CC 11-04-2025
Item #10
BBF Golf RFP
Supplemental Report
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
QUINLAN COMMUNITY CENTER
10185 NORTH STELLING ROAD • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3120
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #10
Subject
Award a contract to Professional Turf Management for maintenance services at Blackberry Farm Golf Course for a total not-to-exceed amount of $750,000 and approve a budget modification in the amount of $125,000.
Recommended Action
1. Award a three-year contract to Professional Turf Management to provide maintenance services at Blackberry Farm Golf Course in the amount not to exceed $250,000 per year, totaling $750,000;
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract with Professional Turf Management when all conditions have been met;
3. Authorize the City Manager to extend the contract for up to two additional years, at an annual amount not to exceed $250,000, for a five-year total not-to-exceed $1,250,000, provided pricing and services remain acceptable; and
4. Adopt Resolution No. 25-091, approving budget modification #2526-415, increasing appropriations by $125,000 in the Blackberry Farm Golf Course Fund funded from the Enterprise Fund.
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: Have there been irrigation system upgrades been made in recent years? Staff Response: No upgrades have been made, just patches when needed. In fiscal year 2020, there was a CIP project that included renovation of the irrigation system. That CIP was defunded to do a feasibility study in July 2021. The feasibility study resulted in keeping the golf course with minimal renovation. The Capital Improvement Programs fiscal year 2025-2026, adopted June 2025 shows BBF Golf Renovation:
minimal repairs taking place in fiscal year 2028-2029
(https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Public-Works/Capital-Improvement-Programs- Projects CIP books FY 2026, page 9)
Q2: Was the watering previously done by a manual process? Staff Response: Watering is a dual process. The irrigation system waters and then there is manual spot watering to ensure the grass is appropriate for play. During the rainy season, the contractor will take into consideration any rain received and self-water only, to save water. This has been the process for years.
Q3: Would the two bidders that were involved in the RFP process be included in the staff report?
Staff Response: Both bidding companies are mentioned in the staff report.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Attachment A - Draft Resolution
B. Attachment B – Draft Agreement
C. Attachment C – Request for Proposal
CC 11-04-2025
Item #11
Municipal Code
Amendments for
California Buildings
Standards Code and Fire
Code
Desk Item
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #11
Subject
Introduce an ordinance for Municipal Code Amendments to Title 16, Buildings and Construction, of the Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the California Buildings Standards Code and Fire Code, for consistency with Assembly Bill 130 and making local exceptions as mandated by the State of California.
Recommended Action
1. Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25 -XXX: “ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapters 16.02, 16.04, 16.06, 16.10,
16.16, 16.20, 16.24, 16.40, 16.42, 16.54, 16.58, 16.62, 16.64, 16.68 and 16.80 of Titl e 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Wildland-Urban Interface, Fire, Historical Building Code, Fire, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, Referenced Standards Code, Uniform Housing Code, and Property Maintenance Code with certain exceptions, deletions, modifications, additions and amendments”;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-2278 making factual findings with respect to the local geological, topographical, and climatic conditions necessary to make local amendments to the California Building Standards Code.
3. Find the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: The staff report states "The 2025 Green Buildings Standards Code and 2025 Energy Code supports Cupertino’s sustainability strategy by increasing requirements in several key areas. For example, electric heat pumps are now the preferred form of space
conditioning statewide in the 2025 Energy Code. Another example is a new requirement that requires the installation of additional electric vehicle infrastructure and chargers for residential projects."
Q1-1: Could you please list all of the "increased requirements" in "several key areas"?
Staff response: (State and Local Amendments). A complete list of all updates made by the State to the CalGreen and Energy Codes can be found at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/-/media/Divisions/BSC/05- Resources/Guidebooks/2025-Title-24-CA-Code-Changes---New-07-25.pdf Below is a list of five examples of changes made to the Energy code for clarification. City of Cupertino has also maintained one electrical make ready amendment for the installation of future heating appliances in non-residential uses.
2025 CA Energy Code
1. Heat Pumps as the New Standard for Single-Family Homes. The 2025 Energy Code establishes a significant new baseline for home construction, moving away from natural gas. The standard design for new single-family homes now requires electric heat pumps for both space heating/cooling and water heating. This change is a major step towards the state's building decarbonization and electrification goals.
2. Expanded Electrification and Central Heat Pump Water Heaters in Multifamily. For new multifamily buildings, the code now requires central heat pump water heating systems when following the prescriptive path. It also mandates that all-electric multifamily buildings include "demand flexible" controls for water heating and have dedicated circuits for future battery storage systems, enhancing grid integration.
3. New Requirements for Controlled Environment Horticulture (CEH). Addressing the growing and energy-intensive indoor agriculture industry, the code introduces a new, dedicated section for Controlled Environment Horticulture. This includes mandatory requirements for horticultural lighting, dehumidification systems, and controls to improve the energy efficiency of these facilities.
4. Enhanced Grid Integration and Demand Response. Across all building types, there is a stronger focus on "grid integration." This includes new requirements for battery storage readiness, automated demand response (ADR) capabilities for HVAC and lighting systems, and controls that allow buildings to intelligently manage their energy use to support the stability of the electrical grid.
5. Introduction of a Prescriptive Path for Nonresidential Lighting. The 2025 code introduces a new, simplified prescriptive path for nonresidential lighting alterations. This provides an alternative to the more complex performance or power density allowance methods, making it easier for smaller projects to comply with lighting efficiency standards.
Q1-2: Does the requirement for "installation of additional electric vehicle infrastructure and chargers" apply to all residential projects, including single-family homes?
Staff response: These amendments apply to all residential projects, including single-family residences.
The update specifies the installation of a complete branch circuit ready for installation of outlet/charger in-lieu of the previous municipal code that only required the installation of the raceway.
Q1-3: Does the same requirements apply to commercial projects with parking lots?
Staff response: (State Amendment). The electrical vehicle charging requirements for commercial projects can be found in a separate code section (5.106.5) within the 2025 CalGreen code which has become more restrictive than the currently adopted amendments. The new code requires the installation of chargers, not just providing the infrastructure for future installations.
Q2: The staff report states "Therefore, mitigation measures are necessary such as: automatic fire suppression systems, communications systems, access to buildings, seismic protection, safety controls for hazardous materials and other safeguards to minimize the risks to citizens, firefighters and property due to the severity of the fire threat and potential response delays."
Q2-1: Could you please provide the specific list of changes made to the Fire Code, especially on the increased requirements? List them separately for those in the "Fire Hazard Severity Zone or Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Area" and those outside such zone.
Staff response: (Local Amendments). The proposed amendments to the 2025 Fire Code are not impacted by the separate Wildland-Urban Interface requirements presented in the new part 7 of the Title 24 California Codes and Regulations. Once a response from SCCFD has been received staff will forward to City Council.
Q2-2: Please provide a map of the "Fire Hazard Severity Zone or WUI Fire Area".
Staff response: The updated map was adopted under Ordinance 25-2272. Please see below:
Q2-3: Could you please provide a ballpark estimate in terms of the cost for a typical single- family home for the increased requirements? List them separately for those in the Fire Hazard Severity Zone or WUI" and those outside.
Staff response: (State Amendment). This was a discussion topic during the adoption of the new local responsibility maps and can be provided by the State Fire Marshal.
Q3: Please confirm or clarify whether the "impacts" stated in Santosh Rao's comment (enclosed) is the true impact of the Building Code once adopted. If it is, please identify whether the corresponding code change is required by the State Law or a local restriction. Here is the list of "impacts" from Santosh's comment.
1. Digital Plan Submittals and Design Professional Requirement Impact: All plans must be digital and often stamped by a licensed design professional, even for modest remodels.
Resident-Friendly Alternative: Permit paper or simple digital submittals for projects under $50,000 without requiring professional stamps unless structural work is proposed.
Staff response: (State Requirement). The Business and Professions code allows unlicensed individuals/property owners to prepare their own plans for residential projects. But when the design cannot comply with the structural prescriptive provisions provided in the Residential Code, then a licensed professional is required to design and stamp the plan set.
2. Expanded Inspection
Impact: Added inspections (moisture, energy, fire) and exposure requirements increase cost and delay.
