castillo (ZIP code: 94063)
84. Jane Holt (ZIP code: 94024)
85. Nicholas Laskowski (ZIP code: 95112)
My family relies on the 23 corridor daily. Our breadwinner and provider takes an hour-and-a-half commute each way daily just to get between downtown SJ and Cupertino. We bike and use transit and bought a home in the most transit-dense part of the county on purpose. Please bring our mommy home for dinner earlier!
86. Dani Habtom (ZIP code: 95014)
87. Milla Bynakon (ZIP code: 94087)
88. Deltha Sisophon (ZIP code: 95118)
89. Giselle Baez (ZIP code: 95126)
90. RAJUL AVALANI (ZIP code: 95014)
91. Matthew Liu (ZIP code: 95129)
92. Annie Zhou (ZIP code: 94538)
93. Owen Yang (ZIP code: 95014)
94. Leland Bell (ZIP code: 95014)
95. Marley Williams (ZIP code: 94086)
96. Avery Tan (ZIP code: 94086)
97. Hlyam Wai Yan (ZIP code: 95129)
98. Arlette Velazquez (ZIP code: 95126)
99. Evan Kim (ZIP code: 95132)
100. Khaing Thwel (ZIP code: 95129)
101. Kevinson Tran (ZIP code: 95035)
102. Natasha Muller (ZIP code: 95008)
103. Marisa Fritts (ZIP code: 94043)
104. Emily Chang (ZIP code: 95111-1364)
105. Annamarie Hernandez (ZIP code: 95132)
106. Diana Martinez (ZIP code: 95117)
Safer bike routes and more buses within the schedule.
107. Fanny Ceballos (ZIP code: 95035)
108. Emiliano A Diaz (ZIP code: 95123)
109. Salman Khan (ZIP code: 95051)
110. Andrew Luu (ZIP code: 95035)
111. Jovannah Uribe (ZIP code: 95117)
112. Dat Giang (ZIP code: 95148)
113. Lillian Prion (ZIP code: 94086)
114. Tati Tashjian (ZIP code: 94024)
115. Ariel Shalev (ZIP code: 94087)
116. Camille Villa (ZIP code: 95125)
117. Zoe Zandbergen (ZIP code: 95125)
118. Lawrence Deng (ZIP code: 95132)
119. Rachel Gilbert (ZIP code: 94043)
120. C S (ZIP code: 95134)
121. Cam Coulter (ZIP code: 95123)
My partner works on Stevens Creek, and about once a week, I take the bus down Stevens Creek to get to her workplace. I can attest that this is an important street that we need to make more transit friendly.
122. Milli Blom (ZIP code: 95120)
This is a crucial corridor and absolutely needs better pedestrian, bike, and transit access. 123. Ivy L (ZIP code: 94022)
Enhanced walkways and improved protection for both bikers and pedestrians greatly improves the appeal of an area as a place where I want to regularly visit and become a patron of businesses nearby, especially if there is a fast and reliable transit network as part of it. 124. Thomas Delgado (ZIP code: 95132)
125. Debra Timmers (ZIP code: 95014)
126. Jean Bedord (ZIP code: 95014)
Cupertino needs better transportation to meet senor needs. Please support this Recommended Plan.
127. Calley Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
128. Margaret Butko (ZIP code: 95014)
129. Elena Shvetsky (ZIP code: 95008)
130. Arya Somu (ZIP code: 95129)
YES NEW BUSES
131. George Huang (ZIP code: 94087)
132. Arthur Poon (ZIP code: 95014)
133. Aurelio Cardenas (ZIP code: 95111)
Make it safer
134. Chris Lepe (ZIP code: 95051)
135. Jennifer Cortes (ZIP code: 95116)
136. Weishu Zhang (ZIP code: 95014)
137. Gabriela Fajardo (ZIP code: 95110)
138. Hongyi He (ZIP code: 95014)
139. neil park-mcclintick (ZIP code: 95126)
140. Htoo Tint Tal (ZIP code: 95014)
141. Hamza Zafer (ZIP code: 95130)
142. Jaria Jaug (ZIP code: 95132)
143. Terry Long (ZIP code: 95126)
144. Tianyi Guan (ZIP code: 95014)
145. Bethlehem Wolka (ZIP code: 95125)
146. Sebastian Castillo (ZIP code: 95112)
147. Landon Brooks (ZIP code: 95123)
148. Hang Liu (ZIP code: 95014)
149. bella Eydel (ZIP code: 95129)
150. Wei Xi Kum (ZIP code: 95014)
151. Melisa Arslan (ZIP code: 94087)
152. Ashley C (ZIP code: 95129)
153. Jeyson M (ZIP code: 95050)
154. Lupe Navarro (ZIP code: 95127)
155. Ernesto Sanchez (ZIP code: 95127)
156. Nam Nguyen (ZIP code: 95148)
Make our Streets Safe Again ?
