CC 09-16-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Oral Communications, Council Meeting, Sept. 16: Mayor"s Chat, Sept. 8 Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 2:46:55 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 Written Communications
City Council,
I commend Mayor Chao's decision to hold monthly chats. I have gone to almost all of them for the past two years, and find them invaluable in connecting with the community in an informal setting. I hear concerns that don't surface in the intimidating council chambers with its protocols. The one held on Sept. 8 was no different than other chats - the lively discussion centered around the role of the Bicycle Ped Commission on the city council agenda. The discourse was the same level as the pickleball community at previous chats. Each group is passionate, and should be allowed to express their points of view. Mayor Chao is willing to listen to both sides.
It's unfortunate that the Chair of the Planning Commission, Santosh Rao, objects to these discussions - he is quite opposed to both bike and pickleball advocacy, preferring tennis and cars. He was absent for a major portion of the chat and the cordial conversations afterward.
He was seated back of the chairs so not even in the circle with the conversation; he came and went freely.
My observation from attending all these meetings, including all council meetings, is that Chair Rao, is unwilling to accept decisions and data that he opposes, from bikes to court modifications, to lane changes. Apparently, his opposition has become quite unreasonable, and he arranged for THREE sheriff's deputies to stand guard at the Planning Commission on Sept. 9 with fewer than five people in the council chamber, wasting valuable public safety resources, and intimidating attendees.
Please counsel Chair Rao on his responsibilities as an appointed official whose responsibility is public service, not promotion of his personal agenda.
Civil governance advocate,
Jean Bedord
From: Lina
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Public Comments; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley; Gian Martire Subject: We need new parking and traffic solutions for Memorial Park events NOW- not appropriate to eliminate 89 parking spots on Mary Ave for Villas Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025 7:45:09 AM
Attachments: image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
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 Members, City Manager, and City Staff, I am writing as a concerned Garden Gate resident to highlight the severe and escalating parking and traffic issues on Mary Avenue. The chaos experienced during the Silicon Valley Fall Festival on September 13th is not an isolated event; it is a recurring problem that plagues our neighborhood for over a third of the year's weekends, and almost every weekend in the summer, due to city and non-City run community events at Memorial Park.
Yesterday, my family and I faced dangerous conditions on Mary Ave while simply trying to run errands.Mary Ave is the primary and sole commute route from our home daily, as it feeds directly to Stevens Creek Blvd and CA-85.
We encountered:
1. Traffic Obstruction: Cars double-parked in bike lanes to unload passengers, causing major slowdowns.
2.Unsafe Driving Conditions: Abrupt stops and aggressive drivers competing for scarce spots.
3. I had to stop abruptly and maneuver around car doors swinging open into my traffic lane. This problem is worsened by wider vehicles like minivans and SUVs that are commonly driven to family centered City festivals as was today's event. This is especially dangerous for families with children.
4. Street parking was FULL to Milford Lane by Don Burnett Bridge on Mary Ave. My neighbors and friends could not easily utilize the weekly Recycling truck service seen on the left side. Usually this lineup is over 10-15 people long on Saturdays.
5. Lack of Access: Our neighbors and I had difficulty accessing our homes and welcoming guests. The situation is unsafe and disrupts our daily lives. Event visitors made street parking difficult and sparse for family and friends of my neighbors at Casa De Anza.
6. This issue is compounded by the fact that 87% of Memorial Park’s designated parking lots were closed off for the festival, leaving only a fraction of the spots available.
Additionally, no "off-site" public street parking is available on residential streets flanking the Memorial Park tennis courts: Christensen, Lauretta Dr, Ann Arbor Ave require parking permits daily from 7am to 10pm.
This parking study taken from the City Memorial Park improvement plan shows 256 "on-site" parking spots designated for Memorial Park Events. However, I only found 13% (count of 34) of on-site spots to be available at this event.
Reference: https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Public-Works/CapitalImprovement-Programs-Projects/Memorial-Park-Specific-Plan- - Mary Ave Lots 1 and 2 were unavailable since they are reserved for those with Senior Center permits which are enforced Mon-Sat 8am-5pm. - Alves Drive parking (L toot 4) and the Quinlan Center Parking Lots off of N.Stelling Rd (Lots 5 and 6) were closed off from the public with "do not turn" signs and sheriff vehicles. This is often is the case for festivals for conversion to a food court area, portable restrooms, handwashing areas, vendor loading, rendering 50+42+44 parking spots unavailable at this City Event.
An Escalating Crisis
This existing problem is poised to become significantly worse with several major developments underway or planned in the area:
Mary Ave Villas: The proposal to remove 89 street parking spots is unacceptable and will decimate an already limited supply.
Memorial Park Improvements: While beneficial, new features like the all-abilities playground and eight new pickleball courts will dramatically increase daily visitors, overwhelming the current infrastructure. (adding 9 new parking spots isn't going to be enough on weekends!)
Ongoing Developments: The Westport Project and De Anza College construction will further strain local traffic and parking.
The current parking configuration for memorial Park events is not effective, contrary to the 2022 parking study. Most of Mary Ave is and continues to be a heavily utilized during Park events. Visitors will continue to seek out free, unrestricted, public parking closest to Memorial Park, which will overload Mary Ave.
Walking over 0.5 miles from the Stelling side of De Anza's lot is significant and can be a barrier for families with young kids, seniors, those with mobility issues, and for anyone during extreme weather (heat or rain). In my observations, many visitors prefer to drop off family members or hover around Mary Ave for parking closer to the Park.
The Path Forward
Approving these projects in their current form without a comprehensive solution would be a critical mistake. We need a forward-thinking plan to ensure the safety and quality of life for residents.
I urge you to take immediate action on the following:
1. Preserve Street Parking: Don't approve the removal of 89 street parking spots in the Mary Ave Villas proposal. Removal of parking between the Mary Ave dog park to the former Oaks center will be devastating.
2. Implement New Solutions: Develop and implement new solutions to protect resident parking and decrease traffic congestion on Mary Avenue.
3. Conduct a Comprehensive Study: Commission an updated, comprehensive traffic and parking study that accounts for all planned developments and their combined impact on our neighborhood.
The parking stall availability I present here contradict the findings in the 2022 parking report
(https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/departments/documents/publicworks/capital-improvement-program/b-mpsp-report-appendices-2024.pdf). It is crucial to obtain an accurate occupancy rate reflecting publicly available parking stalls. That report lists a falsely low occupancy rate because it included permitted parking stalls (unavailable to the public) in the denominator.
Please support our community by prioritizing our safety and quality of life.
Sincerely,
Lina
Concerned Cupertino resident
From: Brian Avery
To: City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Factual PHOTO presentation of "Saturday"s" REDUCTION IN PROPERTY VALUE .... and this is before the proposed illogical ELIMINATION of 89 parking stalls on Mary Avenue Date: Saturday, September 13, 2025 6:24:02 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.
PREFACE: What I have learned in 47 years of operating the 517 units (1,100 resident) Glenbrook Community is that a "landlord" should never ask for empathy. That is not the purpose of this eMail.
All that I ask is that you ponder this question: Would you make a worsening parking condition even more dramatically worse by eliminating 89 full size parking stalls, for residents in the neighborhood where you live? BOTTOM LINE: Saturdays are the most important leasing day of the week and the Glenbrook Apartment Homes had a CRAPPY leasing day today. The photos below prove the difficulty in renting our 40 vacant/on-notice apartments during ALL eight leasing office hours of any rental community's most important leasing day. That translates into significant property value reduction through loss of income.
WHAT IS THE WORSENING CONDITION: 55% of the Westport Development is soon to be built out, De Anza College's future $40 million Creative Arts Building, $60 million Services for Students Building, and Event Center (unknown cost) to be built across the street where Flint Center was located.
And the City of Cupertino is building eight pickleball courts (statistics show that the courts will have 4 players per court 75% of the day which is a need for 20 - 24 parking stalls for players and players who have just played or are waiting to play) and the remaining portions of the $83 million Memorial Park budget to increase usage of Memorial Park. PARKING at MEMORIAL PARK? When you SUBTRACT the Senior Center parking, the 15 permanent PERMIT PARKING ONLY stalls, and the ADA parking stalls, Cupertino offers damn few parking stalls for a huge park. And like today, several events consume 100% of the parking stalls with tents/tables/trucks/food trucks etc. .
WHAT IS WORSE THAN LOSS OF INCOME? I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN AN EMPLOYER IN YOUR CAREER: Yes, we have angry confrontations with illegal parkers on days like this. But this is becoming a daily occurrence because there is so little parking at Westpark across the street, and the regular number of De Anza students. So how do I interview prospective employees? Like employees in a Walgreens or CVS in San Francisco, do we train them to just let the Westport overflow, the event parkers, the De Anza students take as much of our private property as they want? Do we train employees to confront the illegal parkers? What is our legal liability in these confrontations? I think we all know the answer to that last question :)
PHOTOS TAKEN BY BRIAN AVERY TODAY, Saturday September 13, 2025:
1. A prospective Resident considering Glenbrook Apartments turns onto Mary Avenue and immediately must get by backed-up traffic for Memorial Park event; and then....
.
2. A Prospective Resident sees that Glenbrook Apartments once had a beautiful entrance, but the prospect's eyes are drawn toward tow away signs and traffic cones....and then
.
.
3. A Prospective Resident parks in the Future Resident Parking stalls and sees that the Community has a parking problem:
.
4. As the Prospective Resident begins a Walking Tour of the Glenbrook Apartments, it is hard to miss all the tow away signs and ugly bright bollards.
5. Next, the Prospective Resident notices that 100% of the parking stalls on THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF Mary Avenue are taken, and cars are "hanging Uturns" everywhere, and turning into the Glenbrook Apartments at the back entrance:
.
Parting Thought: (Please see PHOTO BELOW) Glenbrook's 1,100 residents only have 2 Exits on our 32 acre property. Our traffic engineer designed two lanes on each side of our Back Entrance/Exit of Glenbrook because so many of the 1,100 residents use this Entrance/Exit....even more so now that Westport has its main driveway directly across from our Front Entrance.
In my 47-year career I have never seen a more illogical idea than removing 89 full size parking stalls and then shoehorning a building onto a street where those cars in the photo below are CURRENTLY parked all day long!
From: Jennifer Griffin
To: City Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Floating Bus Stop Islands
Date: Friday, September 12, 2025 10:12:58 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 City Clerk: Please include the following comments as public comments for the City Council Meeting on 9/16/25. Thank you.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Floating Bus Stop Islands
From: Jennifer Griffin <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2025, 10:09 AM
To: [email protected],[email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Dear City Council:
(Please consider this as public input for the City Council meeting on 9/16/25) I don't think it is a good idea to put in Floating Bus Stop Islands on Stevens Creek Blvd. This is going to limit the use of the slow lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. because the buses will be sitting in the slow lanes for long periods of time. This will make other vehicles and buses Have to go around the buses and go into the middle lanes which is very dangerous and disrupts
Traffic flow.
These bus stops are being considered for the bus stop in front of the Le Boulengerie building at the southeast corner of Cali Mill Plaza at De Anza Blvd. and Stevens Creek Blvd. They are also
Planning one at Target on Stevens Creek Blvd.
Our bus stops are nice now because they get the bus off the road into the traffic turnout And allow passengers to board the bus in peace and safety. There is the Senior Community of Cupertino Chateau that is near this intersection. Three close family friends of mine have lived at
This community and all had mobility issues and two were 85 plus. The residents of Cupertino Chateau
Often walk or drive senior mobility scooters near this Cali Mill bus stop. I have a friend who is
Blind and rides the bus from her home on Stevens Creek Blvd. to visit her mother who is In the new Senior Care facility at 85 and South De Anza Blvd. Floating bus stop Islands would not be safe for any of these people.
We have so many new housing complexes proposed for Stevens Creek Blvd. that we should not be
Sacrificing the slow lane on Stevens Creek Blvd. Traffic flow on Stevens Creek Blvd. will be greatly
Increased when these complexes are built so it is not a good time to.build such bus stop experiments,
Especially those that will compromise the slow lanes. We are not having BRT on Stevens Creek Blvd.
We are going to have to focus on bike barriers on Stevens Creek Blvd, not create further problems
By installing controversial bus stop constructions as Floating Bus Stop Islands.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Mary Avenue Villas Issue
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 8:30:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following for the next City Council meeting under written comments section.
Thank you.
Dear City Council Members,
There are many issues and concerns regarding building residential units on Mary Avenue.
These issues need to be investigated further to make sure all concerns of the affected residents are addressed.
I request you to refer this issue to the Planning Commission for a detailed study and recommendations before the City Council takes any further action on this issue.
Thank you for your prompt action.
Mahesh Gurikar
Shrividya Gurikar
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Fwd: Defamatory claims and intimidating actions targeting me by Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:00:54 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.
Resending this email with a few edits. City Clerk, please add to the public record for today's council meeting. I plan to speak to it in oral communications.
Thanks,
Seema
___________________________________________________________________ Dear City Councilmembers and Interim City Manager Kapoor, I have recently been made aware of defamatory claims and intimidating actions specifically targeting me by Planning Commission Chair Santosh Rao to the City Council and to the Sheriff’s office in the week of September 8, 2025. Given the seriousness of the defamatory behavior and claims, I am writing this email to set the record straight and ask for protection from further attacks by Chair Rao. Moreover, his repeated misrepresentations and misuse of his office violate the Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials, and I ask that you require him to apologize to me unreservedly and further ask that you take disciplinary action against him, up to and including his removal from the Planning Commission.
With regard to the Monday Mayor’s Chat on September 8, 2025 – Chair Rao sent an email to the City Council accusing me and other residents who are known to actively support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure of having been “rude, condescending and disrespectful” toward the Mayor. I unequivocally reject this false and defamatory assertion and there are several witnesses who would be happy to confirm as much under oath. While there was passionate discussion, everyone raised a hand to speak, there were never any raised voices, and no one spoke in a hostile or condescending manner. When a resident in the audience objected to the discussion with the bike ped supporters, Mayor Chao defended it and said it was a good opportunity for back and forth dialogue and she welcomed it. She then continued to debate with the bike ped supporters for several minutes after that. After the meeting ended, Mayor Chao mingled with bike ped supporters for 15 minutes, chatting and laughing, and handing out reflective bands as city gifts.
In the same email to Council, Chair Rao also mentions the community meeting held by the city last year on the De Anza Boulevard buffered bike lanes on September 12, 2024.
Recollections clearly vary significantly on this. My recollection is that it was Chair Rao and his friends who were heckling David Stillman, Public Works Manager, and shouting him down to the extent that Director of Public Works Chad Mosley stepped up and asked them to refrain from this behavior. They nonetheless persisted in shouting down and heckling Mr Stillman, at which point City Manager Pamela Wu had to step up and ask them to stop their disruptive and rude behavior. Again, I have multiple witnesses who will swear to this under oath.
Mayor Chao subsequently sent an email to the City Attorney and the Vice Mayor on Thursday September 11, where she confirmed that nothing inappropriate happened during the Mayor's Chat, directly refuting and negating Santosh Rao's assertions. In her email, she remarked: "I do not think anyone was out of line or rude in their questions at the Mayor's meeting. They were asking questions that I would have asked if I were in their shoes. I probably would be as passionate as they were in the tone of voice if not more so." Chair Rao’s twisting of these facts for his own purposes is a deliberately misleading and malicious attack on my character and reputation. He then made things worse by weaponizing this false narrative to claim he felt unsafe because of the Monday exchange with the Mayor, resulting in a request that Sheriff’s deputies be present at the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday September 9, 2025. Chair Rao’s prompting of this response is a misuse of the powers of his office to attempt to threaten and intimidate me by having me face three Sheriff’s deputies for two hours while participating in the Planning Commission meeting. As you may know, making a false police report is a misdemeanor offense under Penal Code 148.5. Chair Rao knowingly provided false information of a threat to his personal safety resulting in the wasting of public resources, and the hindering of the Sheriff’s office’s ability to pursue actual, critical public safety work.
As to Chair Rao’s second letter to the City Council in the same week defaming my character and reputation. Chair Rao attended the Safe Routes to School Working Group meeting on Wednesday September 10, 2025. I was also an attendee in that meeting. While the meeting was in progress, Chair Rao sent an email to the City Council where he stated “There are also Jennifer Shearin and Seema Lindskog attending this and having undue influence and it is unclear what their role is.” How exactly does Chair Rao define “undue influence”? I have been a Safe Routes to School parent representative for about twelve years when my son was at Eaton Elementary, then Lawson Middle School, then Cupertino High School. I am currently a SRTS parent representative for Cupertino High School. I have a right and a duty to be in that meeting and I’m frankly appalled and disheartened by Chair Rao’s attack on my presence there as having “undue influence” without the slightest attempt at backing this up with any substantial reasoning or proof. It is beneath the dignity of his office to be slinging unfounded and disrespectful accusations at a fellow commissioner and this behavior has to stop.
Chair Rao uses the fig leaf of “writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident” on his inflammatory and defamatory emails, but that does not protect him as he is transparently using the powers of his office and his relationships with councilmembers to attack me for his own personal gains. Through the behavior cited above, he has – over and over – clearly violated the City of Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials (adopted November 7, 2023).
The relevant provisions from the Code of Ethics are cited below:
Section 3. Conduct of City Officials. The professional and personal conduct of City Officials while exercising their office should be above reproach and avoid situations that create the appearance of impropriety. Officials shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges, or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other City Officials, City staff, or the public.
Section 16. Positive Workplace Environment. City Officials should support a positive and constructive workplace environment for City employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the City. Members should recognize their special role with City employees and in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.
Section 17 (b). City Officials’ Conduct with Each Other in Public Meetings and Private Encounters - Practice civility and decorum in discussions and debate.
Difficult questions, challenges, and disagreements with a particular point of view, and criticism of ideas and information are legitimate elements of debate and public discourse of a free democracy in action. Robust discussion and free debate, however, do not justify making belligerent, personal, impertinent, slanderous, threatening, abusive, or disparaging comments.
Section 17 (d). City Officials’ Conduct with Each Other in Public Meetings and Private Encounters - Demonstrate effective problem-solving approaches. City Officials have a public stage and have the responsibility to show how individuals with different points of view can find common ground and seek a compromise that benefits the community as a whole.
Chair Rao and I have served amicably together on the Planning Commission for almost a year. It is unfortunate that, despite this, he did not choose to simply pick up the phone and call me to discuss his concerns, which would have been the more appropriate behavior of one colleague towards another. Instead, he chose to get the Sheriff’s office involved, in a shocking and unwarranted escalation. That is not a productive way to resolve a perceived concern in any work environment.
Making a false police report against me and requesting three sheriff’s deputies to attend the Planning Commission in a blatant attempt to threaten and intimidate a fellow commissioner is clearly a misuse of his office and of public resources by Chair Rao for his own personal vendetta.
Because of his behavior, I feel unsafe being in a meeting with Chair Rao, afraid of what false accusations he will make against me or whether he will try to get me arrested on false charges. At a minimum, his behavior is an extraordinary violation of the Cupertino Code of Ethics and Conduct for Elected and Appointed Officials. Accordingly, I ask that Council conduct its oversight responsibility and discipline Chair Rao–up to and including removing him from his position on the Planning Commission.
Regards,
Seema Lindskog
Planning Commissioner
City of Cupertino
___________________________________________________________________ "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: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; City Council; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander Subject: Fw: City’s General Fund is subsidizing non-residents.
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:49:04 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 City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for items not on agenda for the 09/16/25 city council meeting.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, Interim Manager Kapoor, Cupertino General fund is used to fund the Cupertino Senior Center whereas other parks and rec facilities are funded by the Enterprise Fund. Unlike other parks and rec facilities the Senior Center is not required to cover its costs. 50% of Cupertino Senior Center are non-residents. What is the city subsidizing out of the General Fund per non-resident.
I ask you to agendaize this item or work with Interim Manager Kapoor and Director Sander to address this with the goal that the city does not spend any dollars subsidizing non-residents.
The Senior Center is a crown jewel of Cupertino. We must subsidize our resident seniors. We are under no obligation to spend our general fund dollars subsidizing non-residents.
Please share what is the subsidy per member, and what is the plan to raise fees on non-residents to cover all costs and maybe even cover the costs of our seniors. We should significantly raise pricing on non-residents to where this center is not being burdened by non-residents.
Our residents cannot get enrolled in Senior Center programs when enrollment opens. Please also have this looked into so that enrollment opens for residents a few days ahead of enrollment for non-residents.
Thank you.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From: Henry Widjaja
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Council; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen; R "Ray" Wang Subject: Brown Act Concern Regarding Public Comment Time Limit Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:38:23 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 Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers Fruen, Mohan, and Wang:
I am writing today under written communications to express concern regarding Mayor Chao's modification of public comment time and on a singular item during the September 3rd City Council meeting. Additionally, I seek to address the fact that one public speaker was permitted 2 minutes and 15 seconds of speaking time while everyone else was permitted 1 minute. Specifically, I am addressing the reduction from three minutes to one minute regarding the discussion of the 9/3 City Council Meeting's Item 19: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters. For reference, this is listed as Item 22 on the upcoming meeting agenda. Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmember Wang voted YES on a motion to modify the time spontaneously. Councilmembers Mohan and Fruen voted NO.
Under California Government Code § 54954.3(b)(1) of the Brown Act: "The legislative body of a local agency may adopt reasonable regulations to ensure that the intent of subdivision (a) is carried out, including, but not limited to, regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker.", where (a) states that every regular meeting agenda must provide an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item within the legislative body’s jurisdiction.
Per this statute, legislative bodies may adopt reasonable regulations to manage public comment, including time limits. However, the statute's definition of "reasonable" has been defined by past Case Law and statutory language to be content-neutral, reasonably justified, and pre-established, rather than imposed spontaneously.
Mayor Chao's action taken during the meeting raises multiple concerns under these standards. Case law, including Baca v. Moreno Valley Unified School District and Acosta v.
City of Costa Mesa, makes clear that selectively suppressing public comment on a specific item is impermissible. Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach supported that actions against public comment MUST be content-neutral. The reduction applied only to Item 19 at the end of the meeting, limiting public input on that particular issue. Additionally, Mayor Chao and the City Clerk permitted speaker Jennifer Griffin 2 minutes and 15 seconds of speaking time. This is in clear violation of reasonable regulations as Griffin was allotted a disproportionately large amount of time to provide public comment. This, alongside previous Case Law, makes the public comment limitation content and viewpoint specific.
As noted in Ribakoff v. City of Long Beach, time limits must be applied to facilitate meeting efficiency, but only when such limits are reasonable and enforced under content neutrality.
The 9/3 City Council meeting could have been extended to accommodate full three-minute comments for all speakers. In fact, City Council meetings have run later than they did in the last meeting. In this instance, there were multiple speakers, but ample time existed to extend the meeting, so reducing speaking time was not necessary, and therefore not justified.
In addition, spontaneous and unjustified changes imposed during a meeting, especially during the discussion of an item are inherently unreasonable. They prevent meaningful participation, apply selectively to specific agenda items, and disrupt the predictability of the public comment process. The change was decided and announced during the meeting itself, giving no prior notice to speakers, a limit on public comment effectiveness and implicitly preventing full participation. Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmember Wang voted YES on this motion spontaneously. Brown Act precedent emphasizes that alterations of public comment rules, and especially under spontaneity, undermine transparency and public access.
With respect to the Brown Act concerns, the modification of public comment time also conflicts with internal policies governing Council meetings.
Mayor Chao’s Policies on Public Comment, Section 4 states: “For items on the agenda, I will make every effort not to shorten speaking times unless there is an extraordinary number of speakers requiring such a measure.”
City Council Procedures Manual, Section 8.5 – Public Comment states: “Each individual speaker will ordinarily have up to three minutes to address the Council. … If a large number of speakers wish to address Council on an item, the Mayor may reduce the time allotted to each speaker consistent with the Brown Act.”
In this case, while there were multiple speakers, there was sufficient time to extend the meeting. Reducing speaking time on the spot therefore did not comply with Mayor Chao nor City Council's own stated policies. Although there were multiple speakers, the reduction to one minute was not consistent with either the Brown Act or the Council’s own procedures, as the meeting could have been extended and the reduction was applied selectively to a single agenda item. It is also ironic that Mayor Chao did not implement Section 4 of her policies when Jennifer Griffin was allotted 2 minutes and 15 seconds of speaking time - as implementing Section 4 would have allotted all other speakers a respective 2 minutes and 15 seconds.
Taken together, these policy violations compound a possible limitation on public participation, which is both procedurally and legally problematic under the Brown Act. By spontaneously reducing public comment speaking time for Item 19 and ending the meeting immediately afterward, Mayor Chao caused a significant limitation of public input on the agenda item.
I ask Mayor Chao and the involved members of City Council in this decision - namely Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmember Wang - to consider reviewing the implementation of public comment time limits to ensure compliance with legal standards and to honor the public’s right to meaningfully comment on all agenda items, including the upcoming Item 22 discussion.
Sincerely,
Henry Widjaja
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Lowenthal <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:21 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Petition
All -
Here’s a petition I’m planning on presenting to you tomorrow. These are people who would like me to donate a parcel of land to the City to extend Varian Park. I’m up for doing that if you want it.
All the best,
Richard Lowenthal
From: Caroline Gupta
To: City Clerk
Subject: Oral Comments - City Council 09/16/25
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:24:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I am not sure if this is possible but as part of the public comments I would very much appreciate it if you could play part of this video. It is the City Council session from December 5th, 2022.
I would like the part from 2:18:30 to 2:21:07 to be played. The person speaking is Tatiana Mejia, part of the Tessellations family. This is a 3 min testimonial.
Best,
Caroline
Caroline Gupta
Director of Facility & Operations
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Email: [email protected]
https://www.name-coach.com/caroline-gupta
Curious about what's happening at school this week?
Check out our social media feed!
From: Lina
To: City Clerk; Kirsten Squarcia
Subject: Slides for Sept 16 City Council Meeting 6:45pm Open Communication Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:54:01 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 Kirsten,
Thank you for assisting me in preparing to virtually present at today's Oral Communications. I have attached my slides.
I will raise my hand to speak (as an individual, not a group) when Mayor Chao calls the item.
Mary Ave Sept 16 City Council Slideshow.pptx
Best,
Lina
Mary Avenue Villas Housing Project:
Don’t take away our public space
A Response to the July 15, 2025 City Council Meeting Study Session (Item 11)
Cupertino residents and citizens
Garden Gate Coalition
Arroyo Village / Westport
(APN: 326-27-053)
Our voice: Nearly 400 petition signatures now
opposing this project
• https://www.change.org/p/hal
t-the-mary-avenue-villasproject-at-this-unsuitablelocation Proposed
housing site
Garden Gate
neighborhood
opposition
Narrowing the road
by 26% or 19.5 ft is
too much!
It will harm
neighborhood
enjoyment of the
space.
The proposed plan
narrows the west bike
lane from 8 to 5 feet
https://www.mary-avevillas.com/faq
Bikers
commonly ride
side to side in
groups
On Mary Ave
They will be
squeezed by the
street
narrowing
Family of bikers
frequently pass
utilize Mary
Ave’s bike route.
They will be
squeezed by the
street
narrowing
Photo taken 9/13/2025
Kids and their
families bike along
Mary Ave between
Memorial Park and
the Bike Bridge. They
need space and
safety.
Residents are
frustrated at the lack
of access and parking
on Event days.
Photo taken 9/13/2025, Silicon Valley Fall Festival
Let
’s talk
about traffic,
parking, and
circulation.
Illegal parking on bike
lanes obstructs Mary
Ave, the major road
leading to CA-85
It also poses dangers
to bikers,
pedestrians, and
families
Photo taken 9/13/2025,
Silicon Valley Fall Festival
Illegal parking and
passenger unloading on
bike lanes congests Mary
Ave
Photo taken 9/13/2025, Silicon Valley Fall Festival
Visitors are using bike lanes as
loading zones.
We need NEW parking solutions
during City Events.
Current system is NOT working.
Proposed plans will make things
WORSE.
Photo taken 9/13/2025, Silicon Valley Fall Festival
It is stressful for drivers
to pass such a congested
area with multiple
hazards.
Residents and their
visitors don’t want to
face this chaos.
Soon their quality of life
will be further hampered
by more traffic generated
by the Villas project
Photo taken 9/13/2025, Silicon Valley Fall Festival
Narrowing Mary Ave
by 26% doesn’t make
sense. And is unsafe.
Another road hazard:
car doors swinging
into traffic.
The current parking
lane is already narrow.
8 ft is not wide
enough.
Photo taken 9/13/2025, Silicon Valley Fall Festival
This project’s removal
of parking spots will
eliminate this
Recycling Center from
serving our residents
Photo taken 8/23/2025 Kids ‘N Fun Festival
Mary Ave is a main truck route for the Cupertino
Public Works Service Center
Taking away 89 parking
spots on Mary Ave will
strain what’s left.
New IDD housing will bring
new service vehicles on
Mary Ave = traffic ↑
Take-home points
Mary Ave functions as a free parking lot for Memorial Park and De Anza College visitors.
Taking away 89 spots along ~1000 ft will worsen this problem Taking over public right-of-way and narrowing roads will lead to accidents and decrease our quality of life New traffic from the Villas housing project will add major community safety concerns and will hamper access for Garden Gate residents Our City desperately needs long term ELI/IDD housing solutions, but… • This site plan is not suitable City Council: please support your residents and constituents in finding better solutions.
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Prashanth Dullu; Tina Kapoor Subject: San Mateo sets the example for Cupertino. It’s ok to undo bad decisions impacting our roadways.
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:24:29 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,
Please include the below in written communications for items not on the agenda. [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Council members,
Please see the action taken by San Mateo at the link below:
San Mateo moves to remove most of Humboldt Street bike lanes Here is a snippet of interest:
“ both Councilmembers Nicole Fernandez, who represents the district, and Danielle Cwirko-Godycki said the city put themselves in this predicament, as they didn’t heed vehement pushback from the community prior to moving ahead on the project a few years San Mateo moves to remove most of
Humboldt Street bike lanes
By Alyse DiNapoli, Daily Journal staff
The San Mateo City Council supported restoring the majority of the parking spaces that were removed on Humboldt Street to make room for bike lanes that were installed just a
back.”
Cupertino had vehemently feedback against lane removals on DeAnza Blvd and yet it pushed ahead. A year later this has proven to be a bad idea. Traffic backs up to the next light. The lanes are more crowded than before even on weekends. East west traffic waits longer and has less time to clear signals. Right turns have become harder on east west roads. McA Kellen backs up till Stelling in the evenings. And yet there are no bicyclists on this stretch. Build it and they will come did not play out with this project. The city built it and no bikers came.