Alternative: Streamline inspections for remodels under 1,000 sq ft and allow certified third- party inspectors for small residential projects.
Staff response: (State Requirement). Additional inspections can typically be accommodated concurrently while performing other inspections. These inspections were already being performed per industry standard. The addition of these inspections is for clarity to provide a more detailed list of required inspections. Streamlined inspections can be accommodated through consultants if desired.
3. Roofing Replacement Mandate
Impact: Replacing more than 50% of a roof within a year triggers full replacement with Class A fire-retardant material—an expensive requirement even outside wildfire zones.
Resident-Friendly Alternative: Exempt Cupertino homes from the Class A mandate. Residents should retain flexibility to use Class B or C roofing materials that meet State fire standards to avoid unnecessary cost burdens.
Staff response: (Local Amendment). The proposed amendment aligns with neighboring cities in the county such as Saratoga, Los Altos, Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno.
4. Fireplace Chimney Retrofits
Impact: Any remodel exceeding $1,000 requires installing spark arrestors, even when work is unrelated to the fireplace.
Alternative: Exempt this entirely for remodels.
Staff response: (Local Amendment). Chimneys serving fireplaces or appliances that burn solid fuel, such as wood, can eject hot sparks and embers along with smoke. These embers can easily ignite roofing materials, nearby trees, dry grass, or accumulated debris such as leaves in a gutter. The intent is to provide fire safety for the structure and adjacent structures. Currently, state regulations do not allow the construction of wood burning fireplaces.
5. Pool Safety Retrofits
Impact: Existing pools must add alarms or barriers when any home remodel triggers a permit Alternative: Require new pool-safety devices only for new or substantially renovated pools, not for unrelated home work.
Staff response: (State Amendment). The adopted amendment is to revise the Cupertino Municipal Code to match the updated state requirements. The installation of safety barriers is only required when a building permit is issued for the construction of a new swimming pool or spa or the remodeling of an existing swimming pool or spa at a private single-family home. This is not required when remodeling the residential structure.
6. Green Building Certification and Deposits
Impact: Remodels must now include CALGreen checklists, certification, and refundable deposits forfeited if paperwork is late.
Alternative: Exempt this entirely.
Staff response: (State Amendment/Requirements). The City of Cupertino has developed a CalGreen Checklist to assist the contractors with compliance and self-certification to show compliance to the state requirements within this adopted code book. A deposit is not currently required for the self-certification.
The CalGreen requirements only apply to remodels that increase the structures’ conditioned area, volume, or size. A deposit may be necessary when a larger project is required to meet applicable environmental standards and a third-party is needed to provide the verification during the planning permit process.
7. Seismic Design Restrictions
Impact: The draft bans several standard wall-bracing methods, requiring costlier engineered alternatives.
Alternative: Permit standard bracing methods allowed under the California Residential Code for small remodels and additions.
Staff response: (Local Amendments). The proposed amendment addresses the problem of poor performance of materials such as gypsum wallboard and Portland cement plaster as wall bracing materials in high seismic areas. This amendment reflects the recommendations by the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEACSC) and the Los Angeles City Joint Task Force that investigated the poor performance of these bracing materials that were observed in the 1994 Northridge earthquake.
8. Added Fees and Re-Inspection Charges
Impact: New re-inspection fees and green deposits raise overall project costs.
Alternative: Waive correction fees and remove deposits for single-family remodels.
Staff response: The permit fees are addressed in the adoption of the fee schedule. This is separate from the adoption of the state-mandated codes. The Building Division does not collect deposits and re-inspection fees will be reassessed if city resources are not utilized appropriately with premature scheduling of inspections when work has not been completed to minimum code requirements.
Q4: The staff report states "The local Tri-chapter Uniform Code Committee (TUCC) is made up of local Building Officials serving communities in the East Bay (East Bay Chapter),... and takes on the responsibility to review and amend the model codes to enhance regional consistency in application and enforcement of the adopted codes. The committee develops standardized codes, interpretations and local amendments to maintain consistency from one jurisdiction to another." What exactly was the TUCC recommendation? Please include the documents from TUCC to explain their deliberation process to develop "standardized codes, interpretations and local amendments".
What exactly was the TUCC recommendation? Please include the documents from TUCC to explain their deliberation process to develop "standardized codes, interpretations and local amendments".
Staff response: The TUCC's authority is advisory and informal. It is a collaborative working group of subject-matter experts such as Building Officials from various jurisdictions acting in their professional capacity. TUCC has no legal authority to set policy for the City of Cupertino. The City Council is in no way bound by TUCC's recommendations. The recommendations serve as a technical resource for City staff. Staff reviews the TUCC proposals, evaluates their applicability to Cupertino, and then formulates its own independent recommendation, which is then formally presented to the City Council for consideration. The ultimate authority to adopt any code ordinance rests solely with the City Council through its own public process.
Q5: I looked up TUCC (https://eastbayicc.org/TUCC) and they do not seem to follow the Brown Act, the open meeting law, and the last minutes posted is from June 2024. The page does not contain any meeting information for 2025. What is the authority for TUCC to make recommendations to the city council when the recommendations are created in closed meetings? Does this violate the Brown Act?
Staff response: The TUCC is only an advisory committee to discuss and help local building officials and staff interpret certain code sections for clarity. It is not a Brown Act body.
Q6: Received questions from Vice Mayor about revising/expanding Section 113 for the establishment of an Appeals Board and adding Section 104.1.1 to allow City Council to adopt resolutions and policies to clarify the implementation of Title 16.
Staff response: Initial review of these proposed amendments does not raise any concerns. The purpose of the agendized meeting is to adopt the state mandated codes to meet the required timelines for adoption and enforcement. Any input received from the review of this ordinance by the City Council will be considered. A future study session to further discuss and address suggestions/concerns will be arranged.
CC 11-04-2025
Item #11
Municipal Code
Amendments for
California Buildings
Standards Code and
Fire Code
Supplemental Report
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #11
Subject: Introduce an ordinance for Municipal Code Amendments to Title 16, Buildings and Construction, of the Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the California Buildings Standards Code and Fire Code, for consistency with Assembly Bill 130 and making local exceptions as mandated by the State of California Recommended Action: 1. Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25 -2278: “ An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapters
16.02, 16.04, 16.06, 16.10, 16.16, 16.20, 16.24, 16.40, 16.42, 16.54, 16.58, 16.62, 16.64, 16.68 and 16.80 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Wildland-Urban Interface, Fire, Historical Building Code, Fire, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, Referenced Standards Code, Uniform Housing Code, and Property Maintenance Code with certain exceptions, deletions, modifications, additions and amendments”;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-092 making factual findings with respect to the local geological, topographical, and climatic conditions necessary to make local amendments to the California Building Standards Code.
3. Find the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.
Background:
An updated staff report has been prepared to provide additional clarification and detail.
The revised report, provided as Attachment D, supersedes the previously published staff report.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code – Redline B. Draft Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code – Clean C. Draft Resolution including Justification and Findings for Local Amendments
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
D. Updated Staff Report.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
November 4, 2025
Subject
Amendment to Title 16, Buildings and Construction, of the Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the California Building Standards Code and Fire Code and making local amendments as mandated by the State of California.
Recommended Action
1. Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25 -XXX: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Chapters 16.02, 16.04, 16.06, 16.10, 16.16, 16.20, 16.24,
16.40, 16.42, 16.54, 16.58, 16.62, 16.64, 16.68 and 16.80 of Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code adopting the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Wildland-Urban Interface, Fire, Historical Building Code, Fire, Existing Building Code, Green Building Standards Code, Referenced Standards Code , Uniform Housing Code, and Property Maintenance Code with certain exceptions, deletions, modifications, additions and amendments”;
2. Adopt Resolution No. 25-XXX making factual findings with respect to the local geological, topographical, and climatic conditions necessary to make local amendments to the California Building Standards Code.
3. Find the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.
Background
The Building Standards Commission (BSC) mandates the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, also referred to as the California Building Standards Code be adopted by local jurisdictions.