157. Clare Sanchez (ZIP code: 95116)
158. Rowan Schmieder-Frank (ZIP code: 94086)
A lot of people use public transit to get around and we want to be more environmentally conscious by supporting public transit and biking. Additionally, making roads safer is important for everyone, but especially children who haven’t learned how to pay careful attention to their surroundings yet. 159. Hector Estrada (ZIP code: 94089)
160. Andrew Monrreal (ZIP code: 95123)
161. Alexander Miller (ZIP code: 94087)
162. Jasmine Pavao (ZIP code: 95117)
163. Nathaniel Reindl (ZIP code: 94086)
While the stock text of this petition talks about attracting riders and promoting equity in transportation, I want to lean on three areas in my comment here.
Behind firearms, cars are the biggest killer of kids nationwide. The effort here to redesign Stevens Creek is part of a continuing larger effort to cut down on child deaths across Santa Clara County.
I would also urge my electeds who consult their first responders. Ask them how much of a hassle it is to navigate Stevens Creek to an emergency when it's especially congested. Additionally, ask EMTs, paramedics, and ER doctors about the calls and intakes they see that were transported in when they could have been seen in a clinic served by other transportation options.
Finally, consider that a single traffic lane has a carrying capacity of around 2000 cars/hour. I haven't taken my own measurements, but with some quick back-of-the-envelope numbers, I'd hazard a guess that Stevens Creek doesn't touch that. For a surface street, the limiting factor is the intersections, and it's likely that Stevens Creek is presently overbuilt (and, hence, also overburdened by maintenance costs), and in the face of not being able to raise property taxes and in the face of a retail economy in recession making sales taxes less effective, this redesign effort might be the thing to begin lessening the municipal budget concerns across Santa Clara County. 164. Jing Wang (ZIP code: 95129)
165. Cindy Huang (ZIP code: 95014)
166. Kunyao Zhang (ZIP code: 95014)
167. Indresh Arora (ZIP code: 95035)
Let’s drive to improve safety for pedestrians
168. Jade Chen (ZIP code: 95014)
169. Jade Yang (ZIP code: 94089)
170. Yuchen Hsu (ZIP code: 95111)
171. Aseem Nerlekar (ZIP code: 95117)
172. Naim Pichori (ZIP code: 95117)
None
173. VJ Lukka (ZIP code: 95035)
174. Eliza Lyon (ZIP code: 94086)
175. Sayon Biswas (ZIP code: 95014)
176. Ian Crosby (ZIP code: 95112)
177. Juniper Astle (ZIP code: 95014)
more transit less car infrastructure PLEASE
178. Tapasya Suman (ZIP code: 95014)
179. Cam Miller (ZIP code: 95125)
180. Anthony Arias (ZIP code: 95117)
yo we need more busses lwk
181. Abhi N (ZIP code: 95070)
182. satheessh chinnusamy (ZIP code: 95014)
Supporting bike safety on Stevens Creek blvd
183. Siva Annamalai (ZIP code: 95014)
A safe and transit friendly Stevens Creek blvd would do wonders for people who want to bike or walk to the various retail and restaurants that line this corridor. It will help reduce car traffic and make Cupertino a lively place. People have always complained about the lack of a downtown in Cupertino, if we had a safe Stevens Creek Blvd that connected from Stelling all the way to Tantau avenue it has the potential to transform this entire stretch into a vibrant downtown area. 184. DORON DRUSINSKY (ZIP code: 95014)
Keep separated bike lanes!