Please do not leave the meeting tonight without putting on the future agenda a hearing session to restore lanes on DeAnza Blvd as they existed for decades prior to the removal last year without oversight of city council.
I urge you do not leave the meeting without putting this on the future agenda so we get the fourth lane back on DeAnza Blvd this year.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident) From: Walter Li
To: Tina Kapoor; Public Comments; [email protected]; [email protected]; Liang Chao; [email protected]
Subject: Very poor communication
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:20:21 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 Manager Tina,
Representing the Mary Ave neighborhood residents, I like to lodge a complaint about Vice Mayor Kitty Moore regarding her totally unacceptable lack of communication.
Several of us had emailed her requesting to meet with her. She not only did not acknowledge our emails but also did not give any answers to our requests. Some of us had also met with her during recent council meeting and requested again to meet with her. She told them she would set up the meeting. Yet, no further words were heard from her. Serena Tu, Cupertino assistant told us she has also request the presences of Kitty Moore together with Sheila Mohan to meet with us. Again no reply to us residents.
I believe Cupertino officials have a responsibility to meet and communicate with us. If not, an acknowledgment at the very least and a reason why the meeting is not possible.
I like to share my (our) frustration with the City. As City Manager, I thought you are the best person to hear my complaint.
Thank you and Best Regards.
Walter Li
Get Outlook for iOS
CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 7
Recognition of Parents
Helping Parents
Written Communications
CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 11
Accept Legislative
Review Subcommittee
recommendation for SB
63, SB 707 and Measure A
Written Communications
From: Swim5am (Connie Cunningham)
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-9-16 Agenda Item 11, Measure A
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:45:32 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.
Subject: Accept Ad-Hoc Legislative Review Committee (LRC) City Council Subcommittee recommendation regarding Senate Bill 63, Senate Bill 707, and Measure A Good Evening, Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and City Manager:
My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.
I urge you to support Measure A: Save our Local Hospitals. Santa Clara County staff will be presenting about the local impacts of H.R. 1 cuts to city councils throughout the county this month.
About Measure A: Measure A generates $330 million annually to protect healthcare access in Santa Clara County. It's a temporary but essential response to massive federal healthcare cuts that threaten to shut down emergency rooms, trauma centers and local clinics. Measure A ensures that every dollar stays in Santa Clara County, with strict independent audits and oversight to keep lifesaving care available for everyone. Click on this link to see the leaders standing up for local healthcare.
Who’s Standing Up for Local Healthcare?
saveourlocalhospitals.com
Important things to know about how Cupertino will benefit from Measure A:
Santa Clara Valley Healthcare (SCVH) operates the closest trauma center and almost 400 Cupertino residents were transported to an SCVH emergency room in the last 2 years.
SCVH provides 60 adult and pediatric specialties and subspecialties SCVH also operates a US News top-ranked west coast rehabilitation center for all patients recovering from a stroke, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injuries.
10% of (or 5,500) Cupertino residents are enrolled in Medi-Cal and at risk of losing coverage over the next few years. SCVH is the major provider or care to Medi-Cal enrollees but also provides critical community services that are available to everyone regardless of coverage.
SCVH is also a major employer for our community. The county employees over 22,000 individuals and many of them call Cupertino home Just a few of the named elected officials named in the link as supporters are our local representatives:
State Senator Josh Becker
Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens
Santa Clara County Supervisor and Board President Otto Lee Santa Clara County Supervisor Sylvia Arenas
Santa Clara County Supervisor Betty Duong
Santa Clara County Supervisor Susan Ellenberg
Santa Clara County Supervisor Margaret Abe-Koga
I urge you to support Measure A to Save Our Local Hospitals! Sincerely, Connie Cunningham
……………………………….
Connie Cunningham
From: Debbie Timmers
To: Public Comments
Subject: Item 11 (Measure A)
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:21:13 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.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore and Councilmembers,
I am a Cupertino resident and I would like to address an item on the Consent Calendar, specifically Measure A.
In July 2025, Congress passed H.R.1, cutting more than $1 trillion from Medicaid (Medi-Cal in California) and food assistance. Medicaid covers one in five Americans and nearly half of all children.
For Santa Clara County, the impact is severe. Our public hospital system—the second largest in California—relies on $2.3 billion a year in federal Medicaid and Medicare funds. These cuts threaten the survival of our hospitals and safety-net services.
Please note: This is not just about Medi-Cal patients. When emergency rooms close, everyone feels the strain: longer waits, higher costs, and reduced access to care— even for those with private insurance.
On August 7, the Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to place a temporary fiveyear sales tax increase on the November 4, 2025 ballot (Measure A) to address this crisis.
Federal cuts are beyond our control. Measure A gives Santa Clara County the ability to respond locally and protect our community’s health. Please support Measure A.
Your residents' health depends on it.
Sincerely,
Debbie Timmers
From: Jack McGovern
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Item 11 - Please support Measure A
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5:13:26 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.
Dear Cupertino City Council,
Please pull the Measure A item off of the consent calendar and consider a Yes Position.
I understand as a community member living in Santa Clara County that more taxes are brutal.
However, this 5/8 of cent sales tax increase is temporary, and it is critical for the health and wellbeing of our community.
Our Santa Clara County hospital system takes care of thousands of people a year. If these hospitals close, people will lose care and our medical system will collapse. This is that serious, unfortunately.
So, I will be voting in support of Measure A, and I really hope the Cupertino City Council will vote to support Measure A.
Thank you,
Jack
Jack McGovern (he/him)
Political Director
South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
[email protected]
From: Neil Park-McClintick
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Item 11—Poorly Conceived Opposition to Measure A Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:35:48 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 in regard to item 11 on today's agenda, specifically the proposed opposition of Measure A, which would be conveyed through a letter by the Mayor. This is poorly conceived opposition—if the mayor or other Councilmembers wish to convey their opposition, they should do so individually, not on behalf of the City of Cupertino. The reality is that this measure is ALREADY on the ballot—therefore, Cupertino taking a position could jeopardize the measure passing. There is no alternative to restore the giant hole that federal cuts will blow in the county's healthcare budget. And Santa Clara County is the second largest local public healthcare system in the state! In other words, if Cupertino is opposing Measure A, it is endorsing the impacts of federal cuts to healthcare. An opposition stance also destroys goodwill with the county and other jurisdictions, especially when our own Supervisor and our own Assemblymember are so strongly in support.
Each point of the proposed letter addressed:
General Tax vs Special Tax—the letter posits that a general tax will allow the county to spend funds in ways not promised.
-(1) A special tax would require a voter threshold requirement of 2/3, which we cannot risk in this political environment. It's incredibly challenging to get 2/3 of anyone to agree on anything —can you even get 2/3 of your friends or family to agree on eating at the same dinner spot? Relying on a 2/3 threshold would be grossly incompetent on behalf of the campaign that is tasked with saving our county healthcare system.
-(2) This is a tax (as the letter even points out!) that would bridge irreparable sums of lost funds in the budget. This money is not going to get used in other ways because the County cannot afford to. This is a measure to replace lost funds, not to create new expenses. (3) Measure A has above average oversight, with a citizen-led independent oversight committee, annual public reports, and independent audits every year. All spending will be posted online. It's a temporary 5 year tax.
“It Only Covers Part of the Gap”
This is true—these federal cuts will be devastating either way, but considering we have a city council poised to oppose a 5/8 cent sales tax, would you really want to ask voters for an even larger tax to make the difference? Some funding is far better than none! With Measure A, hospitals may have to cut back, but without it, entire ERs and clinics will close. It's unacceptable to have to wait twice as long to receive life saving care, but it's even more devastating to have to wait three or four times as long. “Regressive Tax” Argument
This is a temporary five-year, ⅝-cent sales tax—a minor increase compared to inflation and tariffs. Sales taxes don’t apply to necessary groceries, rent, or healthcare, only to consumer goods and services. The decision to place a sales tax on the ballot was debated based on polling and political realities, not arbitrarily decided. Goods are rapidly increasing in cost— this is true—but this will be attributed to inflation and tariffs, not to a 5/8c sales tax. “Engage Cities More”
There is no time to delay. This is the largest healthcare funding cut in our history, and hospitals across the state are already closing!
While individual councilmembers can have their own views, it is reckless for Cupertino as a whole to officially oppose this measure when thousands of our residents depend on county healthcare services.
People’s lives are at stake. This is not business as usual—inaction (or in this case, opposing the few options we have) will mean deaths, bankruptcies, and families losing care. And if that happens, Cupertino will be partially responsible.
Thank you,
Neil Park-McClintick
CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 16
Ordinance 25-2275
Overnight Parking of
Oversized Vehicles
Written Communications
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Rachelle Sander; City Council Subject: Fw: Transient RVs are occupying Cupertino Senior Center with a $25 or $30 annual pass and getting to use the senior center.
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:40:32 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 City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for 09/16/25 city council meeting for agenda item 16.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message:
On Wednesday, September 3, 2025, 9:47 AM, Santosh Rao <[email protected]> wrote:
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Hello Mayor Chao, Council Members, ICM Kapoor, Director Sander, Attorney Andrews,
Transient RV population are now setting shop at the Cupertino Senior Center.
They buy an annual pass for $25 or $30 and then park there all day and camp inside for coffee, restroom and all other perks.
I urge parks and rec and city staff to tighten Senior Center eligibility criteria to require address proof of permanent residency so that transient RV dwellers are not able to get a senior center membership and turn this crown jewel city facilityinto a quasi-transient shelter.
While this is still early stage it’s definitely a trend that’s started and once they see the first few others will follow.
Please act now / today to tighten the oversize vehicle parking and the senior center and sports center eligibility to park and use to permanent dwellers and not expand to transient population.
Please go further to revoke existing assigned Senior Center pass/memberships to any transient RV population.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 19
Stevens Creek Corridor
Vision Study
Written Communications
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Tina Kapoor; David Stillman Subject: Agenda item 19 on today’s meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:36:01 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,
Please include the following as written comments for the 09/16/25 Council meeting, agenda item 19.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members, I strongly request that you remove agenda item 19 from the consent calendar and decline to approve the SCB corridor study. Cupertino should not remain involved in this project.
At the recent steering committee meeting, I observed that San Jose staff were in charge of the proceedings. Their approach raised real doubts about fairness and whether Cupertino’s interests are respected. Despite our Vice-Mayor clearly voicing opposition to Cupertino’s further participation, the committee still adopted a motion that now binds Cupertino as if we had agreed. This is deeply concerning. A decision taken by other agencies should not be forced upon our city when our representative opposed it.
I urge the Council to:
1. Reject the SCB corridor study.
2. Withdraw Cupertino from the steering committee.
3. Direct that no further staff resources go into this effort.
Cupertino must decide its own path. Our city’s priorities should reflect the needs of our residents, not be dictated by outside agencies.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking action to protect Cupertino’s independence.
Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Subject: Agenda item 19. SCB corridor study.
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:10:26 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for the 09/16/25 council meeting agenda item
19. [Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members,
I am writing in my personal capacity as a Cupertino resident to urge you to pull agenda item 19 from consent calendar and to reject the SCB corridor study. Please do NOT accept the study. Please do not continue any further Cupertino participation in this SCB corridor effort.
I attended the SCB corridor steering committee meeting last week. I have attended most prior steering committee meetings and community meetings on this.
The first thing that concerned me was that the meeting is now run by San Jose city staff. That reflected during the course of the meeting. The San Jose city staff periodically made some remarks or comments that just completely raise questions about the validity and propriety of this effort. It is a back channel attempt to undermine the voters and their elected reps in the form of council members and their ability to represent their jurisdiction.
What happened at the steering committee was that a vote of the agency reps attending passed despite feedback to the contrary from Cupertino Vice-Mayor Moore. (Thank you Vice-Mayor Moore! You did an awesome job representing the sentiment of Cupertino residents who are opposed to any attempts to further take away road lanes in Cupertino this time on SCB).
Now a vote of this body holds Cupertino to the passed motion despite the Cupertino rep voting against or abstaining.
This the residents of Cupertino are subject to the effects of this passed motion when it’s elected reps majority appointed steering committee rep is against it.
This is a clear undermining of the jurisdiction of Cupertino. How can a motion anpproved by other agency reps be applied to our city when our city rep votes against the motion.
I ask that you reject this corridor study, exit this steering committee and any further participation in this project. San Jose or Santa Clara or SCC county or the VTA is not going to decide what happens in Cupertino and how Cupertino city staff shall spend time. San Jose staff are not going to be deciding what Cupertino staff will do for this project. And Cupertino staff are not to unilaterally without council approval spend any bandwidth on this effort.
Cupertino residents hear transportation is short of bandwidth. We hear transportation has no time to address operational traffic management issues in the Regnart neighborhood caused by the Tesselations school traffic. We hear public works and transportation have not been able to prioritize the Phar Lap Dr cross walk improvements needed for safety. Yet the same department staff are spending time on this SCB corridor study.
Please reject the study. Please exit the steering committee now. Please direct the city manager to ensure no further staff time is spent on this SCB corridor project.
Thank you for your decisive action to exit this project with immediate effect.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing in my personal capacity as a Cupertino resident) From: Santosh Rao
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley
Subject: Please pull agenda item 19 from consent calendar.
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:41:05 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.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Dear Mayor Chao, Council members,
Please pull agenda item 19 (SCB Corridor) from consent calendar. I attended the steering committee meeting last week. I have serious concerns about the discussions and proceedings of the steering committee which I shall elaborate on in a separate mail.
I request that you pull this item from consent calendar for further discussion.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities" Request for High Capacity Transit in Resolutions Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:17:06 PM
Please add to written comms
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:43 AM
To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities' Request for High Capacity Transit in Resolutions
I think the information included in Vice Mayor's email and the attachments should be submitted as written communication for the agenda item today so that all of the Councilmembers and the public have this important background information for this item.
Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:37 AM
To: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities' Request for High Capacity Transit in Resolutions
Vice Mayor,
Thank you for the great background information included in this email, which should have been provided to the Council, in addition to the Vision Study.
1. The bylaws
2. The resolution the steering committee recommends to each city.
3. It is also important to learn
the fact that San Jose advocated for a dedicated bus lane.
The fact the Cupertino representative advocated for a transit hub at De Anza College
I think former Councilmembers, like Rod Sinks, had advocated for a transit hub at the De Anza College, where their current garage is located. But it was intended for potential lightrail on Rt. 85, which Cupertino does support as a City, I think.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Subject: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities' Request for High Capacity Transit in Resolutions
Hi,
Attachments:
1. 2023 Bylaws for the SCB Steering Committee, adopted by that committee (Wei)
2. The Resolution the SCB Steering Committee recommended councils pass which included continuing the group
3. Santa Clara May 27, 2025 SCB Agenda item with staff recommendations to continue
4. San Jose April 11, 2025 Resolution to implement the Vision study - Note High Capacity Transit
5. Santa Clara May 27, 2025 SCB Resolution - Note High Capacity Transit Both of these cities advanced the High Capacity Transit, further study and staff time, Cupertino did not.
I went looking around for a website for the SCB Vision Study and did see that Santa Clara had the agenda and agenda packet which included the meeting minutes on their website, and San Jose posts meeting information on their website for this project. While they allow Zoom participants for the meetings, I cannot locate the videos of them. There are past meeting minutes on the San Jose Website.
Here is the landing page for the project at San Jose: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/departments-offices/transportation/transportation-planning/stevenscreek-boulevard-corridor-vision-study Here are past meeting docs posted by San Jose which is where I found the Bylaws:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/transportation/transportation-planning/stevens-creek-boulevard-corridorvision-study/past-events I have attached the Bylaws which were approved by then Mayor Hung Wei in 2023, I could not locate them in our Council materials yet, did our City Council adopt or somehow ratify their Bylaws? Reading the Duties does not lead me to believe the Committee can direct Staff. What do you think?
ARTICLE III
DUTIES
Section 300. Duties and Responsibilities
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Tender its advice to the Stevens Creek Corridor Working Group with respect to policy matters under consideration related to the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study.
b. Review the status of Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study deliverables.
ARTICLE IV MEETINGS Section 400. Ralph M. Brown Act. All meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (“the Brown Act”, Govt. Code Section 54950 et seq. ).
Note that the Bylaws have some other odd things in it (membership, voting, terms) I would like to point out that Councilmember Hung Wei was appointed to the Steering Committee in 2023 and continued on until May of 2024, and suggested the following in February 2024:
II. Councilmember Wei expressed interest in the land currently serving as parking lots on De Anza College campus, which could be transformed into a major transit hub for Cupertino and the western region of the South Bay.
V. Councilmember Wei would like Stevens Creek Blvd to be a model for high capacity, high speed transit while coexisting with pedestrian and bike infrastructure.
Source:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/123700/638899052223970 000
Councilmember Wei advocated for high capacity transit and a transit hub at De Anza College again at the May 2024 meeting, was unable to attend the September meeting, and I was appointed to attend the December 18, 2024 meeting.
The September 6, 2024 meeting included a draft Resolution to be passed by each city (I have attached it) and CM Kamei wanted it to be passed before the Councils might change!
ii. Vice Mayor Rosemary Kamei requested the project team to update absent Steering Committee members to gather their input. She emphasized prioritizing pedestrian refuge islands, a dedicated bus-only lane, and fully protected bike lanes in the Implementation Plan, highlighting the significant community benefits of a bus-only lane.
5. Next Steps - for discussion: Standard agency resolution approach; for action: Future Steering Committee meeting dates/locations (if needed) a. Sean T. Daly proposed developing a standard resolution framework for agencies to support the Vision and Implementation Plan. This would include guiding staff on resolution content and fostering support. He also emphasized the need for ongoing coordination between elected officials and staff across all jurisdictions, along with continuous review and implementation efforts.
iii. Vice Mayor Kamei recommended to complete this by December, before council membership changes, and to hold the meeting in the County of Santa Clara, with the City of Santa Clara as a back-up location in the event that a venue with the County cannot be secured.
Source:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/123716/638899067762030 000
Kitty
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
From: Kirsten Squarcia
To: City Clerk
Subject: FW: Item 19 Written Communications Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:22:31 PM
Attachments: image.png
2025 San Jose SCB (a) Resolution.pdf
Resolution 20240906 Agenda Item 5a Standard Agency Resolution Approach.pdf Santa Clara Resolution No. 25-9445.pdf
SCB Vision Study Preso 3.0.pdf
2023 Bylaws Stevens Creek Str Cmte V1.pdf
20250912 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda Sep 12 2025.pdf Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
[email protected]
(408) 777-3225
From: Kitty Moore <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:18 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>; Lauren Sapudar <[email protected]> Cc: Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]> Subject: Item 19 Written Communications Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attachments and this email for Written Communications for Item 19.
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Steering Committee met September 12, 2025 at the San Jose City Council chambers. I was provided an Agenda which is attached and the body of the Agenda is below, there were no attachments such as the meeting minutes:
1. The meeting minutes could not be passed (Item 2) because they were not included.
During that meeting there were Committee bylaws mentioned which I researched and located on the San Jose website. These Bylaws were passed by that Committee in June of 2023, I have attached them.
Both Santa Clara and San Jose had already passed Resolutions to implement the Vision Study and find funding which includes various high-capacity transit like Light Rail and separated bus lanes. I have attached their 2025 Resolutions which were not provided at the meeting, I researched their respective websites to locate them.
Here is the title block for the San Jose Resolution:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE ACCEPTING THE
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRICTING STAFF TO
WORK THROUGH THE INTRA-JURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP,
FIND FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENT THE PLANS PROPOSED BY THE VISION STUDY Here is the title block for the Santa Clara Resolution:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK
COLLABORATIVELY THROUGH THE INTRA- JURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP TO STUDY,
DEVELOP, FIND FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY
THE VISION STUDY
I abstained from voting on the Scope item #5 because it included directing staff to an action I did not have Council authorization for (we only conditionally accepted the Vision Study) or the Municipal Code allowance to do (direct staff).
The San Jose SCB Vision Study website I reference is here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/transportation/transportation-planning/stevens-creek-boulevard-corridorvision-study I shared the same presentation at the SCB Steering Committee meeting that I shared at the September 3, 2025 Cupertino City Council meeting and I have attached it to this email as well.
Best regards,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
NVF:MDT:MDT
4/11/2025
T-42992 / 2198564 1
Council Agenda: 04-22-2025
Item No.: 2.14(a)
DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE ACCEPTING THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRICTING STAFF TO
WORK THROUGH THE INTRA-JURISDICTIONAL
WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP, FIND FUNDING, AND
IMPLEMENT THE PLANS PROPOSED BY THE VISION
STUDY
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the San José City Council approved an amendment to the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan to adopt the Stevens Creek Urban Village Plan which was created through coordination among staff from the cities of San José, Cupertino, Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA); and
WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative, San José, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and VTA jointly proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San José to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2019, the San José City Council adopted Resolution 79105 supporting a complete streets and near term transit implementation plan for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study which was developed collaboratively between the cities of Cupertino, San José, Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA; and
WHEREAS, in 2022 the City entered into various cost sharing agreements with the cites of Cupertino, Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA and contracted with Iteris, Inc., to complete the Vision Study; and
NVF:MDT:MDT
4/11/2025
T-42992 / 2198564 2
Council Agenda: 04-22-2025
Item No.: 2.14(a)
DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
WHEREAS, the process of completing the Vision Study was launched in January 2023 and guided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee comprised of elected officials from the various jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of agency staff, and a community advisory group; and
WHEREAS, the Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and must be presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE THAT:
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study is accepted and City staff is directed to work through the intra-jurisdictional working group to develop, find funding, and implement the plans proposed by the Vision Study.
ADOPTED this _____ day of ___________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
DISQUALIFIED:
MATT MAHAN
Mayor
ATTEST:
TONI J. TABER, MMC
City Clerk
Agenda Item 5a: Standard Agency Resolution Approach
The following are recommended common components to agency resolutions in support of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision and Implementation Plan. The three recommended components are:
● Vision Statements
● Continuing Coordination
● Maintenance of a list of actions/projects to allow for coordination of funding, multijurisdictional coordination and support.
1. VISION STATEMENT
XXXXX declares that it supports the Vision of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor:
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation infrastructure changed little in the past 50 years while the area it serves grew into a worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore, we envision the transportation corridor our community deserves to support continued residential and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen mode.
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by:
A high-capacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations. Station areas would be well-maintained and inviting community assets.
A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a 20-minute walk of transit stops.
Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and expressways and freeways.
This Vision would be implemented by an open and inclusive process of continuous evaluation to promote equitable access and use.
2. CONTINUING COORDINATION
We will continue our cooperative relationship to implement the Corridor Vision through staff and elected official representation in the collaboration, information sharing, monitoring of implementation and pursuit of additional funding resources for multijurisdictional projects. . We will continue to provide staff representation for the staff-level Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Working Group [for a period of…] . We will designate one elected official as a representative and one as an alternate to the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Steering Committee according to its bylaws as adopted November 03, 2023 [with meetings no more often than quarterly or less often than annually]
3. ACTION/PROJECT LIST
We will maintain a list of corridor actions and projects, supportive of the Corridor Vision, to be implemented and tracked through a shared list of Vision Implementation Projects [which may be substituted by the sponsoring agency for feasibility, scope, cost, or other unforeseen issues] . Since the Vision Study Implementation Plan is not funding resource constrained, this list could be altered to prioritize projects with identified funding sources.
Resolution/Accepting the City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Page 1 of 2 Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 25-9445
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY THROUGH THE INTRAJURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP TO STUDY, DEVELOP,
FIND FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED BY THE VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara has participated in discussions with neighboring communities and agencies since a multi-jurisdictional group was established in 2018, comprised of the City of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (the “Working Group”) to discuss key regional issues affecting the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor with a focus on transportation and circulation;
WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative, the Working Group proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San José to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, the Santa Clara City Council adopted Resolution 19-8781 to support working collaboratively with the VTA, County of Santa Clara and the cities of Cupertino and San Jose regarding a Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor vision study (Vision Study) that considers both complete streets and high capacity transit; WHEREAS, in early 2024, the City of Santa Clara entered into an agreement with the City of San Jose in order to share the cost necessary for the City of San Jose to contract with a consultant (Iteris, Inc.) to complete the Vision Study; WHEREAS, the process of compiling the Vision Study was launched in January 2023 and guided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee comprised of elected officials from the various jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of agency staff, and a community advisory group; and,
//
WHEREAS, the final draft Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and must be presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City of Santa Clara hereby accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as attached and referenced herein.
2. The City Council directs City staff to work collaboratively through the Working Group to continue to study, develop, find funding, and implement the recommendations proposed by the Vision Study as directed by the City Council.
3. Effective date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING THEREOF HELD ON THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Chahal, Cox, Gonzalez, Hardy, Jain, and Park, and
Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ATTEST:~~~~~d-~---- NORA PIMENT I MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/Accepting the City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Rev: 7/27/2023
Prepared by Iteris, Inc. and Winter Consulting
December 2024
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor
VISION STUDY
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS
May 7, 2024
V I S I O N
Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor
CtTYOF
CUPl;I\TtNO
II l l lVl'I ~
SANJ_ - L '\l'flALtk!>lU ... i.ltl. ....... L.1....1:.'r' ~ ~
antaClil'ttVal~
Transgortat1c
Auttiority
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | i
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Corridor Steering Committee
Vice Mayor Rosemary Kamei, City of San José (Chair)
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County (Vice Chair) Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Councilmember Hung Wei, City of Cupertino
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Council Member Dev Davis, City of San José
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, City of Santa Clara
Board Member Margaret Abe-Koga, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Working Group John Sighamony, VTA
Tamiko Percell, VTA
David Stillman, City of Cupertino
Matt Shroeder, City of Cupertino
Chris Corrao, City of Cupertino
Ramses Madou, City of San José
David Gomez, City of San José
Jamie Sidhu, City of San José
Aaron Zeelig, City of San José
Natasha Opfell, City of San José
Wilson Tam, City of San José
Raania Mohsen, City of San José
Alex Dersh, City of San José, District 1
Michael Liw, City of Santa Clara
Nicole He, City of Santa Clara
Lesley Xavier, City of Santa Clara
Steve Chan, City of Santa Clara
Reena Brilliot, City of Santa Clara
Ben Aghegnehu, County of Santa Clara
The Study was initiated through the hard work of the previous Stevens Creek Corridor Boulevard Steering Committee which included
Vice Mayor Chappie Jones, City of San José (previous Chair) Council Member Dev Davis, City of San José
Council Member Elect, Rosemary Kamei, City of San José
Mayor Darcy Paul, City of Cupertino
Council Member Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, City of Santa Clara
Council Member Anthony Becker, City of Santa Clara
Council Member Teresa O’Neill, City of Santa Clara
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Community Advisory Group
Ofisa Pati, Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI) Maria Ines Ortega, Cadillac Winchester Neighborhood Association Bob Levy, City of San José District Neighborhood Leadership Group Sheng-Ming Egan, Cupertino 4 All
Seema Lindskog, Walk Bike Cupertino
Shyam “Sean” Panchal, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Pam Grey, De Anza College Administration
Manny DaSilva, DeAnza College
Harry Neil, De Anza College Student
Perry Penvenne, Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Tracie Johnson, South of Forest Avenue Neighborhood Association Cindy Baldenazi, South of Forest Neighborhood Association Jennifer Shearin, Walk Bike Cupertino
Kirk Vartan, Local Business Owner on Corridor
Chris Giangreco, Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association We want to send a special thank you for all who participated in the project through online, webinars, surveys, interviews and pop-up events. ~
___ .----:; --,----
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Corridor Vision............................................................................................................................................................................1 Vision Statement...........................................................................................................................................................................................2 Values and Guiding Principles........................................................................................................................................................................2 Implementation Planning Process................................................................................................................................................4 Engagement..................................................................................................................................................................................................4 Implementation Plan...................................................................................................................................................................5
1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance.........................................................................................................................................................6
2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and Experience........................................................................................................................................9
3. Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................................................12
4. Walking and Biking Network Connections ............................................................................................................................................15
5. Crossings ...........................................................................................................................................................................................16
6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit ........................................................................................................................................................19
7. Implementation Action Summary ........................................................................................................................................................23 Tables
Table 1: Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization.......................................................................................................................................................................8 Table 2: Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities (in Miles)................................................................................................................................. 15 Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions.............................................................................................................23 Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Actions.......................................................................................................24 Table 5: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range ...........................................................................................................................................24 Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions ................................................................................................. 26 Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor .............................................................................................................................27 Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions ..................................................................................................28 Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions............................................................................................................29 Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions................................................................................................30 Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High-Capacity Transit Systems................................................................................................31 ~
___ .----:; --,----
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | iii
Figures
Figure 1: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area..........................................................................................................................................1 Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High-Capacity, Separated Transit in the Corridor .........................................................................2 Figure 3: An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West.............................................................................................................................................................3 Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision ....................................................................................................................................................5 Figure 5: Historic Signs in the Corridor ..................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 6: Wayfinding Signage at Meridian...............................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 8: Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs ...........................................................................................................................................................7 Figure 7: Slow Speed Public Education on Stevens Creek Boulevard in San José......................................................................................................................7 Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard...............................................................................................................................................9 Figure 10: Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency...............................................................................................................................................10 Figure 11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options .........................................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 12: Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes, Shade Trees and Bus Island on Corridor.......................................................................................13 Figure 13: Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation ................................................................................13 Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ........................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ......................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino ............................................................................................................................................17 Figure 17: Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Santana Row .............................................................................................................18 Figure 18: Conceptual High-Capacity, Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor............................................................................................19 Figure 19: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of I-280 ..................................................21 Figure 20: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of Winchester Boulevard.........................22 Appendices
A. Engagement Summary and Tracker
B. Transit Alternatives Analysis
C. Transit Signal Operations
D. Planned Conditions
E. Parking Survey
F. Conditions Report
~
___ .----:; --,----
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 1
CORRIDOR VISION
The nine-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street corridor (Corridor) from Foothill Boulevard to Diridon Station is vital to Santa Clara Valley. The Corridor currently serves 100,000 residents and 80,000 jobs within ½ mile of the roadway. By 2040, these populations are expected to increase to 120,000 residents and 100,000 jobs.
• One-third of corridor residents are under 18 years old, forecast to rise to over 40 percent by 2040
• Almost 20 percent of corridor residents have an annual household income under $50,000.
• 65 percent of households speak languages other than English and over 30 percent have low English proficiency.
• 7.5 percent have a disability
• 5.5 percent live in households without an automobile
The Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)—the local government agencies responsible for transportation in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor—are committed to continuous investment for pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers. We recognize that to unlock the corridor's full potential, it is essential to have a shared vision for long-term transportation goals.