The California Building Standards Code is published in its entirety every three years by order of the California legislature, with supplements published in intervening years. The local Tri-chapter Uniform Code Committee (TUCC) is made up of local Building Officials serving communities in the East Bay (East Bay Chapter), communities along the peninsula from as far north as San Francisco and as far south as Gilroy (Peninsula Chapter) and communities serving the Monterey County area (Monterey Chapter) and takes on the responsibility to review and amend the model codes to enhance regional consistency in application and enforcement of the adopted codes. The committee develops standardized codes, interpretations and local amendments to maintain consistency from one jurisdiction to another.
Reason for Recommendation and Available Options
The State of California allows local municipalities to modify the state adopted building standards to make them more restrictive (not less), provided certain findings are made that the proposed modifications are necessary due to special local climatic, geological or topographical condi tions that can affect the health, welfare and safety of local residents. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code 17958, 18941.5 and 13869, Administrative standards do not require a justification or findings to justify proposed amendments. Building Standards, including Green Building Standards, must be justified on the basis of one or more local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.
Justifications following the table of amendments to Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code discuss reasons and just ifications for each amendment. Each amendment is identified by the Section number used in the proposed Ordinance. The Building and Fire codes were made available to the public in the City Clerk's office prior to the adoption of this ordinance as required by law.
Local Amendments:
California’s Health and Safety Code (HSC) requires local jurisdictions to adopt the California Building Standards Code for local enforcement with 180 days after Title -24, California Code of Regulations (C.C.R.) is published. In adopting Title-24 for local enforcement, the jurisdiction may amend the standards if such amendments are necessary to address a local geologic, topographic or climatic condition. Cupertino has worked with other local jurisdictions in the Bay Area to ensure consistency among amendments as part of the TUCC. The Local Amendments included in the code adoption package that are recommended to be adopted by City Council are more stringent than the State Codes and are identified in Exhibit A of the “Matrix Table for Justification and Findings for Local Amendments”.
Below is a summary of the significant changes to our ordinance:
• The Ordinance reflects the state mandated adoption of the 2025 edition of the California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Wildland-Urban Interface, Historical Building, Fire, Existing Building, Referenced Standards and Green Building Standards codes by a single ordinance.
• The Fire Protection and Life Safety System requirements of Section 903.2 for both the Building and Fire codes have been updated to better define when fire sprinkler protection systems are required.
• The administrative portion of the code has been re-organized and cleaned up in the 2025 California Code of Regulations. Revised the ordinance to match. • The Wildland-Urban Interface requirements that used to be sections within the Residential and Building Codes has been relocated into Part 7 of the California Code of Regulations – Title 24.
• This ordinance updates the Cupertino Municipal Code to align with the 2025 California Energy Code. The 2025 Energy Code now includes electrical "make-ready" provisions that are functionally equivalent to those the City adopted via Ordinance No. 2265. Consequently, the majority of the City's local amendments are now redundant with the state baseline. The proposed amendments therefore repeal these duplicative sections to ensure consistency with state law while retaining a single, critical local amendment in Section 16.54.020. This provision preserves the City's existing "make-ready" requirements for non-residential occupancies, which remain more stringent than the state code.
Building Code Statement of Findings:
Amendments to the 202 5 California Code of Regulations are reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, due to the local climatic, geologic or topographical conditions specified as follows:
The Bay Area region is a densely populated area having buildings constructed over and near a vast array of fault systems capable of producing major earthquakes, including but not limited to the recent 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Seismically, Cupertino is si tuated adjacent to active earthquake faults capable of producing substantial seismic events. The City has the San Andreas and Sargent-Berocal faults running through the lower foothills and the Monta Vista fault system closer to the valley floor area. The Hayward fault is just northeast of the City which would have a major effect upon the City if it were to rupture. Adding to this threat, the number of vehicles driven in Cupertino is steadily increasing with commuters driving to and through the City either to their homes, shopping and/or places of employment. Since the City is divided by major freeways and expressways, the occurrence of a major earthquake would significantly impact the ability of fire crews to respond to emergencies should one or more freeway/expressway bridges collapse or be substantially damaged.
Some of the amendments include structural provisions of the code that were reviewed and recommended by the TUCC. These proposed amendments are necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, due to the local climatic, geologic or topographical conditions.
Fire Code Statement of Findings:
Amendments to the 2025 California Fire Code are reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, due to the local climatic, geologic or topographical conditions specified as follows:
The City of Cupertino experiences low humidity, high winds and warm temperatures during the summer months, creating conditions which are particularly conducive to the ignition and spread of grass, brush and structure fires. Additionally, the City is geogra phically situated adjacent to active earthquake faults capable of producing substantial seismic events. Since the City is divided by an active Union Pacific railway service line (freight), creeks, highways, and other substantial traffic corridors, the occu rrence of a major earthquake would significantly impact the ability of fire crews to respond to emergencies should one or more bridges collapse or be substantially damaged. In addition, fire suppression capabilities would be severely limited should the wat er system be extensively damaged during the seismic event. Therefore, mitigation measures are necessary such as: automatic fire suppression systems, communications systems, access to buildings, seismic protection, safety controls for hazardous materials an d other safeguards to minimize the risks to citizens, firefighters and property due to the severity of the fire threat and potential response delays.
The local Fire Code amendments to the California Fire Code provided by Santa Clara County were developed by the Santa Clara County Fire Marshals Association and endorsed by the Santa Clara County Fire Chiefs Association. The intent is to have consistency in the application of codes related to fire safety. The amendments have been provided to all cities within the Santa Clara County Fire Department jurisdiction, as well as surrounding County jurisdictions, to be included in their respective code adoption package for consistency of enforcement.
Assembly Bill No. 130
As part of the recent state budget, Assembly Bill 130 was enacted, introducing significant new limitations on the ability of local jurisdictions to amend the California Building Standards Code (Title 24). This legislation is intended to promote greater uniformity in building standards across California to address statewide goals.
Effective immediately and extending until June 1, 2031, this legislation prohibits cities and counties from modifying state building standards except under very specific and narrowly defined circumstances. This represents a substantial shift from the historical authority granted to local governments. Previously, jurisdictions like the City of Cupertino could adopt more restrictive amendments after making express findings that they were reasonably necessary due to unique local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
Under the new framework established by AB 130, the City’s ability to amend state building standards is now limited to the following exceptions:
• Changes deemed necessary for editorial or clarity reasons. • Certain technical updates to existing local code requirements. • The adoption of emergency building standards.
• Specific amendments authorized by the State Fire Marshal. • Certain other necessary building standards and related state amendments. • Modifications to administrative practices.
• Standards necessary to incorporate minimum federal accessibility requirements.
Considering this legislation, staff has reviewed all proposed local amendments in this code adoption package to ensure they are consistent with the permissible exceptions under AB 130.
While this new law constrains the City’s flexibility to address unique local conditions through the building code, staff remains committed to upholding the highest standards of safety and public welfare within the legal framework established by the state. We will continue to monitor legislative developments and engage with state partners on this important issue.
Effective Date of Code Adoption:
July 1, 2025, the BSC published the 2025 edition of the California Building Standards Code. The 2025 California Building, Residential, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Energy, Fire, Wildland- Urban Interface Code, Historical Building Code, Existing Building Code, Referenced Standards Code, and Green Building Standards Codes as mandated by the State of California will become effective on January 1st, 2026. Plans submitted after January 1st, 2026, will be required to comply with the new 2025 California Codes along with the local adopted amendments.
Sustainability Impact
The 202 5 Green Buildings Standards Code and 202 5 Energy Code supports Cupertino’s sustainability strategy by increasing requirements in several key areas. For example, electric heat pumps are now the preferred form of space conditioning statewide in the 202 5 Energy Code.
Another example is a new requirement for the installation of additional electric vehicle infrastructure and chargers for residential projects. These statewide changes, in addition to Cupertino’s locally adopted green building provisions, are important tools to implement the Climate Action Plan 2.0.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
City Work Program Item/Description
None.
Council Goal
Quality of Life, Environmental Sustainability
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Sean Hatch, Building Official
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments:
A – Draft Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code – Redline B – Draft Ordinance amending Title 16 of the Cupertino Municipal Code - Clean C – Draft Resolution including Justification and Findings for Local Amendments
CC 11-04-2025
Item #12
Municipal Code
Amendments to
Regulate Film Production
Desk Item
1 CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #12
Subject
Introduce Ordinance No. 25-XXX: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title Five (Business Licenses and Regulations) to Establish Chapter 5.51 to Regulate Film Production.”