185. Al Park (ZIP code: 95111)
186. Estelle Gackiere (ZIP code: 95014)
187. Yingfeng Su (ZIP code: 95129)
I ride bike for work commute so I don't have to buy a 2nd car for the family. And my kids and I bike together to various places. Stevens creek is an important part of our bike reachability. Why would anyone not care about biker's safety?
188. Angeline Su (ZIP code: 95129)
I bike a lot, I support safe bike lanes on Stevens Creek 189. Helen Wiant (ZIP code: 95014)
190. Catherine Crockett (ZIP code: 95014)
191. Beck Poltronetti (ZIP code: 95014)
Remember; bikes are good for EVERYONE, because people who want to bike can bike, and people on the road have less other cars to worry about because the other car drivers are now biking. 192. Rebecca Smith (ZIP code: 95014-2811)
193. Yassin Bouali (ZIP code: 94086)
194. Alex Lee (ZIP code: 94087)
195. Keith Le (ZIP code: 95112)
196. Khoa Pham (ZIP code: 95135)
197. Lawrence Huang (ZIP code: 91709)
198. Miguel Legaspi (ZIP code: 95008)
lets win
199. Elif Ipekci (ZIP code: 95129)
200. Angel Luna (ZIP code: 95122)
We demand a better corridor for the people.
201. hannah zhong (ZIP code: 95120)
202. Lilly Leal (ZIP code: 95110)
203. Jyotsna Lakhanpal (ZIP code: 95014)
204. Justin Khylle La Morena (ZIP code: 95035)
If the public feels safe in the places they live in, they are more likely to seek out alternatives to current modes of transportation.
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder; Tina Kapoor Subject: Please include in written communications for SCB corridor agenda item.
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7:38:04 AM
Attachments: PC-Minutes-SCB-05_2025.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Could you please include the below in written communication for the 07/15/25 city council agenda item on SCB corridor.
Dear Mayor Chao and Council,
Included below are the minutes from the 05/13/25 Planning Commission meeting on SCB corridor. While staff report reflects the PC recommendation the minutes below will show you more specifics on the motion and the vote from PC in addition, should it be useful to you in your consideration.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1249171&GUID=F7218FFB- B6AA-4E15-8B85-CBDF08A8A081
Thank you.
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
[email protected]
MINUTES
CU
PERTINO PLANNING
COMMISSION
Tuesday, May
13, 2025
At 6:45 p.
m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue and via teleconference.
RO
LL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners David Fung, Steven Scharf and Seema Lindskog. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes Ch
air Rao opened the floor for Commissioner comments.
MOTI
ON: Scharf moved and Lindskog seconded to approve the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Scharf, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No members of the public spoke.
CONSENT CALENDAR- None
STUDY SESSION
2. Subject: Multifamily and Residential Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission provide feedback and recommendations regarding objective design standards for new multifamily and residential mixed-use development.
Pla
nning Manger Ghosh introduced the City’s Consultant, Greg Goodfellow from Placeworks, who gave a presentation.
Planning Commission May 13, 2025
Commissioners asked questions toward the end of the presentation, which staff and the Consultant responded to.
T
he Consultant continued the presentation.
Co
mmissioners continued to make comments and asked questions, which staff and the presenter responded to.
C
hair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke during public comment:
• Je
nnifer Griffin
C
hair Rao closed the public comment period.
T
he presentation continued, and Commissioners continued their discussion. The Chair made a request to have additional meetings on this item. Staff said they would consider options available in light of budgetary limitations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – None
NEW BUSINESS –
3. Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study.
Planning Manager Ghosh introduced Senior Transportation Planner Schroeder , who gave a presentation, along with Public Words Director Mosley, and Transportation Manager Stillman.
C
hair Rao opened the floor to Commissioner questions.
Co
mmissioners asked questions, which the presenters responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Jennifer Griffin
• Harry Neil
• Emily Poon
• Betsy Maze
• Danny Hapton
• Tally Raim
• Sandra Sava
Planning Commission May 13, 2025
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
The Commissioners made comments and asked questions which staff and the presenters responded to.