Figure 1: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area -:----_____ -------·
-------
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 2
Recognizing the need for a unified approach, the Cities, County, and VTA partnered to develop this Vision Statement. This Vision will guide the future of the corridor, ensuring cohesive planning and the coordinated management of transportation improvements.
A Steering Committee of elected officials from the participating agencies, a community advisory group, residents, businesses, and community groups provided the necessary leadership in a cooperative planning process to create a strong and sustainable Vision to guide corridor transportation investments for the next 50 years.
Vision Statement
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation infrastructure changed little in the past 50 years while the area it serves grew into a worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore, we envision the transportation corridor our community deserves to support continued residential and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen mode.
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by:
• A high-capacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa
Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with
connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations. Station areas would be wellmaintained and inviting community assets. • A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling
environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within ½ mile or 20-minute walk of transit stops.
• Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and
expressways and freeways.
This Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and use.
Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential HighCapacity, Separated Transit in the Corridor Values and Guiding Principles
The Corridor Vision would be implemented in steps. The committed shared purpose, vision, and values of the Cities of Cupertino, San José, and Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) will guide the Vision implementation process:
Ongoing Collaboration
• Continually engage and collaborate with corridor users and decision-makers.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 3
• Incrementally improve access, comfort, speed, and
reliability of transit.
• Embrace technological innovations.
Safety of All Corridor Users
• Eliminate transportation-related fatalities and severe injuries.
• Allow safe passage for vulnerable road users along and crossing the corridor.
• Reduce the level of stress and increase the accessibility of walking and biking,
Create a Sustainable Environment to Prioritize People
• Design for all ages, abilities, and incomes of users. • Maintain the corridor as a clean and inviting place.
• Provide green space and shade, and support native wildlife and plants.
• Foster enjoyable public space.
• Support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation.
A Transit Corridor
• Increase transit frequency and speed.
• Favor transit travel time over auto travel time in roadway operations.
• Improve access and comfort of waiting for transit.
• Implement a high-capacity, separated transit service in the corridor.
Convenience and Connectivity
• Improve the convenience of travel for people.
• Ensure access and connectivity for all travelers through investment to meet resident and business needs.
• Enhance neighborhood and business access.
Figure 3: An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 4
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROCESS
The Vision Implementation Plan serves as a framework for actions to achieve a shared Vision for the Corridor. Implementation will occur incrementally on separate project development timelines, involving distinct processes and leadership. Some items will be addressed through routine maintenance or administrative actions at the agency level, while others necessitate months or years of design and development, requiring newly identified funding sources and multijurisdictional cooperation.
Regardless of the specific implementation approach, each component of the Corridor Vision contributes to the overarching goal of safe and enjoyable travel for people of all ages, abilities, and chosen modes. The implementation planning process aligns with the Vision Statement, assessing various options.
Strategies and improvements are drawn from the VTA Community Design and Transportation Manual, refined to match local City and County specifications and standards, ensuring alignment with the area’s unique character.
Engagement
The Vision Statement for the Corridor was developed through extensive community input. Key community needs identified included addressing excessive vehicle speeds, improving safety, enhancing walkability, and achieving a better balance of transportation modes. To realize this vision, the community prioritized improved transit service, complete streets, better integration with the local community, and enhanced connections within the Corridor. Implementation efforts focus on key priorities such as upgraded bicycle lanes, improved streetscape design (including shade trees), transit infrastructure and service investments, and safer pedestrian crossings. -------
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 5
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and use.
The Vision for the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor will be implemented cooperatively among Corridor jurisdictions, transportation agencies, and the Corridor residential and business communities.
Investment in improving the multimodal transportation conditions in the Corridor should not wait for separated high-capacity transit, near-term actions can start to improve conditions for today’s users while creating an environment that better leverages future long-term investments. The six (6) recommended implementation components provide a structure to deliver near-term and long-term benefits of the Corridor Vision are:
Near Term (actions with about a 5-year development period) – These actions can be implemented in short timeframes with nearterm benefits.
1. Implement corridor identity and maintenance program(s) to support Corridor businesses and neighborhoods.
2. Improve bus transit speed, reliability, and experience.
3. Implement walking and bicycling infrastructure on the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor with an emphasis on physically protected bicycle lanes while maintaining access to driveways.
4. Build out and enhance pedestrian and bicycle network parallel, across and connecting to the Corridor.
The near-term actions would also include the initiation of project development and funding for the high-capacity, separated transit service.
Near to Medium Term (actions with about a 10-year development period) – These actions require more development time due to their complexity and cost. Actions within the next five years will initiate priority projects.
5. Improve intersections and crossings to minimize
inconvenience and maximize safety for all users.
Long Term (actions with at least a 20-year development period) – The Vision of a separated, high-capacity transit service in the Corridor will require considerable time, effort and funding from each Corridor agency. The next step in the project development process is to secure funding for preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis, environmental review and the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA).
6. Separate transit from other vehicle operations for highcapacity transit service.
While individual projects would have their own development process with rigorous public engagement, the Corridor agencies should continue their cooperation at the staff and elected official level to bring the Corridor Vision to reality as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years
Corridor Identity and Maintenance
Transit 5 eed, Reliabilit , and Ex erience
Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Pedestrian and Bic de Network Connections
Intersection and Crossin Im rovements
Separated Transit
<
V,
-
0 2
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 6
1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance
The Corridor businesses, neighborhoods, civic groups and government agencies will define a Corridor brand identity(ies) as a premier regional destination to live, work, and shop. These groups will also collaborate to maintain the historic resources, condition of infrastructure and cleanliness of the Corridor.
Transportation infrastructure that complements the community supports environmental, economic, and social considerations to create value to the people who live, work, and shop in the Corridor.
Maintenance of an attractive and clean environment to leverage the unique corridor identity for the enjoyment of residents, workers, and shoppers requires organization and resources.
Corridor Plans
The City of Cupertino Heart of the City and Monta Vista Specific Plans, City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus area and City of San José Stevens Creek, Valley Fair/Santana Row, and West San Carlos Urban Villages each envision as streetscape that accommodates more walking, biking, rolling and transit activity. The plans will be implemented through a variety of physical infrastructure and placemaking development actions consistent with the character of a multimodal commercial street. VTA’s Community Design and Transportation Manual further details the relationship of transportation and public life that inform the recommendations of the Corridor Vision Implementation.
Historic Preservation of Signs
The Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor is home to several vintage and historic signs—predominately in the googie, mid-century style. Current historic signs in the Corridor such as the Safeway (former Futurerama Bowl) Sign, Western Appliance Sign, and the Y Not Sign continue to define a futurelooking aesthetic.
Figure 5: Historic Signs in the Corridor
Transportation Service Signage
The identity of the transportation services and connections of the Corridor have limited visibility.
Transit identity can take a larger
role in the Corridor’s identity
through wayfinding signage,
real-time transit information,
and better identified transit
stops which allow for better
awareness and utilization of the
Corridor transportation assets.
Wayfinding signage can be used
to direct travelers from the
Corridor to routes which
provide connections across
barriers such as the Cypress
Avenue Bridge over I-280.
Figure 6: Wayfinding Signage at Meridian
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 7
District Management and Maintenance Organizations
Management of public space is usually conducted by municipalities or adjacent landowners, however in some parts of the Corridor, business districts and chambers of commerce were formed to provide business development, clean and maintain public space, provide beautification, create a civic forum, and sponsor events and promotions. These organizations include:
• West San Carlos Street Neighborhood Business District Association
• Winchester Neighborhood Business District
• Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Figure 8: Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs
Vehicle Speed Limit
The Corridor speed limit is 35 miles per hour in most locations except for the segment between Lawrence Expressway and
Harold Avenue which has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. It is recommended this segment’s speed limit be reduced to 35 miles per hour for consistency and more appropriate
conditions for bicyclists.
Vehicle Speed Reduction Enforcement and Education
Enforcement of speed limits and traffic safety
education can improve safety and comfort for
residents, workers and visitors to the Corridor. The
physical character of the roadway gives the
impression of a higher-than-posted speed limit of 35
miles per hour (40 miles per hour from Lawrence
Expressway to Harold Avenue). In advance of implementing infrastructure to actively or passively reduce vehicle speeds, enforcement can be an effective near-term action to address vehicle speed in the Corridor. Speeding is the largest primary traffic collision factor in the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor (30% of
collisions), followed by
related driver factors of
failure to heed traffic signals
or signs (19%), improper
turning (19%), and violations
of vehicle right-of-way (12%).
Deployment of periodic
speed enforcement and
vision zero education
campaigns complement
physical infrastructure
countermeasures to reduce
vehicle speeds.
Figure 7: Slow Speed Public Education on
Stevens Creek Boulevard in San José
On-Street Parking
On-street parking can be an important component of a vibrant commercial corridor. A significant portion of the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street has on-street parking in the Cities of San José and Santa Clara sections of the roadway. A parking utilization survey in May 2024 analyzed the use of 1,736 parking spaces: 885 directly on Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street, and 851 spaces within 200 feet of the Corridor on adjacent streets. Parking utilization ranged from 30 percent of spaces to 70 percent of spaces depending on location and time of day. As shown in Table 1, the highest utilized section on the Corridor was between Lincoln Avenue and Shasta Avenue and the highest utilized side streets were in the Saratoga Avenue to Richfield Drive section of the corridor.
Source: San José Business Improvement District, Discover Santa Clara, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 8
Table 1: Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization
Overall, on-street parking is well utilized throughout the Corridor, especially in areas where businesses are on small lots with limited off-street parking. Preservation of adequate parking is a key consideration for the overall design of the corridor roadway right-ofway, however curbside management which includes consideration of parking turnover, passenger vehicle and transit loading access, commercial loading, bicycle and pedestrian safety as factors should be continued practice to maximize access, mobility, and safety. Any proposed removal of on-street parking in the future should be studied further in coordination with the adjacent land
uses/properties.
During the course of the study, the use of the median for car hauler loading and unloading was mentioned as part of the balance of use in the public right-of-way since alteration of this condition would push the activity to neighborhood side streets.
Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
• Convene businesses and business groups to explore:
o Joint advertising and branding opportunities.
o Marketing and special events
o Public safety and hospitality
o Small business grants/loans
• Communicate business resources to Corridor businesses • Coordinate street cleaning and maintenance including
graffiti removal and sidewalk and vegetation maintenance • Reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from Lawrence Expressway to Harold Avenue
• Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and speed education efforts
• Develop a process for ongoing community input and
engagement for corridor issues through the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
Lincoln to Shasta 44%
Shasta to 1-880 34%
1-880 to Cypress 41%
Cypress to Saratoga 17%
Saratoga to Richfield 68%
Richfield to Lawrence Expy 42%
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 9
2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and
Experience
The Corridor Cities and the County will work with VTA to implement bus speed, reliability and experience improvements in the Corridor.
Buses provide the primary transit mode along the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor—the lines serving the corridor are on VTA’s Frequent Network. The improvement of service speed, reliability, and experience is the responsibility of VTA and the Cities and County that own and operate the infrastructure utilized by the bus system.
Since buses in the corridor share the roadway infrastructure with other vehicles, designing and operating the roadway with transit vehicles and riders at the forefront can bring better service, encourage more transit riders, and support affordable and environmentally friendly transportation.
Buses primarily operate in the outside (3rd) lanes of the Corridor with a frequency of about every 10 minutes between the 23 and 523 service. More than 80 percent of the bus stops are locations where the bus stops in the 3rd lane or in a bicycle lane area which blocks the 3rd lane vehicles behind it during stops. The speed limit of 35mph on Stevens Creek can have safety implications for mixed lane operations: in 2020 a motorist fatally rear-ended a VTA bus which was slowing down for a bus stop.
The City of San José General Plan designated the Corridor a Grand Boulevard where the needs of transit vehicles and riders are given priority over other modes of travel. In 2022, the City of San José passed a “Transit First Policy” which further motivates San José to improve transit operations and access on Grand Boulevards.
There are 89 intersections and 74 bus stops (both directions) along the Corridor. The Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, as well as San José, partnered with VTA to implement new shelters, seating, lighting, and associated improvements at VTA Rapid 523 bus stops in 2018. The Rapid 523 service operates approximately 22 percent faster than the Local Route 23 service due to stop consolidation, alldoor boarding, and limited signal priority operations. In addition, through VTA’s Bus Stop Balancing program six eastbound and four westbound low ridership or redundant stops were removed.
Other transportation services operating in the corridor include the public Silicon Valley Hopper on-demand shared service in Cupertino and Santa Clara, private employee buses for large employers, and private transportation network companies. Efficiency through the intersections and access to and quality of the bus stops are the focus of the following bus speed, reliability, and user experience improvements.
Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard Transit Signal Priority
Traffic signals that adjust signal green time based on transit vehicle proximity currently have limited implementation in the Corridor, despite corridor-wide infrastructure and technology in place. An administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the County of San José) to cooperate with VTA to implement a corridorwide transit signal priority through a centralized system would be expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 14% and VTA Local STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 10
23/51 service by 12%, saving 5.5 minutes and 5.9 minutes for end to end trips respectively.
Queue Jump
A designated waiting areas for buses at the front of an intersection along with leading bus-only green time is referred to as a queue jump. This treatment would be effective at the San Tomas Expressway intersection because the intersection is synchronized north/south to the expressway and therefore could not be a part of the east/west Corridor transit signal priority. This queue jump treatment would be expected to save up to 12 seconds per bus trip through the intersection running east/west or a 0.5% travel time savings for Corridor end-to-end trips.
Figure 10: Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency Bus Boarding Islands
Bus boarding islands allow in-lane boarding and remove bus stops from bicycle lanes while providing additional safety protection for cyclists. Implementation of bus boarding islands reduces the amount time of buses spend at a stop and would move bus loading out of bicycle lanes along the Corridor. Full implementation in the Corridor is expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 2.1% and VTA Local 23/51 service by 6.1%, saving 50 seconds and 3.1 minutes for end-to-end trips respectively. The higher travel time savings for local service is due to the higher number of stops in the Corridor.
Real-Time Information
VTA provides real-time arrival and service alert information through a mobile app called Transit and at stop digital signage at light rail and bus rapid transit stations. Provision of this information on digital signs at stops in the Corridor would be a major improvement to rider comfort and understanding of vehicle arrival time.
Transit Experience Improvements
VTA and the Corridor municipalities recently made investments in transit user experience in the corridor through improved shelters, lighting, seating, accessibility, and bicycle racks on buses. Corridor municipalities continue to address fixing cracked sidewalks, tripping hazards, and adding concrete bus pads where asphalt has been impacted by frequent stopping. There will need to be periodic, ongoing capital maintenance activities to maintain the stop areas in a state of good repair.
Curbside Transit/Business Access Lanes
Transit lanes use pavement markings to prioritize buses for improvement to transit speed and reliability. Curbside bus lanes are accessible to emergency vehicles and any other vehicle for rightturns at intersections, driveways, parking maneuvers. Curbside transit lanes can also enhance the visibility and branding of transit service, and provide better visibility for vehicles entering and exiting the roadway from driveways and neighborhood side streets and can also be signed as Business Access and Transit Lanes. Given the width of the roadway and predominately three-lane in each direction configuration, curbside transit lanes could be implemented with limited change to current on-street parking.
Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
• Complete an administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the County of San José) to Agency Signals Operated
City of Cupertino
City of Santa Clara
County of Santa Clara
City of San Jose
18 7
1 21
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 11
cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor-wide transit signal priority through a centralized system.
• Design and Transportation Manual (CDT) and VTA’s Speed and Reliability Program. VTA will develop a speed and
reliability improvement plan for the frequent network routes of 23, 51, and 523 with a Working Group of Corridor Agencies where priorities, funding and phased implementation.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 12
3. Corridor Walking and Biking
Infrastructure
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a stressfree and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment through the implementation of protected, buffered, or separated bicycle facilities the length of the Corridor including protection at intersections. Where sidewalks are not to current standard, they will be improved through dedications of new development.
Balancing modes in the Corridor requires additional promotion of infrastructure for walking and biking. Investment in walking and bicycling infrastructure supports transit riders by providing easier and more pleasant stop access.
The streetscape of Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street has remained largely unchanged in the last 50 years, even as the communities it serves have grown and diversified. Key improvements to modernize and transform the roadway into a valuable community asset include upgrading bicycle facilities, ensuring sidewalks meet current width standards, and installing and maintaining shade trees.
Protection for Bicyclists
According to the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), protected bicycle lanes should be installed when vehicles travel at speeds of more than 25 miles per hour on a consistent basis. Given the speed limit is predominately 35 miles per hour or higher in the Corridor, the physical separation of bicycle lanes is prudent for safety and comfort. The City of Cupertino is currently implementing physically separated bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the Cities of Santa Clara and San José plan to implement bicycle separation along the Corridor.
Figure 11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options
Physical bicycle lane separation would include clear space and clear sight lines for vehicles accessing driveways. It may also include additional safety treatment for vehicle egress/ingress at driveways.
Buildout Sidewalk Width
While sidewalks are present the entire length of the Corridor, 85 percent of the sidewalks are narrower than the standards within their respective City. Generally, the sidewalks in the Valley Fair/Santana Row area and parts of Cupertino are the widest in the Corridor. The Corridor has several legacy driveways which slope through the sidewalk area. Each of the Corridor Cities’ current standards separate the sidewalk area from the driveway apron to provide for minimal sloping though the pedestrian walking space which should be implemented as adjacent buildings are developed.
Pedestrian Infrastructure Enhancements
Whether someone is walking to a restaurant, business, or residence from a parked car or bike, from an adjacent neighborhood, or from a transit stop, high-quality pedestrian infrastructure is important.
Sidewalk extensions can be used to shorten intersection crossing distances and improve pedestrian visibility. Median refuge islands Source: San José Better Bike Plan, City of San José
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 13
are a treatment at physically large, busy signalized intersections with long crosswalks. These facilities can provide a safe midpoint for two-stage intersection crossings. Leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections allow pedestrians to cross at intersections before vehicles are given a green signal and gives pedestrians priority over turning-vehicles. While conventional street lights are intended to illuminate the roadway for vehicles, pedestrian-oriented lighting illuminates sidewalks and crosswalks to enhance the comfort and safety of walking at night.
Figure 12: Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes, Shade Trees and Bus Island on Corridor
Shade Trees
Shade trees are sparse in the Corridor. Only 45 percent of blocks have any trees present, and only 23 percent of blocks have trees on both sides of the roadway. Maintenance of a healthy urban forest and green infrastructure lowers the temperature at ground level, reduces glare, reduces stormwater run-off, and provides for native wildlife.
Right-of-Way Constraints
The corridor right-of-way varies block-to-block; however, the Corridor can be characterized by seven generalized segments by the types of transportation infrastructure in place:
A. Cupertino two to four lanes
B. Cupertino six lanes
C. San José/Santa Clara six lanes
D. Valley Fair/Santana Row six lanes
E. West San Carlos Street four lane no current bicycle lane F. West San Carlos Street four lane with bicycle lane
When applying sidewalk, bicycle lane, and vehicle lane standards to the existing right-of-way, areas with constrained right of way are indicated in several sections of the corridor as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation Key
- Travel Lane
- Bicycle Lane
- On-Street Parking
- Right-of-Way Constraint
- Raised Median
-- Two Way Left Turn Median
Narrow Sidewalk
and Bike Lane Bike Lane Buffers
Being Installed
Median Two-Way
Left-Turn Lane Narrow Sidewalk
and Bike Lane
Narrow Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk
No Bike Lane
Narrow Sidewalk
No Bike Lane
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 14
While these constraints do not limit the feasibility of implementing improvements in the current corridor right-of-way, they do indicate some deviation from standard design may be necessary to meet mobility goals without impacting adjacent land use.
Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Recommended
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
• Physically protect/separate/buffer bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street to provide
separation of bicyclists from vehicle while maintaining access to driveways.
• Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards
through dedications by new land use development.
• Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek
Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor. This would be developed within an urban forestry framework with
sustainable funding for tree maintenance.
• Review locations for installation of median refuge islands • Review the potential for leading pedestrian intervals at signalized intersections (LPIs).
• Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting when street lighting is installed or replaced in the corridor.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 15
4. Walking and Biking Network Connections
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by highquality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a 20-minute walk of transit stops through the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian plans.
The Vision of the Corridor as a multimodal roadway is to be supported by strong connections to walking and bicycling networks.
This allows non-motorized travel for access to transit services and commercial and residential areas.
Each Corridor agency provide improvements to walking and bicycling infrastructure in the Corridor area (within ½ mile of the Corridor). The current and planned status of bicycle infrastructure based on each of the Corridor City’s bicycle plans is shown in Table
2. Overall, the bicycle network is planned to be expanded by 50 percent –from approximately 80 miles of facilities to 120 miles of facilities. This expansion includes a major investment in 68 miles of new or converted trails and protected, buffered, or separated bikeways. This would bring the proportion of the separated bikeway network from 11 percent to 63 percent in the Corridor area.
Table 2: Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities (in Miles) Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
Each Corridor agency has plans to design, fund, and construct projects to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These are also supplemented by safety planning such as Local Roadway Safety Plans, Safety Action Plans, Safe Routes to School, Vision Zero Programs, and the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines.
Implementation of active transportation improvements should consider the accommodation of electric powered bicycle, scooters, and other micromobility to ensure emerging modes support, not conflict with walking and bicycling.
Priority Implementation Actions
The following is a sample of the 70+ parallel and connecting walking and biking network improvements prioritized by the Community Advisory Committee:
• Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Project (City of Santa Clara)
• Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project (City of San José) • De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes (City of Cupertino)
• Lawrence Mitty Park Trail (City of Cupertino)
Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area Bicycle Facility Type Current Planned
Trail 4.5 12.6
Buffered/Separated Bikeway 4.6 64.5
Unbuffered Bike Lane 52.6 14.3
Bicycle Boulevard/Route 18.9 30.2
Subtotal – Protected Network 9.0 77.0
Total 80.5 121.5
Legend
- Class I -Trail
c:::::) Class II Buffered/Separated Bicycle Lane
- Class II Bicycle Lane
- Class Ill Route/Bike Boulevard
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 16
5. Crossings
Crossings in the Corridor Area will be upgraded for accessible, consistent infrastructure that protects vulnerable users, considers transit access, and ensures direct connections. Safe and efficient vehicle travel would also be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and expressways and freeways.
Crossings of the Corridor whether at intersections, at midblock locations or across natural barriers, are important to maintain connectivity among neighborhoods, parks, commercial areas and access to corridor transit services.
From 2016 to 2022 there was an average of 188 collisions per year in the Corridor overall and 23 collisions per year involving bicycles or pedestrians—75 percent of which occurred within 250 feet of an intersection. Half of vehicle/vehicle collisions resulted in injuries, while 93 percent of collisions involving bicycles and 97 percent of collisions involving pedestrians resulted in an injury. Collisions involving a bicycle or a pedestrian were also five times as likely to result in a serious injury or fatality. Therefore, special attention to the treatment of vulnerable road users at these crossings should be made to ensure conflicting movements do not become collisions.
The Corridor Cities and the County are conducting Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSPs), Safety Action Plans and Vision Zero Plans with specific actions to address intersection and systemic safety. For example, three Corridor intersections for recommended
improvements identified in the City of Cupertino’s LRSP: Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard, Bandley Drive and Blaney Avenue.
Enhanced Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles
Marked and highly visible crosswalks help define where pedestrians can conveniently and predictably cross streets. While the California Vehicle Code requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in any crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked.
Streetscape design should prioritize crosswalks as an essential element of the pedestrian environment, rather than interruptions to vehicles. Due to the low approach angle at which drivers view pavement markings, incorporating parallel stripes alongside or instead of standard perpendicular markings can greatly enhance the visibility of crosswalks for oncoming traffic. Therefore, to improve crosswalk visibility ‘standard’ crosswalks delineated by two lines perpendicular to the vehicle lanes should be replaced with ‘continental’ crosswalks with lines parallel to the roadway or ‘ladder’ crosswalks with both the standard perpendicular delineation lines and the parallel continental lines or ‘zebra’ crosswalks with diagonal lines.
Currently 79 percent of crosswalks across Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street are high-visibility continental or ladder crosswalks, while only 47 percent of crosswalks along (across side streets) are high visibility crosswalks.
Other enhancements for crossings include pedestrian-oriented lighting, audible cues announcing roadway location (as installed at the Kiely Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection) , tactile or colored waiting areas and crossings, automatic detection of pedestrians and bicyclists and adjusted crossing times that vary with the crosser.
Curb Extensions and Protected Intersections
Intersections are primarily designed for processing vehicles and managing vehicle conflicts. Bicycle and pedestrian oriented intersection treatments narrow the crossing length and provide dedicated intersection space for vulnerable users.
• Curb Extensions widen the sidewalk area into the
intersection, narrowing the roadway, decreasing the speed STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 17
of right-turning vehicles, and creating shorter crossings for pedestrians. They also improve the visibility of pedestrians to drivers.
• Protected Intersections for bicycles create additional space on the sides and through intersections for bicyclists and pedestrians. Buffers, generally raised curbs, separate bike lanes on the sides and corners of the intersection and bicycle lanes are striped next to crosswalks through the intersection. Similar to curb extensions, these treatments create waiting areas while making vulnerable users more visible to slower right-turning vehicles.
Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino Connections Across Barriers
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is the longest continuous east/west roadway in the study area: other than I-280, there is not a parallel roadway which makes the full connection from Cupertino to San José in the study area.
The physical barriers in the Corridor, both natural and man-made from west to east are:
• Stevens Creek
• Union Pacific Rail Tracks
• State Route 85
• Calabazas Creek
• Saratoga Creek
• Lawrence Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• I-880/State Route 17
• Los Gatos Creek
• VTA Green Line and Blue Line Light Rail Tracks
Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street cross over or under each of these physical barriers. Other facilities which cross barriers in the Study Area are:
• Saratoga Creek Pedestrian Bridge in Santa Clara
• Cypress I-280 Overcrossing in San José
• Tisch I-280 Overcrossing in San José
• Midtown-Fruitdale I-280 Crossing in San José
• Los Gatos Creek Trail I-280 Undercrossing in San José • Parkway Park San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing in Santa Clara
Improved wayfinding and identifying signage of these important crossings can enhance their usage and access among Corridor area routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Planned crossings in the study area for pedestrians and bicycles are:
• SR-85 Overcrossing from Grand Ave to Mary Ave in Cupertino • Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart Park and create a feasible pedestrian and bicycle connection design Source: City of Cupertino
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 18
to Stevens Creek Boulevard under I-280 and adjacent to
Lawrence Expressway connecting the cities of Cupertino, San José, and Santa Clara
• San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing (Greenlee Drive to
Coakley Drive/Constance Drive) in San José
• Carmen Road Bridge in Cupertino
Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
Initiate priority intersections and crossings projects to minimize inconvenience and maximize safety for all users. These include:
• Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Implement curb extensions and protected intersections. • Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians and bicycles • Review key hot spots for crossing improvements such as Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard at I-880 for
potential reconfiguration to accommodate clearer travel patterns for all modes.
Figure 17: Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Santana Row
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 19
6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a highcapacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations.
Station areas would be well-maintained and inviting community assets.
A high-capacity transit system separated from the roadway would allow for a 20-minute connection from De Anza College in Cupertino to Diridon Station and/or Downtown San José. Potential stations could be at Diridon Station or Downtown San José, Meridian, Bascom, Winchester, Saratoga. Lawrence, Wolfe, and De Anza College.
The key components of the system would be easy access to a system to carry large numbers of people quickly along the Corridor.
The vibrant public spaces and central hubs characteristics of a separated, high-capacity transit system highlight the tradeoffs between transit and personal automobile travel. While automobiles will continue to play a significant role in the transportation system, they cannot address future transportation demands without increasing congestion. In contrast, a high-capacity system offers unique
opportunities to meet these needs while delivering high-quality service that aligns with principles of human-scale design, universal accessibility, and support of activity centers.
This system could provide reliable and safe connections among major connections in the South Valley with short travel times in an environmentally friendly way without adding to traffic congestion.
The high initial capital cost is the primary barrier to implementation.
However long-term cost savings to users and value to supporting neighborhoods and businesses with a sustainable, high-quality transportation service bring enduring benefits to the community.
At-grade separated transit could be side or center running transit separated / delineated either with hardscape (i.e., concrete curbs or plantings) or quick-build materials such as paint and plastic posts.
Preliminary analysis included in Appendix B indicates elevated transit in the Corridor would cost approximately $1.7 billion while underground transit in the Corridor would cost about $2.8 billion.
Combined with bus speed, reliability, and experience
improvements, the number of transit users in the Corridor would be expected to double over current conditions.
While the placement of guideway and type of vehicle used is not specified in this Vision Study, there was a clear community preference for an elevated fixed-guideway transit service.
Figure 18: Conceptual High-Capacity, Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor
SANTA CLARA
Saratoga Winchester
SAN JDSE
SAN JDSE
Bascom Meridian
Diridon
Station
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 20
Alternate Alignment Along I-280
In response to the City of Cupertino's Resolution No. 19-089, an alternate high-capacity transit alignment along I-280 is being considered. This alignment aims to address concerns regarding potential traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard that may result from Plan recommendations, while meeting the goal of enhancing regional connectivity. The I-280 corridor offers unique opportunities for integrating a high-capacity transit system that minimizes disruptions to surface street operations.
The proposed I-280 alignment would complement, rather than replace, the Stevens Creek Boulevard route. While the Stevens Creek Boulevard alignment focuses on connecting key local destinations with frequent stops, the I-280 route could provide a faster route between De Anza College and Diridon Station. This dualcorridor approach allows for a more flexible system that meets both local and regional transportation needs.
Key connections will be established through Cupertino's welldeveloped bicycle and pedestrian network, including the 3-mile offstreet Tamien Innu Trail stretching from Mary Avenue to Vallco Parkway. Separated bikeways along Mary Avenue will offer a direct north-south route from the Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza College.
Additionally, Class IV bikeways surrounding the Wolfe Road interchange modernization project will provide convenient access for both shoppers at Main Street Cupertino and visitors to the redeveloped Vallco Shopping Center.
Further analysis is recommended to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefits of a high-capacity transit alignment along I-280.
Including this alignment in future studies could enhance the Corridor Vision by providing additional options to meet transportation demands.
1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/key-factorssuccessful-project-implementation Implementation Approach
Implementing a new transit line is complex and requires sustained effort by champions at the agency staff and elected official levels.
As the County’s transit agency, VTA is best positioned to be the lead agency for the project. However, partnership with the Corridor municipalities is necessary for successful implementation as major improvements such as any grade separation would need Council or Board approval by individual agencies.