Recommended Action
Conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 25-XXX: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title Five (Business Licenses and Regulations) to Establish Chapter 5.51 to Regulate Film Production.”
Staff’s responses to questions received from Councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: Initially, I understood the filming permit to apply only to filming activities on City property. However, the draft ordinance states: "All residents and merchants within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the film location must receive notice of filming at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the first day of filming. "Does this mean any public street or public right-of-way can be permitted for filming under this ordinance? Would private homes that are visible from these public areas potentially be filmed with only 48 hours’ notice?
Staff response: Without an ordinance, a film production company can film along public city streets. With this proposed ordinance, they must first inform the City of where they plan to film, apply for and pay for a permit, abide by the City’s rules, and provide notice to residents. A City can further limit filming in various ways, but there are certain First Amendment protections for filming, so the City’s ordinance must be careful not to overly regulate. The ordinance, as proposed, does not test those boundaries. If the City desires to impose much stricter regulations, research into such First Amendment limits will be required. The ordinance presented is similar to ordinances passed by other cities.
Q2: What is the appeal or objection process for residents who receive a 48-hour notice?
2 Will the City be able to process and respond to such appeals in a timely manner?
Staff response: Without an ordinance, residents’ and the City’s ability to limit or stop the filming process is limited, unless the film production company actually trespasses on private property.
With an effective ordinance in place, the film production company must follow the rules of the ordinance. Once a permit has been issued by the City, there is no appeal process.
Q3: During active filming, who should residents contact in case of issues such as noise complaints or disruptive lighting at night?
Staff response: Filming late at night will not be permitted. Residents would need to submit a complaint via 311 in case of any unpermitted activity.
Q4: Would filming crews be allowed to film on any residential block from a public sidewalk with a permit? If private homes appear in the frame, are permissions from the homeowners required?
Staff response: A homeowner may not prevent the filming of their home as seen from the public right-of-way if the home is visible from the street. No permission is needed from the homeowner.
Q5: What happens if a homeowner objects to any part of their home being filmed, even if the filming is done from a public right-of-way?
Staff Response: Although the homeowner likely would not have the right to object, they may contact the production company to explore solutions. For instance, occasionally the production company will compensate private homeowners to ease the situation.
Q6: If a homeowner feels their privacy is violated—for example, if interior rooms are visible through open windows—what liability, if any, does the City assume in such cases?
Staff Response: The City would not be liable in this instance.
Q7: What about filming involving helicopters, drones, or any aerial vehicles or devices?
Staff response: This is addressed in the ordinance and would require the applicant to provide higher insurance coverage and follow any applicable federal, state, and local laws, including regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.
Q8: Realtors currently already use drones to make films, with the permission of a homeowner, I assume. Would that be exempt from getting a permit?
Staff response: Yes - such filming is entirely on private property.
Q9: The ordinance states "Filming Hours. The hours for filming are 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 3 Filming activities occurring outside the designated hours require signature approval by eighty (80) percent of residents and businesses within a three hundred (300) foot radius."
What's the rationale to allow filming into 10pm at night? Especially when the inside of lighted residential homes are more visible at night.
Staff Response: This is standard language. The City can reduce these hours if 10pm is deemed by Council to be too late. Without an ordinance, there are minimal limits to such filming within the City. The ordinance may need further tailoring but having one gives the City authority over such filming.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A – Draft Ordinance
Attachments Provided with Desk Item:
None
CC 11-04-2025
Item #13
Active Transportation
Plan
Desk Item
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DESK ITEM
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #13
Subject
Update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase 1 activities and an overview of what to expect during Phase 2
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria
Staff’s responses to questions received from council members are shown in italics.
Q1: Provide a summary of the Commission feedback on the Active Transportation Plan Phase 1 work and Phase 2 draft project prioritization criteria.
Staff response: On August 20, 2025, The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received a presentation summarizing Phase 1 work and introducing Phase 2 with a focused discussion to provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria. The commissioners provided the following feedback and recommendations:
• Emphasis was placed on considering road maintenance before approving new projects, along with the importance of balancing both positive and negative public feedback.
• There was strong support for prioritizing safety, particularly for cyclists, pedestrians, seniors, and disabled individuals, with extra points suggested for projects near schools and along high-injury corridors.
• Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data rather than emotions, and to avoid penalizing projects that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to City Council.
• The evolving nature of the city was acknowledged, with a push to ensure plans
address both current and future needs, particularly in growing residential areas. • Concerns were raised about including public dislikes and emotional comments in the evaluation process, and it was suggested they be treated cautiously. • A comprehensive, citywide vision for active transportation was encouraged, rather than treating projects in isolation.
• Recommendations included identifying a few key focus areas—like school access or pedestrian safety—for the next 5–10 years, supported by clear implementation packages and measurable outcomes.
• Speed reduction on streets beyond main corridors was advocated, with support for non-barrier bike lanes and solutions that slow vehicles without removing car lanes. • Staff were asked to return with a list of top projects and a structured plan highlighting three or four main priorities to guide the commission’s work moving forward.
On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation summarizing Phase 1 work and introducing Phase 2 with a focused discussion to provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria. The commission passed a motion with the following recommendations:
Modify the scoring criteria as follows:
• Access Criteria: change the school proximity score to “Fifteen points if within one- half mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the Senior Center” to the metric definition of “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity.” For pedestrians.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability: name to “Connectivity.” Add ten points if it’s within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress facility like Class IV bike lanes, making the total maximum score for this section twenty points instead of ten points.
• Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure. Subtract five points if removal of a substantial number (five or more) of regularly used parking spaces (used fifty-one percent or more of the time). Subtract fifteen points if it eliminates a care lane for a substantial (ten percent or more) portion of the project length. • Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is not an objective, measurable measure of the positive or negative impact of a project and will lead to an escalating arms race of competing public comments and create more divisiveness and animosity within the community.
• Additional Project Recommendations: Add a project to make the most high-injury network intersections with red lights and stop signs safer using tools such as red light and speeding cameras. Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology where necessary. Conduct a bike count of existing usage as a baseline on major proposed bike projects. Partner with bicycle education providers (in addition to SVBC) to offer routine adult and child education courses in Cupertino.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Project Prioritization Criteria
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B. Phase 1 Public Participation Summary
Attachments Provided with Desk Item:
N/A
CC 11-04-2025
Item #13
Active Transportation Plan
Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #13
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase 1 activities and an overview of what to expect during Phase 2.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria.
Background:
Staff received requests to attach the Phase 1 survey results to the Active Transportation Plan Update agenda item. Attachment B (attached hereto) provides the Phase 1 Public Participation Summary. The online survey results can be found starting on page 31 of the memo.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Project Prioritization Criteria
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B. Phase 1 Public Participation Summary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Cupertino
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino From: Christopher Kidd and George Foster, Alta Planning + Design Date: July 11, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Phase 1 Public Participation Summary Introduction
Phase 1 of the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) involved a range of engagement activities throughout the spring of 2025. Outreach activities were structured to reduce barriers for Cupertino’s residents and visitors by bringing engagement to them, with central community meetings, virtual engagement, and nine pop-ups at existing community gatherings. In-person outreach was supported by two online community meetings, a project website, an interactive web map, an online survey, lawn signs, banners, and A-frames distributed throughout Cupertino, as well as regular online communications through various City channels. Summaries of key outreach initiatives are provided in this memo.
The first phase of public outreach ran from March 19 through June 5, 2025. This phase consisted of 12 events, engaging over 1,300 residents and soliciting almost 3,000 comments from the public. This input will be used to directly inform network recommendations for the ATP, which will be shared with the public in the fall of 2025.
Summary of Engagement
Event/Input Type Number of Events Participants Total Comments/Interactions Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 1 12 34
Pop-up events 9 406 274
Community workshops 2 59 146
Interactive webmap -- 618 2,268
Online survey -- 240 240
Emails -- 26 25
Total 12 1,361 2,987
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Cupertino
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from public outreach:
Desire for Connected Networks – We heard that major barriers, like Highway 85 or De Anza Boulevard, act as a deterrent to taking more trips by walking and biking. While much of Cupertino has good networks for walking and biking, these barriers hold people back from walking and biking more often.