Chair Rao opened the floor to Commissioner discussion.
Commissioners made comments, asked questions and discussed common ground for purposes of drafting a motion for Council.
MOTION: Rao moved and Fung seconded to recommend the City Council to accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study and Steering Committee Action and reaffirm the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommendation, with the following additional recommendations:
• Prioritize investments in identity and maintenance
• Prioritize investments in safety, with a focus on, but not limited to, technology and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection
• Prioritize cost by limiting corridor up to Westport, and limiting study of transit alternatives to grade-separated transit
• Invest in off-corridor bicycle and pedestrian networks such as, but not limited to, the Lawrence Mitty Trail and Tamien Innu Trail
FR
IENDLY AMMENDMENT: Scharf made a friendly amendment to change the language substituting Westport with Bubb Road (The Chair and Fung accepted the friendly amendment).
T
he motion passed with the following vote. Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Scharf, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - None
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:13 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lin
dsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember
City of San Jose
Council District 1, 18th floor
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose , CA 95113
(408) 535-4901
[email protected]
www.sjdistrict1.com
July 14, 2025
Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RE: Item 13: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Dear Honorable Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers, As you consider the adoption of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, I want to express my strong support for this shared effort between our cities. This study reflects a meaningful collaboration between our Public Works teams and our mutual commitment to shaping a corridor that is safer, more sustainable, and more vibrant for all of our communities.
In San José, we deeply value our partnership with Cupertino and neighboring cities. Our residents and small businesses frequently express their desire to see us working together on regional issues that impact us all—especially around traffic safety, economic development, and environmental sustainability. The Stevens Creek Corridor is a key example of where collaboration can truly make a difference.
Adopting the Vision Study does not obligate any city to specific projects or funding commitments at this time. However, it does position all of us to be more competitive when seeking regional, state, or federal funding for future improvements. It sends a clear message that our cities are united in our vision for this corridor and committed to creating a seamless, multimodal experience that meets the needs of our communities now and into the future.
It’s important that we strengthen our regional ties and continue working together toward solutions that benefit the broader South Bay. I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish when we align around shared goals, and I hope to see the study adopted without modification.
Thank you for your continued partnership. I look forward to the work ahead.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember, City of San José
CC 07-15-2025
Item No. 13
Stevens Creek Corridor
Vision Study
Written Communications
From: Kim Guptill
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 6:26:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Kim Guptill and I’m a Cupertino commuter.
As you know, Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task.
Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Kim Guptill
San Jose
From: Andrea Lund
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 5:48:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I’m a resident of Cupertino writing in strong support of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, which is being discussed at tonight’s council meeting. Stevens Creek Boulevard is an essential thoroughfare for my family and I, as we live near the post office in the Monta Vista neighborhood. We use Stevens Creek to access highway 85 for our commutes, to go shopping for groceries and other necessities and to walk to the farmers market at De Anza College on Sunday mornings.
Participating in a joint vision for Stevens Creek Boulevard with the other cities through which this important thoroughfare runs should be a no-brainer for the City of Cupertino. It does not mandate any specific changes, and doing so will position Cupertino and its neighbors to benefit from state and county grant funding. Buy-in has already been secured from other cities, and I see no reason for Cupertino to not accept the study results.
Additionally, I encourage the Council to consider extending the corridor vision study to include Steven Creek Boulevard all the way to Foothill Boulevard, rather than stopping at Bubb Road. This is the most important segment of Stevens Creek Boulevard for my family and our neighbors and also affects folks who may use Stevens Creek to get to work along Bubb Road from Foothill. Our end of Stevens Creek Boulevard may be quieter than other segments, but it is still full of activity at nearby businesses, schools and parklands.