The project would likely be a part of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)’s Capital Investment Grant/Expedited Project Delivery (CIG/EPD) Pilot program. Fortunately, VTA, the County of Santa Clara, San José and Santa Clara have experience with this program as the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project was part of the CIG/EPD pipeline.
Paraphrasing FTA’s key factors for successful project
implementation1 of a major transit capital program involves adequate project management and project control practices to manage:
• Input during planning, design and scoping phases
• Right-of-way acquisition
• Schedule
• Cost Estimating and budget
• Public engagement, information and communication
• Fair and comprehensive contracting documents
• Adequate underground investigation during preliminary engineering
• Successful coordination with public utilities
• Realistic and independently determined constraints and expectations.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 21
Figure 19: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of I-280
Specific considerations for implementation of an elevated transit service in the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor based on engagement are:
• Elevated transit stations could also provide crossings above Stevens Creek Boulevard for bicyclists and pedestrians. 2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departmentsoffices/transportation/transit/airport-connector • Spacing between pillars/footings should be adequate to maintain a two-way left turn lane in the shared Santa
Clara/San José section of Stevens Creek Boulevard for the loading and unloading of car carriers serving car dealerships. • Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service models should be explored.
• Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector2 project which could be expanded into the corridor.
• Review potential connections options to Diridon Station and Downtown San José.
• Collaborate with Corridor partners to study the feasibility of a parallel high-capacity transit alignment along I-280. • Assess how the I-280 alignment could integrate with the primary Stevens Creek Boulevard route through various
connections, offering a variety of transit options for local access.
~:.- ... ~ F, ., ~
•.
"" ,~, ~ __ -.._:. ___ -.::.. .
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 22
Recommended High-Capacity Transit Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
The next phase of project development consists of preliminary engineering and alternatives analysis, environmental review and the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA). This would be followed by the funding commitments to complete engineering and final design and then a full funding grant agreement from outside funding partners (generally FTA) for construction.
As a new project, securing funding for development and
construction will be vital to implementation. The high-capacity, separated transit concept was included in Plan Bay Area 2050 (as a placeholder light rail service expansion) through the joint cooperation of Corridor agencies. It is currently being evaluated for inclusion in the upcoming Plan Bay Area 2050+. However, inclusion in these documents does not guarantee funding. Furthermore, Santa Clara County Measure A funds likely could not be used for further development of a separated transit option as the funds for transit are focused on bus speed and efficiency improvements.
Therefore, the best option is to secure competitive state or federal grant funds through programs such as: SB 1 programs of Solutions for Congested Corridors Program or Local Partnership Program administered by the California Transportation Commission or the Federal Transit Administration Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning or Accelerating Innovative Mobility Program or US Department of Transportation Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Program.
It is recommended a cooperative grant funding strategy be pursued by the Corridor agencies to place the high-capacity, separated transit service project forward for multiple competitive grant funding programs.
3 https://www.vta.org/projects/eastridge-bart-regionalconnector#accordion-environmental-documents Example Project Development Timeline
A project development timeline was developed based on the Eastridge to BART Regional Connector3 timeline:
• Preliminary Engineering of three years (2025-2028)
• Design and Engineering of two years (2029-2030)
• Environmental Clearance of five years (2031-2036)
• Utility Relocation of two years (2037 – 2039)
• Construction of five years (2040-2045)
Figure 20: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of Winchester Boulevard STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 23
7. Recommended Implementation Actions For Consideration by Agencies Summary 1 Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation
Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step
1.1 Corridor Business Forum Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Convene Corridor Business Forum
1.2 Street cleaning and maintenance coordination Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Staff-level coordination of maintenance
activities
1.3 Set the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from
Lawrence Expressway to Harold Avenue
Cities of Santa Clara and San José Conduct Engineering and Traffic survey
1.4 Communicate business resources to Corridor
businesses
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Develop summary of eligible grants and loan
programs for businesses
1.5 Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and
speed education efforts
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Implement Vision Zero and Speed Reduction
Public Education
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 24
2 Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step
2.1 Complete an administrative policy for corridorwide transit signal priority through a centralized system
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, County of Santa Clara, and VTA
Administrative policy for the four agencies
operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of
Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the
County of San José) to cooperate with VTA to
implement a corridor-wide transit signal
priority through a centralized system.
2.2 Develop a program of Corridor bus speed,
reliability and experience improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, County of Santa Clara, and VTA
Work with VTA to develop improvement plan
in partnership with a Working Group
composed of Corridor agencies
Table 5b: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range Potential Capital Component Responsible Agencies Unit Cost Quantities Cost Estimate Range
Develop Transit Signal Priority
Policy
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José
with VTA Implemented through staff coordination
Queue Jump at San Tomas
Expressway County of Santa Clara with VTA) $1.25m - $1.5m San Tomas Expressway $1.25m - $1.5m Bus Bulbs/Islands Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara $270k-$400k Twenty 523 stops $5.4m-$8m Real-Time Information VTA $40k-$75k per
stop Twenty 523 stops $800k-$1.5m
Transit Experience
Improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara with VTA
$5k-$50K per
stop
Twenty 523 stops
and 74 23/51 stops $470k-$4.7m
Curbside Transit/Business
Access Lanes
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara with VTA
$500k-$1m per
mile
2.5 miles in San José $1.25m-$2.5m
2.5 miles in Santa
Clara/San José $1.25m-$2.5m
4 miles in Cupertino $2m-$4m
Total Cost Estimate Range $13.4m-$24.7m
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 25
Table 5a: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range by Jurisdiction Jurisdiction (Location) of Improvements Cost Estimate
Range
Cost by Jurisdiction
City of Cupertino $3.6m-$7.3m
City of Santa Clara $2.8m-$5.7m
City of San José $4.4m-$9.4m
County of Santa Clara $1.6m-2.2m
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 26
3 Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions Action Responsible Agencies Next Step
3.1 Physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos
Street to provide physical separation of bicyclists from vehicle while maintaining access to driveways.
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara Implement corridor improvements
3.2 Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Require sidewalk widening as part of
development dedications as needed
3.3 Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Develop urban forestry framework with
sustainable funding for tree maintenance
3.4 Install median refuge islands Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Review locations for installation of median
refuge islands
3.5 Install leading pedestrian intervals at signalized
intersections
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Review the potential for leading pedestrian
intervals at signalized intersections
3.6 Install Pedestrian-oriented lighting Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, and the County of Santa Clara
Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting
when street lighting is installed or replaced
in the corridor.
The ongoing implementation of physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor will be completed through incremental projects and funded through a variety of sources, for most projects the funding is not identified as shown in Table 7.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 27
Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor Responsible
Agency Project
Cost
Estimate
($2024)
Funding Source
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 2A) Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard $1.6m
City General Fund, One
Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant
Program
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 2B) De Anza Boulevard to Mary Avenue $1.6m
City General Fund, One
Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant
Program
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 3) TBD TBD
Stevens Creek Blvd/SR-85 NB Protected
Intersection TBD TBD (development project)
City of San José
Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Winchester Boulevard to Monroe Street TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5-Year List Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Monroe Street to Macarthur Avenue TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5-Year List Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Macarthur Avenue to Bascom Avenue TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5-Year List West San Carlos Street Protect Bicycle Lanes -
Bascom Avenue to Woz Way TBD TBD - Better Bike Plan - 5-Year List West San Carlos Urban Village Streets
Improvements from I-880 to McEvoy $10m TBD
Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike
Lanes (south side) - Winchester Boulevard to
Lawrence Expressway
$2m TBD
City of Santa
Clara
Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike
Lanes (north side) - Winchester Boulevard to
Lawrence Expressway
$2m TBD
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 28
4 Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step
4.1 Support the continued development and
implementation of walking and biking network
improvements in parallel and connecting
corridors to the Stevens Creek Boulevard
Corridor
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Continue to develop, fund, and implement
priority projects (over 70 identified in the
study area) such as:
• Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Proje
• Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project (Ci
• De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lane (City of C
• Lawrence Mitty Park Trail (City of Cupertin
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 29
5 Corridor Crossings Implementation
Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step
5.1 Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings
for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Identify and implement enhanced, high-visibility
crossings
5.2 Implement curb extensions and protected
intersections.
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Identify and implement curb extensions and
protected intersections such as the Stevens Creek
Blvd/SR-85 NB Protected Intersection in Cupertino
5.3 Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians
and bicycles
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José
Continue to develop, fund, and implement priority
projects such as:
• Safety improvements at the intersections of
Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard,
Bandley Drive and Blaney Avenue (City of
Cupertino)
• Crossing of SR-85 from Grand Avenue to Mary
Avenue (City of Cupertino)
• Crossing of I-280 at Mitty Park (John Mise Park)
(City of San José)
• Crossing of San Tomas Expressway at Greenlee
Drive/Coakley Drive/Constance Drive (City of San
José)
• Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart
Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard under I-280 and
adjacent to Lawrence Expressway (Cities of
Cupertino, San José, Santa Clara, and the County
of Santa Clara)
5.4 Review key hot spots for operational and
crossing improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Review the intersection of Monroe Street and Stevens
Creek Boulevard at I-880 for potential reconfiguration
to accommodate clearer travel patterns for all modes
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 30
6 Separated, High-Capacity Implementation
Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step
6.1 Include project in Plan Bay Area 2050+
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
Advocate for project inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050+
and future Plan Bay Area cycles
6.2 Secure funding commitments
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
Develop framework funding strategy
6.3 Work with VTA to initiate project development
process
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, and the County of
Santa Clara
Obtain resources to initiate preliminary engineering
and alternatives analysis, environmental review and
the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) in a community engagement process
6.4 Include corridor-specific considerations in
project development process
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
Include the following in the project development
process:
• Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service
models should be explored
• Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector
project which could be expanded into the corridor
• Review potential connections options to Diridon
Station and Downtown San José
• Analyze an alternative alignment along the I-280
corridor in Cupertino
• Review coordination of corridor transit connections
for local and regional access
Preliminary estimates of the capital costs for various separated, high—capacity systems and service types are shown in Table 11.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 31
Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High-Capacity Transit Systems Potential Capital Component Description Cost Estimate
(in $2024)
Estimated Corridor
Travel Time
Estimated Daily
Ridership
Existing Conditions
Current peak hour conditions for
average VTA Lines 523 and 23 in the
corridor
- 39.4 minutes for Line 523
50.4 for Line 23 9,800
Transit/Business Access Lane
Early action option as part of Bus
Speed, Reliability and Experience
Improvements
$13.4m-$27.7m 30.4 minutes 12,600
At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit
Lane
Includes development of 10 side
station areas $53m 29.3 minutes 12,950
At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit
Lane – Excluding Cupertino Section
Includes development of 10 side
station areas—with limited
improvements at non-separated lane
sections
$29m 31.9 minutes 12,650
At-Grade Center Running Transit Lane Includes development of 10 center station areas $95m 27 minutes 12,600
Elevated Transit Line
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or
Diridon Station
$1,750m 20 minutes 20,200
Elevated Transit Line - I-280 alignment in
Cupertino
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or
Diridon Station
$1,750m 20 minutes 19,250
Underground Transit Line
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or
Diridon Station
$2,800m 20 minutes 20,200
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.
RESOLUTION No. 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR STEERING COMMITTEE
ADOPTING AND ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS MEETINGS,
PROCEEDINGS AND BUSINESS
WHEREAS, the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee has found it necessary and desirable to adopt Rules of Order for the conduct of its business, now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, a collaborative committee of the City of San José that the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee does hereby adopt Rules of Order for the conduct of its business, as follows:
RULES OF ORDER
OF THE
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR STEERING COMMITTEE
Preamble. These Bylaws are the procedural rules and regulations for the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee was created to provide guidance and oversee the planning work involved in the Stevens Creek Corridor Study, a collaborative effort between the Cities of San José, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, the County of Santa Clara, and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA).
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 100. Name of Steering Committee
The official body referred to in these Bylaws shall be known and referred to as the “Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.”
Section 101. Office of Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee The official office and mailing address of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall be:
City of San Jose – Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee Attn: Omar Din
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Section 102. Meeting Place of Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee Except as otherwise may be provided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee from time to time, the regular meeting place shall be at San José City Hall, 200 East Santa Clara Street, San José, CA.
Section 103. Number of Members
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall consist of members appointed from participating jurisdictions (the Cities of San José, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, the County of Santa Clara, and the Valley Transportation Authority). Members will be appointed by the governing bodies of these five jurisdictions or appointed by executive staff, depending on each agencies’ general practice.
Each of these five jurisdictions shall have two votes on the committee. Each jurisdiction may choose if they prefer to appoint either one member or two members to cast these two votes.
Section 104. Term of Members
Each member shall serve a term of two (2) years commencing at noon on the first meeting of the calendar year, and continuing to the first meeting of the second year. With the exception of the Chair and Vice Chair, a member may be removed from the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee by a majority vote of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, at any time and for any reason.
Section 105. Designees
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee members may not elect to appoint a designee to serve as a member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee in the event the member is unable to attend a scheduled meeting.
Section 106. Vacancies on the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee A Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee member may be deemed to have vacated their membership with the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee if they fail to attend two (2) consecutive meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.
If a Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee member voluntarily elects to no longer participate as a member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, they must notify committee supporting staff of their intention to cease participation with the Steering Committee.
ARTICLE II
OFFICERS
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Section 200. Enumeration of Officers
The officer of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall be a Chairperson.
Section 201. Appointment of Officers
Officer(s) shall be nominated and appointed by majority vote of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.
Section 202. Term of Office of Chairperson
a. The Chairperson shall be appointed for annual terms. b. If any Officer(s) should cease to be member(s) of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee prior to the expiration of their term of office, a vacancy shall be deemed to have occurred in the specific office. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee will appoint a replacement by majority vote, with the term running until the prior Officer(s) term expiration.
Section 203. Powers and Duties of Chairperson
The Chairperson shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Preside at all meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.
Section 204. Absence of Chairperson
In the event of the absence or disability of the Chairperson at any meeting or hearing of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall elect one of its members as Chairperson pro tempore to preside over such meeting.
Section 205. Chairperson Pro Tempore, Powers and Duties The Chairperson Pro Tempore shall have and perform all powers and duties of the Chairperson in the event of, and only during the absence or disability of the Chairperson.
Section 206. Duties of Supporting Staff
a. Supporting shall attend all meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, and keep a record of minutes of all that transpires at such meetings.
ARTICLE III
DUTIES
Section 300. Duties and Responsibilities
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Tender its advice to the Stevens Creek Corridor Working Group with respect to policy matters under consideration related to the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study.
b. Review the status of Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study deliverables.
ARTICLE IV
MEETINGS
Section 400. Ralph M. Brown Act.
All meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act (“the Brown Act”, Govt. Code Section 54950 et seq. ).
Section 401. Regular Meeting
Regular meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall be held quarterly, or as needed, and agendized by supporting staff. Notice shall be given of each Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee meeting in accordance with the Brown Act.
Section 402. Special Meetings
a. Special meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or by a majority of members, whenever in their opinion the business of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee requires it. The notice of a special meeting shall specify the time, place, and the business to be conducted or transacted at the meeting. No other business shall be considered at the special meeting. The notice shall be filed with the supporting staff in his/her office. Supporting staff shall cause a copy of the notice to be served upon each member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee at least twenty-four (24) hours before the time of the meeting specified in the notice, or for such greater period of time as may be required by law or set forth by City policy, rules or regulations, either by personal delivery or by mail. Each member shall, for mailing purposes, file his/her name and address with supporting staff. b. Written notice may be dispensed with for any member who at or prior to the time the meeting convenes files with the supporting staff a written waiver of notice. The waiver may be given by fax or electronic mail. Written notice may also be dispensed with for any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time it convenes.
c. The written notice shall be posted at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the special meeting, or for such greater period of time as may be required by law or set forth by City policy, rules or regulations, in a location that is freely accessible to members of the public.
Section 403. Continued Meetings
Subject to the requirements of law, meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, whether regular or special, may be adjourned by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee to reconvene at a time to be specified by the Commission at the time it adjourns. In such an event, no other official notice need be given of the time at which such adjourned meeting will reconvene, unless required by law. Any such reconvened meeting shall, in such a situation, be considered a continuation of the prior meeting.
Section 404. Quorum
A quorum to do business shall consist of a majority of members of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, but a lesser number may constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning a meeting or adjourning a meeting to a stated time and place. In the absence of all the members of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee from any meeting, the supporting staff for Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may adjourn the meeting or adjourn the meeting to a stated time and place.
Section 405. Procedure
Except as otherwise provided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee or the rules and regulations adopted by the City of San José, the procedure to be followed by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee at its meetings shall be that set forth in Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may act by motion, but an affirmative vote of at least a majority of the quorum present shall be necessary for all decisions of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee except in matters of adjournment.
Section 406. Voting
No action shall be taken by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee except by affirmative vote of a simple majority of those voting, as long as there is a quorum present.
All voting by Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee members shall be by voice or hand vote and the record of each member's vote shall be entered by the supporting staff in the record of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee proceedings. Upon request of any member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, a roll call vote shall be taken on any matter upon which a vote is called, and shall be recorded by the supporting staff in the record of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s proceedings.
Section 407. Order of Business
The order of Business shall be set by supporting staff. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may at any time alter the order of business at any meeting; and said order of business shall be altered to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions of Article IV hereof relating to hearing procedures.
Section 408. Matter of Agenda
Notification of matters to be presented to the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall ordinarily be given or delivered to the supporting staff at least seven (7) days in advance of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee meeting.
ARTICLE V
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAW
Section 500. Consistency with Other Law
To the extent that the above rules and regulations differ from or are inconsistent with the provisions of the San José Municipal Code or State or Federal law, the appropriate provision of law will prevail.
ARTICLE VI
AMENDING Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee BYLAWS Section 600. Provision for Amending Bylaws
a. These Bylaws may be amended by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, at a regularly scheduled Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee meeting.
b. At least two (2) weeks prior notice of the intent to amend these Bylaws shall be provided to the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee. c. Notice of the intended changes to these Bylaws shall be provided to all active members of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, and to the public as required by law and/or City policy, but such notices shall be provided no later than the notice of intent to amend these Bylaws.
Bylaws of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee adopted and made effective on this __________ day of ________________, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chairperson
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
1 Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee Meeting Agenda September 12, 2025, 2:00 PM
City of San José - Council Chambers
ZOOM WEBINAR FOR THE PUBLIC, REGISTRATION:
Webinar Registration - Zoom
To register and receive meeting login information, please visit:
https://sanjoseca.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dtg-n0fxQBiVTLzVuirmiw To submit comments during or before the meeting or participate via Zoom, email:
[email protected].
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee was created to provide guidance and oversee the planning work involved in the Stevens Creek Corridor Study, a collaborative effort between the Cities of San José, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Committee will improve transportation options along the corridor and increase the collaboration between the cities and agencies represented to bring our residents a more traversable and interconnected future.
Invited:
Council Member Rosemary Kamei, City of San José, Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Chair
Councilmember Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Vice Mayor Kelly G. Cox, City of Santa Clara
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
2 1. Introductions
Roll call of Steering Committee members
Committee Chair Council member Kamei of San José to lead introductions of participating agencies
2. Steering Committee administration
a. For discussion and action: Approve last meeting minutes (action item)
3. Overview of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
4. Adoption Process Updates
5. Implementation Work Scope #1 (action item)
6. Next steps
7. Public Comment
Members of the Public are invited to speak on any item that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Committee. Meeting attendees are usually given two (2) minutes to speak on any discussion item and/or during the online ZOOM virtual webinar forum; the time limit is at the discretion of the Steering Committee and may be limited when appropriate.
Speakers using a translator will be given twice the time allotted to ensure non-English speakers receive the same opportunity to directly address the Committee.
If you would like to provide public comment, please see the directions below. All members of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies they would like to speak and then will be unmuted.
The procedure for this meeting is as follows during public comment:
● City Staff will call out names of the public who identified the items they want to speak on.
You may identify yourself by the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom, or dial *9 on your phone. ● As your name is called, City Staff will unmute you to speak. After we confirm your audio is working your allotted time will begin.
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
3 8. Adjournment
Note
Electronic device instructions:
For participants who would like to join electronically from a PC, Mac, Ipad, iPhone or Android device, please register at the link below to receive information on how to access and participate in the meeting virtually:
To register and receive meeting login information, please visit:
Please ensure your device has audio input and output capabilities. During the session, if you would like to comment, please use the ‘raise hand’ feature in the Zoom conference call.
1. Use a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Mute all other audio before speaking. Using multiple devices can cause audio feedback.
2. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
3. When the Chair calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
Telephone device instructions:
To access the meeting via phone, please register for the meeting by clicking below and you will receive instructions on how to access the meeting via phone via email:
https://bit.ly/4iuHInd
Public Comments prior to meeting: If you would like to submit your comments prior to or during the meeting, please email them to [email protected]. Comments received will be included as a part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the meeting.
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study is committed to open and honest government and strives to consistently meet the community’s expectations by providing excellent service, in a positive and timely manner, and in the full view of the public.
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
4 You may speak to the Steering Committee about any discussion item that is on the agenda, and you may also speak during Public Comments on items that are not on the agenda and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Steering Committee. Please be advised that, by law, the Steering Committee is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during Public Comments. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, no matter shall be acted upon unless listed on the agenda, which has been posted not less than 72 hours prior to meeting. Agendas, Staff Reports, and some associated documents for agenda items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.stevenscreekvision.com. All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection by clicking the link associated specifically to documents on this agenda, at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft resolutions or other items posted on the Internet site or distributed in advance of the commission meeting may not be the final documents approved by the commission. Contact the City of San José for the final document. On occasion the Steering Committee may consider agenda items out of order. The Steering Committee meets occasionally, with special meetings as necessary.
To request an accommodation or alternative format under the Americans with Disabilities Act for City-sponsored meetings, events or printed materials, please call 650.924.1237 as soon as possible, but at least three business days before the meeting.
Please direct correspondence and questions to:
City of San José
Dept. of Transporation
Ramses Madou | Division Manger
D: 650.924.1237 | [email protected]
From: Babu Srinivasan
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Reject the SCB Corridor study report and exit the SCB corridor project Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:09:18 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,
Please include the following as written comments for the 09/16/25 Council meeting, agenda item 19.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members, I strongly request that you remove agenda item 19 from the consent calendar and decline to approve the SCB corridor study. Cupertino should not remain involved in this project.
At the recent steering committee meeting, I observed that San Jose staff were in charge of the proceedings. Their approach raised real doubts about fairness and whether Cupertino’s interests are respected. Despite our Vice-Mayor clearly voicing opposition to Cupertino’s further participation, the committee still adopted a motion that now binds Cupertino as if we had agreed. This is deeply concerning. A decision taken by other agencies should not be forced upon our city when our representative opposed it.
In addition, I cannot understand why Cupertino’s limited transportation staff are spending time on this corridor study while urgent local needs remain unaddressed. Traffic congestion in neighborhoods like Regnart due to Tesselations School, and long-pending safety improvements such as the Phar Lap Drive crosswalk, continue to affect families. If staff have no time to prioritize these pressing issues, they should not be assigned to outside projects that work against Cupertino residents’ wishes.
I therefore urge the Council to:
1. Reject the SCB corridor study.
2. Withdraw Cupertino from the steering committee.
3. Direct that no further staff resources go into this effort.
Cupertino must decide its own path. Our city’s priorities should reflect the needs of our residents, not be dictated by outside agencies.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking action to protect Cupertino’s independence.
Respectfully,
Babu
CC 09-16-2025
Item No. 22
Options on Commission
Oversight of
Transportation Matters
Written Communications
From: Jean Bedord
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk; David Stillman; City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda Item #22: Study Session on Oversight of Transportation Matters, City Council, Sept. 16, 2025 Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 3:37:42 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 comment on this agenda item
City council,
The staff report on this item was alarming. The Planning Commission and Bike Pedestrian Commissions have functioned effectively so drastically changing their charters makes no sense to me. The one change that does make sense is Option #3, renaming the BPC to "Transportation and Mobility Commission", to better reflect their city charter. The other three options have significant shortcomings:
* Eligibility for outside funding may be significantly impacted. Cupertino has successfully competed for funding from regional transportation agencies based on the current commission structure. Most BPC projects have been paid for by other agencies, even Apple. * Would require CMC modifications and increased staff time. * Does not address the overall picture of transportation matters, which are addressed at multiple levels:
1. City council represents the city on regional transportation bodies, such as the VTA.
Our council members need to be actively engaged in regional projects - Cupertino is a small city, lacking resources to address larger transportation issues.
2. Planning Commission has a charter to oversee land use - the big picture, not day-to-day community transportation concerns. Development projects are reviewed, and associated transportation impacts are addressed with that review.
3. Bicycle Ped Commission has a safety charter for all pedestrian, bicycle and multi-modal transportation. They handle complaints about school routes, bike racks, and small resident concerns. Even more importantly, they work on projects to educate the public on safe driving, safe walking (connectivity), and safe bicycling for children and adults.
4. Staff should have the authority to make minor changes to respond to community input and data collection. Modifying the right turn on red on Stelling and McClellan is an example of responsive changes that should not have to go through the commissions or city council.
The current commission structure isn't broken - it could use some clarification, so Option #3, renaming the BPC to "Transportation and Mobility Commission" is the optimal choice.
Community advocate,
Jean Bedord
From: Liang Chao
To: Public Comments
Cc: Tina Kapoor; City Clerk
Subject: Fw: Agenda Item on the Transportation Matter on the 9/16 agenda Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 12:01:15 AM
Please include this for the written communication for the 9/16 council meeting, since I thought the public and the other Councilmembers might appreciate the information.
Thanks,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Seema Lindskog <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item on the Transportation Matter on the 9/16 agenda Hi,
Thank you for attending the 9/8 Mayor's Chat and asking those questions.
Although some people in the meeting were concerned and multiple of them approached me later to ask "Are you ok?"
I personally wasn't disturbed in the least bit. To me, it was a healthy interchange in my mind, and you guys raised valid questions, the ones that I would have raised in fact if I were in your shoes, such as why was the item the last one, why did I extend the meeting when it was already late, why did I cut speaker time, and who decide the order of agenda items.
And there is no other venue for such an interchange, except the Mayor's chat.
Back in 2015-2017 though, when I was in your shoes and questioning the decisions of the City Council, unfortunately many of our valid questions were ignored and some councilmembers refused to even meet after multiple requests.
There were no Mayor's chat or other venues at that time.
Thus, I have been contemplating my actions. I've wanted to put the discussion on transportation matter on the agenda since June. So, I was eager to discuss it on 9/8 and eager to hear what the other councilmembers think about the issue. Now that I reflected on my decision. I agree with you guys. I should have just ended the meeting and continued the item to the next meeting.
So, on the 9/8 Council agenda, I will not only reopen the public hearing, as I have said in the Mayor's chat, I will also allow anyone to speak, regardless of whether they have spoken or not.
And I will allow 3 minutes for everyone since my policy has been to not cut the speaking time for an agenda item and I should stick to that unless there is really an extra ordinarily many speakers.
I have included two emails sent to staff below, where I shared similar thoughts in the past few days:
Sep. 11 email, in response to a complaint of "disruptive meeting on Monday 09/08/2015" - to express that I thought the questions were valid and the meeting went well in my mind.
Sep. 13 email - to propose what I hope to do for the transportation matter item for the 9/16 meeting.
Feel free to forward this email to other participants of the 9/8 Mayor's chat and others who have spoken on 9/8 or will speak on 9/16.
I am looking forward to a good discussion on the proper decision-making process for transportation matters in Cupertino.
Regards,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 12:52 PM
To: Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]>; Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Please Address this FW: Disruptive meeting on Monday 09/08/25 during the Mayor’s monthly meeting.
I do not think anyone was out of line or rude in their questions at the Mayor's meeting.
They were asking questions that I would have asked if I were in their shoes. I probably would be as passionate as they were in the tone of voice if not more so. Such as why the public speaking time was cut to one minute. Why that item was the last item. Why we voted to extend the meeting twice and suspend the rules of the Council procedures manual. How the order of agenda items was determined. There are all fair questions that I think the Mayor's chat is an appropriate venue to bring up as this is the only time we can go back and forth on such issues.
It's true that these questions on Bike Ped Commission were taking up a significant portion of the time. We realized that and gave chances for others to bring up their issues too, but there were few others with issues to bring up. So, we went back to the people who wish to comment on the responsibility of the Bike Ped Commission.
Maybe people observing from the side has different perspectives. But I really didn't mind those questions. I did remind them to not bring up the same point someone else has brought up so we don't waste time debating the same issue. And they accepted that rule.
From: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2025 8:54 PM
To: Tina Kapoor <[email protected]>
Cc: Kirsten Squarcia <[email protected]>; Floy Andrews <[email protected]>; Kitty Moore <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 9/16/2025 Council agenda packet - Agenda Attached I just realized that the transportation matter item is the last item again, even though it was continued feom the last meeting and should go first.
I apologize that I didn't get time to consider the order on Monday before I had to leave at 10am.
Then, I didn't double check the draft agenda sent out.
I'm thinking that I will propose to swap the transportation matter item with the council procedure item.
And I will reopen the public hearing and also allow anyone to speak for 3 minutes.
I thought we had moved the transportation matter item to the 9/3 agenda from the 9/16 agenda because the 9/16 agenda was too full. But now I found that the 9/16 agenda only has 3 items, besides the Consent calendar. Then, we actually have time to accommodate more public comments for the transportation matter.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
408-777-3192
From: Mahesh Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Tina Kapoor; David Stillman Subject: Review and Dissolution of Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025 8:29:13 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following in the written comments section for the upcoming City Council Meeting.
Thank you.
Dear City Council Members,
It’s deeply disappointing to see that someone in the City appears intent on spending taxpayer money on niche projects that offer little to no benefit to Cupertino residents.
We respectfully request the City Council to:
1. Conduct a performance audit of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission’s spending, impact, and project outcomes
2. Consider consolidating its duties under the Planning Commission to reduce redundancy and improve oversight
3. Suspend further commission-led proposals until a full review is completed and community alignment is restored Cupertino deserves infrastructure planning that is transparent, data-driven, and responsive to all residents—not just niche advocacy groups. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
Shrividya Gurikar
From: Theresa Horng
To: City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Subject: Subject: Request for Review and Dissolution of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Date: Sunday, September 14, 2025 7:14:55 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 Council Members, City Staff, Interim City Manager Tina Kapoor, Manager of Public Works Chad Mosley, and Manager of Transportation David Stillman, Subject: Request for Review and Dissolution of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission I am writing to formally request a performance review and reconsideration of the continued role of the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. While I support thoughtful infrastructure planning and pedestrian safety, I believe this commission has become fiscally inefficient, duplicative in function, and increasingly misaligned with broader community needs.
