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 VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight Of Capital Projects and Better Inform the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes
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 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
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.
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 69CALIFORNIA 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 semiannual 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 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 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 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 71CALIFORNIA 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.
Target Date: The Strategic Capital
Investment Plan (SCIP) update
is anticipated for late 2025.
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.
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
73CALIFORNIA 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 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
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 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)
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.
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
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 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 75CALIFORNIA 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 will prepare a comprehensive strategic
plan. VTA staff will develop a workplan and
schedule for the development of the fiveyear 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.
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
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 itincludes 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 77CALIFORNIA 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 itis 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)
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= F7218FFBB6AA- 4E15-8B85-CBDF08A8A081 Thank you.
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
SRao@cupertino. gov
MINUTES
CUPERTINO 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.
ROLL 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 Chair Rao opened the floor for Commissioner comments.
MOTION: 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.
Planning 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.
The Consultant continued the presentation.
Commissioners continued to make comments and asked questions, which staff and the presenter responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke during public comment:
Jennifer Griffin
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
The 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.
Chair Rao opened the floor to Commissioner questions.
Commissioners 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
FRIENDLY AMMENDMENT: Scharf made a friendly amendment to change the language substituting Westport with Bubb Road (The Chair and Fung accepted the friendly amendment).
The 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:
Lindsay 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
district1@sanjoseca. gov
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 09-03-2025
Item No.18
Stevens Creek Blvd
Corridor Vision Study
Vice Mayor Moore's
Slides
Written Communications
KM Research on Stevens Creek Blvd Vision
Study
VTA’s Role and Responsibilities
• The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), as the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) in Santa Clara County
• Leads the county’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) in accordance with California Statute, Government code 65088.
• The CMP’s goal is to develop a transportation improvement program to improve multimodal transportation system performance, land use decision-making, and air quality among local jurisdictions. • Source: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf Presentation overview
• Needs analysis topics
• What is Cupertino already implementing?
• Traffic Counts
• Land use/Community College data
• Current Conditions
• Cost- benefit issues
• How is VTA Light Rail performing
• How is VTA performing per State Auditor
• Impacts to Sales Tax Revenue
• What are the Vision Study obligations
• VTA Board Actions
• Lack of collaboratively seeking input
• Proposed Resolution Modifications
Citywide Active Transportation Plan
The Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) aims to enhance the City's transportation infrastructure by promoting and facilitating active transportation modes, such as walking and bicycling, for all ages and abilities. The project will review existing infrastructure, policies, and community needs associated with bicycling and walking. This analysis will involve data collection and close community engagement with diverse stakeholders, including local businesses, schools, and community organizations. Status: Active Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
The Vision Study is a collaborative multi-jurisdictional two-year project that builds on prior transportation planning initiatives to establish a unified vision for the future of the corridor. Its goal is to align the shared values and priorities across the corridor, ensuring that future transportation investments are well-coordinated across San José, Santa Clara, Cupertino, the County, and VTA. Status: Active
Foothill Expressway Multimodal Feasibility Study
This is a Santa Clara County project to study the feasibility of implementing a Class I mixed-use path along Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard, from Alpine Road/Santa Cruz Avenue in San Mateo County to Cristo Rey Drive/Starling Drive in Cupertino. Status: Active Vision Zero Action Plan and Collision Dashboard
On July 9, 2024, the Cupertino City Council unanimously voted to adopt the Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan. This Plan guides policies and programs with the goal of eliminating fatalities and severe injuries on Cupertino roadways by 2040 for all roadway users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. Vision Zero programs prioritize safety over other transportation goals, acknowledge that traffic fatalities and serious injuries are preventable, and incorporate a multidisciplinary Safe System approach. Status: Completed in 2024
Local Roadway Safety Plan
The City of Cupertino's Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies traffic safety improvements throughout the City for all modes of transportation and for all ages and abilities for the purpose of reducing fatal and severe injury collisions. Status: Completed in 2023 Cupertino has been actively working on many multi-modal Transportation Plans, but has no post-Covid regional vehicular counts.
What are traffic conditions on Stevens
Creek Blvd. in Cupertino like?
• No average daily traffic counts to determine need of one corridor over another • No SV Hopper data on SCB
• No TDM Monitoring report of Apple private bus ridership • No report of other ride sharing services
• By observation can tell that SCB is less congested than Lawrence Expressway, I-280, or SR-85 Views of Stevens Creek Blvd.
San Jose/Santa Clara facing East
SCB in SJ/SC facing east.
Auto drop off typical
SCB EB east of San Tomas Expwy.
Car Dealerships continue
SCB EB, East of Ardis Ave.
SCB EB, Santana Row
Notice median trees, no on street parking
West San Carlos EB at I-880/17 offramp
Median trees, no on street parking
West San Carlos EB at Dana Ave
Median trees, on street parking, Auto Sales
West San Carlos EB at around where the
eastern terminus would be
Westbound Stevens Creek Blvd. at
Lawrence Expressway
WB SCB at I-280
WB SCB approaching Tantau Ave.
WB SCB approaching Miller
Mature median trees, protected bike lanes
WB SCB west of Blaney Ave.
WB SCB west of Blaney Ave.
SB SCB approaching De Anza Blvd.
Newly replanted median with Oak trees
WB SCB west of DA Blvd.
Median with power lines, fencing, plantings
WB SCB at the Cupertino Sports Center
Median with power lines, fencing, planting,
trees.
What stood
out in the
screenshots?
• Light traffic - points to the importance of having data • Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino and West San Carlos St. both have extensively planted medians with trees
• SCB in Cupertino has no on street parking until west of SR-85 • SCB in Santa Clara/San Jose has a center median turn lane and auto dealerships beginning west of Lawrence Expwy. to near Santana Row. The center turn lane is used for vehicle unloading for dealerships.
• SCB in Santa Clara/San Jose has on street parking for most of the street except for the Santana Row/Valley Fair Mall area. • With the wide street, on-street parking, median turn lanes, areas of SCB would be more welcoming with trees and other amenities. • Public art is more noticeable along SCB in Cupertino. • Cupertino is farther ahead in implementing bicycle and pedestrian improvements and general beautification.
Available traffic counts place
Stevens Creek Blvd. as third
heaviest traveled street.
Traffic counts from pre-pandemic
Indicated significantly more traffic on
De Anza Boulevard through the city.
All segments of De Anza Boulevard
Had heavier traffic than any portion
Of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Wolfe Road between Homestead Rd.
And Stevens Creek Blvd. also had
Heavier traffic than any portion of
Stevens Creek Blvd.
What transit systems does Cupertino have?