Thank you for your consideration and for keeping the interests of Cupertino residents at the forefront of your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Andrea Lund
From: Daniel Strokis
To: Public Comments
Subject: Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:53:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Daniel Strokis. I work in Cupertino and live close to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Daniel Strokis
From: Dolly Sandoval
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: SCC Vision Study - item 13
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:20:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you City Councilmembers for placing item 13 o n tonight's agenda, the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. I hope you will take staff's advice and adopt a resolution accepting the report as well as the additional comments by the Bike Ped Commission and Planning Commission. There is one comment from the Planning Commission I disagree with - this plan should cover SCB from end-to-end, so should include planning for improvements from Bubb road to Foothill Expressway..
Collaborating with our neighborhood stakeholders is vitally important and I hope the City of Cupertino will join Valley Transportation Authority and the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose, as well as the SCC Board of Supervisors, in moving forward with enhanced transportation options. A well-thought-out community vision for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders can only improve our mobility through Cupertino.
I would like my email to be included in the public record for this topic.
Thank you,
Dolly
Dolly Sandoval
From: E. Poon
To: City Council; City Clerk
Subject: 65 signatures against Bus Only Lanes, SC Blvd, Dec 18, 2024 Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7:35:37 PM
Attachments: EmilyEmailsGillmor.docx
signature_against_bike_lane-1.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attached is a letter I wrote to the Santa Clara City Council in June 2025 and the 65 signatures collected in Dec. 2025.
Emily Poon
Cupertino Resident
Emiy Poon’s 6/10/2025 email
Dear Mayor Gillmor and Council Members,
I have been a Cupertino resident for 18 years. I heard that at the May 27, 2025 Santa Clara City Council meeting, the Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study (SCBCVS) was not discussed, and it was placed on the Consent Calendar.
I have followed the Vision Study, and feel that the case I have heard so far for Bus-Only Lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd is one-sided. There are many stakeholders whose livelihood and daily activities are impacted by any changes to the use of traffic lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. And they have been left out.
In December 2024, I teamed up with a volunteer from Santa Clara to visit a number of car dealerships along Stevens Creek Blvd, with San Jose and Santa Clara addresses. We collected a total of 65 signatures against Bus-Only Lanes. I submitted these signatures to the Vision Study Steering Committee in the meeting on December 18, 2024.
Attached are the 65 signatures. I think that you should have access to these signatures.
At the meeting, Scott Jobe, managing partner of Chevrolet-Cadillac spoke. In his 1-minute speech Scott explained how his two dealerships had not been included in any consultant outreach, as he heard about the Vision Study only as a result of our volunteer visit.
Despite the two-year effort of the consultants, most of the car dealerships were not notified. Such an omission is serious, as car dealerships bring in much revenue to the cities and any changes should ensure that they are not negatively impacted.
S
tevens Creek Auto Row is well known in our region. The Boulevard needs to provide space in the center median for the big rigs that transport new cars to be unloaded. The street parking on both sides is needed for the sales staff, for them to park their own cars when they arrive for work. Most of the time, the dealership parking lots are reserved for inventory.
If it works well, why change it?
The Vision Study's ideal of "complete streets", with shade trees, medians for pedestrian crossings, may not even make sense in this part of the Boulevard.
Instead of placing the Vision Study on the Consent Calendar, please take the time at your convenience to go through the Study, to find if it has relevance for your City. Mayor Lisa Gillmor said it well in the closing remarks on December 18. Santa Clara has the premier shopping mall in our region, the important car dealerships, as well as the legacy small businesses. She used the word "customize" to describe the task.
The City of Cupertino is far along in its path of such customization, as two committees in April and May have deliberated and are ready with recommendations for our City Council. The latest I have heard is that our City Council will look into it in September. I was in the audience at these lower level advisory committee meetings, where committee members asked how the neighboring cities are receiving the Study.
Thanks for looking into the petitions and bringing the proper balance, allowing all stakeholders of the Stevens Creek Blvd to voice their opinion.
From: Tina Kapoor
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: Proposed Resolution for Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025 5:32:23 PM
Attachments: Liang - Cupertino 2025 SCB Vision Study Resolution Draft.docx Kitty - Cupertino 2025 SCB Vision Study Resolution Draft.docx Begin forwarded message:
Tina Kapoor
Interim City Manager
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408)777-7607
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Date: July 15, 2025 at 5:29:50 PM PDT
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>, Kitty Moore
<[email protected]>
Cc: Floy Andrews <[email protected]>, Chad Mosley <[email protected]>, Benjamin Fu <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Resolution for Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study Attached is the proposed resolution, combining the staff's draft resolution with Vice Mayor's draft.