Fiscal Accountability and Spending Transparency
To date, the commission has overseen or influenced spending on:
• Consultant contracts for traffic stress studies and origin-destination analysis • Outreach campaigns including pop-up events, signage, and comment processing • Infrastructure proposals that often conflict with vehicular flow and safety data I respectfully request a full itemized breakdown of public funds allocated to the commission since the launch of the Active Transportation Plan, including all studies, outreach efforts, and capital recommendations. Taxpayer dollars must be spent with measurable impact and clear justification.
Fiscal Concerns and Power Dynamics
Critics, including some councilmembers and planning officials, have raised concerns that:
• The commission diverts city funds toward niche infrastructure (e.g., protected bike lanes, floating bus stops) that may not serve the broader population • It duplicates efforts already covered by the Planning Commission, creating inefficiency • It promotes ideologically driven projects that conflict with practical traffic needs or safety data
These concerns reflect a growing disconnect between commission priorities and the lived realities of Cupertino residents who rely on safe, efficient, and balanced transportation systems.
Redundancy and Planning Overlap
The commission’s scope significantly overlaps with the Planning Commission, which already reviews transportation infrastructure, land use, and capital projects. Maintaining a separate body for bicycle and pedestrian issues creates inefficiency and dilutes accountability. A consolidated approach would streamline decision-making and better align with citywide priorities.
Community Impact and Policy Misalignment
Recent proposals—such as floating bus stops and lane reductions—have sparked widespread concern among residents. These projects often emerge from commission recommendations without sufficient vetting or alignment with actual safety data. Notably, there have been no publicly reported accidents caused by right turns on red along De Anza Boulevard in recent years, yet the commission continues to support restrictive policies that reduce traffic efficiency without demonstrable benefit.
Rather than blanket bans, I urge the city to invest in active safety enhancements—such as flashing crosswalk signals with audible alerts—to improve pedestrian visibility while preserving mobility.
Recommendation
I respectfully recommend the following actions:
1. Conduct a performance audit of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission’s spending, impact, and project outcomes
2. Consider consolidating its duties under the Planning Commission to reduce redundancy and improve oversight
3. Suspend further commission-led proposals until a full review is completed and community alignment is restored
Cupertino deserves infrastructure planning that is transparent, data-driven, and responsive to all residents—not just niche advocacy groups. I appreciate your attention to this matter and welcome further dialogue on how we can restore balance and fiscal discipline to our transportation planning process.
Sincerely,
Theresa Horng
Cupertino Resident
From: Bill Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:32 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: Preserve the BPC
To: Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members
I understand that the council is considering dissolving the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and having the Planning Commission try to take on the work of the BPC. This would have negative impacts on many of the residents of our city. Given my 16 years on the FUHSD Board of Trustees I would especially like you to consider the effect on students in our local schools.
One of the things I heard most frequently from residents was a very legitimate concern about traffic around our schools. The school district took some steps to try to address this, but the most effective was encouraging students to walk or bike to school. To make this succeed it is important that cyclists can feel safe. Unfortunately, it took a tragedy with a Monta Vista student to jump start the bike lanes on McClellan, but now students can safely use those lanes and others that the city has proactively created. With the trails and bike lanes now in place many more students can bike or walk to school with tremendous health benefits in terms of exercise and time outside away from their phones. Plus, residents long removed from school days can enjoy the benefit of those lanes and trails. However, much more remains to be done.
We need a commission that continues this effort to have transportation options that enhance the experience of living in Cupertino. That work needs to be done in a manner that addresses the needs of all residents, and it can only be coordinated with a commission knowledgeable and focused on this task. It cannot be done as a side hustle by a commission focused on building projects and codes. Please preserve the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission so we can continue to make Cupertino a livable city we can all enjoy.
Sincerely,
Bill Wilson
From: Evan Lojewski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:22 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: City Clerk <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM 22: Study Session on Oversight of Transportation Matters - September 16, 2025
Please include this email in the written communication for the Sept 16, 2025 City Council.
City Council,
I'm writing to express my support for the Bike/Ped Commission as an regular user of our streets to bike to work. I'm requesting that you maintain the Bike/Ped commotion in it's current form, or follow option 3 in the presentation to rename the commission to the "Transportation and Mobility Commission."
Per the charter mentioned in the previous presentation, the bike ped commission provides input on city transportation matters, not just bicycle and pedestrian matters, and so renaming to "Transportation and Mobility Commission" makes sense here.
As a recent resident (3 years ago now) who has started getting more active in local events and city council, I find it disappointing that the current council has been constantly bringing up changes that stifle public comment. By attempting to cancel the fully grant funded ATP earlier this year, after the city already spent money that it would presumably not be getting back if canceled (removing public comment and costing the city money) and by attempting to strip away the bike/ped commission at 11:30PM while limiting public comment to 1 minute at the last meeting, it's becoming a theme that the current city council is trying to silence public comment so that they don't hear things that they don't want to and can then make decision only based on one-sided viewpoints. It's clearly a problem when residents have to resort to informal events like the Mayor's Chat in order to get their voices heard.
I implore you to please make decision based on all residents of the city, not just one side. You can best do this by ensuring all groups are adequately represented, and by ensuring people have time to provide public comment at a reasonable hour.
Thank you for reading my email,
Evan Lojewski
From: Kitty Moore
To: Kirsten Squarcia; Lauren Sapudar
Subject: Written Communications for Agenda Item 22
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:51:43 PM
Attachments: FY 26 Budget PC BP SR2S.pdf
FY 26 Budget PC BP SR2S.pdf
20240618 Staff Report Crossing Guards.pdf
image.png
22-077 2022 Agreement Between City of Cupertino, FUHSD and CUSD for Crossing Guard Program.pdf image.png
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attachments and this email as written communications for Item 22.
SV Hopper Community Shuttle Budget Revenue vs Expenses (source:
OpenGov):
SV Hopper Community Shuttle is funded in part by a grant shared between the City of Cupertino and the City of Santa Clara.
Cupertino’s SV Hopper webpage: https://www.cupertino.gov/YourCity/Departments/Public-Works/Transportation-Mobility/SV-Hopper Budget Data on Planning Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission, and Safe Routes to School
The first attachment shows the current budget for the Planning Commission, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and Safe Routes to School.
Budget Summary:
The Planning Commission General Fund cost is budgeted at $124,073 with 0.3 Full time employees (FTE)
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission General Fund cost is budgeted at $16,815 with 0.1 FTEs
Safe Routes 2 School (SR2S) General Fund cost is budgeted at $939,551 with 1.0 FTEs
Safe Routes 2 School is under the Public Works Department and does not report to City Council.
Cupertino’s SR2S webpage: https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/PublicWorks/Transportation-Mobility/Safe-Routes-to-School-SR2S The City, within the SR2S budget, has a Crossing Guard contract with ACMS which costs approximately $400k per year and a bicycle pedestrian education contract with Ecology Action which costs about $140k per year. Revenues from outside sources such as Measure B are approximately $200k, though the current budget conservatively estimates $90k in revenue. SR2S began in 2015 as a pilot program, and the following chart shows how that program has trended in terms of Revenue and Expenses:
Cupertino Safe Routes 2 School Annual Budget Revenue and Expenses (source: OpenGov)
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
[email protected]
(408) 777-1389
1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO,
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR CROSSING
GUARD PROGRAM
This Agreement, dated June 7, 2022, by and between the City of Cupertino (" City"), the Fremont Union High School District (" FUHSD"), and the Cupertino Union School District CUSD”) coordinates efforts to improve traffic congestion and safety near various schools throughout the City.
WHEREAS, traffic congestion and safety around public schools throughout Cupertino has been a community wide issue for a number of years; and
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino, FUHSD, and CUSD have a successful history of partnership and collaboration in addressing traffic congestion and safety around public schools in Cupertino; and
WHEREAS, partnership and collaboration between the City, FUHSD and CUSD has resulted in safety enhancements on the public routes to school and on school property, the distribution of safety materials to students and parents, bicycle and pedestrian education programs, biking and walking encouragement activities, student travel counts, coordination of bell schedules, opportunities for teens to develop leadership skills, among other achievements; and WHEREAS, traffic congestion and safety is a concern for all parties and that various traffic studies and recommendations to reduce congestion and improve safety in school areas throughout the City have been completed; and
WHEREAS, the City administers a crossing guard program at locations throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City, FUHSD, and CUSD desire to coordinate efforts and share information so that the City Crossing Guard Program is responsive to community traffic congestion and safety concerns; and
WHEREAS, a prior cost sharing agreement with FUHSD expired in June 2022, and it is now mutually desired to enter into three-party cost sharing agreement to include both FUHSD and CUSD.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree to implement the following for the 2022/23 school year through the 2027/28 school year:
I. CITY
1. The City will periodically conduct engineering studies, per the provisions provided in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ( MUTCD), at intersections and crossings near public schools.
2. The City will fund crossing guard services, subject to budget availability, at priority intersections where engineering studies indicate that crossing guards should be located.
3. The City will respond to requests from FUHSD and CUSD to add additional intersections, as warranted by engineering studies at other locations. 2 4. Crossing guards at all locations will properly queue and coordinate student crossing of the street in an efficient manner that prioritizes student safety and vehicular traffic flow.
5. Crossing Guard locations for the start of the 2022/23 school year will be:
a) Stevens Creek Blvd. at Finch Ave.
b) Hyannisport Dr.at Fort Baker Dr.
c) McClellan Rd. at Bubb Rd.
d) N. Blaney Ave. at Forest Ave.
e) N. Blaney Ave. at Merritt Dr.
f) S. Blaney Ave. at Suisun Dr.
g) Greenleaf Dr. at S. Stelling Rd.
h) Bubb Rd. at Hyannisport Dr.
i) N. De Anza Blvd. at Mariani Ave.
j) Vista Dr. at Merritt Dr.
k) Vista Dr. at Stevens Creek Blvd.
l) McClellan Rd. at Lincoln Elementary
m) McClellan Rd. at Orange Ave.
n) Ainsworth Dr. at Bahl St
o) Barnhart Ave. at S. Tantau Ave.
6. Periodically perform walk audits to identify specific improvements, both on-campus and off, that would improve traffic and pedestrian safety.
II. FUHSD
1. Student drop-off zones at all school’ s student parking lots will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable.
2. Coordinate the start times and end times of all schools so that the collective number of students arriving or leaving a collection of schools is minimized.
3. Promote cell phone waiting zones at the Monta Vista High School, Cupertino High School and Homestead High School student parking lots where those driving can wait to get a call from their passenger before going to pick them up.
4. Provide minimum of one district participant to monthly City Safe Routes to School program working group meeting.
5. Timely respond and provide to City requested Safe Routes to School data.
6. Provide programs encouraging parent/student safety education, walking and biking to school.
7. Evaluate possible capital improvements on-site such as bicycle cages, and consider funding or contributing to the funding of City capital projects related to transportation and safety in the vicinity of schools.
8. Cooperate, provide input and give special consideration to completion of improvements that are identified in City performed walk audits.
9. FUHSD will share in the funding of the Crossing Guard Program with the City for the duration of this agreement, at an annual amount of $20,000, due to the City no later than June 30th of each calendar year.
10. Any FUHSD crossing added to the Crossing Guard Program at the request of FUHSD will be in addition to the $ 20,000 cost share noted above and reimbursed to the City at 100% actual costs per intersection added no later than June 30th of each calendar year.
11. FUHSD shall be invoiced annually by the City at the end of each school year. 3 III. CUSD
1. Student drop-off zones at all school’ s student parking lots will be utilized to the maximum extent practicable.
2. Coordinate the start times and end times of all schools so that the collective number of students arriving or leaving a collection of schools is minimized.
3. Provide minimum of one district participant to monthly City Safe Route to School program working group meeting.
4. Timely respond and provide to City requested Safe Route to School data.
5. Provide programs encouraging parent/student safety education, walking and biking to school.
6. Evaluate possible capital improvements on-site such as bicycle cages, and consider funding or contributing to the funding of City capital projects related to transportation and safety in the vicinity of schools.
7. Cooperate, provide input and give special consideration to completion of improvements that are identified in City performed walk audits.
8. CUSD will share in the funding of the Crossing Guard Program with the City for the duration of this agreement, at an annual amount of $20,000, due to the City no later than June 30th of each calendar year.
9. Any CUSD crossing added to the Crossing Guard Program at the request of CUSD will be in addition to the $20,000 cost share noted above and reimbursed to the City at 100% actual costs per intersection added no later than June 30th of each calendar year.
10. CUSD shall be invoiced annually by the City at the end of each school year.
IV. RIGHTS, DUTIES, LIABILITIES
1. Each party in this Agreement acknowledges that this Agreement does not diminish or expand any rights, duties, liabilities, immunities or defenses any party to this Agreement has to any third party claims, demands, or suits that presently exist, or that may arise in the future, including, but expressly not limited to these immunities or defenses existing under Government Code sections 815 et.seq., Education Code Section 44808, or any other statute or law. Each party further acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement does not confer on any party to this Agreement any additional rights, responsibilities, remedies, or liabilities against any party to this Agreement as to any existing or future third party liability claim, demand, or suit.
V. NOTICES
Communications relating to this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally, sent by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, or by private messenger or courier service:
To the City: Jim Throop, City Manager
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
To FUHSD: Polly Bove, Superintendent
Fremont Union High School District
589 W. Fremont Ave. Sunnyvale, CA 94087
4 To CUSD: Stacy Yao, Superintendent
Cupertino Union School District
1309 S. Mary Ave, Suite #150, Sunnyvale, CA 94087
IV. SIGNATURES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this Agreement:
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Date: By:
Jim Throop, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Chris Jensen, City Attorney
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date:
Polly Bove, Superintendent
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date:
Stacy Yao, Superintendent
Jun 14, 2022
YaoJunStacy
15, 2022
Chris Jensen
Jun 15, 2022
5 ATTACHMENT A
School Street Street # of
Guards
Collins Elementary N. Blaney Ave. Forest Ave. 1
Collins Elementary &
Lawson Middle N. Blaney Ave. Merritt Dr. 1
Eaton Elementary S. Blaney Ave. Suisun Dr. 1
Garden Gate Elementary Greenleaf Dr. S. Stelling Rd. 1
Kennedy Middle Bubb Rd. Hyannisport
Dr. 1
Kennedy Middle &
Monta Vista High Hyannisport Dr. Fort Baker Dr. 1
Lawson Middle N. De Anza
Blvd. Mariani Ave. 1
Lawson Middle Vista Dr. Merritt Dr. 1
Lawson Middle Vista Dr. Stevens Creek
Blvd. 1
Lincoln Elementary McClellan Rd. Lincoln Frontage 1
Lincoln Elementary &
Monta Vista High McClellan Rd. Orange Ave. 1
Lincoln Elementary &
Kennedy Middle &
Monta Vista High
McClellan Rd. Bubb Rd. 1
Stevens Creek Elementary Ainsworth Dr. Bahl St. 1
Sedgwick Elementary Barnhart Ave. S. Tantau
Ave. 1
Cupertino High Stevens Creek
Blvd. Finch Ave. 2
2022 Agreement Between City of Cupertino,
FUHSD and CUSD for Crossing Guard Program
Final Audit Report 2022- 06-15
Created: 2022- 06-13
By: Julia Kinst ( juliak@cupertino. org)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA1hMbHw9jakFARxfirolvDeWmw- l0G3y5 2022 Agreement Between City of Cupertino, FUHSD and CUS D for Crossing Guard Program" History
Document created by Julia Kinst ([email protected])
2022- 06- 13 - 3:16:14 PM GMT- IP address: 216. 198. 111. 214 Document emailed to Polly Bove ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 06- 13 - 3:21:36 PM GMT
Email viewed by Polly Bove ( polly_bove@fuhsd. org)
2022- 06- 15 - 0:25:09 AM GMT- IP address: 172. 226. 36.7 Document e-signed by Polly Bove ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2022- 06-15 - 0:26:12 AM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 174. 194. 144. 205 Document emailed to Stacy Yao ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 06- 15 - 0:26:14 AM GMT
Email viewed by Stacy Yao ([email protected])
2022- 06- 15 - 2:18:22 PM GMT- IP address: 54.176. 163. 143 Document e-signed by Stacy Yao ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2022- 06-15 - 2:18:52 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 67.161. 49.193 Document emailed to Chris Jensen ([email protected]) for signature 2022- 06- 15 - 2:18:55 PM GMT
Email viewed by Chris Jensen ( christopherj@cupertino. org) 2022- 06- 15 - 2:31:06 PM GMT- IP address: 172. 225. 88.181 Document e-signed by Chris Jensen ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2022- 06-15 - 2:43:32 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 136. 24.42.212 Document emailed to Jim Throop ( jimt@cupertino. org) for signature 2022- 06- 15 - 2:43:35 PM GMT
Email viewed by Jim Throop ([email protected])
2022- 06- 15 - 3:24:13 PM GMT- IP address: 104. 47.74.126 Document e-signed by Jim Throop ([email protected])
Signature Date: 2022- 06-15 - 3:24:31 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 64.165. 34.3 Agreement completed.
2022- 06- 15 - 3:24:31 PM GMT
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: June 18, 2024
Subject
Approve a first amendment with All City Management Services, Inc. to provide crossing guard services, for a total not to exceed amount of $1,688,800 extending the agreement date to June 30, 2026, and approve a budget modification in the amount of $78,707.
Recommended Action
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a First Amendment with All City Management Services, Inc. (ACMS) to continue to provide Crossing Guard Services, increasing the contract amount by $785,000 for a total not to exceed amount of $1,688,800 and extending the agreement date to June 30, 2026.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-XXX approving budget modification #2324-304 and a budget adjustment in the amount of $78,707 in the General Fund for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 crossing guard services (100-88-846 700-709).
Reason for Recommendation
The City of Cupertino has contracted with vendors to provide school crossing guard services at intersections throughout the City for some time. The guards typically work the morning school drop-off and afternoon school pick-up times, with hours that vary considerably depending on intersection, schools served and day of the week. Guard locations are determined through warrant studies that staff typically conducts every two years, and which are based on usage and traffic patterns at the intersections. The most recent warrant study was completed in 2022, with the next study anticipated for the Fall 2024. The Cupertino Union School District and the Fremont Union High School District are kept informed regarding the results of warrant studies and are included in the final determination of locations.
In August 2021, the City Council awarded an agreement with ACMS to provide school crossing guard services at sixteen locations in the City of Cupertino for a period of three years, expiring on June 30, 2024, with the option to extend the agreement for two additional years. This contract was awarded as a result of an RFP that was solicited in June 2021. Over the past three years, ACMS has met all staff expectations of performance, and has been very responsive to staff and community feedback and adjustments of school bell schedules. Anticipating the contract to be soon expired, in April, staff initiated discussions with ACMS to negotiate contract pricing for the twoyear extension of the contract.
Retention of crossing guards has historically been challenging due to the limited number of daily working hours and competition with neighboring cities that offer competitive rates. Additionally, the recent passage of California Assembly Bill (AB) 1228, which requires a minimum wage of $20/hour for fast food workers, has resulted in an additional draw on the pool of potential crossing guards. Considering these factors, contract negotiations resulted in a successful agreement on a billing rate of $38.95/hour for the 2024/25 school year and $41.45/hour for the 2025/26 school year, resulting in a not-to-exceed amount of $380,000 for the 2024/25 school year and $405,000 for the 2025/26 school year. There is no change in service level that is currently provided. This pricing allows ACMS to continue to draw and retain qualified staff, which in turn, is vital to the safety of students being able to walk or bike to school in Cupertino. This negotiated billing rate is identical to the rates being paid under contract in the City of Sunnyvale, the most proximate and significant competition for crossing guards.
This amendment will extend the existing agreement for a period of two years, from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2026. The Amendment contains a provision that allows the City to terminate the agreement at any time, for any reason.
Sustainability Impact
This contract encourages walking and bicycling by providing safe passage across streets for students traveling to school. This is consistent with both the Mobility Element of the General Plan, Goal M-3 (“Support a Safe Pedestrian and Bicycle Network for People of All Ages and Abilities”) and Measure C-T-1 of the Climate Action Plan (“Encourage multi-modal transportation, including walking and biking, through safety and comfort enhancements in the bicycle and pedestrian environment.”). Furthermore, students walking and bicycling to school reduces traffic congestion, which leads to reduced vehicle emissions, helping the City achieve air quality and greenhouse gas emission reduction goals.
Fiscal Impact
The Fiscal Year (FY) 24-25 Adopted Budget allocated $301,293 for Crossing Guard Contract Services (100-88-846-700-709). Although this amount represents the approximate average annual expenditure for crossing guard services over the three years of the current contract, each year has seen an increase of approximately 5.5% over the previous year, with the expenditure during the current and final year of the contract being approximately $320,000. Increased costs in FY 23-24 were funded by a carryover encumbrance for this contract. Increased costs for this contract were not known at the time of FY25 budget development.
Due to increases in the cost of living, in addition to reasons noted earlier, the negotiated annual cost to manage the crossing guard program is $377,456 at the billing rate of $38.95/hour for the 2024/25 school year, and $401,580 at the billing rate of $41.45/hour for the 2025/26 school year based upon a billing of approximately 9,690 hours per year at current school bell schedule and guard staffing hours. A not-to-exceed amount of $380,000 and $405,000 for the 2024/25 and 2025/26 school years, respectively, is being proposed to allow flexibility if crossing guard working hours need to be modified due to school bell time changes, adjustments based on field observations, etc. Consequently, an additional allocation of $78,707 will be required in FY 2024-25 to supplement the $301,293 currently budgeted. For FY26, if the contract is approved the base budget will increase by $25,000 to cover contract increases in that year.
On June 7, 2022, the City entered into a five-year agreement with the Cupertino Union School District (CUSD) and the Fremont Union High School District (FUHSD), whereby each agreed to contribute $20,000 per year to the City to help fund crossing guard services. This revenue will partially offset the City’s general fund allocation resulting in estimated net costs to the City in FY25 of $360,000 and FY26 of $385,000 Considering the increasing cost of crossing guard services compared to previous years, staff will engage with CUSD and FUHSD to negotiate additional contributions to help offset the increasing cost of services.
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
Prepared by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Pamela Wu, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Contract
B – Draft Resolution
Planning Commission
Budget Unit 100-11-170
General Fund - Commissions - Planning Commission
Budget at a Glance
2026 Proposed Budget
Total Revenues $ -
Total Expenditures $ 124,073
Fund Balance $ -
General Fund Costs $ 124,073
% Funded by General Fund 100.0%
Total Staffing 0.3 FTE
Program Overview
The Planning Commission, a five-member citizen board appointed by the City Council, holds the following powers and functions:
Prepare, periodically review, and revise as necessary, the General Plan.
Implement the General Plan through actions including, but not limited to, the administration of specific plans and zoning, subdivisions, and sign ordinances.
Annually review the capital improvement program of the City and the local public works projects of other local agencies for their consistency with the General Plan (pursuant to Sections 65400 et seq. of the California Government Code).
Endeavor to promote public interest in, comment upon, and understanding of the General Plan, and regulation relating to it.
Consult and advise with public officials and agencies, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional, and other organizations and citizens generally concerning implementation of the General Plan.
Promote the coordination of local plans and programs with the plans and programs of other agencies.
Perform other functions as the City Council provides including conducting studies and preparing plans other than those required or authorized by state law.
Advise the City Council on land use and development policy related to the General Plan.
Implement the General Plan through review and administration of specific plans and related ordinances.
Review land use applications for conformance with the General Plan and ordinances; and Promote the coordination of local plans and programs with regional and other agencies.
The Planning Commission meets on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month.
Proposed Budget
It is recommended that City Council approve a budget of $124,073 for the Planning Commission program. This represents an increase of $1,663 (1.4%) from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
This budget is consistent with the prior year Adopted Budget.
Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category. It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed Budget for the current fiscal year.
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Council and Commissions 148
Category 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Adopted Budget 2026 Proposed Budget Revenues
Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ -
Expenditures
Employee Compensation $ 33,992 $ 36,334 $ 36,723 $ 36,551 Employee Benefits $ 11,429 $ 14,893 $ 17,459 $ 15,607
Materials $ 17,600 $ 5,261 $ 4,900 $ 6,460
Cost Allocation $ 35,427 $ 40,713 $ 63,328 $ 65,455
Total Expenditures $ 98,448 $ 97,201 $ 122,410 $ 124,073 Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
General Fund Costs $ 98,448 $ 97,201 $ 122,410 $ 124,073 Staffing
The following table lists full-time equivalents (FTE) by position. It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed Budget for the current fiscal year.
Position Title 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Adopted Budget 2026 Proposed Budget ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
DIRECTOR OF COMM DEVELOPMENT 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Total 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.26
There are no changes to the current level of staffing.
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Council and Commissions 149
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission
Budget Unit 100-11-155
General Fund - Commissions - Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Budget at a Glance
2026 Proposed Budget
Total Revenues $ -
Total Expenditures $ 16,815
Fund Balance $ -
General Fund Costs $ 16,815
% Funded by General Fund 100.0%
Total Staffing 0.1 FTE
Program Overview
The powers and functions of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission shall be to review, monitor and suggest recommendations for City transportation maDers including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking, education and recreation within Cupertino.
To fulfill their mission, the Commission may involve itself in the following activities:
1. To monitor and update the bicycle transportation plan and pedestrian transportation guidelines;
2. To suggest recommendations, review and monitor the City’s general plan transportation element;
3. To receive public input pertaining to bicycle and pedestrian transportation and infrastructure issues;
4. To make recommendations regarding the implementation of roadway and transportation improvements as it pertains to bicycle and pedestrian needs;
5. To make recommendations regarding the allocation of funds for capital expenditures relating to bicycle and pedestrian transportation;
6. Any other activity that may be deemed appropriate and necessary.
Proposed Budget
It is recommended that City Council approve a budget of $16,815 for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission program. This represents a decrease of $23,606 (-58.4%) from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
The decrease is due to reductions in staff allocated to this program.
Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category. It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed Budget for the current fiscal year.
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Council and Commissions 142
Category 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Adopted Budget 2026 Proposed Budget Revenues
Total Revenues $ - $ - $ - $ -
Expenditures
Employee Compensation $ 27,443 $ 26,893 $ 19,919 $ 5,139 Employee Benefits $ 9,640 $ 10,425 $ 9,654 $ 2,937
Materials $ - $ - $ 223 $ 230
Contract Services $ - $ - $ 616 $ 636
Cost Allocation $ 24,809 $ 23,773 $ 9,999 $ 7,873
Contingencies $ - $ - $ 10 $ -
Total Expenditures $ 61,892 $ 61,091 $ 40,421 $ 16,815
Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
General Fund Costs $ 61,892 $ 61,092 $ 40,421 $ 16,815
Staffing
The following table lists full-time equivalents (FTE) by position. It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed Budget for the current fiscal year.
Position Title 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Adopted Budget 2026 Proposed Budget ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
ASSISTANT ENGINEER 0 0 0.10 0
TRANSPORTATION MANAGER 0.10 0.10 0 0
Total 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.05
Staff time is being reallocated to better reflect actual time spent in this program.
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Council and Commissions 143
successful hosting of two community meetings, one stakeholder meeting and three Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) meetings.
Speed Limit Reductions for Bike and Pedestrian Safety - In response to recent California legislation aimed at providing greater flexibility in seDing and adjusting speed limits, the Transportation Division has reduced speed limits on the street segments listed below. The street segments were chosen due to their importance as a walking or biking corridor, making the reduced speed limits a vital step towards achieving the City’s crash reduction goals outlined in Cupertino’s Vision Zero Action Plan. 11th annual Cupertino Fall Bike Fest - On Saturday, September 28, Safe Routes to School hosted the 11 annual Cupertino Fall Bike Fest at City Hall Plaza. The plaza was abuzz with more than 30 bike-related activities organized by local bike and environmental organizations and was attended by more than 600 people making it the most successful Fall Bike Fest to date.
Silicon Valley Hopper - Successfully integrated three new, all-electric wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs), replacing the fleet's previous gas-powered WAVs boasting an entirely all-electric lineup, ensuring all trips are zero-emission.
Additionally, in collaboration with the City of Santa Clara, secured $500,000 from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program to help fund the third year (FY25-26) of the SV Hopper program.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Grant Funding – The Transportation Division received a $160,000 grant from the California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) to enhance its Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program. The initiative, running through September 2025, aims to promote safe walking and biking practices and raise awareness among drivers to be mindful of pedestrians and cyclists. The grant will fund several activities, including pedestrian and bicycle safety training, helmet distribution and fitting, and community and school presentations on safety.
McClellan Road Separated Bikeways Phase 3 – This bicycle and pedestrian enhancement project, located at the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive, was completed and includes modification of the traffic signals, reconfiguration of the intersection layout, and new bicycle and pedestrian facilities including a new crosswalk across De Anza Blvd on the south leg of the intersection. The project completes the missing link between the recently completed Phases 1 and 2, and was partially funded by $1,000,000 in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding though the Vehicle Emissions Reduction Based at School (VERBS).
SB 1383 update - Provided SB 1383 outreach to over 100 businesses and worked with Recology, the waste hauler, to ensure full SB 1383 compliance with the 600+ businesses and ensure proper sorting at CUSD elementary and middle schools.
Garage Sale - Hosted the Citywide Garage Sale on September 28 & 29 with over 165 homes participating, over 4,000 views on the online map, and many buyers from all over the Bay Area Environmental Recycling and Paper Shredding Events - Staff collaborates with Recology to host four free opportunities per year for residents to drop off difficult-to-recycle materials such as e-waste, appliances, yard waste, and confidential documents Coat Collection - Collaborated with Recology and the Cupertino Library to collect over 5 barrels of new and gently used coats and jackets, which were donated to Sacred Heart Community Services to provide warmth to those in need Community Composting Classes - Staff coordinated with the UC Cooperative Extension to host two free backyard compost classes for residents to learn how to build compost piles, vermicompost, and apply the compost in their own garden or landscape
Compliance activities - To comply with stormwater pollution prevention regulations, the City will conduct 78 preventative Industrial and Commercial Site Controls (IND) stormwater inspections. So far in 24-25 staff has responded to and resolved 38 reports of discharges and threats of discharge to the storm drain system for the Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program
Creek Cleanups - Hosted a site at Wilson Park for Coastal Cleanup Day on September 21, 2024 with over fiVy-eight volunteers and a total of 196 pounds of trash and debris removed. The next event will be National River Clean Up Day in May 2025.
“Decarbonization” of new buildings - Following suspension of Cupertino’s all-electric reach code in response to a court ruling in early 2024, in September 2024 the City Council approved an update to the building code to require newly constructed residential and commercial buildings to meet stricter energy efficiency requirements.