• Apple HQ TDM Shuttle system between buildings and across the Bay Area – private system for employees, no constrained routes. Acknowledge this significant program paid for with private funds. • VTA bus lines on specific routes, while they could move, various housing laws tie to the locations, movement is not in the foreseeable future
• Silicon Valley Hopper serving and funded by a grant shared between Cupertino and Santa Clara, no constrained routes for travel within these two cities with added stops at Caltrain and Kaiser. Grant funded. • Uber/Lyft private ride service, no constrained routes • RYDE – WVCS and Saratoga Senior Coordinating council, no constrained routes • Foothill De Anza inter-campus shuttle (new contract, may not have started?), route between De Anza College, Sunnyvale Satellite Campus, and Foothill College What was included
in Apple’s
negotiated TDM?
While there are no
publicly available
TDM monitoring
reports available,
teleworking has
likely resulted in
surpassing the
targets.
TDM Measure Description
Mode Shift Target Reduce SOV use from 72% → 66%
during peak (34% alt modes)
Shuttle Expansion Broader commuter & intra-campus
shuttle service
Transit & Bike Subsidies $100 transit, $20 bike per employee per month
Amenities Bike-sharing, lockers, showers,
racks, pumps
Parking Control & Off-site
Mitigation
Limited spaces, parking sensors,
traffic impact improvements
Monitoring & Penalties 15-min interval traffic counts,
10-year period, up to $5/trip fines
Where do De
Anza College
Students
reside?
How do De Anza
students access
courses?
12,441 Online
6,606 Hybrid (in person/online)
6,202 Face to Face (in person)
total headcount = 16,478 (total is less than
sum because students may be taking a
course in either of the 3 modes)
source:
https://deanza.edu/ir/research/enrollment/Enroll
mentComparisonReportWinter2024.pdf
De Anza
Headcount
by Zip Code
What Community College Districts are
De Anza students from?
• De Anza students live within the San José Evergreen Community College District (CCD) boundaries (30%), while
• 23% come from the West Valley/Mission CCD,
• 17% are from the De Anza service area,
• 4% are from the Foothill service area, and
• 2.4% are from the Gavilan Joint CCD
• 76.6% total headcount from these districts
30% of total
students from
Evergreen
College
District
23% of total
students from
West Valley/
Mission College
District
17% of total
students from De
Anza service area
and 4% are from
the Foothill
service area
2.4% of De
Anza students
are from the
Gavilan CCD
(South County)
VTA Bus lines 523 and 23 serve Stevens Creek Blvd.
Ridership
across SCB in
Cupertino:
1,690
Boardings,
1,630 Alightings
(includes
Homestead #s)
De Anza
College
Boardings/
Alightings
< 400
passengers
per day
What fiscal impacts could
drastically altering the
streetscape have on San
Jose?
Revenue drop.
There are 10+ auto
dealerships and 5+ parts
dealers on SCB in SJ.
SJ had $2.7 B Food/ Drink
& $2.1 B in taxable Motor
Vehicle and Parts
Dealerships sales ’24
source: CDTFA
Taxable Sales - Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4) Calendar Year City
Business
Group Code Business Type Number of Outlets
Taxable Transactions
Amount
2024 San Jose C01 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 485 $ 2,121,442,248 2024 San Jose C02 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 684 $ 1,835,299,061 2024 San Jose C03
Building Material and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers 290 $ 1,131,729,568
2024 San Jose C04 Food and Beverage Stores 774 $ 687,021,764 2024 San Jose C05 Gasoline Stations 208 $ 1,147,072,231 2024 San Jose C06 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 1941 $ 1,145,979,627 2024 San Jose C07 General Merchandise Stores 511 $ 1,604,986,597 2024 San Jose C08 Food Services and Drinking Places 3089 $ 2,718,786,494 2024 San Jose C09 Other Retail Group 5495 $ 4,609,261,780 2024 San Jose CTR Total Retail and Food Services 13477 $ 17,001,579,370 2024 San Jose OTH All Other Outlets 10061 $ 5,694,367,542 2024 San Jose TTL Total All Outlets 23538 $ 22,695,946,912 Establishments
may be skipped
entirely – no
parking/no
nearby stop
What impacts could
drastically altering the
streetscape in Santa
Clara result in?
Motor Vehicle and
Parts Dealers #1
taxable transactions
followed by Food
Services/Drinking
Places. 10+ Auto
Dealerships on SCB in
SC.
Removing parking/few
stops will impact
revenue.
Taxable Sales - Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4) Calendar
Year City
Business Group
Code Business Type
Number of
Outlets
Taxable Transactions
Amount
2024Santa Clara C01 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 166 $ 748,362,788 2024Santa Clara C02 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 170 $ 143,055,968 2024Santa Clara C03
Building Material and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers 42 $ 130,996,475
2024Santa Clara C04 Food and Beverage Stores 122 $ 97,679,590 2024Santa Clara C05 Gasoline Stations 30 $ 179,606,931
2024Santa Clara C06 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 185 $ 69,336,954 2024Santa Clara C07 General Merchandise Stores 68 $ 284,768,601 2024Santa Clara C08 Food Services and Drinking Places 562 $ 634,408,387 2024Santa Clara C09 Other Retail Group 884 $ 118,002,677 What impacts
could drastically
altering the
streetscape in
Cupertino result
in?
High Capacity,
few-stop transit
may bypass local
businesses
entirely.
Revenue drop.
Taxable Sales - Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4) Calendar
Year City
Business
Group
Code Business Type
Number of
Outlets
Taxable Transactions
Amount
2024Cupertino C01 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 7 $ 2,029,159 2024Cupertino C02 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 56 $ 143,434,537 2024Cupertino C03
Building Material and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers 25 $ 25,820,853
2024Cupertino C04 Food and Beverage Stores 37 $ 43,818,716 2024Cupertino C05 Gasoline Stations 18 $ 69,621,418
2024Cupertino C06 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 124 $ 52,205,338 2024Cupertino C07 General Merchandise Stores 32 $ 37,538,317 2024Cupertino C08 Food Services and Drinking Places 210 $ 266,714,476 2024Cupertino C09 Other Retail Group 420 $ 37,247,845
6.1 Project is
already included
in Plan Bay Area
2050+ at $2.8B
with no needs
assessment,
Cost-Benefit
Analysis or
prioritization by
VTA
How is the Light
Rail System
performing?
FY 25 Goal:
23,000 Avg.