Focus on Pedestrian Improvements – Many residents feel like the City has, in recent years, prioritized bicycle-focused projects. New projects should first ensure that pedestrian needs are being met.
Safety and Accessibility Lead the Way – When asked to prioritize six different plan goals, residents overwhelmingly chose Safety and Accessibility. Projects should reflect and advance these priorities.
Focus Improvements near Schools –Many residents felt that projects should focus on safety and accessibility for school trips and other destinations that youth want to reach in their daily lives.
Full-Community Engagement – Outreach needs to reflect the full range of voices and opinions in Cupertino. The voices of people who disagree with active transportation projects are just as important as those who support them.
Concern About Tradeoffs – Many residents are concerned about the impacts on parking and traffic from transportation projects, as well as planned and in-development housing projects.
Don’t Just Build, Maintain – Many residents expressed concerns with the maintenance of separated bikeways once they are built, citing the buildup of debris, fallen leaves, and resident trash cans.
Track Progress – Residents expressed a desire for the City to more comprehensively monitor the effectiveness of new projects, tracking changes in safety, utilization, and other metrics of success.
Phase 1 Outreach Materials
The first phase of outreach for the Cupertino ATP included the following outreach and engagement materials:
• A set of seven poster boards, used during pop-up and workshop events. These boards included:
o Three maps of Cupertino, two of which zoomed in on the eastern and western halves of the city. o One board introducing the project's purpose and displaying the project schedule. o Two boards showing visual examples of different bicycle and pedestrian projects. o One board soliciting input from the public on the goals of the plan process. • A project website, hosting an interactive webmap (+optional survey), and a separate survey:
o The interactive webmap solicited input on routes people like, destinations they want to reach, barriers they experience to walking and biking, and areas where they may have concerns about potential congestion impacts or parking loss from bike projects. The webmap also included an optional survey for users to rank plan goals.
o The survey, developed by City of Cupertino staff, asked residents about their travel choices and desire for different types of bicycle and pedestrian projects.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Cupertino
Figure 1: Poster board for input on routes, gaps, and areas of concern
Figure 2: Poster board for input on plans goals
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Cupertino
Summary of Promotion
The City of Cupertino began promotion for the first phase of public outreach with the launch of the project website on March 19. Promotion included:
• City emails to project mailing lists
• City posts to Nextdoor, Facebook, Gov Delivery, and Items of Interest • The installation of lawn signs, banners, and A-Frames throughout the City promoting the project • Circulation of project notices with community groups, schools, and Safe Routes to School networks Summary of Print Promotion
A total of 36 signs were installed across the City, consisting of 3 A-frames, 6 banners, and 25 lawn signs (Figure 3). The signs were placed to provide geographic coverage and maximize visibility for motorists, visitors to popular City facilities, YMCA patrons, and trail users (locations shown in Figure 4). Roadway signs were located to provide visibility to drivers traveling in all directions, engaging individuals who may not otherwise visit City facilities or receive traditional communications.
Figure 3. Promotional Signs and Banners
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Cupertino
Figure 4. Location of Promotional Yard Signs and Banners Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Cupertino
Summary of Public Input
The Cupertino ATP sought three types of public input throughout the first phase:
• Map-based input on destination, barriers, and routes – this was collected through outreach board exercises and an online webmap.
• Priorities and feedback for six different plan goals – this was collected through outreach board exercises and a ranking exercise on the online webmap.
• Travel choices and preferences for different types of projects – this was collected through a City-developed survey and added to the project website.
Summary of Map Input
At all pop-up and workshop events, residents were asked to identify locations on maps for the following information:
• Routes where they currently walk or bike
• Destinations in Cupertino that they would like to reach by walking or biking • Barriers or gaps in the network that currently make walking or biking difficult • Areas of concern for potential impacts on congestion or parking availability The project website also hosted an online webmap where residents could similarly provide input on the four options listed above. The webmap also allowed users to view the input of other residents, comment on other users’ input, or like/dislike other users’ input. This summary represents 2,378 data points from the public.
Key Destinations
Residents identified 100 destinations across Cupertino. Areas with high numbers of responses cluster around parks (Jollyman Park, Blackberry Farm, Creekside Park, and Library Field), schools (Cupertino High, Eaton Elementary, and Collins Elementary), and shopping locations (The Marketplace, Bottegas Shopping Center, and Main Street Cupertino).
Results are shown in Figure 5.
Gaps and Barriers
Residents identified 203 barriers or gaps across Cupertino. Barriers were primarily concentrated along major roadways such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road. There were concentrations of barriers on Stevens Creek Boulevard near Highway 85 and at the intersection of Torre Avenue and McClellan Road. Results are shown in Figure 6.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Cupertino
Figure 5. Phase 1 input – desired destinations
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Cupertino
Figure 6: Phase 1 input – barriers or gaps
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Cupertino
Routes and Multimodal Concerns
Residents were asked to draw out routes where they walk or bike most often, or to draw the route of streets where they have concerns about congestion or parking loss. In total, 75 routes were drawn.
The visualization shown in Figure 7 shows not only the routes, but also the likes, dislikes, and comments left on drawn routes in the online webmap. The line thickness of each route indicates how many comments, likes, or dislikes—with a thicker line indicating a greater number of responses. Routes are also color-coded based on receiving a high number of likes (green) or dislikes (pink) on the webmap.
A route on Wolfe Road in the City’s northwest region garnered the greatest number of likes. In the comments, residents highlighted concerns about congestion resulting from the forthcoming “The Rise” development project.
A route primarily on Bubb Road and Rainbow Drive received two dislike votes. There were no comments on this segment to elaborate further, and the dislike votes could be attributed to human error.
Overall Sentiment
The project team consolidated all destinations and gaps/barrier points, then visualized them based on the number of responses received on the webmap, as well as whether they had net-positive likes or dislikes. In Figure 8, the size of the circle reflects the total number of likes, dislikes, or comments a point received. The color of each point indicates its net-positive or negative response from other users, with net-positive points shown in green and net-negative points shown in pink.
Comments receiving the most interaction were largely to the east of Highway 85, with clusters on Bollinger Road, and the Cupertino Library, on Blaney Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. To the west of Highway 85, there were high-interaction comments clustered on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and Homestead Road.
The comments receiving the most positive votes were:
• Blaney Avenue at Regnart Creek – requesting a more robust crossing for the Regnart Creek Trail • Stevens Creek Boulevard at Carmen Road – support for the Carmen Road bridge overcrossing of Stevens Creek Boulevard
• Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road – expressing concern for traffic impacts with the construction of The Rise development
The comments receiving the most negative votes were:
• Merritt Drive at Norwich Avenue – expressing opposition to having access through the soundwall at this location
• Kim Street at Regnart Creek – expressing opposition to extending the Regnart Creek Trail west of De Anza Boulevard
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Cupertino
The comments receiving a high amount of interaction, but with a balance between likes and dislikes were:
• A series of comments along Bollinger Road asking for a road diet or additional pedestrian crossings, especially between De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue
• Roadway and bike network safety upgrades on Blaney Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard • A request to pedestrianize the Main Street Cupertino commercial development
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Cupertino
Figure 7: Phase 1 input on desired routes and areas of multimodal concern
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Cupertino
Figure 8: Phase 1 input by comment density and sentiment Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Cupertino
Summary of Plan Goals Input
At all pop-up and workshop events, residents were asked to share which plan goals were most important to them.
This data was collected on the “Goals & Priorities” outreach board. This feedback was also collected via a ranking exercise on the online webmap.
Collecting input regarding plan goals during Phase 1 ensures that later plan development will reflect community priorities. Using two different methods to collect this feedback—in-person and online, also allows for more resident voices to be captured.
The data on plan goals was scaled to form an average against a six-point scale, so that the in-person and online input was comparable despite their different quantities (online n=273, in-person n=102). See the table below for ranked final scoring for plan goals.