Fleet electrification - Added two electric trucks to the fleet as required to comply with California’s Advanced Clean Fleet Regulation
Climate Action Plan tracking - Launched an interactive climate action plan website in September 2024 to educate residents th
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Public Works 361
Safe Routes 2 School
Budget Unit 100-88-846
General Fund - Transportation - Safe Routes 2 School
Budget at a Glance
2026 Proposed Budget
Total Revenues $ 90,000
Total Expenditures $ 1,029,551
Fund Balance $ -
General Fund Costs $ 939,551
% Funded by General Fund 91.3%
Total Staffing 1.0 FTE
Program Overview
Safe Routes to School seeks to engage local schools, school districts, parent organizations, community groups, and the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office in the mission of reducing Singular Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) travel to and from school in order to reduce carbon emission and car traffic and increase student safety. The program seeks to achieve these objectives through education, encouragement, enforcement, and engineering infrastructure changes in and around Cupertino schools.
Service Objectives
Help to improve the health and well-being of students by increasing the number of students who walk or bike to school.
Develop partnerships with school administrators, staff, parents, and students.
Encourage and empower more students and families to walk, bike, carpool, and take alternative transit to school.
Adjust signage and infrastructure surrounding Cupertino schools to facilitate a safer environment for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Educate students and families about the benefits of walking and bicycling to school; health, environmental protection, academic improvements, community building and more.
Minimize gaps in communication between City, School Districts, and Schools and collaborate on efforts to increase student safety.
Enhance bicyclist and pedestrian student safety through coordination of skills classes and distribution of educational material.
Proposed Budget
It is recommended that City Council approve a budget of $1,029,551 for the Safe Routes 2 School program. This represents an increase of $160,372 (18.5%) from the FY 2024-25 Adopted Budget.
The increase is due to an increase in Contract Services for Crossing Guard and Bike and Pedestrian Education programs, as well as increases in Cost Allocation expenses.
This program also includes a request for $25,000 one-time costs for Annual Bike Ped Education. For further detail on these requests, please reference the Summary of Proposed Budget Requests found at the beginning of the budget document.
Revenues and Expenditures
The following table details revenues, expenditures, changes in fund balance and General Fund costs by category. It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed Budget for the current fiscal year.
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Public Works 473
Category 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Adopted Budget 2026 Proposed Budget Revenues
Intergovernmental Revenue $ 46,799 $ - $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Miscellaneous Revenue $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 Total Revenues $ 86,799 $ 40,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000
Expenditures
Employee Compensation $ 153,328 $ 118,466 $ 153,363 $ 152,022 Employee Benefits $ 46,907 $ 43,051 $ 56,197 $ 69,740
Materials $ 33,207 $ 22,490 $ 46,831 $ 49,678
Contract Services $ 336,643 $ 400,828 $ 461,802 $ 598,100 Cost Allocation $ 68,673 $ 77,905 $ 144,628 $ 160,011
Special Projects $ 57,729 $ 10,118 $ - $ -
Contingencies $ - $ - $ 6,358 $ -
Total Expenditures $ 696,487 $ 672,858 $ 869,179 $ 1,029,551 Fund Balance $ - $ - $ - $ -
General Fund Costs $ 609,688 $ 632,857 $ 779,179 $ 939,551 Staffing
The following table lists full-time equivalents (FTE) by position. It includes actuals for two prior fiscal years, the Adopted Budget for the prior fiscal year, and the Proposed Budget for the current fiscal year.
Position Title 2023 Actual 2024 Actual 2025 Adopted Budget 2026 Proposed Budget ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS ASSISTANT 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
There are no changes to the current level of staffing.
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Public Works 474
From: Stephanie Miller
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please Support Option 3 – Keep Transportation Advocacy Strong in Cupertino Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 5:25:03 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 Members,
I'm writing to urge you to vote for Option 3 on Agenda Item 22 at tomorrow’s meeting — to keep the Bike Pedestrian Commission independent, and to rename it the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Although I can't attend in person due to family responsibilities, I feel compelled to speak up — especially as a parent of children who walk and bike to school in Cupertino.
Here’s why I believe this decision is critical:
1. Our children’s safety is at stake.
More than one child on a bike has been hit by cars near my children’s middle school — right here in our own neighborhoods. These are not statistics from another city. These are real incidents, happening where our kids live, learn, and play.
A dedicated Bike Pedestrian Commission ensures that safety issues like this aren’t pushed to the bottom of the agenda. When transportation is absorbed into the Planning Commission — where the focus is on housing density, zoning, and setbacks — critical conversations about safe routes to school, crosswalk visibility, and bike lane design are diluted or delayed.
We can’t afford to treat these as side issues. Our children’s lives are not an afterthought.
2. Data shows separate commissions work — and save money.
Across the Bay Area, the overwhelming majority of cities have separate Planning and Transportation Commissions. Cupertino would be an outlier if we combined them — and not in a good way.
Why does this matter?
Because having a focused commission makes us more competitive for grant funding. Since 2018, more than 87% of Cupertino’s bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects have been paid for by grants — not local taxes. In fact, the city's share of costs has been less than 13%.
If you include the value of donated land, like the $7 million Linda Vista Trail easement, Cupertino has paid less than 10% of total bike/ped project costs.
This is a huge win for residents. Why jeopardize that by weakening our transportation advocacy?
3. Transportation belongs in the hands of people who live it.
There are over 40,000 students in Cupertino across CUSD, FUHSD, and De Anza College. 15% of our residents are 65 and older, a number that's growing every year. These are the people who rely most on safe sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and protected bike lanes.
These groups show up and speak out when there’s a commission that represents their needs — not when they’re competing with zoning maps and density bonuses.
Combining the commissions sends a clear message: transportation safety isn’t a priority.
But it should be.
4. Let the Planning Commission focus — and let transportation thrive.
The Planning Commission already has its hands full with complex housing mandates, development proposals, zoning updates, and state requirements. Transportation needs a space of its own.
A standalone Transportation and Mobility Commission will:
Prioritize safe routes to school
Align us with VTA, Caltrans, and regional funding goals Keep community voices front and center
Allow for deeper, more informed discussion on transportation design and safety
5. This decision reflects who we are as a city.
Cupertino has always prided itself on being forward-thinking, inclusive, and safe for families.
Eliminating an independent commission dedicated to transportation is a step backward — and it’s out of step with the values we share.
This is not just a procedural change. It’s a statement of priorities. And I hope we can all agree:
keeping our residents safe — especially our children — should be at the top of that list.
Please vote for Option 3, and let’s strengthen, not weaken, our city’s commitment to safe, sustainable, and inclusive transportation.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Miller, Cupertino resident since 2011
From: Stephanie Miller
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: BPC
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 4:20:38 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.
To whom it may concern,
Could you please enter my email to Mayor Chao below into the public record? She very kindly and respectfully replied to me, however I forgot to cc: the email to the city clerk when I sent it.
Thank you for your time,
Stephanie
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Stephanie Miller <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Sep 15, 2025 at 3:14 PM
Subject: BPC
To: Liang Chao <[email protected]>
Dear Ms. Chao,
I am writing to express my frustration with the current handling of the very important topic of the transportation being moved from under the BPC to under the PC. I appeal to your sense of what is truly best for and supported by the residents of the city of Cupertino as I write this letter to you. You may not recall, but we met once while discussing the Carmen Bridge project with residents, and when I asked how you handle when it gets heated, you said the most important thing is to listen because people just want to be heard and understood. I hope that you will hear me now.
First, I'm disappointed that this very important topic was glossed over in the late hours of the evening at the council meeting and that it was not given the time and discussion it deserves. This behavior flies in the face of the claim that this council values resident input and its goal to be transparent.Ten residents spoke in support of the BPC, 2 against. The fact that you limited discussion by residents to 1 min (vs the standard 3 minutes) and then ended the agenda item and declared that no public comments will be allowed when the agenda item resumes at a future meeting was shocking. To my knowledge this is unprecedented and is completely contradictory to your stated goal of "encouraging open dialogue between residents and local leadership," a phrase taken directly from your "Mayor's Initiative." If I'm totally honest, this feels like the weaponization of public comments (something no mayor has done before) and strikes me as an abuse of power. At a time in this country when our freedoms are being put at risk at the national level, I would've hoped that I had chosen to live in a community and elected leaders who would continue to promote and encourage democracy and freedom of expression.
Secondly, transportation does not belong under the purview of the PC. The BPC should own all of the transportation topics, as those on the commission have the expertise and experience walking and biking our city and know and understand the necessary standards and best practices.The Planning Commission has looked at transportation matters previously, but only ever as part of large construction projects, never for stand-alone street projects. This change is unprecedented.The Planning Commission's focus should remain on land use and zoning law. The BPC is an entity chartered to ADVOCATE for pedestrians and cyclists and those on it should have extensive experience as a pedestrian or cyclist. Can those on the PC, Mr. Rao included, make this claim?
Thirdly, as a city that I repeatedly hear about struggling with finances, why would the council consider voting in such a way that would risk the city losing eligibility to tens of millions of dollars in grant money? This makes absolutely no sense to me fiscally - grant money is free money! Why would we make a decision that would turn that down?? In addition, this move to disband the BPC will likely lead to confusion and more costs as bike/ped issues will now have to go through two commissions, one of which does not specialize in these issues.
Finally, and most importantly, a vote against the BPC is a vote against our children and seniors. Think of who spoke at the meeting in support of maintaining the BPC - it's our youth, students and young adults, who have the most to lose if this transfer to the PC succeeds. I have 3 children and they are frequent walkers (two walk to school) on our city streets. I think you would agree that their safety is of the utmost importance. I myself walk nearly every day. I watch the students walk and bike to school each morning and afternoon, hoping that they stay safe. Our most vulnerable residents deserve to be heard at a dedicated commission, not a commission dedicated to land use and building development. They deserve to have a commission dedicated to their safety. It’s harmful and misguided to not have one.
I hope you take these points into strong consideration. We residents want safety, transparency, and the opportunity to be heard. This council was elected to represent us, and if I'm honest, I do not feel that I, nor the youth of this community, are being represented at this time.
On Tuesday, please choose Option 3 for Agenda item 22. Keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Sincerely and with Hope,
Stephanie Miller, 13+ year resident of Cupertino
From: Matt Miller
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please choose option 3 for Agenda Item 22
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 5:47:50 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.
Dear City Council Members,
I’m writing to respectfully urge you to vote for Option 3 on Agenda Item 22 at tomorrow night’s meeting.
Although I won’t be able to attend in person due to family commitments, I still want to make sure my voice is heard.
I strongly support keeping the Bike Ped Commission separate from the Planning Commission, and I’d like to explain why:
1. Combining the commissions doesn’t make sense.
Nearly every city in the Bay Area has a separate Bike/Ped or Transportation Commission alongside their Planning Commission. These two bodies serve very different purposes. Rolling them into one isn’t just unnecessary — it weakens our focus on transportation issues like pedestrian safety, cycling infrastructure, traffic flow, and street design. These are complex topics that deserve full attention, not just a footnote in broader planning discussions.
2. It silences important voices.
When there’s a dedicated commission for walking and biking, more people feel empowered to speak up — especially parents, students, seniors, and people who walk or bike every day. Those voices can easily get lost when transportation is lumped in with land-use and zoning issues. Why make it harder for our community to weigh in on the everyday challenges they face getting around safely?
3. It’s a bad financial move.
Cities that prioritize transportation planning are better positioned to receive state, federal, and regional grants. In fact, nearly 90% of Cupertino’s bike/ped projects have been paid for by grant funding, not local tax dollars. We’ve benefited enormously from this — and a dedicated commission helps keep us competitive. Why risk giving up free money?? On top of that, Planning Commission meetings demand significantly more staff time and resources than Bike Ped Commission meetings. Why should we spend more money to give residents less of a say?
4. It doesn’t reflect Cupertino’s values.
As a parent of two kids who walk to school — and someone who walks daily myself — I care deeply about safe streets. A separate commission ensures that transportation issues like signal timing, crosswalk safety, parking, and speed limits stay front and center.
In contrast, the Planning Commission is focused on land use, zoning, and state housing mandates. These are important, but they shouldn't overshadow the daily transportation needs of our residents.
5. It overlooks who Cupertino is.
We have thousands of students in CUSD, FUHSD, and De Anza College, and over 15% of our population is 65 or older.
These are exactly the people who rely on safe sidewalks, accessible crossings, and protected bike lanes. Their needs deserve focused attention — not to be buried under other planning issues.
In closing, I urge you to vote for Option 3 and preserve the Bike Ped Commission. Renaming it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission makes sense — it reflects its purpose and our community’s priorities.
Thank you for your time and service to our city.
Sincerely,
Matt Miller, 13+ year Cupertino resident
From: Griffin
To: Public Comments
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: 2025-09-16 City Council Meeting Agenda Item #22 Transportation Matters under PC Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:18:50 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.
Dear City Council and Staff,
Of the options presented, I’d prefer to see Option 2 implemented with the following modifications:
1-do not include transit as part of Bike/Ped. Just keep it bike and Ped issues. 2-eliminate the wishy-washy “little or no potential impact to vehicular modes…” and make it definitive I.e. NO potential impact to vehicular modes”.
Thank you for studying this issue and helping bring visibility and transparency to potential changes that impact a large portion of Cupertino on a daily basis!
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin
From: Jim Bodwin
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:27:58 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.
Unfortunately, I will be out of town and will not be able to attend tomorrow's City Council meeting. But I strongly support option 3 to KEEP the Bike/Ped Commission in its current form.
I have been a Cupertino resident since 1989 and I have seen many changes but one thing has stayed the same - everybody complains about traffic. The Bike/Ped commission has been an advocate of safe, low-cost improvements that have relieved traffic by getting people out of cars.
Please respect the progress that this group has made by supporting option 3.
Jim Bodwin
Palm Avenue
Virus-free.www.avg.com
From: Siva Annamalai
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Support Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:28:05 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.
Hi Cupertino City Council members and Officials of Cupertino City, I learnt that the council in the next city council meeting will make a decision by picking an option from the various ones discussed earlier for the oversight of transportation matters. 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.
Please take into consideration the safety of the students, youth and seniors when you vote.
Regards,
Siva Annamalai.
From: Phyllis Schmit
To: City Clerk
Subject: Get rid of bike commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:28:10 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.
We support getting rid of the bike commission
Phyllis Schmit
Mike Schmit
From: Pam Hershey
To: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council; City Clerk; City of Cupertino Planning Commission Subject: Bike Ped Commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:32:45 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 , City Manager and City Clerk:
I am recommending that the council keep the BPC and
let BPC review projects and send its recommendations
to the planning committee on all transportation
projects. Projects that impact roadways,
intersections, parking, or any turn lanes. The planning commission should have the final quasi-judicial
body that will make the decision on transportation
projects.
A provision to appeal the PC decision to City Council can also be provided. This keeps the BPC existing charter
bits add accountability and
oversight with PC as quasi-judicial final decision making body so that staff don't make their own decisions.
Regards,
Pamela Hershey
From: Eric Schmidt
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Maintain Bike Ped Commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:37:00 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,
I would strongly encourage you to keep the Bike Ped Commission as a separate commission. I appreciate how Cupertino works to keep bicyclists and pedestrians like me safe. We need a separate commission dedicated to ensuring everyone's safety as we plan the community's future transportation needs.
I ask you to support Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact.
Thank you,
Eric Schmidt
From: Nitin Shah
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:39:47 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.
To: the City Council of Cupertino,
As a Cupertino resident, I urge you to support Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact.
Please choose Option 3-keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
The safety of pedestrians and bicyclists is very important. The volume of traffic and the speed of traffic continues to increase.
There are numerous "hot spots" where the City needs to act and protect the safety of citizens.
If you as a body make a different choice, it is a direct attack on the safety of Cupertino residents and
you take on the responsibility for any accidents and injuries as a result of your choices.
Nitin J. Shah
From: Tara C.
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Keep the Bike Ped Commission intact
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:42:10 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.
To the City Council of Cupertino -
My son just started as a 9th grader at Lynbrook and joined the marching band. He loves it, but next month practice will be at Monta Vista, which is on the other side of town for us (we live near Bollinger/Lawrence). Unfortunately, there's no way I feel comfortable having him bike to Monta Vista as it's just too dangerous.
That said, I have been very happy to see more and more biking safety features going up all around Cupertino. After getting a chance to visit Europe this summer and seeing all of their beautiful bike lanes (and many more bikers), I see that we still have a long way to go here to make Cupertino truly "bike friendly" -- but at least we're making progress.
That is why I was dismayed to hear that you are considering gutting the Bike Ped Commission. Why?? So that we can prioritize cars? I commute daily to Palo Alto and yes, the traffic is bad, but I'm willing to sacrifice if it will make our streets safer.
Let's keep the progress going to make it safer to walk and bike in Cupertino.
Thank you.
Tara Chang
Cupertino resident
From: Rob Tsuk
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Cupertino Needs a Transportation and Mobility Commission Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 7:48:10 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.
Greetings,
I'm writing to you today as a concerned constituent to urge the continuation of the Bike Ped Commission in Cupertino. As a Cupertino resident for 30 years and an avid cyclist, I've seen firsthand the challenges and opportunities our city faces regarding active transportation. While our Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan is a great start, I believe a dedicated commission is essential to truly prioritize and advance the safety and accessibility of walking and biking in our city.
I feel the dedicated Bike Ped Commission provides an invaluable forum for residents, experts, and city staff to collaborate solely on improving our infrastructure for active transportation.
Imagine a Cupertino where more children can safely walk or bike to school, where residents can easily access businesses without relying on a car, and where our streets are designed with all users in mind.
This isn't just about convenience; it's about public health, environmental sustainability, and enhancing the overall quality of life in our community.
I strongly believe that Bike Ped Commission provides the necessary leadership and advocacy to make these visions a reality. I urge you choose option three, to keep the BPC intact, and rename it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Rob Tsuk
Dexter Drive, Cupertino
From: Javed
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: BPC should remain independent
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 8:20:55 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 Cocil Members!
I am and old resident of Cupertino for the last 30 years.
I love biking and when city made some changes to make bike lane separate from the main road, by putting barriers, it was a very good thing for bikers of all ages.
Most of the countries in the world encourage people to use bike. It helps in less traffic congestions due to autos and promote healthy life style.
BPC is one of the organization to look into the issues of the bikers and pedestrians.
So I very humbly request to please keep BPC as as with option #3 for the sake of students, seniors and other bikers.
Thanks,
Javed
From: Kellee Noonan
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; [email protected]
Subject: Bike Ped Commission on Sept 16 City Council agenda Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 8:24:09 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 Members,
The Bike Ped Commission has been a powerful advocate for citizens who prefer not to drive cars in Cupertino, especially students & seniors. We want to let you know for your vote that we support Option 3-keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
We need to keep a strong discourse on topics like bike paths and walking trails that affect the safety of citizens & improve the quality of life in our city & world. Absorbing the BPC into another commission dilutes the due diligence in these important areas of consideration.
Thank you for representing your constituents views on this matter.
Kellee Noonan & Douglas Lee
10290 Farallone Drive
Sent from my iPad
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Walk Bike Commision
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 8:37:01 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 All,
I support Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact.
These dedicated individuals have made a tremendous impact on Bike Lanes and trails in our City.
Let’s keep them motivated.
Mike Malik
[email protected]
Cell: 408.464.1039
From: Chris Feng
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Bike and Pedestrian Comission Decision
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 8:39:48 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 City Council,
I am a long time resident of Cupertino writing to request that the council pursue Option 3-to keep the Bike and Pedestrian Comission intact, and rename to the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission. I've seen first hand the great progress the Comission and city have made in changing the makeup of local transportation. Every person that feels empowered to make their day to day travel by alternative transportation is a car off the road, which improves traffic and safety for everyone.
I grew up seeing only the occasional rider with most residents including students traveling by car, but have seen the proportion rise over the last decade. Having a Comission dedicated to identifying potential safety concerns and enabling users of any ability to feel safe on the road is essential furthering adoption of safe and low impact transportation options. I hope the council sees the value in continuing to emphasize the safety and ability of all residents.
Best,
Chris Feng
From: Venkat Ranganathan
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Cc: Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor
Subject: Re: Agenda Item 22 – Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 8:55:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
Further to the email, I have updated the email to provide more claity on the option I have chosen. please see below The staff report lays out four options for restructuring commission review of transportation projects. Of these, I believe Option 2 provides the best balance. This approach would place review of major projects with citywide impacts — such as lane removals or intersection reconfigurations — under the Planning Commission, while the Bike Pedestrian Commission (BPC) would continue to review multimodal projects that have little impact on vehicular travel.
This model respects the expertise of the BPC while ensuring that decisions with broader implications are reviewed through a wider planning lens. Other cities, such as Palo Alto and San Carlos, successfully use similar structures, where advisory input on bicycles and pedestrians is preserved but final oversight rests with the broader planning body.
Retaining the BPC in an advisory capacity also ensures Cupertino meets MTC’s requirements for a BPAC-equivalent body, keeping the City eligible for active transportation grantsSupplemental Reports.
I urge Council to adopt Option 2 — strengthening oversight, balancing input from all road users, and ensuring fair, community-wide transportation planning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Venkat Ranganathan
From: Venkat Ranganathan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 8:48 PM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Cupertino City Manager's Office <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Chad Mosley <[email protected]>; David Stillman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 22 – Oversight of Transportation Matters Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers
I am writing to provide input on Agenda Item 22 regarding commission oversight of transportation matters.
While the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) plays an important role in representing the needs of cyclists and pedestrians, its influence has grown in a way that often sidelines the broader interests of the community. Using “active transportation” as a sole framework, lane closures and dividers have been advanced on busy streets, frequently to the detriment of the majority of road users. These impacts deserve balanced study, especially when alternative bike routes exist that could achieve safety without disproportionately burdening drivers and transit circulation.
As the staff supplemental notes, many comparable cities—such as Palo Alto, San Carlos, Walnut Creek, and Mission Viejo—have successfully centralized land use and transportation under their Planning or Planning & Transportation CommissionsSupplemental Reports. In those cases, bike and pedestrian input is preserved through advisory committees but final oversight resides with the broader planning body. This ensures that transportation decisions are evaluated in the full context of land use, traffic flow, and citywide mobility goals.
I strongly urge Cupertino to adopt a similar model:
Retain the BPC as an advisory body to provide valuable input on bicycle and pedestrian priorities.
Place final oversight and recommendations for active transportation projects under the Planning Commission (or a combined Planning & Transportation Commission if established).
Ensure compliance with MTC requirements for a BPAC-equivalent body while guaranteeing that decisionmaking authority rests with a commission capable of weighing all modes of transportation fairlySupplemental Reports.
This structure respects the voices of cyclists and pedestrians while also ensuring balanced decision-making that reflects the needs of all Cupertino residents.
Thank you for considering this approach that brings accountability, broader oversight, and fairness to transportation planning.
Thanks
Venkat Ranganathan
From: Paul Murdock
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Support option 3!!!
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:06:11 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.
To Cupertino City Council members,
I have been a resident of Cupertino for the past 8 years. My wife and two daughters frequently walk, bike and run on the streets and pathways such as the Regnart trail. We love how Cupertino has been developing more street pathways dedicated for cyclists. We certainly feel much safer with them.
We highly encourage you to support Option 3 to keep the Bike Ped Commission intact!! Thank you, Paul and Ming Hui Murdock
Sent from my iPhone
From: Paula Wallis
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:10:09 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 kindly request that on the issue of the Bike Ped Commission, that you vote for option 3 to keep the BPC intact, and rename the commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
It has been wonderful to see the visible bike safety improvement made in recent years to our local streets and bike paths. The Bike Ped Commission is doing a fabulous job and I would love to see this commission continue its work and expand bike and pedestrian safety on our streets.
Our city is far too car centric. No one likes to walk or bike with cars whizzing by. It would be great to see more bike paths and trails to encourage more people to leave the car behind and walk or ride.
Please keep this commission in tack and put the City's full support behind it.
Kind Regards,
Paula Wallis
From: Trent Poltronetti
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please keep the Bike Ped committee intact
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:18:49 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,
Our son rides his bike to Monta Vista High School every day - and we feel strongly that is better for him, the community and the environment than us driving him.
We worry every day about his safety though. Cupertino has made solid progress in pedestrian and cyclist safety in the last few years - please don’t lose that momentum by disbanding the Bike Ped Committee and vote for Option 3.
Thanks,
Trent
__________________________________
Trent Poltronetti
10201 Hillcrest Rd, Cupertino
Cell 650 799 5009
From: Marilyn Beck
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Re: Please keep the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:23:55 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 Council Members,
I emailed you previously but here's another plea.
Please choose "Option 3-keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission" at the next meeting.
Since my last email, a neighbor was struck by a car and seriously injured while crossing Stevens Creek Blvd at a lighted crosswalk near Phar Lap. This is the sort of thing that I would expect the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission to investigate and see if something could be done to improve the infrastructure in the hopes of preventing this terrible thing from happening again.
Please vote to save the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. That would show that you care for the safety of those of us, of all ages, who walk and bike in Cupertino. We need a dedicated team who can advocate for our safety and find ways to improve the city infrastructure to accommodate us.
Thank you,
Marilyn Beck
On Tue, Sep 2, 2025 at 7:45 PM Marilyn Beck <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Council Members,
Cupertino has a dedicated Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission where the members can focus on how to improve safety and functionality for pedestrians and cyclists.
Please keep this dedicated group!
Almost everyone walks in Cupertino, and many people would walk more (or to new areas) if they felt it was safer. And we want everyone to walk more! Walking has health benefits, but not if you are get hit by a car.
Many people ride bikes in Cupertino, including kids, students, commuters, people who ride for pleasure, and people who ride to do their errands. People who ride also face hazards, and an unfortunate mindset, common among Americans, that only cars belong on the roads.
The dedicated Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission advocates for this large group of Cupertino residents and workers. Adding this work to the Planning committee doesn't make sense to me. That committee has a different focus and lots of other work to do.
Thank you,
Marilyn Beck
From: balaji gururajan
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Cc: srividhya venugopal
Subject: Input on Agenda Item 22 regarding commission oversight of transportation matters Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:29:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
We are writing to provide input on Agenda Item 22 regarding commission oversight of transportation matters.
The staff report lays out four options for restructuring commission review of transportation projects. Of these, I believe Option 2 provides the best balance. This approach would place review of major projects with citywide impacts — such as lane removals or intersection reconfigurations — under the Planning Commission, while the Bike Pedestrian Commission (BPC) would continue to review multimodal projects that have little impact on vehicular travel.
This model respects the expertise of the BPC while ensuring that decisions with broader implications are reviewed through a wider planning lens. Other cities, such as Palo Alto and San Carlos, successfully use similar structures, where advisory input on bicycles and pedestrians is preserved but final oversight rests with the broader planning body.
Retaining the BPC in an advisory capacity also ensures Cupertino meets MTC’s requirements for a BPAC-equivalent body, keeping the City eligible for active transportation grants.
We urge Council to adopt Option 2 — strengthening oversight, balancing input from all road users, and ensuring fair, community-wide transportation planning.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Balaji Gururajan & Srividhya Venugopal
10212 Denison Ave
Cupertino CA 95014
From: Aaryan Doshi
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Keep the Power with the Bike Ped
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:52:43 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,
For years the BPC has played an absolutely essential role in the safety of bikers and walkers alike. From creating barriers on Stevens Creek to adding bollards and reducing speed limits --- the impact really cannot be overstated.
I know countless people who started to bike again after the BPC took action into its own hands. Students, children, and the elderly of Cupertino rely on the BPC for safe, sustainable transportation.
It would be a disgrace to strip them of safe transportation. We must ensure that the BPC has power. On this end, I strongly urge you to choose Option 3 -- keep the BPC intact and rename it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Thank you and please don't let us down.
Best,
Aaryan
From: Frank Yang
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: Support Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact & Please build Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 9:53:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao and City council member:
This is Frank Yang, I am a resident in cupertino, and I am representing my family and many of my neighborhood to ask you kindly to keep the bike ped commission intact, and more importantly, we need you to help us build a safety bridge to allow children, students, bikers, hikers and pedestrian safely across stevens creek blvd near blackberry farm entrance area.
The Bike Ped Commission is the only commission that is dedicated to looking out for the safety of our children, youth, and seniors on our city streets. It must stay independent. We vote Option 3!!
We not only need the city to keep the Bike Ped Commission intact, we also need the city to revisit the two existing solutions to improve the safety of our community near stevens creek blvd.
1. Carmen Bridge project
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Public-Works/TransportationMobility/Projects/Carmen-Road-Bridge
2. City takes over the private lot at 10112 Crescent Ct and builds a pathway across stevens creek blvd under the bridge, connecting the varian park, blackberry farm, McClellan Ranch and Linda Vista Park.
https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/1/your-city/documents/press-releases/pressrelease-linda-vista.pdf As a dad with one middle-schooler and one elementary-schooler, mornings and afternoons along the Kennedy MS and Monta Vista HS corridors can be chaos — 30–40 minutes of creeping traffic, last-second drop-offs, and near-misses that spike your heart rate before coffee. It’s stressful for working parents, frustrating for neighbors boxed in by queues, and honestly scary for kids on bikes or scooters trying to cross Stevens Creek Blvd.Here’s what the City’s own programs tell us:A lot of families live close enough to walk/roll. Safe Routes to School says ~40% of Cupertino students live within 1 mile — a 5–10 minute bike trip in normal conditions. Yet single-family car trips are trending up, while walking is down — meaning more cars in front of our schools at peak hours. Parents and grandparents tell me the same thing: “If there were a truly safe, car-free way to get across Stevens Creek Blvd near Cupertino Rd/Blackberry Farm, I’d let my middle-schooler bike. I’d take my grandkids to the park without white-knuckling the crosswalk.” That one fix unlocks hundreds of daily trips:
kids to Kennedy and Monta Vista, families to Blackberry Farm and McClellan Ranch, weekend riders to the Stevens Creek Trail — all without feeding the gridlock.
Below are the evidence of many tragedies that have happened in our neighborhood, we need the city to act soon to provide the very safety that we are crying for...
What’s been happening (last 10 years), starting with 9/5/25 Sept 5, 2025 — near Blackberry Farm side entrance (Cupertino Rd / Stevens Creek Blvd)
Community-reported collision involving a person injured and a missing dog (“Bella”). No official bulletin or press write-up yet; neighbors described the scene and shared search posts. I could not find an agency report to cite yet — note this as community-reported, pending Sheriff confirmation.