Weekday
Boarding Riders
FY 25 Q2 Actual:
15,712
Has not
recovered to preCovid levels
Source: Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study December 2024, http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=13376&MeetingID=4346 MTC Plan Bay Area 2050+
• https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/attachments/6184/9avii_24_1550_Updated_Handout_Attach ment_F_Transportation_Project_List.pdf
• https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025- 06/PBA_2050_plus_Final_Blueprint_Compendium_061125.pdf
• The plan does not represent a commitment of funding by any level of government for any particular strategy or project
• https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Amended_Plan_Bay_Area_2050_Transportation_Proje ct_List.pdf Light Rail for $2.83 Billion planned in the Amended Plan Bay Area 2050, without Cupertino’s Legislative Body (Council) approval, technical analysis, needs assessment, or cost benefit analysis.
On May 1, 2025, the VTA Board of
Directors Approved the SCC Vision Study
with no Cupertino Board Representation,
no input from the Cupertino City Council,
no regional needs analysis, and no costbenefit Analysis. • https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/vta-overview.pdf Comments from the State Auditor Report
on VTA
• “VTA Did Not Perform Cost-Benefit Analyses When It Planned Two Major Capital Projects” - CA State Audit June 11, 2024
Source: 2023-101 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority “Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight” Published: June 11, 2024|Report Number: 2023-101
• https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-101/
Criteria Needs Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis
Purpose Is the project necessary? Is the project worth it? Focus Travel demand, system gaps,
problem severity Costs vs. quantified benefits
Outcome Justification for studying a solution Decision to build, delay, modify, or cancel
Required for Funding? Often part of early planning (yes) Required for federal/state grants (always)
Type Descriptive (defines problems) Evaluative (measures value of solutions)
Why Both Matter
• A needs analysis without a CBA can lead to projects that are justified but wasteful.
• A CBA without a needs analysis risks evaluating the wrong solution to the wrong problem.
• Together, they ensure public funds are spent wisely, fairly, and effectively.
Suggest
Process
Improvements:
Encourage the VTA BOD to prioritize projects based on regional needs, cost-benefit analysis, and funding. Consult with the cities prior to approving studies which impact them.
VTA and the BOD need to follow the 2024 State Auditor
recommendations and conduct cost-benefit analyses
Request VTA to provide traffic data and land use growth patterns from the CMA reports if available. Where is significant county growth occurring?
Take care in any future collaborations to ensure the scope is thoughtfully aligned with cities’ needs, wants, and budgets.
Options: modify the Resolution and bring it back to Council or accept a modified Resolution in the Agenda Packet
• Accept the SCC Vision Study conditionally.
• Acknowledge our wish to work collaboratively on data-driven, fiscally responsible infrastructure • Recognize all of the planning and implementation staff, especially Public Works has already done making Cupertino the leader in the corridor for safety and multi-modal transit. • Cupertino's support for future implementation efforts will be conditioned on:
1. Inclusion of a comprehensive regional travel demand and needs analysis;
2. Completion of a cost-benefit analysis, including local fiscal impacts for any high-capacity transit proposal;
3. Review of future transportation technologies (e.g., autonomous vehicles, microtransit);
4. Consideration of Cupertino’s existing flexible, unconstrained transit ecosystem;
5. Preservation of Cupertino’s corridor investments;
6. Full City Council review and approval of any implementation steps involving infrastructure or land use changes. • Clarify that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to express support for any specific infrastructure alignment, mode, or funding plan without the above conditions being met and subsequent Council review.
CC 09-03-2025
Item No.19
Options on Commission
Oversight of
Transportation Matters
Written Communications
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 2025-09-03 CC Agenda Item 19 Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:56:13 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.
2025-09-03 CC Agenda Item 19 Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and City Manager, My name is Connie Cunningham, a 38 year resident of the community and currently Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.
I urge the Council to select Option 3 to keep transportation related topics with the Bike Ped Commission. It has been my observation over the past several years, that bicyclists and pedestrians, who are a minority of our traveling residents, suffer from a lack of being heard. Many residents dismiss their concerns. It has been mentioned that there are “drivers' rights". Left out of that phrase is “drivers' responsibilities.” I have taken the bicyclist class that is intended to help bicyclists learn all the rules of the road and to become more aware of specific problems: intersections is a major one. Driver’s who do not understand how to drive with cyclists is another. Cyclists who do not know how to cycle safely is another.
I was surprised by many things in the class. My own, (even with a bicyclist in my family that I love dearly) and other drivers’, lack of awareness of anything except cars on the road.
I have learned over time that in order to get federal, state and county grant funding, the City needs to have action items in place.
An active Bike Ped Commission is a big part of that list of action items.
Our city prizes safety and environmental improvements. Keeping a Bike Ped Commission will continue the City’s work on Transportation that is Safe and Environmentally friendly.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Liang Chao
Subject: Fw: Questions for staff on existing CMC rules and regulations on changes to streets.
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:50:20 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 City Clerk,
Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message:
On Wednesday, September 3, 2025, 1:48 PM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Hi David, Chad,
I have a few questions and would appreciate if you or someone in staff could help with these.
1. When was Bike Ped Commission first formally created. Which commission covered roads and transportation or related transportation master plans prior to that.
2. Assuming it was planning commission that might have covered for these, when the Bike Ped commission was formed was the charter of planning commission modified to shift charter from PC to BPC. Can we see redline versions of the changes that were made.
3. If charter changes did not occur how did the city assume charter shift to BPC when there was a time that no BPC existed and we still had these types of projects in the city.
4. Would the road improvements to introduce bike lanes or lane removals count as or meet the definition of road diverters per CMC 14.04.125? If so CMC 14.04.125.C(2) implies the item must be deliberated on by city council. If these road changes to divert traffic away from a lane as done on DeAnza are technically diverters should the above CMC have been followed.
Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members,
Please refer the above CMC.
https://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cupertino#/ff2020ef-ed71-490f-93f8- 3cd17cf0c716/4b4fb49f-c031-45ee-ac71-9d23572ec56f/9a2621bb-6320-4b26- b735-39f3d79dd806
It defines what the public would like to see. It can be extended to cover all road improvements that involve modifications to lanes, removal of parking, removal of right turns and any other lane changes and council may choose to have these reviewed at PC and CC or PC only with appeal to CC.
Note that only PC has rights to approval besides CC. BPC is advisory only and cannot be an approval commission. Therefore given the nature of public impact these road changes have caused I ask that you enhance the above CMC to include all road changes and consider hearing at PC and CC or optionally PC only with appeal to CC.
Thank you.