Table 1: Plan Goal rankings by input type
Goal Online Average Score (N=273) In-Person Average Score (N=102) Combined Average Score Safety 4.81 4.24 4.65
Accessibility 5.12 2.53 4.41
Maintenance 3.67 1.35 3.04
Sustainability 3.30 1.41 2.79
Balance 2.21 1.12 1.91
Fairness 1.89 1.35 1.74
Summary of City Survey
City of Cupertino staff developed an online survey, which was hosted on the project website and promoted by City communications. The survey collected a total of 240 responses from individuals who visit, live in, attend school in, or work in Cupertino. The survey included multiple-choice and an open-ended comment question. The multiple-choice questions captured who is participating in online outreach activities, how they heard about the project, and their travel preferences. The open-ended comment question provided an opportunity for respondents to share more specific concerns.
Key findings from these questions are summarized below, and all multiple-choice survey results are presented in the Online Survey Results section.
• Most respondents found out about the project from friends (54%), followed by City communications (34%). • Most respondents are 50 to 64 years old (40%) or 30 to 49 years old (34%). • Almost all respondents drive in Cupertino (95%), and some also walk (64%), bike (35%), and take the SV Hopper (13%).
• Most respondents who walk or bike in Cupertino do so for exercise or recreation (85%). Many also walk or bike to shop/run errands (47%), commute to work/school (33%), or for social visits (31%).
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Cupertino
• When asked how comfortable respondents are when walking or biking in Cupertino on a scale from 1 (not very stressful) to 10 (very stressful):
o The average score was 4.7, slightly lower than neutral. o Comfort level with biking and walking in Cupertino is concentrated in four groups:
▪ 45% of respondents ranked 1-3 (less stressful).
▪ 18% of respondents ranked 4-6 (concentrated around neutral). ▪ 25% of respondents ranked 7-8 (more stressful than neutral). ▪ 13% of respondents ranked 9-10 (stressful).
• About a third of respondents said that pedestrian and bicycle facilities—including protected intersections (32%), better street lighting (31%), and traffic calming (32%)—would encourage them to walk or bike more in Cupertino. These facilities are familiar to many Cupertino residents as they are already prominent in the City. • In contrast, respondents said that wider sidewalks (47%) and shorter crossings (46%) would not at all encourage them to walk or bike more. This indicates that these primarily pedestrian facilities would not lead to behavioral change, specifically among survey respondents. • Over half of respondents said that bicycle facilities—including concrete protected bike lanes (58%), bollard protected bike lanes (53%), and wider buffered bike lanes (53%)—would not at all encourage them to walk or bike more. This indicates that these primarily bicycle facilities would not lead to behavioral change, specifically among survey respondents.
Key themes from the open-ended text response question include:
1. Bike Infrastructure
• Frequent mentions of bike lanes, especially protected and concrete-separated ones. • Mixed feedback: Some residents appreciate the improvements, while others find them underused or poorly designed.
• Safety concerns: Many comments highlight the need for safer biking conditions, especially for children and less experienced riders.
2. Traffic and Safety
• Concerns about speeding, aggressive driving, and cars not yielding to pedestrians or bicyclists. • Requests for enforcement: Many want more traffic law enforcement, especially at intersections and near schools.
• Intersection design: Some intersections are perceived as dangerous or confusing, especially with new traffic patterns.
3. Pedestrian Experience
• Sidewalk conditions: Calls for wider, better-maintained sidewalks and more shade. • Crosswalk safety: Many feel unsafe crossing busy roads due to fast traffic and poor driver behavior. • Lighting and visibility: Better lighting is a common request to improve nighttime safety.
4. City Planning and Priorities
• Perceived imbalance: Some residents feel the City is focusing too much on biking infrastructure at the expense of drivers.
• Desire for balance: Many call for a more inclusive approach that supports all modes of transportation—cars, bikes, walking, and transit.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Cupertino
• Frustration with congestion: Some blame new bike lanes for increased traffic and reduced driving lanes.
5. Community Sentiment
• Divided opinions: There’s a clear split between those who support sustainable transportation and those who prioritize car travel.
• Calls for inclusivity: Residents want planning that reflects the needs of families, seniors, commuters, and students alike.
• Civic engagement: Some comments express frustration with how public input is gathered or used.
Summary of Emails
In addition to the three types of input summarized in the previous sections, residents also submitted comments by email. Key themes from 25 emails are summarized below:
• Ten individuals, who identified as either Cupertino or San Jose residents, wrote with concerns that the project and map surveys hosted on the project website do not ask about, and will not capture the needs of, drivers. The individuals are concerned that the survey is biased and that it will not be a representative reflection of the Cupertino community.
• Ten individuals, who identified as longtime Cupertino residents, wrote urging the City to defund the Active Transportation Program and Vision Zero, and prioritize strategies that improve the safety of pedestrians and drivers. These tools include leading pedestrian intervals, high-visibility crosswalks, automated speed enforcement, red light cameras, smart traffic signals, AI-powered safety analytics, pedestrian beacons, and automated pedestrian detection. The individuals also wrote that they are concerned that those who can attend meetings are not representative of the broader community’s needs and views. • Three individuals shared their concern that bike lanes are and will continue to negatively impact congestion on major streets in Cupertino.
• One individual shared nine specific recommendations for improving bicycle facilities in Cupertino, and one individual shared their disappointment with efforts to defund the Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes and the Bollinger Road Corridor Study.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Cupertino
Event Summaries
Pop-Up Events
The Alta Planning + Design project team (with support from City staff) hosted pop-up engagement events at existing community events, such as festivals, school activities, and flea markets. These pop-up events met the community where they were and gathered additional project feedback throughout the project. During phase one, Alta staff engaged with people on an array of poster boards, where participants were invited to learn more about the project, timeline, and safety infrastructure, as well as provide feedback on specific points of interest or conflict on maps and a list of plan goals. Cupertino City staff conducted additional pop-up events to supplement Alta’s activities.
At pop-up events, residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots:
• Green dots – destinations where community members would like to go (On the Map: “What unique destinations make Cupertino a one-of-a-kind place? Where would you like to go by walking or rolling with friends and family?”)
• Yellow dots – Areas where residents would like multimodal balance (On the Map: “Where should extra consideration be given to maintain parking supply and minimize vehicle delay?”) • Red dots – Areas that are barriers or gaps (On the Map: “Which roadways or intersections pose significant obstacles?”)
On another poster board, residents shared what priorities were most important to them, organized by the Plan’s goals: accessibility, maintenance, safety, sustainability, balance, and fairness.
Table 2: Summary of pop-up participation
Event Date Staffed By Interactions Poster Board
Engagement
Earth and Arbor Day Festival April 5, 2025 Alta & City staff 45 19 Lincoln Elementary School Walk & Roll Day April 22, 2025 City staff 23 27 Cherry Blossom Festival April 26, 2025 Alta & City staff 190 57 Hyde Middle School Walk & Roll Day April 29, 2025 City staff 35 22 De Anza College Flea Market May 3, 2025 City staff 26 12 Live Well Age Well Health Expo May 9, 2025 City staff 16 9 Bike to Wherever Day May 15, 2025 Alta staff 40 49
Collins Elementary Walk & Roll Day May 21, 2205 City Staff 17 27 Monta Vista High School Lunchtime Tabling May 28, 2025 City Staff 14 19
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Cupertino
Earth and Arbor Day Festival
On Saturday, April 5, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., the City of Cupertino hosted its annual Earth
and Arbor Day Festival at Library Field, next to the
new Regnart Creek Trail. This was an interactive
event that invited community members of all ages to
learn about environmental issues and solutions in a
family-friendly atmosphere. At least 45 people
engaged with Alta and City staff, leaving a total of 19 sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed seven
sticker dots on maps to identify destinations and
barriers. Mapped points included desired access to
the trails in the western hills of Cupertino and
schools, as well as points of conflict around existing bikeway and trail crossings, including the Wolfe Road and I-280 crossing. No multimodal balance stickers were placed. Participants also showed where they liked new infrastructure, like the Regnart Creek Trail and the improvements at the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road.
Plan Goals: Community members placed 12 comments on the plan goals poster board. Safety was the highest priority (n=7), followed by accessibility (n=3). Creating safe routes for children to access schools, protected from traffic, and safe from red light driver behavior were all areas of support.