Nov 29, 2024 — Multi-vehicle/pursuit crash near SR-17 & Stevens Creek (corridor east end)
A CHP pursuit ended in a violent rollover; a teenage passenger died and three others were hurt. (Not a ped/bike crash, but it underscores corridor risk/exposure at Stevens Creek’s east end.)
Sept 19, 2024 — Stevens Creek Blvd & Hanson Ave (West San José border of the corridor)
A woman crossing was struck and killed in the Hanson/Stevens Creek area (near Santana Row). Police kept eastbound Stevens Creek closed for hours; driver stayed on scene.
Apr 27, 2024 — Foothill Blvd at Stevens Creek Blvd (Cupertino) Pickup truck jumped the curb and hit four children walking home from Monta Vista Park; 11- year-old later died. The Sheriff’s Office summary, subsequent coverage and memorial stories are unequivocal.
The bigger picture (patterns & data)
Cupertino’s public collision dashboard catalogs 1,950 crashes (2018–2024) with 47 severe injuries and 10 fatalities, concentrated on major corridors including Stevens Creek and Foothill/De Anza.
City-adopted Vision Zero work identifies “Cupertino Rd & Stevens Creek Blvd” and nearby nodes among its high-concern intersections; Stevens Creek is repeatedly flagged across City planning documents.
Earlier analysis (2012–2021) counted 1,157 crashes, 9 deaths, 74 severe injuries— again concentrated on corridors like Stevens Creek.
--
Best Regards
Frank Yang
From: Sonal
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Bike Ped Commission Vote
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:05:51 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 council members, city manager and city clerk,
I am writing to let you know that I support the continuation of the bike ped commision.
I feel it is of the upmost important to provide an independent body to study bike and pedestrian safety, and assure that our citizens can soundly utilize their bikes or walk.
Please pick option 3 when you vote on this matter.
Kind regards,
Sonal Abhyanker
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jian He
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Don"t Abolish the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission - Keep it Intact! Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:09:21 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 and City Staff,
I am writing to urge you to vote to keep the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) intact at your meeting on Tuesday, September 16. I am aware of the proposals to either eliminate the commission entirely or strip it of its authority, and I believe that doing so would be a significant disservice to our community, particularly to our most vulnerable residents.
The BPC is the only city commission dedicated to the safety of our children, youth, and seniors on Cupertino's streets. It provides an essential, independent voice for pedestrians and cyclists. Abolishing it would silence this voice, which is unacceptable.
Please choose Option 3, which keeps the BPC intact and renames it the "Transportation and Mobility Commission." This option recognizes the commission's long-standing role in transportation matters, as defined in the municipal code (2.92.080 Powers and Functions).
The code clearly states, "The function of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is to review, monitor and make recommendations regarding City transportation matters including but not limited to bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking, education and recreation within Cupertino.” Moving the BPC's authority to the Planning Commission is a misguided and harmful decision. The Planning Commission's expertise is in land use, zoning, and large-scale development, not the specific safety needs of active transportation users. This change is unprecedented, and it would effectively allow the safety of our most vulnerable residents to be ignored.
Recent tragedies in our city highlight the urgent need for a dedicated body focused on pedestrian and cyclist safety. Just ten days ago, there was a significant accident at the Phar Lap crossing on Stevens Creek Boulevard, which required a multi-agency response from fire engines and sheriff cars. This incident underscores the ongoing safety concerns at a known pedestrian crossing.
In 2024, a devastating accident on Foothill Boulevard near Monta Vista Park resulted in the death of a young girl and severe injuries to several other children. The lack of sidewalks in that section of the busy road was a major contributing factor. These incidents are not isolated; they are symptoms of systemic safety issues that require dedicated attention. The BPC is vital for promoting and overseeing projects that would make the necessary infrastructure improvements to prevent future tragedies.
Please do the right thing and support the safety of our community. Vote to keep the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission intact and independent. Our residents deserve a dedicated commission that prioritizes their well-being.
Sincerely,
Jian He
A concerned Cupertino Resident near Blackberry Farm for 20 years From: Mohan Sharma
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Bike Ped Commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:11:35 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,
Public transportation plays a critical role in the daily activities of every resident in Silicon Valley as well as protects our only planet against harmful emissions from the millions of motorists who use Silicon Valley roads every day.
However, to maintain the viability of transit and safety of riders, there must be a body dedicated to serving our interests as humans.
I ride transit on a near-daily basis and have been to & through Cupertino many times by transit. The city is in desperate need of pedestrian-, transit- and bike-oriented development.
Please vote for option 3 to maintain the commission that is dedicated to serving every person, regardless of their ability or choice to own/use a car.
Thank you very much for voting for option 3 and helping protect our home, Mohan, resident
From: Robin Chen
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please keep the BPC intact
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:25:02 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.
Hi there,
I am from a family of bikers, including two young kids who I hope will eventually be out of the bike trailer and on their own bike as they get to and from school, friends' houses, etc. My 80+ year old mother in law also often uses her bike to travel places within Cupertino. I would like to respectfully ask you to consider choosing "Option 3-keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission". It is important that any transportation committee consider the needs of bikers and pedestrians in addition to the needs of drivers.
Thanks for your time,
Robin
From: Pete Letchworth
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact.
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:35:14 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.
As a resident of Cupertino since 1973, and a cyclist for the whole time since, I would like to urge you to vote for Option 3 at the City Council meeting Tuesday night.
Nothing is worth more than the safety of cyclists and pedestrians on our streets, and to cut back on the City support would be a step backwards. There have been many changes and improvements in our roads and pathways over the years, and it is imperative that those efforts continue for the current and future non-car people on our streets.
Regards,
Pete Letchworth
905 Rose Blossom Drive
From: David Greenstein
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Do not get rid of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:36:50 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.
Dear City Council,
I made a case for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission over twenty years ago and I still see its importance today. I was chosen as one of the first to sit on the commission, and we accomplished a lot during my tenure.
The BPC pushed for and got funds from the VTA for the Don Burnett/Mary Avenue Bridge and numerous other high ticket items. Now we are more walkable and bikeable than ever before. These projects have improved the health of our citizens and increased the value of our community.
No other commission has been as effective at getting these infrastructure projects done. No other commission is laser focused on improving the walkability and bikeability of Cupertino.
No other commission is focused on walking and biking for children and the elderly. I teach at Monta Vista High School and I walk to school. I personally know students that walk and bike to school. I walk my dogs and see elderly people using our walkways. We need advocates for all of them and that is the role of the BPC.
I enthusiastically endorse keeping the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission.
Regards,
David Greenstein
Former Bicycle/Pedestrian Commissioner
From: Anne Ng
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: oversight of transportation matters
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:37:34 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 Councilmembers:
Concerning your Study Session on Commission oversight of transportation matters, please support Option 2 to best include consideration of the safety of those who transport themselves by bicycle. Cyclists don't pollute, take up little space on the road, and should be encouraged.
Anne Ng
6031 Bollinger Road
Cupertino
From: Tristan Lê
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Keeping a Bike Pedestrian Commission in Cupertino Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:38:23 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 a student at Homestead High School who commutes to school by bicycle every day, and I cycle as both a sport and a hobby. The city of Cupertino has an astonishing number of cyclists who often commute or exercise on a bicycle in comparison to many other cities in California.
Please preserve this trend of safe active transportation by preserving the Bike Ped Commission in Cupertino.
Thank you,
Tristan Le
From: Brandon Too
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: I support keeping the Bike Ped Commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 10:49:24 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 Members,
As a father, husband, and active cyclist living in Cupertino; it is imperative that the Bike Pedestrian Commission (BPC) remain intact as no other organization can truly replace what BPC does when it comes to pedestrian and cyclist safety. My entire family actively walks and bikes around our beautiful city and part of the allure is the accessibility of getting around with our own feet from Blackberry Farm to Main St. I've seen over the years positive improvements to our roadways and greenbelts that better the health, safety, and community engagement of our residents and visitors, because of BPC's involvement. While the improvements have been wonderful, there is still much to improve in the future as interactions between pedestrians/cyclists and motorists are still concerning with personal accounts of dangerous or distracted drivers endangering my family. I want the city of Cupertino to continue improving itself and to not simply focus on major construction/roadway projects with a disregard for how to make our city more accessible and safer. Many other cities within the Bay Area maintain a BPC and provide tremendous value in linking cities together and improving lives. Why make Cupertino an exception? I urge the council to keep the BPC intact.
Sincerely,
Brandon
From: Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Request for review and dissolution of Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:06:57 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,
Please include the below in written communication for the upcoming city council meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao and Council members,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation projects.
The current approach to transportation needs to revised. Existing structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not left to an advisory body that has narrow focus.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works. Cupertino should learn from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone.
Fiscal Concerns and Power Dynamics
Critics, including some council members and planning officials, have raised concerns that:
• The Bike & Pedestrian commission diverts city funds toward niche infrastructure (e.g., protected bike lanes, floating bus stops) that may not serve the broader population. • It duplicates efforts already covered by the Planning Commission, creating inefficiency • It promotes ideologically driven projects that conflict with practical traffic needs or safety data
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Yuva Athur
Cupertino Citizen
From: Alvin Yang
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:15:39 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,
I am writing again to urge you to not eliminate the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission's responsibilities by moving them towards the Planning Commission and instead take up option 3 from the staff report and designate the BPC as the Transportation and Mobility Commision.
The BPC provides an important avenue for people who use alternative means of transportation whether because they are unable or prefer not to drive. These people include the disabled, children too young to vote, elderly who are unable to drive anymore, and even people who simply prefer to use other means of transportation. It is important that these people are properly represented through the BPC. The Planning Commission primarily deals with zoning, permitting, land use, etc and does not have the specific expertise on transportation that the BPC has. Furthermore by moving more responsibilities to the Planning Commission you dilute the amount of time and resources that can be committed to transportation. The Planning Commission would have less time to both take public comments/input and discuss transportation issues.
Having a separate transportation commission is a standard practice all around the Bay Area.
Cities all across the Bay Area including Cupertino's immediate neighbors have separate bike pedestrian commissions or transportation commissions because they recognize the importance of transportation for their citizens and city. Cities also recognize that having a separate transportation commission allows for eligibility for grant funding from the County, State, and Federal Government. Eliminating the BPC would cut off chances of receiving these grants.
Just last year Cupertino adopted a Vision Zero plan with a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2040. I do not see a way towards this plan if the BPC, with it's unique expertise, is dismantled. The safety and lives of your citizens are at hand here, and I implore you to choose correctly.
Regards,
Alvin Yang
From: Brian Beck
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please Keep Bike Ped Commission in Cupertino
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:20:01 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.
Folks:
I'm a long time Cupertino resident who values the work of the Bike Ped Commission and the cycling infrastructure that the city has installed.
I am strongly in favor of keeping this commission intact and continuing to support it's mission in watching out for pedestrian and cyclist safety in our city.
Thank you.
Brian Beck
From: Peter Murray
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Bike Committee
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:41:28 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.
I am an active cyclist. We have lived in Cupertino for over 40 years. The car traffic has greatly increased, especially the commuters cutting through our neighborhoods. The Walk Bike committee has been instrumental in improving safe cycling in Cupertino. I Totally Support the committee remains intact going forward.
Peter Murray
21742 Columbus Ave
From: Teresa Olson
To: City Clerk; City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Bicycling and Pedestrian Commission
Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:43:21 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 and Mayor Liang Chao,
Thank you for reopening the public hearing.
I hope that you decide to keep the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. Over the years, it has made a lot of good recommendations that led to projects that have improved the quality of life here in Cupertino. For example, the Regnart Creek Trail, the class IV bike lanes on McClellan, and the Lawson Middle School on-street bike lane have been wonderful additions!
Important bicycle and pedestrian safety issues and improvements will get a lot less attention if these matters are handled by the Planning Commission. Good ideas may never be presented to the City Council.
Having a dedicated Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission means that important ideas, to improve safety and increase alternative transportation use, have a chance of being presented at the City Council meetings, and voted on and potentially turned into projects which benefit citizens.
Thank you for reading.
Sincerely,
Teresa Olson
Cupertino Resident
From: Arushi Gehani
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please Support Option 3 – Keep Transportation Advocacy Strong in Cupertino Date: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:48:44 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 Members,
I'm writing to urge you to vote for Option 3 on Agenda Item 22 at tomorrow’s meeting — to keep the Bike Pedestrian Commission independent, and to rename it the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Although I can't attend in person due to family responsibilities, I feel compelled to speak up — especially as a parent of children who walk and bike to school in Cupertino.
Here’s why I believe this decision is critical:
1. Our children’s safety is at stake.
More than one child on a bike has been hit by cars near my children’s middle school — right here in our own neighborhoods. These are not statistics from another city. These are real incidents, happening where our kids live, learn, and play.
A dedicated Bike Pedestrian Commission ensures that safety issues like this aren’t pushed to the bottom of the agenda. When transportation is absorbed into the Planning Commission — where the focus is on housing density, zoning, and setbacks — critical conversations about safe routes to school, crosswalk visibility, and bike lane design are diluted or delayed.
We can’t afford to treat these as side issues. Our children’s lives are not an afterthought.
2. Data shows separate commissions work — and save money.
Across the Bay Area, the overwhelming majority of cities have separate Planning and Transportation Commissions. Cupertino would be an outlier if we combined them — and not in a good way.
Why does this matter?
Because having a focused commission makes us more competitive for grant funding.
Since 2018, more than 87% of Cupertino’s bike and pedestrian infrastructure projects have been paid for by grants — not local taxes. In fact, the city's share of costs has been less than 13%.
If you include the value of donated land, like the $7 million Linda Vista Trail easement, Cupertino has paid less than 10% of total bike/ped project costs.
This is a huge win for residents. Why jeopardize that by weakening our transportation advocacy?
3. Transportation belongs in the hands of people who live it.
There are over 40,000 students in Cupertino across CUSD, FUHSD, and De Anza College. 15% of our residents are 65 and older, a number that's growing every year. These are the people who rely most on safe sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, and protected bike lanes.
These groups show up and speak out when there’s a commission that represents their needs — not when they’re competing with zoning maps and density bonuses.
Combining the commissions sends a clear message: transportation safety isn’t a priority.
But it should be.
4. Let the Planning Commission focus — and let transportation thrive.
The Planning Commission already has its hands full with complex housing mandates, development proposals, zoning updates, and state requirements. Transportation needs a space of its own.
A standalone Transportation and Mobility Commission will:
Prioritize safe routes to school
Align us with VTA, Caltrans, and regional funding goals Keep community voices front and center
Allow for deeper, more informed discussion on transportation design and safety
5. This decision reflects who we are as a city.
Cupertino has always prided itself on being forward-thinking, inclusive, and safe for families. Eliminating an independent commission dedicated to transportation is a step backward — and it’s out of step with the values we share.
This is not just a procedural change. It’s a statement of priorities. And I hope we can all agree: keeping our residents safe — especially our children — should be at the top of that list.
Please vote for Option 3, and let’s strengthen, not weaken, our city’s commitment to safe, sustainable, and inclusive transportation.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Arushi Gehani, Cupertino resident since 2009
wife to Samir Gehani who bikes everyday
Mom to Dsughter who bikes to school everyday
From: S H
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commmission
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:05:46 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 Mayor Chiao, Councilmember Fruen, Councilmember Mohan, Councilmember Moore, and Councilmember Wang,
I am writing to urge the Cupertino City Council to retain the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (BPC) as an independent advisory body, and to move forward with Option 3:
Renaming the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee to the Transportation and Mobility Commission while keeping the commission's full authority intact.
Cupertino has long prided itself on being a forward-thinking, family-oriented, and affluent community. With that privilege comes the responsibility to ensure that our streets are safe, sustainable, and accessible for all users—children, seniors, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers alike. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission has been instrumental in guiding projects such as the McClellan Road bicycle lane, a critical improvement that came only after years of advocacy.
We must also remember the tragic death of the Monta Vista High School student who was struck and killed while biking to School, a loss that still weighs heavily on our community.
Evidence shows that dedicated bicycle infrastructure, like protected lanes, significantly reduces crashes and saves lives. That tragedy might have been prevented had stronger measures been in place sooner. This is why retaining a commission focused on bicycle and pedestrian safety is not optional—it is essential.
Most of the most forward-thinking and affluent cities in the United States and internationally have dedicated Bicycle and Pedestrian Commissions. Cupertino should be leading this trend, not questioning or moving away from best practices. Advisory commissions like these are proven to improve street safety, reduce crashes, guide efficient staff decision-making, and foster community trust in city planning.
Unsafe driving behaviors are the norm in Cupertino with rushed, distracted, or aggressive driving remaining a persistent danger. Streets designed and monitored with active transportation in mind are safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike. Eliminating or weakening the BPC would risk reversing our progress. Cupertino should instead build on its legacy of innovation by keeping the Commission intact, modernizing its scope, and empowering it to continue shaping a healthier, safer, and more connected community.
Thank you for your service to Cupertino and for considering the voices of residents who value safety, sustainability, and long-term quality of life.
Respectfully,
Susan Hansen
From: Yoon Choi
To: Liang Chao; City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Please Do Not Keep the Bike Ped Commission (Oppose Option 3) Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:16:13 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 Mayor Chao and Cupertino City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to keeping the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission intact (Option 3). While I strongly value safety for all residents-especially students, youth, and seniors-I believe the current Bike Pedestrian Commission is not the right structure for addressing these concerns effectively.
1. Duplication and Inefficiency
We already have the Planning Commission, which has the responsibility and expertise to review transportation matters in the broader context of city planning. Creating a separate commission just for bicycles and pedestrians fragments oversight, slows progress, and creates unnecessary duplication.
2. Broader Transportation Perspective is Needed
Transportation in Cupertino must be considered holistically, balancing cars, public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians. The Planning Commission is better equipped to make those balanced decisions, rather than a narrowly focused commission that advocates only for certain modes of travel.
3. Fair Representation for All Residents
Most Cupertino residents rely primarily on cars for daily transportation. Giving disproportionate weight to a commission focused almost exclusively on bicycles and pedestrians creates imbalance in decision-making. Residents deserve fair representation that reflects the majority’s needs.
4. Streamlined, Accountable Government
Streamlining commissions reduces bureaucracy and makes city government more effective and accountable. The proposal to fold responsibilities into the Planning Commission ensures transportation issues are reviewed with proper context and expertise, without adding another layer of process.
For these reasons, I urge you to reject Option 3 and instead move toward a more streamlined, efficient structure that places transportation oversight under the Planning Commission. This will ensure decisions reflect the needs of the entire community, not just a subset.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Yoon Choi
10531 N Portal Ave, Cupertino CA 95014
From: Anne Ng
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: CORRECTION: Re: oversight of transportation matters Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:33:08 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.
Sorry! As you may have guessed from the context, I typoed the Option number in my email below. Please, please support Option 3!
Anne
On Monday, September 15, 2025 at 10:37:19 PM PDT, Anne Ng <[email protected]> wrote:
Honorable Councilmembers:
Concerning your Study Session on Commission oversight of transportation matters, please support Option 2 to best include consideration of the safety of those who transport themselves by bicycle. Cyclists don't pollute, take up little space on the road, and should be encouraged.
Anne Ng
6031 Bollinger Road
Cupertino
From: Dennis Park
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Support for "Option 2" on Commission Oversight of Transportation matter Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:19:22 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 Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing in support of Option 2 for defining commission roles in the review of transportation matters.
Option 2 provides the right balance between the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s specialized expertise and the Planning Commission’s broader citywide perspective. Transportation policy should consider all modes—cars, transit, bikes, and pedestrians—without allowing any single perspective to dominate. Under this approach, the Planning Commission would review projects that could affect vehicular travel, ensuring transportation policies align with land use and citywide goals, while the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission would focus on multimodal projects where their expertise is most valuable. This structure preserves specialized input while avoiding situations where the bike-ped commission’s opinions could outweigh impacts on drivers or broader mobility needs.
By adopting Option 2, the Council can ensure that transportation planning remains inclusive, balanced, and representative of the full community’s needs rather than being shaped by a single mode of travel.
Thank you for your leadership on this important issue.
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Item #22 on Agenda for 16 Sep 2025 - Choose option #3 Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:10:38 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.
As a Santa Clara resident, bicyclist, and long-time member of or attendee at my city's BPAC, I was appalled to learn of this effort in neighboring Cupertino to quash the effectiveness of your own bicycle-pedestrian commission by swallowing it into your planning commission or elsewhere. While I often complain about a lack of effectiveness of our BPAC, a total elimination in any city in this current climate crisis seems completely absurd. The voices of your citizens who ride their bikes and/or walk need to continue to be heard by commissioners sympathetic to their concerns because they also cycle/walk in Cupertino. (In my experience, planning commissioners rarely do.)
Were you aware that some grants for bicycle & pedestrian projects require a city to have a functioning BPAC? So, taking it away could reduce your grant money. In fact, I'm not sure that this new name will be acceptable either. It would be best to call it a BPAC, like every other neighboring city.
Yes, I do occasionally ride my bike in Cupertino. But, if it's a chain store that has an option in my city or Sunnyvale or San Jose, I'm more likely to head to one of those. I prefer to do business in a bike-friendly city.
Please also accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as Santa Clara, San Jose, and other jurisdictions have done (item #19).
Sincerely,
Diane Harrison
3283 Benton St.
Santa Clara, CA 95051
(land of the Ohlone and Muwekma Ohlone people)
408-246-8149
[email protected]
Member: Santa Clara County Green Party County Council
From: Deepa Mahendraker
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Agenda item 22: Transportation project oversights Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:24:55 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.
Please include this communication in city council meeting today for agenda topic 22 Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation projects.
The current structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not left to a narrow advisory body.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works. Cupertino should learn from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone.
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Deepa Mahendraker
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please keep the Planning and Bike-Ped Commissions Separate -Choose Option 3 Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 6:29:06 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.
To the members of the City Council
My name is Tom Scannell and I have been a resident of Cupertino since 1980. I have been a long time supporter of safer streets for bikers and pedestrians in Cupertino having spoken before you on many occasions. More recently, I have become concerned about implementation of the mandatory housing unit plan for Cupertino.
I am opposed to the plan before the council to combine the Bike-Pedestrian Committee with the Planning Commission and urge you to choose Option 3. Each of these committees have their own areas of expertise and should be independently staffed. A committee focused on pedestrian and cycling street safety for our Seniors and school children should a key priority for the City. Second, and equally importantly, the Planning Commission is facing a large workload over the next few years given the new housing plan for Cupertino. They should focus their attention and expertise exclusively on that issue
Please choose Option 3
Tom Scannell
From: Ram Sripathi
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Agenda item 22
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:14:51 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 Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation projects.
The current structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not left to a narrow advisory body.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works. Cupertino should learn from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone. We should make Cupertino a resident focused city, that makes Cupertino residents feel valued and come to love their city even more.
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Ram Sripathi
Sent from my iPhone
From: Vidya Gurikar
To: City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; David Stillman Subject: : Agenda item 22 in today’s Council Meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:27:38 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 Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation projects.
The current structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not left to a narrow advisory body.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works.
Cupertino should learn from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone.
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Shrividya Gurikar
From: Carol Mattsson
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Keep the Bike Ped Commission intact: support Option 3 at tonight"s City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:35:24 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,
Please stop the plan to destroy the Bike Ped Commission at tonight's City Council meeting.
Choose "Option 3-keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission."
I'm a Cupertino resident who enjoys safe and healthy bicycle riding throughout Cupertino and neighboring cities. In recent years I've ridden more miles on my bicycles than in my car. I want MORE people to join me by choosing bicycles (and public transportation) over fossil fuel powered cars that contribute to climate change. Even the less-polluting electric vehicles require electricity generated elsewhere and need rare metals and create more emissions to manufacture than fossil fuel powered cars.
I appreciate Cupertino's scenic and citizen-friendly bike/pedestrian paths, like the new Regnart Trail and the Mary Ave. Bridge route over I-280. Such pleasant routes for transportation don't happen by chance: they happen through a commission that is dedicated to looking out for the safety of our children, youth and seniors on our city streets. Cupertino's Bike Ped Comission must stay independent.
I urge you to support Option 3, to keep the Bike Ped Commission intact.
Sincerely,
Carol Mattsson
Cupertino Resident
--
Carol Mattsson
Web Developer
(408) 309-8314
[email protected]
www.surfpix.net/web Web Solutions from Essential Bits, Inc.
From: Kristina Pistone
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Bike Ped Commission - Support Option 3 at council meeting tonight (item 25-14276) Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:02:50 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 writing to strongly encourage you to select “Option 3: Continue with BPC oversight, rename to ‘Transportation and Mobility Commission’” on the issue of Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters.
Options 1 and 2 limiting BPC’s purview to issues with “little or no impact on vehicular traffic” is far too limiting so as to render them effectively powerless, and Option 4 to outright disband BPC would be even more outrightly short-sighted and dangerous for anyone not in a vehicle. I’ve walked and biked around multiple cities in this area and the number of times I’ve almost been hit by a car is too many to count, because a large number of people don’t know or don’t care if they injure or kill a pedestrian. It’s obvious that a dedicated commission of people with specific knowledge of bike/ped matters is necessary to provide input on these matters; having exclusively Planning deal with this would be like asking a landscaper to also build your second-story deck. Sure, they *might* do an okay job, it’s in the same general area of the house, but do you *really* want to risk that with such high stakes? As a Sunnyvale Sustainability Commissioner (speaking here on my own behalf, of course) I understand how such city commissions work and the need for dedicated expertise on them.
Eliminating Cupertino’s BPC would make you stand out in the area in a bad way, as most every other city around here has a BPAC in some form, and connectivity across the region is essential for going places and accomplishing everyone’s Active Transportation Plans and other (climate and otherwise) goals. I like to be able to bike south to De Anza, your library, or further, but only when you have reasonable infrastructure for it (and I assume others will speak to the importance for students and others in the area, many of whom do not have cars but still need to safely get around, i.e. SR2S).
Finally, the staff report on the alternatives indicating “no sustainability impact” is not correct:
as I’ve stated, if you remove the BPC expertise in favor of cars, your greenhouse gas emissions will go up (or, at least, not go down per capita nearly as fast as they need to), running counter to the city’s stated sustainability goal of net-zero by 2040. You even have a webpage on it (https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Divisions/EnvironmentSustainability/Transportation-Alternatives), stating your transportation is 75% of the city’s emissions, with a very appropriately-ranked list of alternatives to fossil-fuel based transport.
You cannot EV your way out of those statistics, especially in the present national climate: you need to increase biking and walking for that, and you need dedicated infrastructure and expertise for them, not folding it into another entity as a low-priority afterthought.
Thanks for your attention.
Kristina Pistone, PhD
she/her/hers
From: Ruiguo Yang
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: support Option 3 - keep the Bike Ped Commission intact Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:16:15 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 members,
As a long-time city resident, I strongly support keeping the Bike Ped Commission intact. Making the city walkable and safe for all is important for all especially for the vulnerable people like seniors and kids. Encouraging people to walk is also good for the health and environment.
Best regards,
Ray
From: Brian Strom
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: BPC topic
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:28:21 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 Council,
On the topic of how to organize transportation Please approve Option 3, to retain focus and independence of the BPC.
The BPC and its function are ever more important to guide transportation planning and decisions. It doesn’t make sense to weaken or dilute its role, when so many of our citizens rely on walking and riding to move through our fine city.
Brian Strom
From: Richard Blaine on behalf of Richard A. Blaine
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Bike Ped Commission
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:23:40 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.
Please keep the Bicycle, Pedestrian committee intact. It provides a valuable service to Cupertino.
--
Dick Blaine, Cupertino, Ca.
From: Mark Hlady
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: In support of a Cupertino BPC
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:33:23 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.
Council members:
In my position as head coach of the Black Mountain Composite middle school and high school cycling team, covering Cupertino schools and neighboring cities, I have seen the full range of kids' cycling abilities in my 8 years of coaching. Designing infrastructure to keep school kids safe is a challenge that needs empathy and a solid understanding of their varied abilities. Our cycling team uses Cupertino streets as part of our team riding and we want a BPC looking out for our safety.
As a Sunnyvale resident I have seen the benefits of our BPAC in working with the City council and staff to recommend changes based on the BPAC's expertise and the BPAC's consultation with other experts and residents.
I support option #3 to keep the Bike Ped Commission intact. --Mark Hlady, Sunnyvale
From: Helene Davis
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: City Council Agenda Study Session Item 22 - Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 9:38:38 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 city council members,
Re: Study Session Item 22 - Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters
I am writing to express my support for Option 3 - continue BPC oversight and rename to Transportation and Mobility Commission.
I'm especially concerned about the possible loss of grant funding for any future projects and the measured increase in staff resources if oversight is transferred to the Planning Commission.
The BPC gives voice to underrepresented constituencies in our community - cyclists, pedestrians and other active transportation users. In recent years I have seen more youth and seniors engage in active transportation thanks to improved infrastructure that makes them feel safe. The city has made tremendous strides in this area and it is important to sustain this momentum. Not only does this infrastructure make its users feel safe but it makes for a healthier more vibrant community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Helene Davis
Long time resident
From: Tim Oey
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Cupertino"s BPC saves lives, especially kids lives! Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 9:46:49 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,
I live in Sunnyvale near Cupertino and shop, work, eat, and visit friends in Cupertino.
Please keep your Bike Ped Commission intact or rename it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Merging it into the Cupertino Planning Commission does not make sense as the Planning Commission already has a full load. It is well worth having a separate commision focus on transportation.
Transportation is responsible for over 50% of the greenhouse gases in California. Climate change is a serious concern for us -- remember all the fires we have had locally and elsewhere in California? Biking and walking instead of driving dramatically reduces climate change.
Even electric cars create huge amounts of climate change compared to biking and walking.
EVs are huge amounts of metal, plastic, and rare earths and need huge amounts of asphalt pavement to park and move.
Lack of exercise is a huge public health emergency that is greatly reduced by making biking and walking safer, easier, and more attractive than driving everywhere. The majority of trips in our area are less than 6 miles -- a very easy bike ride for most.
Cupertino's award winning Safe Routes to School program and progress in improving biking and walking have made Cupertino the envy of many neighboring cities -- often matching Palo Alto in how attractive it is.
Motor vehicle crashes kill over 40,000 people a year in the US. Bicyclists and walkers rarely kill anyone. Cupertino needs to continue to encourage safer transportation options.
Do you really want a lot more car traffic in Cupertino? Think about what that does to the quality of life in Cupertino -- especially for your kids. Do you want your kids to be able to move around your neighborhoods safely? Able to get to schools, parks, the library, and friends' houses on their own? Or do you want Cupertino to become a concrete and asphalt desert where people are too afraid to walk and bike so instead they only drive in ever larger and heavier armored tanks to get around?