—————
Each request for installation, removal or modification of a diverter shall be reviewed by staff, who shall prepare a written report containing the following information to be submitted to the City Council:
The actions proposed and the reasons for support of the request For existing diverters, the report shall include the history of the diverter, including the date of installation, reason why it was installed, complaints received, if any, and statements of support received, if any; Existing conditions in the area which would be affected by the proposed installation, removal or modification include, but are not limited to:
Traffic volumes, patterns and speeds,
Existing traffic control and traffic-control and traffic-management devices,
On-street parking levels and patterns,
Accident data, and
Emergency-vehicle access routes, public transit and school bus routes, and other public service and delivery routes.
Both the streets directly affected by the diverter and the streets which would be expected to handle diverted traffic shall be considered. For existing diverters, the accident data should include an assessment of the role, if any, that the diverter may have played (both positive and negative);
Design options of the diverter or diverters;
Probable impacts of the proposed installation, removal or modification, including but not limited to impacts on the conditions described under subsection C2b of this section; on air pollution, fuel use, and noise; on transit service; on emergency-vehicle access times; on residential quality of life, and estimated costs. Both streets directly affected by the diverter or diverters and the streets which would be expected to handle diverted traffic shall be considered;
Staff shall request comments on the proposed diverter from the Departments of Public Safety and Community Development and the County Transit District if any routes are impacted, and shall attach these comments to the report;
Alternatives to the proposed action;
Statements or findings necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act;
Staff recommendation.
In addition to transmitting the staff report to the City Council, staff shall also send copies of the report to the initiator of the request, to neighborhood organizations in the area of the proposed action, to individuals who have stated an interest in such matters, and to the County Transit District if any bus routes are impacted.
Notice of a public hearing shall be given pursuant to the manner set forth in Chapter 19.116 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
After the close of the public hearing, the City Council may order a report recommending that a diverter or diverters be installed or removed or modified, or that no change be made. The report shall contain written findings that the proposed action meets each of the requirements set forth in subsection B of this section, shall specify the effect of the proposed action on traffic volume and on the health and safety of Cupertino citizens as outlined in subsection B4 of this section, and that the action complies with CEQA. The City Council may adopt the staff report as the findings in support of its decision.
The Public Works Department shall process the appropriate environmental —————————-
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) document.
The Director of Public Works shall submit all reports generated pursuant to these regulations to the City Council.
The City Council shall by resolution authorize the installation, removal or modification of any diverter. If the proposal is for the installation of a new diverter, then the Director of Public Works shall review the diverter after six months of operation concerning any and report the conclusions of operation concerning any impacts as outlined in subsection C2b of this section and report the conclusions of such review to the City Council.
Improvements. The Department of Public Works shall consider physical improvements for the designated diverters during each year's budget process.
Any such improvements shall be processed in the same manner as any capital improvement in the City, except that the Department of Public Works may accept contributions in cash or in kind to provide for improvements of diverters. First priority shall be given to improving any diverter to enhance public health and safety. Second priority for placement of physical improvements shall be given to diverters in order of their date of installation.
From: Calley Wang
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 9/3 Council meeting comments on agenda items 18 and 19 Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:28:46 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.
Honorable Mayor Chao, Council Members and Staff,
Here are my comments on the following agenda items:
18: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
I urge the council to adopt the Stevens Creek Vision as recommended. The vision plan contains common sense recommendations and best practices for improving safety and attractiveness on suburban streets. As a Cupertino native who travels Stevens Creek by car, bus, foot, and bike and has followed the outreach process from the beginning, I think the vision plan will make the corridor safer, more pleasant and less congested. These will have such a positive impact for seniors, families, and youth, who I often see walking or riding transit on the Cupertino section of Stevens Creek. Morever, the scope of the of the vision should be maintained to include Foothill Boulevard, which this Council initially advocated for to ensure greater funding eligibility for Cupertino's section of Stevens Creek.
The Vision also aligns with Cupertino's General Plan goals of promoting walking and biking, better local and regional transit, and an attractive Heart of the City. As Stevens Creek develops, it will become a better place for residents to walk around and for small businesses to thrive.
A vocal minority has insisted that Cupertino should prioritize increasing car traffic above all else on Stevens Creek. This would give Stevens Creek all the safety, smooth traffic flow, economic potential, and neighborhood character of Lawrence Expressway. It is a major corridor but it is not an expressway. It forms the commercial heart of the city and should be safe and welcoming for all residents of all ages to visit by car, foot, bike, or transit.
Adopting the Vision maintains local control -- it does not cost Cupertino any money or require it to carry out any projects without city approval. It is the best way to secure a future for safe and smooth travel on Stevens Creek for all residents and all visitors. 19: Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters
I support Option 3 from the staff report, which is to maintain a commission with oversight on transportation issues. We are asking Planning Commission to do too much with their limited time and city resources, on top of complex state housing requirements. Meanwhile a separate Mobility Commission with a clarified mandate would have the time and attention needed to focus on transportation issues, especially those impacting our most vulnerable road users.
Remember that many cyclists and pedestrians in Cupertino are students and kids; their perspectives also deserve to be taken into consideration. Additionally, having a separate commission is in line with best practice in other Bay Area cities like Palo Alto and has successfully obtained lots of outside grant funding for transportation improvements in Cupertino.
This is the best choice for maintaining Cupertino's attractive quality of life and the most fiscally responsible choice.
Thank you,
Calley Wang
West Hill Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Council; City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Item 19- Referral of Transportation Matters to the Planning Commission (9/3/25) Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:01:39 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 City Council:
(Please include the following as public comment for the Study Session on Item 19 at the Cupertino City Council meeting on 9/3/25: Referring Transportation Matters to the Planning Commission.)
Item Number 19 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for 9/3/25 is a Study Session on the Referral Of Transportation Matters to the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission should have Transportation Matters referred to them. They should be able to look at and review the issues With Transportation Matters and they can study the Transportation changes or updates. They have the expertise and resources to find out exactly the parameters being discussed. The Planning Commission has The whole big picture and can ascertain best how situations may change etc. They can make suggestions And ask questions and get information. They look out for everyone and try to anticipate how something Will affect the infrastructure of the city, especially in the realm of traffic and transportation areas.
The Bike and Pedestrian Committee just looks at one area of Transportation and we need to have A larger and more focused evaluation of Transportation issues. The Planning Commission is most Most important commission behind the City Council and they are there to provide the City Council With valuable information from the Planning Commission's investigation into areas of concern and Public interest.
Transportation Matters really must involve cars and traffic impacts etc. As our city is pushed to build More and more housing, we must evaluate how the traffic in our city is being managed and how Traffic loads will change and traffic will be impacted by construction and additional car demands Etc. From additional traffic.
We need realistic and reliable studies of Transportation impacts from additional construction of Housing etc. so that we can adequately plan for future mobility for everyone. Automobiles are A major source of mobility and we cannot ignore them and their needs in the new Transportation Demands.