Lincoln Elementary School Walk & Roll Day
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025, from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., City of Cupertino staff tabled in front of Lincoln Elementary School for their Walk & Roll to School Day. City staff engaged with parents and students on their priorities, barriers, and destinations. Staff engaged with 23 participants who left a total of 27 sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed 20 sticker dots on the maps to identify destinations and barriers, and one desired route was drawn on the map. Destinations were grouped
around southwestern Cupertino, including Blackberry Farm, Linda Vista Park, and Jollyman Park. Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bubb Road, and McClellan Road were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed seven comments on the plan goals board. Safety was ranked as the highest priority among plan goals (n=4), followed by accessibility (n=3).
Figure 9: Staff talking with residents at the Earth and Arbor Day Festival Figure 10: Pop-up table at Lincoln Elementary
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Cupertino
Cherry Blossom Festival
On Saturday and Sunday, April 26 to 27, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the City of Cupertino sponsored the annual Cherry Blossom Festival with Japanese sister city Toyokawa at Memorial Park. Alta and City staff were present for public engagement on Saturday, April 26, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., engaging at least 190 members of the public. Participants left a total of 57 sticker dots or comments on the poster boards. This was a family-friendly event featuring community resources and organizations, where people of all ages provided input to staff on site, including several individuals who had been struck by vehicles while walking or biking in Cupertino. Common themes included support for:
• Improved access to transit
• Protected bike and pedestrian infrastructure, including enhanced maintenance of existing facilities
• Better connectivity with the neighboring cities and
destinations, including extending the Stevens Creek
Trail
• Creating safe routes to schools and parks was largely proposed by children.
Barriers and Destinations: Community members placed 21
sticker dots on the maps to identify destinations and barriers.
The following roadways received multiple stickers for concerns about safety, comfort, and connectivity: Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, and Tantau Avenue. Popular destinations and access points included Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Stevens Creek Trail, Cupertino City Hall, Cupertino Library and Park, Regnart Creek Trail, The Marketplace, and Creekside Park. No multimodal balance stickers were placed.
Plan Goals: Community members placed 36 comments on the plan goals board. Safety was ranked as the highest priority (n=14), followed by accessibility (n=9) among plan goals.
Figure 11: Engaging with youth at the Cherry Blossom
Festival
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Cupertino
Hyde Middle School Walk & Roll Day
On Tuesday, April 29, 2025, from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., City of Cupertino staff tabled in front of Hyde Middle School for their Walk & Roll to School Day. City staff engaged with parents and students on their priorities, barriers, and destinations. Staff engaged with 35 participants who left a total of 22 sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed 15 sticker dots on maps to identify destinations and barriers. Destinations were grouped around the Cupertino Library and Creekside Park. Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, and Tantau Avenue were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed 7 comments on the plan goals board.
Safety was ranked as the highest priority among plan goals (n=6), followed by fairness (n=1).
De Anza College Flea Market
On Saturday, May 3, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., City of Cupertino staff tabled at the De Anza Flea Market, held on the campus of De Anza College. City staff engaged with the public on their priorities, barriers, and destinations.
Staff engaged with 26 participants who left a total of 12 sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed seven sticker dots on the maps to identify destinations and barriers.
Destinations included Blackberry Farm, Linda Vista Park, and northeastern Cupertino. Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, and Bollinger Road were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed five comments on the plan goals board.
Maintenance was ranked highest priority among plan goals (n=3), followed by safety (n=2).
Live Well Age Well Health Expo
On Friday, May 9, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., City of Cupertino staff tabled at the Live Well Age Well Health Expo, held at the City of Cupertino Senior Center. City staff engaged with attendees to discuss their priorities, barriers, and destinations. Staff engaged with 16 participants who left a total of 9 sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed six sticker dots on maps to identify destinations and barriers. Destinations included Blackberry Figure 12: Students at Hyde Middle School
Figure 13: Live Well Age Well Health Expo
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Cupertino
Farm, Linda Vista Park, and northeastern Cupertino. Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, and Bollinger Road were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed three comments on the plan goals board. Maintenance was ranked as the highest priority plan goal (n=2), followed by accessibility (n=1).
Bike to Wherever Day
On Thursday, May 15, 2025, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., the City of Cupertino hosted an energizer station for Bike to Wherever Day at the intersection of Stelling Road and McClellan Road. This event was designed to celebrate and encourage people to ride their bikes for errands, socializing with friends, commuting to work or school, and as an opportunity for those who don’t usually bike commute to try it out. Energizer stations are community hubs where residents will pedal to grab a free bag filled with goodies and celebrate the day. The energizer station was hosted by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, with Alta staff setting up a table adjacent for public input. At least 40 of the 100+ people passing through the station engaged with the ATP staff and left a total of 49 sticker dots or comments on poster boards. Common themes included support for:
• Better bike connections and coordination across
municipal boundaries
• More protected bike lanes
• More multi-use paths (including strong praise for
the Regnart Creek Trail as an example)
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed 31 sticker dots on the maps, identifying barriers and destinations. The following roadways received multiple stickers for concerns about safety, comfort, and connectivity: Foothill Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue. Destinations and
access points included Stevens Creek Trail, Cupertino City Hall, Cupertino Library and Park, Regnart Creek Trail, Apple Park Visitor Center, and the many parks and trails up Stevens Canyon Road.
Plan Goals: Students placed 18 comments on the plan goals board, with safety ranked as the highest priority goal (n=10), followed by accessibility (n=8).
Figure 14: A family on a cargo bike at Bike to Wherever Day Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Cupertino
Collins Elementary School Walk & Roll Day
On Wednesday, May 21, City staff hosted a table for the ATP at the Walk & Roll Day for Collins Elementary on
Blaney Avenue in eastern Cupertino. City staff engaged
with 17 adults who left a total of 19 sticker dots or
comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed 15 sticker dots on the maps, identifying barriers and destinations.
The following roadways received multiple stickers for
concerns about safety, comfort, and connectivity:
Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney
Avenue, and Lazaneo Avenue. Destinations included
Monta Vista Park, Cupertino Library, and Lawson Middle School.
Plan Goals: Students placed four comments on the plan goals board, all for safety.
Monta Vista High School Lunchtime Tabling
On Wednesday, May 28, City staff hosted a table for the ATP during the lunch hour at Monta Vista High School in western Cupertino. City staff engaged with 17 adults and youth, collecting a total of 19 sticker dots and comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed 17 sticker dots on maps, identifying barriers and destinations. The following roadways received multiple stickers for concerns about safety, comfort, and connectivity: McClellan Road near Stevens Creek Trail, locations along Bubb Road, and De Anza Boulevard.
Destinations included Cupertino Library, Varian Park, and Kennedy Middle School.
Plan Goals: Students placed two comments on the plan goals board, both for safety.
Figure 15. Students at Collins Elementary School
Figure 16. Students at Monta Vista High School
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Cupertino
Community Workshops
The City and Alta hosted two community workshops, one in person and one virtual. These provided dedicated spaces for the public to learn about the project and engage with project staff with any questions, concerns, or ideas they had for the ATP.
Table 3: Summary of community workshop participation
Event Date Attendance Comments
Community Workshop #1 (virtual) May 5, 2025 35 44
Community Workshop #2 (in person) May 7, 2025 24 102
Community Workshop #1
The City of Cupertino hosted a virtual workshop on the evening of May 5 for the Cupertino ATP, held from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m. 51 members of the public registered for the event, and 35 attended. The workshop included a 35-minute presentation, followed by a question-and-answer (Q&A) session. There were 28 questions posed in the Q&A chat window, and 16 attendees provided spoken comments and questions.
Below is a summary of comments and questions from members of the public at the virtual workshop.
Youth and School Access
• Students’ Needs: Multiple participants emphasized the importance of engaging students directly, especially at high schools and middle schools, to understand their transportation challenges. • School Commutes: Parents expressed concern about unsafe walking and biking conditions near schools, particularly around Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard, citing heavy traffic and recent accidents.
• Drop-Off Congestion: A student suggested designated drop-off zones away from school entrances to reduce traffic chaos and improve safety.
• Scooter Safety: Concerns were raised about electric scooters on sidewalks, especially near schools.