Transportation AND Land Use are both important for making Cupertino a more attractive place to live, work, and visit but they are also large and complicated subject areas. It is well worth having separate commissions to address each of these areas and advise the Cupertino City Council with their respective expertise.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tim Oey
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
http://www.timoey.com/
"Knowledge is Power"
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: Jim Davis
Subject: Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 9:59:46 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 City Council and City Manager,
I am a long-time resident of Cupertino who drives, bikes, and walks our streets and those of our surrounding communities. I believe it would be a mistake to fold the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission into the Planning Commission. Planning has it hands full with the current charter of advising the council on land use matters such as specific and general plans, zonings, and subdivisions. Broadening that charter will cause transportation advocacy to be reduced in importance and focus. It will be better to maintain a separate commission responsible for reviewing, monitoring, and suggesting recommendations for city transportation matters including, but not limited to, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, parking education and recreation within Cupertino.
After reading the September 3rd staff report on this topic, I recommend the council adopt Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”. This will allow focus on transportation topics as a priority and continue the good work that Cupertino has done in the areas of advocacy for safety and consideration of the needs of all users of our streets.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jim Davis
From: Andrew Cosand
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please keep the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:14:26 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,
as a Sunnyvale cyclist who likes to visit friends, parks, and businesses in Cupertino, I'd like to ask you to preserve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission (option 3 on agenda item 22).
Thank you
Andrew Cosand
From: Ian M
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Keep the Bike Ped Commission Intact
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:34:58 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 writing because I'm extremely concerned for the Bike Ped Commission. I urge you to choose Option 3: Keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission. The BPC has the right experience and skills to handle the safety and transportation needs for all residents. Taking power from the BPC will put the lives of residents in danger and that is entirely unacceptable. Please, choose Option 3. Thank you. - Ian M
From: J Shearin
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Choose option 3 for Agenda item 22 | City Council September 16, 2025 Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:32:31 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.
Please include this as part of Written Communication for this meeting.
Dear Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers,
I ask you today to give direction to pursue option number 3 for Agenda item 22 if you must make changes to the setup of our Cupertino commissions. Renaming the Bike Ped Commission to the “Transportation and Mobility Commission” is the least disruptive of all options and most closely aligns with our Municipal Code.
Nearly every city in the Bay Area has separate Bike/Ped and Planning Commissions with separate mandates. There’s good reasons for that.
It’s more transparent and lets residents have more input.
Instead of burying safety and access issues for pedestrians and cyclists under a ton of building and planning issues, there is an official venue for residents to share their concerns. Most of the people who walk or bike in Cupertino are students or elderly people—our most vulnerable. Silencing their voices by burying their input under land use issues gives us less transparent government, and reduces engagement.
It’s a good idea for financial reasons.
Staff was clear that it will cost more of our taxpayer dollars if some or all of the work of the BPC is moved to under the Planning Commission. It costs a lot more to bring projects to both commissions, if Transportation is moved under Planning and the BPC is left as a small shell. Even if all items are moved under Planning, it will still cost us more. Plus, nearly 90% of all of Cupertino’s Bike Ped projects have been paid for by grants. VTA/MTA is just one body that has already signaled that we will not be eligible for grants if the change is made to strip the BPC of its duties.
It makes sense to have two separate commissions, as they have different mandates.
The Planning Commission focus is on building, zoning and state housing mandates, with any transportation issues considered in the context of land use only. Adding transportation issues unrelated to building to the Planning Commission means that complex issues such as pedestrian safety, street design, traffic flow, and cycling infrastructure are not given any focus. This very reason is why the Cupertino Municipal Code states, "The function of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is to review, monitor and make recommendations regarding City transportation matters…” (2.92.080 Powers and Functions).
I don’t need to tell you that the residents of this city matter—whether they are students who are biking to school, older people who rely on having safe places to walk across our streets, or drivers that just want to get where they are going safely. Their concerns should be discussed in one place by the commissioners that most care about these issues. The best way to do that is to either keep our current structure or to rename the Bike Ped Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From: [email protected]
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Agenda Item 22
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:49:58 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 Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 of the Cupertino City Council meeting on September 16, 2025.
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission has failed our community by pushing a one-sided agenda. The lane removals on De Anza Boulevard are a clear example of what happens when a commission focused almost entirely on bike lanes is allowed to influence projects that impact the daily lives of thousands of drivers.
The result has been more congestion, longer commutes, and frustration for families, seniors, and working residents who depend on cars.
This lack of balance is why Cupertino needs stronger oversight.
I support Option 2, but with critical modifications:
1. Transit should not be included under the Bike/Ped Commission. Keep it limited to bicycle and pedestrian issues.
2. Eliminate the vague wording about “little or no potential impact to vehicular modes.” It must be definitive — projects reviewed by the BPC should have NO impact on vehicular modes.
Only by making these changes will Cupertino prevent another failure like De Anza Boulevard. Major projects with citywide consequences must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, which can take into account the needs of all residents, not just a small group of cycling advocates.
I urge the Council to adopt Option 2 with these modifications to restore accountability, balance, and fairness to Cupertino’s transportation planning.
Sincerely,
Chitra Iyer
Cupertino Resident
From: Hervé Marcy
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: City Council 9/16 item 22
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:52:45 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.
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 -land use- which is vastly different from the BPC. Planning commissioners are not nominated for their knowledge of biking and pedestrian infrastructure. They do not know in depth 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.
No later than a few weeks ago, a group of residents came to the BPC to ask for a raised table and flashing lights on Torre Avenue, right next to City Hall. If the BPC were to lose its oversight of transportation projects, this infrastructure project, which would impact car traffic, would hence fall under the preview of the planning commission, making it harder for residents to express themselves. Does this council want to make it easier or harder for residents to speak up and give feedback?
I believe 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 this reason, I am humbly asking you to vote for Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission” on item 22 on the agenda.
Best regards,
Hervé Marcy
From: Wei Lynn Eng
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Council Meeting Tonight: Bike Ped Commission
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:55:50 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 City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to please choose Option 3 for Agenda Item 22 to be addressed at the council meeting this evening. Although I am unable to attend in person due to family obligations, I would like my voice to be heard. Here are my reasons for supporting a separate Bike Ped Transportation Commission from the Planning Committee.
1. My children bike to school. The Bike Ped Commission is central to their safety. They are responsible for a comprehensive approach to mobility that promotes safety, accessibility, and efficiency for everyone who uses the city’s roads. They address a complete range of transportation-related issues, including safe pedestrian, cyclist, and car driver traffic flows and much more. WIth the Bike Ped Commission, I know that deeper conversations about driving speeds, parking spaces, crosswalks, signal times, curb ramps, protected bike lanes, and Safe Routes to School will be prioritised.The Bike Ped Commission will consider all users of our streets including car drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, children walking and biking to school, and seniors going to the grocery store.
2. The Bike Ped Commission is lower cost than the Planning Committee. Eighty-seven of all bike/ped projects in Cupertino are paid for by grant money!! Since 2018, Cupertino has only paid less than 13% of the cost of all the new pedestrian and bike infrastructure built in the city, with grant funding and gifts paying the rest. This low percentage doesn’t even factor in the land donated for the Linda Vista Trail in 2019, which was worth at least $7M. If that land is included, the percentage would dip below 10%. The Planning Commission also requires significantly more staff resources (our tax dollars) for their meetings than Bike Ped Commission meetings. It’s irresponsible to make the residents pay more to be heard less.
Transportation does not belong under the purview of the PC.
3.The Bike Ped Commission supports Cupertino demographics. There are over 13,000 K– 12 students in CUSD, around 9,000 students in FUHSD high schools, and around 18,000 students at De Anza college. Cupertino residents 65 and older represent about 15% of our population — and rising. These are the people who need crosswalks that feel safe, bike lanes that are protected, and sidewalks that are complete. A dedicated Bike Ped Commission ensures that their needs aren’t pushed to the bottom of the agenda.
I hope that you take all these very important points into consideration and vote to choose Option 3 for Agenda item 22. I implore you to keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Sincerely,
Wei Lynn Eng
Cupertino Resident
From: JQ Shearin
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject: Agenda Item 22 — Support Option 3
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 10:55:52 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 City Councilmembers,
I am reaching out to urge you to preserve the current function of the Bike-Ped Commission. Having a commission dedicated to transportation, rather than splitting a commission which splits its time between planning/development codes and transport, is vital to the continued transportation health of our city. We need separate commissions with specialized experts for these two extremely large areas of action — it is simply not feasible to expect people to be highly informed about both transportation (including street use, traffic flow, safety, and many kinds of specialized infrastructure) and planning (including zoning, business concerns, building regulations, and much more).
Maintaining the current commission arrangement will result in a more livable city for everyone.
I ask that you support option 3 and preserve the current functioning of the Bike Ped Commission. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
JQ Shearin
From: Jim Meyerson
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Please keep the Bike-Pedestrian Commission (BPC) for Cupertino"s own good Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:27:48 AM
Attachments: FOSCT email logo.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.
Ms. Mayor and Distinguished Cupertino Council,
I am from the neighboring city of Sunnyvale where we have a healthy and progressive Bike and Pedestrian Commission ("BPAC" in local terms). Our BPAC has been a key focal point for discussions on traffic safety, safe passage to schools for youngsters, proper road signage, and creation and maintenance of trails. It is the primary contact point for non-motorized travel within Sunnyvale.
While I am not intimately familiar with Cupertino's BPC, I am sure it provides a similar function within your fine city. Cupertino has a large population of students through the CUSD schools and DeAnza College who deserve a dedicated forum for discussing safe nonmotorized travel in and through your city. Likewise for the many citizens throughout the South Bay who want a balanced transportation option. And it is my understanding that California state law requires a BPC or equivalent as a prerequisite for many grants and funding efforts. In short, the BPC as constructed today serves a worthwhile function that should be cherished, not abolished.
Best Regards,
Jim Meyerson
--
Jim Meyerson
Board Member, Friends of Stevens Creek Trail
[email protected]
http://www.stevenscreektrail.org/
From: Debbie Anderes
To: City Council
Cc: Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk
Subject: Cupertino City Bike Ped Commission
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:33:01 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 Cupertino City Council Members,
I just learned that the City Council is scheduled to decide on the fate of the Bike Pedestrian Commission at tonight's Council Meeting.
First of all, I am highly disappointed to find our City Council making such an important decision without more prior notice and outreach to the community. This is a decision that will have significant consequences and should be made with transparency and thoughtful input from all affected residents.
Primarily, I am very disturbed to learn that the City Council is even contemplating this move, given the deadly events that have occurred in the past and will almost certainly occur in the future if we do not prioritize the safety of our non-drivers. Disbanding the Bike Pedestrian Commission and moving the entire purview of traffic safety to the planning commission will effectively relegate the safety of our non-drivers to bureaucratic oblivion.
Our city has a long-standing commitment to walkability and rideability and it makes our city a desirable place to live. The Bike Pedestrian Commission has initiated many improvements that have benefitted drivers and non-drivers. This focus and all of the progress we have made will be lost if we do not continue to have a commission solely devoted to it.
Bike and pedestrian safety is a matter that requires constant vigilance and on-going development. The introduction of motorized bikes and scooters emphasizes the complexity of evolving threats to safety. As car and truck traffic continue to increase, our need to develop innovative solutions will demand focused determination.
This a test of our commitment to our most vulnerable, our children and seniors. These groups deserve to move about our city with confidence and independence. It is a matter of importance for drivers as well. As a careful driver, I am concerned that I could encounter a bike or pedestrian in an unsafe manner that results in tragedy. Efforts to protect nondrivers benefit everyone.
Cupertino is distinguished by its overall safety and livability as well as its progressive planning and management. The Bike Pedestrian Commission is the embodiment of our desire for a safe place for ourselves and our families. I urge the City Council to retain the independence of the Bike Pedestrian Commission.
With appreciation,
Deborah Anderes
Cupertino resident since 1992.
From: Connie Cunningham
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: 2025-9-16. CC Agenda Item 22 STUDY SESSION Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:35:15 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.
2025-9-16. CC Agenda Item 22 STUDY SESSION
Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters (Continued from September 3, 2025).
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and City Manager:
My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and, currently, Chair, Housing Commission, writing for myself only. I was pleased to read Mayor Chao’s Written Communication that she plans to move Agenda Item 22 to an earlier spot on the Agenda, and to allow all speakers who would like to speak to have 3 minutes.
I urge Council to choose Option 3 Continue with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight; rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”.
Option 3:Continuity of expertise and continuity on BPC for people who walk and ride bicycles: these are often youth, seniors, and others that do not drive for mobility reasons.
Any other Option will kill the purpose of the BPC which is to provide data and recommendations about traffic projects for the City Council.Seniors and students are specifically helped by having a Commission that understands their needs as bicyclists and pedestrians. Cupertino’s overarching goal for residents is safety! Traffic safety is a big need for our suburban, car-centric city. Bicyclists and pedestrians need this special commission to provide information and recommendations for Council consideration.
As a senior, and a frequent pedestrian, who also drives, it is clear that the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission plays a critical role in our city’s adaptation to safe streets.
Drivers are not always happy with these changes, although, as a driver, I am happy with them.I do not want to hit a pedestrian or bicyclist.I know that it would be a much worse collision for either, than it would be for my car.Cars are bigger and more powerful these days.Drivers are the same people as before their cars got bigger and more powerful.
Comments provided by the Staff Report bring up issues for Options 1, 2 and 4 that will complicate, and slow, the review of topics now considered under BPC. <!--[if !supportLists]-->A.<!--[endif]-->Option 1:Overlap and confusion of responsibilities; increase in staff resources
<!--[if !supportLists]-->B.<!--[endif]-->Option 2:BPC not having input on projects that affect bicycles & pedestrians if the projects also impact drivers.; increase in staff resources
<!--[if !supportLists]-->C.<!--[endif]-->Option 4: Loss of specialized bicycle and pedestrian advisory body; increase in staff resources, and impacts budget:loss of grant funding for transportation projects; loss estimated at $5,000 to $30,000 per project.
Mayor Chao’s comments about the Sep 8 Mayor’s meeting were helpful.I have attended other Mayor’s meetings.These meetings, also, included many residents with issues they cared about deeply. Mayor Chao listened and people were respectful of her leadership. The Sep 8 meeting she described sounds the same. I am deeply concerned that Chair Rao of the Planning Commission is making unfounded statements about that Sep 8 Mayor Meeting, and also, about a fellow Planning Commissioner.Unfounded accusations are beneath the dignity of any Commissioner. The Commissioner’s Handbook clearly states how Commissioners are supposed to conduct themselves, and their meetings. I assume this behavior is expected at other meetings they attend since they are seen as leaders in the community.
Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
From: Seema Lindskog
To: City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Cc: Info Walk Bike Cupertino
Subject: Agenda Item 22: Please Choose Option 3 - Keep the BPC Intact and rename it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:36:21 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.
City Clerk, please include this email as part of the written communication for this evening. _______________________________________________
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am a member of the city's Planning Commission, but I am writing today only as a resident of our city and the Chair of Walk Bike Cupertino.
On Agenda Item 22, I urge you to choose Option 3 - Keep the Bike Ped Commission's scope and authority intact and rename the commission the "Complete Streets Commission" or the "Transportation and Mobility Commission" to more accurately reflect its charter.
A transportation commission dedicated to and focused solely on creating safe streets for all residents is critical to the liveability of Cupertino. Every single resident uses our city streets every day. Our students, youth, and seniors walk, roll, and bike on our streets more than any other age groups. They are vulnerable minorities because most of them don't vote, so it is critical to have a commission whose sole focus is on their safety and whose commissioners are their voice to the council.
The Planning Commission has a huge role as well. It oversees all land use, zoning, special districts, housing law implementation, and sign ordinances. With all the rapid changes in housing laws coming from the state and the very aggressive housing mandate that Cupertino has to fulfill, the Planning Commission has a tough task in ensuring our city is able to maintain its quality of life, housing developments are integrated appropriately into residential neighborhoods, and housing developments are spread out evenly across all neighborhoods.
That is another vital part of the liveability of our city.
Nothing good will come of trying to combine these two huge goals into one commission. It will only ensure neither goal gets the focused attention it deserves.
The Bike Ped Commission meets once a month in a public setting. It is fully transparent and publicly accessible, especially with all commission meetings now going to a hybrid format.
Residents can and should engage with the commission to make sure their individual needs are being listened to and considered.
The MTC requires that in order to be eligible for grants, cities must have a dedicated Bike Ped Commission advising the council which is primarily composed of active and experienced pedestrians and cyclists who advocate for pedestrians and cyclists. Moving Transportation under the Planning Commission will put at risk tens of millions of dollars of potential grants. A steep cost to pay as a city for some perceived "efficiencies" that have not been substantiated or proven in any independent analysis. The staff report itself lists more cons than pros to anything but Option 3.
The Supplemental Report cites MTC staff as saying "In the interest of consistency, we would recommend following the TDA-3 supplemental guidance for the BPAC provisions of the Complete Streets Policy. Cupertino would need to demonstrate how a successor body contains the necessary pedestrian and bicyclist expertise and representation to review Complete Streets checklists and TDA3 projects. Without a specific proposal from Cupertino on how a successor body would satisfy the TDA-3 BPAC requirements, we are unable to advise further at this point in time but would be happy to sit down and discuss further with VTA and Cupertino. Lastly, I would emphasize that without a compliant BPAC or equivalent body, Cupertino would not be able to seek regional discretionary funding or TDA-3 funding for its projects. So it is advisable for Cupertino to discuss a proposal with MTC prior to implementing a change in order to fully consider the potential impacts of those changes.” This proposal was put forward without justification based on political ideology and perceived grievances. It has no rational benefits and creates significant negatives for the safety of residents and the fiscal health of the city. Please do the right thing and vote for Option 3 - Keep the Bike Ped Commission's scope and authority intact and rename the commission the "Complete Streets Commission" or the "Transportation and Mobility Commission" to more accurately reflect its charter.
Thanks,
Seema Lindskog
Chair of Walk Bike Cupertino
Cupertino Resident
___________________________________________________________________ "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: Balaram Donthi
To: Tina Kapoor; David Stillman; Chad Mosley; City Council; City Clerk Subject: Agenda Item# 22 Cupertino City council meeting Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:39:28 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 Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on Cupertino City Council Meeting, on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation projects.
The current structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not left to a narrow advisory body.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works. Cupertino should learn from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone.
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Balaram Donthi
From: Anand D"Souza
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Council Meeting Tonight: Bike Ped Commission
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:42:48 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 City Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to please choose Option 3 for Agenda Item 22 to be addressed at the council meeting this evening. Although I am unable to attend in person due to family obligations, I would like my voice to be heard. Here are my reasons for supporting a separate Bike Ped Transportation Commission from the Planning Committee.
1. My children bike to school. The Bike Ped Commission is central to their safety. They are responsible for a comprehensive approach to mobility that promotes safety, accessibility, and efficiency for everyone who uses the city’s roads. They address a complete range of transportation-related issues, including safe pedestrian, cyclist, and car driver traffic flows and much more. WIth the Bike Ped Commission, I know that deeper conversations about driving speeds, parking spaces, crosswalks, signal times, curb ramps, protected bike lanes, and Safe Routes to School will be prioritised.The Bike Ped Commission will consider all users of our streets including car drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, wheelchair users, children walking and biking to school, and seniors going to the grocery store.
2. The Bike Ped Commission is lower cost than the Planning Committee. Eighty-seven of all bike/ped projects in Cupertino are paid for by grant money!! Since 2018, Cupertino has only paid less than 13% of the cost of all the new pedestrian and bike infrastructure built in the city, with grant funding and gifts paying the rest. This low percentage doesn’t even factor in the land donated for the Linda Vista Trail in 2019, which was worth at least $7M. If that land is included, the percentage would dip below 10%. The Planning Commission also requires significantly more staff resources (our tax dollars) for their meetings than Bike Ped Commission meetings. It’s irresponsible to make the residents pay more to be heard less.
Transportation does not belong under the purview of the PC.
3.The Bike Ped Commission supports Cupertino demographics. There are over 13,000 K–12 students in CUSD, around 9,000 students in FUHSD high schools, and around 18,000 students at De Anza college. Cupertino residents 65 and older represent about 15% of our population — and rising. These are the people who need crosswalks that feel safe, bike lanes that are protected, and sidewalks that are complete. A dedicated Bike Ped Commission ensures that their needs aren’t pushed to the bottom of the agenda.
I hope that you take all these very important points into consideration and vote to choose Option 3 for Agenda item 22. I implore you to keep the BPC intact, and rename the Commission to the Transportation and Mobility Commission.
Sincerely,
Anand D'Souza
Cupertino Resident
From: Babu Srinivasan
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Request for Review and Dissolution of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:53:21 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 City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communication for the upcoming city council meeting today.
To: Cupertino City Council and City Manager
From: Babu Srinivasan Cupertino Resident
Date:16-sep-2025
Dear Councilmembers and City Staff,
I am writing to formally request a performance review and reconsideration of the continued role of the Cupertino Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. While I support thoughtful infrastructure planning and pedestrian safety, I believe this commission has become fiscally inefficient, duplicative in function, and increasingly misaligned with broader community needs.
Fiscal Accountability and Spending Transparency
To date, the commission has overseen or influenced spending on:
* Consultant contracts for traffic stress studies and origin-destination analysis * Outreach campaigns including pop-up events, signage, and comment processing * Infrastructure proposals that often conflict with vehicular flow and safety data I respectfully request a full itemized breakdown of public funds allocated to the commission since the launch of the Active Transportation Plan, including all studies, outreach efforts, and capital recommendations. Taxpayer dollars must be spent with measurable impact and clear justification.
Redundancy and Planning Overlap
The commission’s scope significantly overlaps with the Planning Commission, which already reviews transportation infrastructure, land use, and capital projects. Maintaining a separate body for bicycle and pedestrian issues creates inefficiency and dilutes accountability. A consolidated approach would streamline decision-making and better align with citywide priorities.
Community Impact and Policy Misalignment
Recent proposals—such as floating bus stops and lane reductions—have sparked widespread concern among residents. These projects often emerge from commission recommendations without sufficient vetting or alignment with actual safety data. Notably, there have been no publicly reported accidents caused by right turns on red along De Anza Boulevard in recent years, yet the commission continues to support restrictive policies that reduce traffic efficiency without demonstrable benefit.
Rather than blanket bans, I urge the city to invest in active safety enhancements—such as flashing crosswalk signals with audible alerts—to improve pedestrian visibility while preserving mobility.
Recommendation
I respectfully recommend the following actions:
1. Conduct a performance audit of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission’s spending, impact, and project outcomes
2. Consider consolidating its duties under the Planning Commission to reduce redundancy and improve oversight
3. Suspend further commission-led proposals until a full review is completed and community alignment is restored
Cupertino deserves infrastructure planning that is transparent, data-driven, and responsive to all residents—not just niche advocacy groups. I appreciate your attention to this matter and welcome further dialogue on how we can restore balance and fiscal discipline to our transportation planning process.
Sincerely,
Babu Srinivasan
From: louise saadati
To: City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject: Keep the Bike Ped Commission as a separate entity from the Planning Commission AND keep all transportation topics with the BPC
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:02:52 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.
Please include this email in the written communications for the Sept 16, 2025 City Council Meeting.
Regarding Item 22, I’m respectfully asking you to keep the Bike Ped Commission as a separate entity from the
Planning Commission AND keep all transportation topics
with the BPC. I support Option 3. Do not eviserate the
Bike Ped Commission by taking responsibilities from the Bike Ped Commission and transferring them to the
Planning Commission.
There are many important reasons for this including:
It is a requirement for grant funding and application for a city to have a separate Bike Ped Commission. Essentially all the surrounding cities have a separate Bike Ped
Commission. Since 2018 more than 87% of Cupertino Bike
Pedestrian Infrastructure has been from grants. Why
jeopardize our ability to receive grants for Bike Pedesteian Projects? The city council needs to be fiscally responsible.
The Planning Commission's mission is land planning. The Bike Ped Commission’s is safety for bicycle, pedestrian and vehicle safety. Safety should be a core issue with the city.
Please allow the most vulnerable, walkers and bikers
(which include children and seniors), to have their safety closely reviewed and protected by a separate Commission whose core mission is their safety.
The vast majority of the surrounding cities have a separate Bike Ped Commission. Why would Cupertino want to be
the only city who would rid itself of the Bike Ped
Commission? It sends a very poor signal to everyone of
the lack of importance this city council places on the safety of those who travel through our streets.
As the staff report states, folding the Bike Ped Commission into the Planning Commission will significantly increase the staff time. Staff time has been decreased because of our fiscal constraints. Please do not unnecessarily burden the staff with unnecessary responsibilities.
The council has received 2 letters with an identical copypasted call for “performance audit of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission’s spending, impact, and project
outcomes” …and to ”suspend any further Bike Ped
Commission recommendations until this is done”. This is an obvious ploy to obstruct and eviscerate the Bike Ped Commission and its ability to be effective. If this measure is applied to every commission, no progress nor action will be possible throughout all the city commissions .
I support renaming the “Bike Ped Commission” to “Mobility and Transportation Commission" which more aptly reflects its important mission.
Please Choose yes on Option 3 on Agenda 22. Show you
care and give a high priority to safety for everyone who travels on our roads by voting Yes on Option 3.
A stand alone Transportation Commission will:
1-allow for a commission focused on transportation
including pedestrians and bikers (not the Planning
Commission with all its vast and disparate responsibilities). 2-allow us to apply for grants and be in alignment with MTV/VTA, and Caltrans.
3-include the voices of our entire community including our seniors, students, bikers and pedestrians.
4-prioritise safe routes to schools.
Thank you,
Louise Saadati
39 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From: Cate Crockett
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Council Subject: City Council Meeting today AGENDA ITEM 22
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:11:15 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,
I urge you to continue to consider ALL members of the Cupertino community as is your charter.
Please choose OPTION 3 in order that the BPC can continue their work to meet the needs of both the current and future mobility needs of our city.
Thank you,
Cate Crockett
From: John G
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Retain the Bike Ped Commission, Support Option 3 for Agenda item 22 Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 12:46:24 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 Council Members,
I am a long time resident of Cupertino.
The BPC is working fine as is. There is no problem to solve by changing anything. Please just keep the status quo.
Cupertino already follows the best practices of most Bay Area cities in having a separate BPC.
Once again, there is no reason to change anything.
I have seen letters about eliminating BPC and none of them offer fact based reasons to make changes.
So please don't waste more time on this item and select Option 3 to retain BPC.
Thanks
John
John Geis
408-209-6970 mobile
[email protected]
From: Andrea Lund
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: Fwd: Please continue with BPC oversight
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:03:24 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 reiterate my support for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and urge the Council to adopt Option 3.
I was disappointed at how rushed deliberations were at the September 3 Council meeting and hope that the Council will grant proper time for public comment and discussion of this important issue at tonight’s meeting.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Andrea
Begin forwarded message:
From: Andrea Lund <[email protected]>
Date: September 3, 2025 at 9:27:30 AM PDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Please continue with BPC oversight
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: Jen Kwee
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject: BPC Independence
Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:27:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members,
As a resident of Cupertino for the last 15 years, I would like to express my strong desire to maintain an independent commission tasked with overseeing bicycle and pedestrian traffic. If combined under the purview of the Planning Commission, I believe that future plans and solutions put in place for "people moving" will inevitably be designed to benefit vehicular traffic above all else. Maintaining independence between the the BPC and the Planning Commission is the best way to ensure that all citizens (drivers, walkers, cyclists, bus riders, etc.) are properly accounted for and represented fairly in projects. It is also the only path that I see towards addressing traffic congestion, parking congestion, and traffic safety issues. Because if you don't provide residents with good, safe alternatives to driving, then you will not be able to get drivers off the road to make headway on congestion and accident prevention.
Thanks for you time and attention.
Jennifer Kwee
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]
From: Vanukuri Renuka
To: City Council
Cc: City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Regarding Agenda Item 22 of the Cupertino City Council meeting on September 16, 2025 Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 8:29:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao and Councilmembers,
I am writing regarding Agenda Item 22 on how Cupertino commissions should oversee transportation projects.
The current structure has failed our residents. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission was allowed to move projects forward with very little accountability, and the result was the loss of lanes on De Anza Boulevard. This caused frustration for drivers, longer travel times, and more congestion, especially for families and seniors who rely on cars.
Cupertino cannot afford more mistakes like this.
Transportation decisions that affect thousands of people every day must be reviewed by the Planning Commission, not left to a narrow advisory body.
Option 2 provides this necessary oversight. It makes sure that large-scale projects with citywide impact are reviewed in a broader planning context, not only from the perspective of a single group.
Other cities like Palo Alto and San Carlos have shown that this structure works. Cupertino should learn from them and restore balance to our process. Residents deserve a system that looks at the whole picture, not just bicycles and pedestrians, before making changes that affect everyone.
I strongly urge Council to adopt Option 2. Cupertino needs stronger oversight, accountability, and fair representation for all road users.
Sincerely,
Renuka Vanukuri
Cupertino Resident
From: Yuvaraj Athur Raghuvir
To: City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor Subject: Refocus on Cupertino City Transportation Needs Date: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 5:05:13 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the following as written comments for the 09/16/25 Council meeting, agenda item 19.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members, I strongly request that you remove agenda item 19 from the consent calendar and decline to approve the SCB corridor study. Cupertino should not remain involved in this project.
At the recent steering committee meeting, I observed that San Jose staff were in charge of the proceedings. Their approach raised real doubts about fairness and whether Cupertino’s interests are respected. Despite our Vice-Mayor clearly voicing opposition to Cupertino’s further participation, the committee still adopted a motion that now binds Cupertino as if we had agreed. This is deeply concerning. A decision taken by other agencies should not be forced upon our city when our representative opposed it.
In addition, I cannot understand why Cupertino’s limited transportation staff are spending time on this corridor study while urgent local needs remain unaddressed. Traffic congestion in neighborhoods like Regnart due to Tesselations School, and long-pending safety improvements such as the Phar Lap Drive crosswalk, continue to affect families. If staff have no time to prioritize these pressing issues, they should not be assigned to outside projects that work against Cupertino residents’ wishes.
I therefore urge the Council to:
1. Reject the SCB corridor study.
2. Withdraw Cupertino from the steering committee.
3. Direct that no further staff resources go into this effort.
Cupertino must decide its own path. Our city’s priorities should reflect the needs of our residents, not be dictated by outside agencies.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking action to protect Cupertino’s independence.
Respectfully,
Yuva Athur
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: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 4:11:13 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,
Resubmitting this for tonight, since the item is being continued today. Please support option 3 for item 22—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