If SB 79 passes, we will have highrises in many areas of the city. This law says nothing about traffic impacts and the city is left to have to supply all methods necessary to make sure roads are Not at absolute gridlock level. LOS (Level of Service) Is an excellent way to conduct traffic studies as it predicts the future state of an actual intersection. VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) is Often not as reliable as it does not discuss the degradation at particular intersections and there Have been times that developers or others moved bus stops when it was convenient etc.
I am really concerned Cupertino is losing all its retail to housing. The housing built will have No associated infrastructure requirements with it so that the city and the public will bear the Cost of that added infrastructure, and one of the added infrastructure will be vehicle impacts To the roadways and the needs for transportation studies.
Finding out how cars will move in the new Transportation Future is very importation and the Planning Commission should bear that responsibility.
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Yvonne Strom
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Agenda item 19. Urge the City to keep all transportation related topics with the Bike Ped Commission Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:48:05 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.
Please include in public comments for item 19 in the City Council meeting on Sept 3.
To Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and City Councilmembers, I am writing in support of the Bike Ped Commission and keeping all transportation related topics in their charter. Consolidation would effectively erase representation of any person who is not inside a car. Pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and wheelchair riders have a lawful right to use the public streets. All people, including children and students, have the right to expect their safety is just as important as the motorists they share the space with.
Making streets safer for everyone is more efficient for everyone. That's why Cupertino needs the expertise of the BPC on all transportation related topics. Please vote for Option 3 from the Staff report.
Respectfully,
Yvonne Thorstenson
A concerned resident and parent
From: Cate Crockett
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Tonight"s Council Meeting
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:46:41 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.
City Council members,
Please support Option 3 and retain all transportation related items with the Bike Ped Commission.
Thank you,
Cate Crockett
10564 Apricot Ct
Cupertino Ca
From: Ishan Khosla
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Protect the BPC - Support for Option 3
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:05:26 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 City Council Members,
My name is Ishan Khosla, and I am a junior at Cupertino High School. As someone who relies on biking to get to school, the library, and around town every day, I can confidently say that the BPC has a great impact in improving safety and accessibility for all of our citizens.
The proposal to eliminate the Bike-Ped Comission and rather transfer its responsibilities to the Planning Comission simply unjustifiable, and is only an attempt to silence the voices of pedestrians and cyclists. People who walk and bike are one of our most vulnerable populations, and having a commission to represent their needs and safety is crucial to keeping Cupertino accessible to all. Even more, eliminating the BPC will make it much more difficult for Cupertino to obtain federal, state, and county-level grant funding, which can make future projects more expensive and even unfeasible.
I ask for your help in supporting Option 3, of Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”. This change will allow the commission to continue improving safety and conectedness for our city, rather than silencing the voices of pedestrians and cyclists across Cupertino.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best, Ishan Khosla
From: Joel Wolf
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Item 19 on September 3 Agenda
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:55:18 AM
Attachments: image.png
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers
I am writing in regard to Item 19 on the September 3 Council Agenda, Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters. The recommended action is to “Provide input to staff on the preferred options for having transportation projects reviewed by commissions and provide direction to staff to take the necessary steps to implement the changes.” The staff report provides Council with four options for the Council to consider. Three of the four options remove some or all (i.e. BPC disbandment) powers and functions from the BPC, transferring these power and functions to the Planning Commission. Only Option 3 maintains the BPC in current form with the exception of a name change. As a current member of the BPC and a 40- year resident of Cupertino who walks and bikes throughout the city, I strongly urge the Council to adopt Option 3.
The current “Powers and Functions” of the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee (BPC) as listed in the Cupertino Municipal Code are as follows:
It is extremely important that these powers and functions remain with the BPC. There is no advantage of transferring all or part of these powers to the Planning Commission for the following reasons:
Expertise—The BPC focuses on the current state of art in micro-mobility modes of transportation (biking, walking, scooters).
The BPC monitors and follows the design guidance from local, state and federal agencies for micro-mobility infrastructure.
This requires a significant amount of time and energy from the BPC. The Planning Commission will not be able to devote the required time to adequately study, consider and address micro-mobility infrastructure needs for the citizens of Cupertino.
Advisory Nature of BPC—The BPC is an advisory commission with no decision-making powers. The BPC recommendations include input from the public. Ultimately, the Council does not have to accept every recommendation from the BPC. However, the work of the BPC allows the council to consider some or all options for viable active transportation modes in the city. This is important when considering making our streets safe, especially for our students going to school, young children, elderly and handicapped. The council should be getting the best advice from a strong BPC dedicated to these issues, whether or not it accepts this advice.
Climate Change—The work of the BPC is extremely important in reducing greenhouse gases and associated climate change.
The 2022 Cupertino Climate Action Plan recommends a 15% and 23% share for active transportation modes by 2030 and 2040, respectively. This plan includes many other recommendations related to active transportation modes. The work of the BPC, including a strong Active Transportation Plan, are important in achieving these goals. Reduction in the powers and functions of the BPC will make it much more difficult to achieve these goals Traffic Reduction—The work of the BPC can provide alternatives to driving which can reduce congestion. The construction of nearly 4700 housing units by 2031 in Cupertino could add significantly to congestion and pollution within the city. The BPC can provide alternative solutions to driving for both future and current residents making Cupertino a more pleasant community to live.
Public Confusion—Splitting or eliminating the current powers and functions of the BPC will add to public confusion regarding the appropriate commission to bring active transportation issues to. This simply does not serve the public well.
I strongly urge the Council to adopt Option 3.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Joel Wolf
Joel Wolf
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission
[email protected]
From: Robert Neff
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Item 19 - Support option 3 expand and rename Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:38:27 AM
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 Cupertino City Council,
As a commuter who drives his bike through Cupertino almost daily, I have been impressed with the progress and span of recent bike and ped projects in Cupertino, including new trails, better wayfinding, and new separated bike lanes. The scale and speed of improvements has been exceptional.
Regarding item 19 on your agenda, I understand that you have a structure where all local transportation projects go through the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.
In the neighboring city of Los Altos, the city has a "Complete Streets Commission" which handles all transportation projects, and I think that works well to get expertise and feedback for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements and impacts on one commission.
In contrast, in my city of Palo Alto, we have a Pedestrian and Bicycles Advisory Committee which only advises staff, while a separate Planning and Transportation Commission works through city council. There are many planning issues these days, so the transportation focus from that commission is shortchanged.
I think the Los Altos model works well, with a commission dedicated to transportation issues of all kinds.