I removed any mention of BPC or planning since the Council either accept or not accept their recommendations. It makes no sense to quote their specific recommendations in a city council resolution.
I have also attached Vice Mayor's draft for reference.
Please enter this as a desk item (or late written communication) so that the council has a copy of the proposed resolution in writing.
Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
Resolution No. [Insert Cupertino Resolution Number]
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING THE
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, Cupertino staff and Councilmembers have participated in discussions with neighboring communities since a multijurisdictional group was established by the San Jose City Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to discuss key regional issues affecting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor with a focus on transportation and circulation; and (comment: from draft resolution)
WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative, San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and VTA jointly proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San Jose to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; and (comment: from draft resolution) WHEREAS, the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) supports the participation in regional transportation planning processes and working with neighboring cities to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino's General Plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the City's circulation system, and to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest through Policy M-1.1, Regional Transportation Planning; and (comment: from draft resolution)
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2019, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution 19-089 supporting the study of transit efficiency and streetscape improvements for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in partnership with the City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA; and (comment: from draft resolution) WHEREAS, the process of completing the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Vision Study) was launched in January 2023 and guided by the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee, comprised of elected officials from the participating jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of participating agency staff and a community advisory group; and (comment: from draft resolution) WHEREAS, the Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and is being presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for acceptance; (comment: from draft resolution)
WHEREAS, the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Master Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan identify separated bike paths along Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority. Cupertino has been improving safety along the corridor through annual Capital Improvement Projects. (comment: added)
WHEREAS, Cupertino prioritized safety with the adoption of the Local Road Safety Plan in January 2023 and the Vision Zero Plan in July 2024, both of which identified safety projects along Stevens Creek Boulevard. (comment: added)
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65088 establishes the framework for Congestion Management Programs and emphasizes the need for VTA to develop and implement transportation investment priorities based on regional needs; (comment:
from Moore's draft)
NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT:
1. The City of Cupertino accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as one of many valuable planning documents for consideration.
2. The City wishes to ensure the following:
A. The City reaffirms its commitment to the provisions contained within Resolution 19-089, specifically that “high-capacity transit service along the corridor on City surface streets would not use general purpose travel lanes or adversely impact vehicular capacity”, and that it should “be grade separated, and time- competitive with auto travel”. (comment: part of BPC recommendation)
B. The City continues to advocate for a study, as stated in Resolution 19-089, of “an alternate alignment in Cupertino along I-280, continuing to DeAnza College at the junction of SR85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, ensuring service to areas of high employment density and De Anza College, while connecting the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, supported by, and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. ” (comment: in line with BPC recommendation) C. The City maintains final decision-making authority regarding any projects or recommendations contained in the Vision Study. (comment: part of BPC recommendation)
D. All projects within the City of Cupertino, including any intersection modifications, will conform to the City’s standard processes, plans, and procedures for public outreach and approval. (comment: from BPC recommendation)
3. The City remains committed to:
A. Improving safety along Stevens Creek Boulevard and other corridors throughout the City by implementing the Vision Zero Plan, the Local Roadway Safety Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans.
B. Prioritizing investments in safety, with a focus on—but not limited to— technology and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection.
C. Considering cost-effective options to maintain prudent fiscal management and responsible allocation of public resources.