I think choosing option 3, with a renamed BPC continuing with a sole transportation focus is the better approach.
--
-- Robert Neff
Palo Alto PABAC member
[email protected]
From: helen wiant
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please Support Option 3 in Staff Report on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 10:31:41 AM
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.
There are many things in our community that need attention, change and improvement. Limiting or eliminating the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is certainly not one of them. Just because someone in the planning commission or city council is unhappy with a project promoting safety for bikers and pedestrians is not a good reason to limit or even eliminate the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. Frankly this smacks of a tendency towards authoritarian governance. Involving the Planning Commission in the review of transportation-related matters is not at all more efficient or constructive or beneficial to Cupertino, but rather it is regressive for our community and politically motivated.
We elect 5 council members who take input from commissions and from the community and make their decisions. If you don’t like the results, make your voices heard in the next election but please don’t try to silence the voices that you disagree with.
The Bike Pedestrian Commission has an important responsibility and has achieved truly great benefits for our community at no expense to cars. The BPC mission — to review, monitor, and make recommendations on transportation matters to improve safety, mobility, and overall quality of life for all residents — is essential for a thriving Cupertino.
The Planning Commission already has a huge responsibility to provide expert advice on land use matters. Given the significant challenge in housing in our state and the resulting issues in our local communities, land use needs focused and informed attention of the Planning Commission. Adding transportation to their responsibilities would necessarily deprioritize the attention that transportation requires and would also lose focus and expertise on how to continue improving the safety and health of our community.
Therefore I strongly support Option 3 presented by the city staff, to leave all transportation matters under current Bike Pedestrian Commission purview. All the other options are regressive and result in added staff cost, confusion in responsibilities, reduced focus on transportation issues, loss of specialized bicycle and pedestrian advisory body, and negative impact on transportation grant eligibility. They are bad for Cupertino. Please vote for Option 3.
Helen Wiant
10354 Westacres Drive
Cupertino, CA
From: Andrea Lund
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please continue with BPC oversight
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:27:45 AM
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 Option 3 regarding Item No 19 on tonight’s City Council meeting agenda. I urge the Council to continue with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight, renaming it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission. This option ensures that the transportation needs of all Cupertino residents are considered, regardless of their ability to own and operate a motor vehicle, while minimizing disruption to existing structures within the city’s government. I am concerned that Options 1, 2 and 4 will marginalize the needs of children, the disabled and the elderly.
Multimodal transportation options, including active transportation on foot and bicycle, vastly improve the quality of life in our city. The integration of bicycle and pedestrian projects into the Planning Commission would further our city’s dependence on motor vehicles. The proximity of my home to the highways that cut through Cupertino already make me feel as if I have no choice to use my car, though my family and I prioritize walking and biking when we can. We value the health benefits (both mental and physical) of walking and riding bikes and aim to reduce our carbon emissions by making as many short trips through town as we can on foot and bike. We benefit from many of the bicycle and pedestrain infrastructure projects that have been completed over the last decade, but we still see many opportunities for further improvement of our quality of life through active transportation.
As a mother to small children who are approaching school age, I am also concerned about the safety of streets and availability of walking and biking paths for children to get to and from school. The motor vehicle traffic around the schools in our neighborhood is awful at drop-off and pickup times, and would be made worse if motor vehicle infrastructure is further prioritized over active transportation.
Many opportunities to further improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and quality of life in our city would be threatened if Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight is somehow split, shared or taken over entirely by the Planning Commission. In the interests of all residents of Cupertino, regardless of mode of transportation, please vote for Option 3 to continue with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight.
Thank you for consideration and for keeping the interests of all residents of Cupertino at the forefront of your deliberations.
Sincerely,
Andrea Lund
From: Siva Annamalai
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:09:18 AM
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.
Hi Cupertino City Council members and Officials of Cupertino City, I learnt that the council and city staff will be discussing various options for the oversight of transportation matters in the city of Cupertino. I am a resident of the city of Cupertino and have been a resident for the last 29 years and feel the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission of the city has done a great job of highlighting the needs of ensuring the development in the city is done taking into consideration the safety needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the city.
I commute to work on a bicycle at least 3 times a week and have experienced first hand the spectacular work done by this commission and would strongly recommend that the city vote to preserve this commission. Considering the options on the table for the council to vote on I feel option 3 - continue with BPC oversight, rename to 'Transportation and Mobility commission' makes the most sense and I would urge the council to vote for this option.
Regards,
Siva Annamalai.
From: Revathy Narasimhan
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please continue with BPC oversight
Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:52:01 AM
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 esteemed council members,
Regarding: Agenda item No. 19 on the Council Meeting on September 3rd. Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters
I am a proud Cupertino resident for the last 14 years, and our family has raised both our kids in the local elementary, middle, and high schools. We are very thankful to the city for supporting the schools and the kids.
A significant factor in our decision to raise our family in Cupertino was the safety it provides for populations that are either too young or too old/have other disabilities to drive. Our kids were part of the first group, and we see over about 20,000 such kids across the elementary and high school districts. We also have several elderly neighbours in the second group. I am writing this email so their voices are heard.
I see kids regularly bike and walk to school. I heard routinely from my kids how safe they felt with the dedicated bike lanes. I am thankful each time I cross my neighborhood street, Rainbow Drive, with a flag in hand that the city provides, and am so thankful for the many lighted crosswalks we have around -> all this was possible because there was a group dedicated to thinking and planning what it meant to be safe on the roads as every member of the city. It is easier to focus on the folks in the cars, but having a dedicated group meant we specifically considered the folks who didn’t use the car, advocated for their needs, and have a shining example of how this works well in practice now! For this reason, I ask that you continue to have a group dedicated to bike and pedestrian safety. I support Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”.
Thanks
Revathy
Resident, Cupertino.
From: Sharlene Liu
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: council mtg agenda 19: do not disband BPC
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:18:46 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 Cupertino City Council,
I am providing input for agenda #19: option for commission oversight on transportation matters. I strongly support Option #3, which is to keep a bike-pedestrian commission and rename it to "transportation and mobility commssion". Having a commission focused on transportation and mobility issues is essential to the smooth functioning of Cupertino.
Where I live, Sunnyvale, we have both commissions. There is rarely an overlap in function between these 2 commissions. Our Planning Commission focuses almost exclusively on real estate development while our BPAC focuses exclusively on active transportation. The expertise needed on each commission is distinct from each other. Rarely will you find commissioners interested in both areas -- real estate development and active transportation.
By combining them, you will surely lose the focus needed in each area. I used to be on the Sunnyvale BPAC, and I can say that I was not interested in Planning Commission work, and my counterparts in the Planning Commission were not interested in BPAC's work.