4. The City conditionally supports the Vision Study as a planning tool, while emphasizing the need to prioritize projects based on documented regional need and cost estimates—especially given the funding demands of projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension. (comment: from Moore's draft)
5. The City does not support immediate funding or implementation of costly high- capacity transit in the 9-mile Stevens Creek Corridor without clear regional need and VTA prioritization under Government Code §65088. Future support will depend on VTA designating the corridor as a top regional investment priority. (comment: from Moore's draft)
6. The City urges VTA and MTC to develop a regionally prioritized transportation investment plan that allocates funding based on demonstrated need, and to evaluate the costs and benefits of any Stevens Creek high-capacity transit proposal in light of BART Phase 2 budget lessons. (comment: from Moore's draft)
7. The City directs staff to collaborate with VTA, MTC, and other agencies to advocate for a data-driven, needs-based approach to transportation planning, ensuring taxpayer funds are allocated responsibly and with clear benefit. (comment: shortened from Moore's draft)
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Cupertino this [Date of Adoption] day of [Month, Year], by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
[Mayor's Signature]
Mayor of the City of Cupertino
Resolution No. [Insert Cupertino Resolution Number]
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING THE
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino participated in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, a multi-jurisdictional effort to develop a shared vision for mobility along a 9-mile stretch of the road, from Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino to Diridon Station in San José; and
WHEREAS, the Vision Study explored various transportation options including potential high-capacity transit; and
WHEREAS, the City acknowledges the importance of regional transportation planning and supports the exploration of mobility enhancements within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to prudent fiscal management and the responsible allocation of public resources;
WHEREAS, the BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project, a six-mile extension of BART service from Berryessa/North San José Station to the City of Santa Clara, originally estimated to cost around $4 billion, has seen its estimated project cost increase to $12.75 billion with an anticipated opening in 2036, a change reflecting updated engineering, risk assessments, and significant market shifts since the initial estimate in 2020;
WHEREAS, the estimated costs for potential high-capacity transit options within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, including a separate transit line, range from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion, with a timeline of at least 20 years for completion, indicating a substantial future investment;
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65088 establishes the framework for Congestion Management Programs and emphasizes the need for VTA to develop and implement transportation investment priorities based on regional needs; WHEREAS, the City believes that substantial investments in high-capacity transit must be carefully evaluated within the context of county-wide transportation priorities and documented need, taking into account the factors that have influenced the cost and schedule of similar major infrastructure projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension;
WHEREAS, the City supports strategically investing in expensive transit where it is most needed in the county;
WHEREAS, the City desires to express its conditional support for the Vision Study, recognizing its value as a planning document while advocating for careful prioritization based on demonstrated regional need and documented cost estimates, especially in light of the significant funding requirements of projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension;
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission has reviewed the Vision Study and recommended safety improvements such as protected bike lanes, recognizing Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority in the City's Vision Zero plan;
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Planning Commission has recommended acceptance of the Vision Study, recognizing the need for continued study while acknowledging the aspirational nature of certain elements and the significant funding required;
NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT:
1. The City of Cupertino accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as a valuable planning document.
2. The City Council acknowledges the recommendations of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission regarding the importance of safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and recognizes Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority for safety improvements in the City's Vision Zero plan.
3. The City Council acknowledges the Planning Commission's motion to recommend acceptance of the Vision Study, recognizing the need for further study.
4. The City recognizes the significant financial implications of high-capacity transit projects, as demonstrated by estimated costs within the Stevens Creek Corridor and changes experienced by the BART Phase 2 Extension Project.
5. The City does not endorse or commit to advocating for the immediate funding or implementation of expensive, high-capacity transit options within the 9-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, without a clear demonstration of regional need and documented prioritization by VTA in accordance with California Government Code Section 65088.
6. The City supports the concept of aspirational future high-capacity transit projects within the Stevens Creek Corridor, but only when VTA has clearly demonstrated that this corridor is a top priority for regional transportation investment, based on a comprehensive evaluation and documented in accordance with California Government Code Section 65088.
7. The City urges VTA and MTC to develop a regional prioritized plan for transportation investments that strategically allocates resources to projects demonstrating the greatest need, and to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed high-capacity transit project within the Stevens Creek Corridor in light of the experiences with the BART Phase 2 Extension and factors influencing its budget adjustments.
8. The City directs staff to work with the participating agencies, including VTA and MTC, to advocate for a data-driven and prioritized approach to regional transportation planning and investment, ensuring that the allocation of taxpayer dollars is prudent and aligned with regional needs, and to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed high-capacity transit project within the Stevens Creek Corridor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Cupertino this [Date of Adoption] day of [Month, Year], by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
[Mayor's Signature]
Mayor of the City of Cupertino