I live on the border of Cupertino and I often bike into Cupertino. I am often impressed by the progress Cupertino makes in its bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Cupertino's BPC and its transportation staff are commendable in what they achieve. Keep up the good work. Don't disband the BPC.
Warm regards,
Sharlene Liu
Former Sunnyvale BPAC commissioner
Sunnyvale resident living near Cupertino
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Agenda Item 19 - Please keep all transportation matters with the Bike Ped Commission Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:31:50 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.
Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council members,
I'm on the Planning Commission but I am writing today as a resident of Cupertino who drives, walks, and bikes in our city.
As Chair of Walk Bike Cupertino and as a current Planning Commissioner, I have a uniquely deep understanding of the responsibilities and work done by both the Bike Ped Commission and the Planning Commission. They are fundamentally different roles that cannot be combined. The BPC requires in-depth understanding and experience of walking and biking in our city, NACTO standards, and active transportation best practices. Most importantly, the BPC's charter is to represent and advocate for pedestrians and cyclists, which requires extensive personal experience as a pedestrian or a cyclist.
The MTC, in their Resolution 4108, requires all TDA3 projects to be prioritized by the city's BPC. They also require that, in order for a city to be eligible for MTC grants, the city's BPC must be constituted of commissioners who are active cyclists and pedestrians "who are familiar with bicycle and pedestrian needs in the jurisdiction" to "represent the interests of the bicycle and pedestrian communities" (See MTC Memo entitled TDA3_BAC_Guidance dated October 6, 2014).
Planning Commissioners on the other hand are tasked with implementing the General Plan, specifically in the area of "zoning, subdivisions, and sign ordinances." (Cupertino City Municipal Code). That is a completely different focus that requires a completely different type of expertise.
All of our neighboring cities in the South Bay and the Peninsula have a dedicated BPC to focus on transportation issues. Every single one. Do we really want Cupertino to have the dubious notoriety of being the only city that values its pedestrians and cyclists so little that it eliminates their dedicated representation in our city governance and effectively silences their voice? What does that say about our city? What message does it send to Cupertino pedestrians and cyclists, a majority of whom are our children and our parents? How will you look in the eye the next student cycling to school who gets hit by a car and justify this action? Please consider carefully whether this is the legacy you want to be remembered for - silencing the voices of our children and seniors and enshrining disregard for their safety in our city governance.
Do the right thing. Choose Option 3 and keep all transportation matters with the Bike Ped Commission.
Thanks,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization.
From: Alvin Yang
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:06:52 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 City Council,
I am writing to urge you to not encroach on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission's responsibilities on transportation and instead take up option 3 of the staff memo to re-designate the BPC as the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Nearly every other city in the Bay Area has a separate transportation commission from its general planning commission. Cities all across the bay all recognize that it is important to have a separate entity to manage transportation issues separate from general planning because transportation is an equally broad and important aspect of city planning that requires a different perspective from the planning commission.
The BPC has created an important voice for people using alternative means of transportation in Cupertino including those who are unable to drive. By rolling some or all of the BPC's responsibilities into the planning commission you are effectively silencing these people; who I remind you are your very own constituents. As a reminder there are not only many students who are below the driving age that bike/walk to school there is also an increasing amount of elderly in Cupertino who will eventually be unable to drive as well. How will these people get around Cupertino if cars are the only viable mode of transportation? It's incredibly shortsighted and ignorant to disregard the voices of anybody who does not drive to get around.
As it stands now, the BPC has done a great deal of work in creating a transportation system that benefits all users.
The BPC has also helped secure a great deal of grant funding for the many projects that have promoted alternative modes of transportation. These funds would not have been acquired if, say, a plan was put forward for more car-centric infrastructure. Not only that, the overhead costs of planning commission are much higher than the BPC's and would only further increase as you move more responsibilities over to the planning commission. By eliminating or diminishing the BPC it would cost the city more and earn the city less grant funding.
I hope you make the choice that prioritizes the well-being and safety of all your citizens as well as the financially responsible decision.
Regards,
Alvin Yang
From: J Shearin
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: City Council item 19: Keep the BPC & Planning Commission functions as is Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:38:54 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.
Please include this letter in official communication for the 9/3/2025 Council meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers:
Changing the responsibilities of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and the Planning Commission is an unnecessary change which adds additional cost to our city while making it harder for the city to receive grant funding. I urge you to not pursue this step which does not seem to have any benefits to the residents of our city. The City Council is the appropriate place to consider all the input from the commissions and residents of the city, and to weigh the various positives and negatives of a project.
We’ve always had a separate Planning Commission and Bicycle Pedestrian Commission because of several important reasons:
(1) They have different functions and priorities The Planning Commission’s focus is on land use, and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s focus is on safe transportation. Rolling these two functions into one Commission will inevitably result in the loss of resident input as there are fewer opportunities for residents to speak on the issues they care about. The city should encourage more resident input, and not less. This is important for resident transparency and engagement.
(2) As the staff report for this Study Session states, rolling the BPC functions into the Planning Commission or increasing the Planning Commission mandate to more transportation matters will likely result in “a measured increase in staff time", which is more of our taxpayer dollars being spent on an unnecessary change. (3) Bicycle Pedestrian Commissions (or “Transportation, Complete Streets Commission, etc) exist because several grant-awarding bodies require them as a condition for a city receiving grant money for a wide variety of projects. This includes not only bike lanes, but also grants for safety features such as speed monitoring signs.
Continuing to have separate commissions with distinct responsibilities keeps these positives for our city.
Thank you for considering my input, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
resident of Cupertino
From: Stacy Bruzek Banerjee
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Agenda item #19 Transportation Matters
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:24:08 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.
Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers,
I am the Chair of the VTA BPAC (the Bicycle and Pedistristrain Advisory Committee for VTA and Santa Clara County) ... I am writing this email as a parent who has raised a child who attended CUSD and FUHSD schools. My son and his friends rode their bicycles on Cupertino city streets to reach school, to frequent Cupertino businesses (restaurants, boba shops, etc etc.), and to visit friends. Of course this came with many safety risks, and frankly alot of fear of the potential of being hit by a vehicle such that the bike was often left in the garage ... especially after we witnessed one of my son's long-time friends hit on a Cupertino street as they were biking to high school about a year ago (not the fault of the student, yet the student flew up in the air ...).
Cupertino's Bicycle Pedestrian Commission working with city staff has made improvements on the roadways given their focused attention to bicycle and pedestrian safety issues and needs. Our family is appreciative of these improvements. HOWEVER, there are many more Cupertino streets that still need improvement (like the one where my son's friend was hit). Many parents don't let their kids have the independence (and health benefits!) of biking because the streets aren't safe. Instead there are more cars on the road (making congestion) to take kids to/from school, to drive them to/from activities, to take them to meet friends, etc.
To solve this, the dedicated and specialized attention of a commission that focuses on multimodal transportation CONTINUES to be needed. The roadways were designed a long time ago when there were fewer cars, slower speeds, less distraction, school buses, etc etc. Today the BEST improvements can be planned ONLY when a commission has dedicated focus AND expert multi-modal experience, and knowledge (including bicycle, pedestrian). It's BEST to have a commission dedicated to transportation and have that commission chartered for all transportation related items.
Further, MTC Resolution 4108 states, "Each county and city is required to have a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) or equivalent body review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle pedestrian, or active transportation plans. BPACs should be composed of both bicyclists and pedestrians." My interpretation of MTC's intent here is that they are looking for the city BPAC/equivalent to be filled with experts in the area of active transportation. What comes to mind for me is people who traverse the city streets -- miles each day -- using active transportation, know NACTO guidelines, understand Complete Streets policy, follow the VTA Bicycle Program, know local transportation plans (including those of adjacent jurisdictions), etc. are the right experts. With all respect intended, this is NOT the job description, or the skill set, or experience, or knowledge base of a typical planning commissioner. In fact, I have spoken to several planning commissioners over the last couple of years from different cities in the county ... and what I regularly hear from them is that they are not bike/ped experts.
Cities throughout Santa Clara County recognize these things and prioritize commissions dedicated to mobility (with focus on bicycle and pedestrian needs) including:
Sunnyvale BPAC
Santa Clara BPAC
San Jose BPAC
Los Altos Complete Streets Commission ("safe mobility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users") Saratoga Trails Advisory Committee ("planning, acquisition, and development of trails and sidewalks") AND Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission
Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission "considering pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, traffic controls, lighting, vehicular circulation and parking" Campbell BPAC
Los Gatos Complete Streets & Transportation Commission ("related to bicycle, pedestrian, and other multi-modal transportation means") Los Altos Hills Pathways Committee ("Bicycle Plan", "public trails, and pathways") Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
Mountain View BPAC
The City of Cupertino should continue to join other nearby cities and bring leadership through a dedicated commission to solve the multi-modal safety issues on its streets.
Please vote to ensure dedicated commission focus on mobility and to prevent anyone walking and biking -- a student, an elderly person, anyone -- from being severely injured or killed on your streets.
Thank you,
Stacy Banerjee
From: Taghi Saadati
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: BPC
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 7:42:38 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, as an avid biker & long time resident of Cupertino I urge you to keep BPC as their recommendations has made Cupertino safer for pedestrians & cyclists.
Also, I support option 3 which I believe it would continue safety recommendations for pedestrians & cyclists.
FYI, recently the city of Mountain View made
a major safety improvement on Califia Avenue , West of Shoreline Blvd., by moving the bike lane next to the curb & parking next to moving cars, plus safety improvements for street crossings.
I hope Cupertino could do the same on street with a lots of moving cars like Stevens Creek Blvd.
Thank you
Taghi Saadati
Sent from my iPhone
From: Hervé Marcy
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: City Council 9/3 item 19
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:34:05 PM
Attachments: OpenPGP_0x2E75B4858B936689.asc
OpenPGP_signature.asc
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.
Mayor Chao and esteemed councilmembers,
I am part of the Bicycle pedestrian commission of the City of Cupertino, but am writing in my name only.
98% of all Bay Area cities have a separate Bike Ped/Transportation Commission and Planning Commission. And there are good reasons for that:
the planning commission has a very specific mission, which is vastly different from the BPC. Planning commissioners are not nominated for their knowledge of biking and pedestrian infrastructure. They do not know the challenges that vulnerable groups, such as seniors and people with disabilities, face when using the city infrastructure and nor should they, because the BPC is here for that! It allows an increase in community feedback and input from pedestrians, cyclists and residents impacted by projects.
I am of the opinion that decentralizing power is healthy . If you believe in the fact that "powerful interest groups" can manipulate decisions, then you should be worried about concentrating power into the hands of a single commission. You may be in power today, but if you are not tomorrow, the agenda of your opponent may be much easier to implement with a single commission. It is not a matter of policy, it is a matter of good city governance.
For these reason, I am humbly asking you to vote for Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission” on item 19 on the agenda.
Best regards,
Hervé Marcy
--
Hervé MARCY
[email protected]
From: Neil Park-McClintick
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Item 19—Support option 3, Protect Walking and Cycling Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 5:20:21 PM
Attachments: image.png
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 City Council,
Please support option 3 for item 19—to preserve the distinction between the planning commission and the bicycle and pedestrian commission.
Most municipal governments—including all of our neighbors in Santa Clara County— maintain a transportation-focused commission separate from their planning commission.
These commissions promote good governance by allowing cities to better allocate staff time, leverage outside funding, and provide an essential advisory voice for a future where residents don’t have to rely on driving everywhere.
Part of what makes Cupertino so livable today is our willingness to embrace positive changes that encourage walking, biking, and transit. Thanks to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission, Cupertino is far more walkable and cycling-friendly than many other cities. While some drivers may complain about these improvements, few would actually want to live in a fully car-dependent environment—examples of which exist across the U.S., a country already heavily car-oriented:
In addition to the positive effects of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, having a separate mobility-focused commission is also just good governance. The planning commission will always be focused on residential, commercial etc projects and the rules that enable land use potential. With the largest Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirement ever placed on municipal governments, the planning commission will understandably be preoccupied with planning around thousands of new homes. They will not and should not be using valuable staff and commissioner time on whether a new crosswalk is needed in a neighborhood, or if a speed bump could reduce fatalities.
Even Cupertino’s own staff report underscores this point. The only listed con for Option 3— the option to preserve a dedicated mobility commission—is that it does not align with Council’s stated direction. That is not a substantive reason. Making decisions simply because “Council wants to” without evidence or rationale is poor governance. It risks placing Cupertino on par with the kind of arbitrary, power-consolidating decision-making we criticize at the national level.
Please support option 3.
Thank you,
Neil Park-McClintick
former 15+ year resident of Cupertino, with family still there From: John G
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Council Agenda item 19, Transportation, Plase support Option 3 Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:02:14 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 Cupertino Council,
Please support option 3 in order to maintain a dedicated Bike Ped Commission.
This is in order to maintain good governance and obtain grant funding.
Thank you,
John
John Geis
408-209-6970 mobile
[email protected]