Suggestions included better infrastructure and education to keep faster devices off sidewalks.
Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure
• Sidewalk Conditions: Several residents highlighted uneven, narrow, or missing sidewalks, especially near schools and major roads like Bubb Road and Stelling Road. • Crosswalks: Bollinger Road was repeatedly mentioned for its lack of safe midblock crossings, with residents witnessing dangerous pedestrian behavior and near misses. • Intersection Safety: Intersections like Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue at Stevens Creek Boulevard were flagged as particularly hazardous for pedestrians.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 City of Cupertino
Bicycling Infrastructure and Concerns
• Concerns over Major Streets: Opinion from participants was mixed on the utility of dedicated bike lanes on major streets. Some participants suggested that people riding bikes should use parallel side streets to minimize congestion impacts on major roads. Others pushed back on the idea that they should stick to side streets, noting that key destinations (jobs, shops, schools) are located on arterials like Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and Miller Avenue/Wolfe Road. • Stressful Bike Routes: Painted bike lanes next to fast-moving traffic and parked cars (e.g., on Miller Avenue) were described as high-stress and unsafe.
• Connectivity Gaps: Residents called for a more connected north-south bike network, citing streets like Stelling Road, Blaney Avenue, and Wolfe Road as needing improvements.
Fairness and Community Engagement
• Multimodal Balance: Some residents emphasized the need to balance improvements across all modes— walking, biking, driving—without disproportionately impacting any group. • Inclusive Planning: Residents urged the City to ensure all neighborhoods are included, not just those with vocal opposition or support. Concerns were voiced that future bicycle and pedestrian projects would not heed the desires of local communities; others expressed concern that local groups could stymie the implementation of projects that could create regional connections and benefits. • Regional Coordination: Participants asked how Cupertino’s plan aligns with neighboring cities and county plans, recognizing that many trips cross city boundaries.
Development and Future Growth
• Developer Contributions: Residents asked whether new housing developments would be required to contribute to walking and biking infrastructure.
• Proactive Planning: Suggestions included involving residents early in the planning process to address concerns and improve transparency.
General Themes
• Safety Is Paramount: Across all modes, safety was the most frequently cited concern and top priority. • Desire for Ambition: Many residents expressed hope that the plan would be bold and transformative, making walking and biking truly viable and attractive options. • Concern for Potential Impacts: Many speakers expressed concerns that projects would negatively impact congestion, parking availability, and quality of life without providing commensurate benefits to the community.
• Pedestrian Focus: Multiple speakers wanted the ATP to prioritize pedestrian safety and access improvements over bicycle projects.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 24 City of Cupertino
Community Workshop #2
The City of Cupertino hosted an in-person workshop on
the evening of May 7 for the Cupertino ATP, held from
6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Twenty-four members of the public
attended the workshop. A 35-minute presentation was
given, followed by a 10-minute Q&A session and
interactive poster board activity. During the
presentation, 18 residents participated in the interactive polling, and there were six questions posed during the
Q&A.
During the interactive posterboard activity, residents
were encouraged to provide direct feedback regarding
their walking or rolling routes with sticky notes and
color-coded dots on a map of the city.
Participants were encouraged to identify locations on
the printed maps of the city to outline:
• Green dots – destinations where community
members would like to go (On the Map: “What
unique destinations make Cupertino a one-of-a-
kind place? Where would you like to go by
walking or rolling with friends and family?”)
• Yellow dots – Areas where residents would like
multimodal balance (On the Map: “Where
should extra consideration be given to maintain
parking supply and minimize vehicle delay?”)
• Red dots – Areas that are barriers or gaps (On
the Map: “Which roadways or intersections pose
significant obstacles?”)
On another poster board, residents shared which plan goals they think the Plan should prioritize: accessibility, maintenance, safety, sustainability, balance, and fairness. There were 96 sticky notes or color-coded dots on the map poster boards, and 12 notes shared on the priorities poster boards.
Below is a summary of the Q&A session, general comments, and comments on the poster boards.
Q&A
• Foothill Boulevard: A resident was surprised that Foothill Boulevard was not captured in the High Injury Network. There was a recent collision involving youth, but it is also a long-standing issue.
Figure 17: Presentation at Community Workshop #2
Figure 18: Workshop participants at breakout tables
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 25 City of Cupertino
• Slideshow: A resident would like the slideshow, without the polling slides, available on the Cupertino ATP website.
• Recreational Travel: A resident was interested in how we are capturing recreational travel by mode, not just commute travel.
• E-Bikes: A resident was interested in how the Plan will account for the increasing use of e-bikes in Cupertino. • In-Progress Projects: When looking at the completed and in-progress projects map, a resident was interested in why a pedestrian treatment was in progress near a new Eden Housing Development. • Secure Bike Parking: A resident was interested in how the Plan will incorporate the need for more secure bike parking.
Overall Themes from Outreach Boards
• Shared Use Trails: 10 comments were regarding access to existing trails, the continuation of existing trails, or the construction of new trails. Three comments were specifically regarding constructing the Tamien Trail. • Key Destinations: In addition to trail access, common destinations for Cupertino residents include the City’s shopping centers, parks, and schools.
• Alternatives to Highways and Busy Streets: 7 comments requested bike/pedestrian infrastructure where residents could either avoid interacting with busy streets/highways or gain access through barriers in the existing infrastructure. This includes requests for tunnels, trails, and bridges. • Concerns over Major Streets: Major streets, including Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and Bollinger Road, were often cited as having barriers or gaps in pedestrian or bicycle facilities. • School Access and Congestion: In addition to identifying schools as key desired destinations, residents identified barriers/gaps and the need for multimodal balance around Cupertino schools.
Goals and Location-Specific Outreach Boards
Resident comments on the goals and location-specific outreach boards are listed below:
Accessibility
• Add safe bike parking.
• Make bike + pedestrian access easier when possible by opening a closed gate, for example.
Maintenance
• Debris on bike path or bike lane is a hazard.
• Fix Stevens Creek & 280/85 sidewalks.
Fairness
• Finish Tamien Innu trail.
Safety
• Miller has too many lanes. Could be 1 on each side and center turn lane. • Stevens Creek & Wolfe. Fix Wolfe (N-5).
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 26 City of Cupertino
• It’s important to give as many children as possible a completely traffic-free bike/walk route to school.
Imagine how traffic could improve if cars rarely needed to drop off & pick up kids! • Bollinger; Bollinger at De Anza; Bollinger at Clifden needs a pedestrian crossing to support overflow parking from Trader Joe’s and people riding VTA 25.
• Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard is a hazard for pedestrians. • Need to consider elderly walking and biking. They need to increase crossing times because elderly do not walk as fast.
Location-Specific Outreach Boards
A summary of locations is listed below based on the color of the dot used on the outreach boards.
Destinations where the community would like to go (green dots) include:
• Alves Dr @ Beardon Dr
• Alves Dr @ Shopping Center between N Stelling Rd and Saich Way • Bandley Dr @ Greenleaf Dr
• Bollinger Rd @ De Anza Blvd
• Bollinger Rd @ Miller Ave
• Bollinger Rd Between Alderbrook Ln and Miller Ave
• I-280 from Mary Ave to De Anza Blvd
• Calvert Dr @ Lawrence Expy
• Civic Center Park
• Cristo Rey Dr @ Canyon Oak Way
• Cupertino Historical Society @ Museum
• Cupertino Memorial Park
• De Anza Blvd @ Homestead Rd
• De Anza Blvd @ Kirwin Ln
• De Anza Blvd @ Stevens Creek Blvd (Cali Mill Plaza Park) • De Anza Blvd @ Stevens Creek Blvd (NE corner)
• Hammon Snyder Loop Trailhead
• Homestead Rd @ Blaney Ave
• Hyde Middle School
• Hyde Middle School
• Jollyman Park
• Linda Vista Park
• Mary Ave @ Junipero Serra Fwy
• Main Street Shopping Mall
• McClellan Rd @ Bubb Rd
• McClellan Rd @ Stevens Creek Trail
• Monta Vista Park
• Northeast city limits/Hammond Snyder Loop Trail
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 27 City of Cupertino
• Portal Park
• Rainbow Dr @ Rainbow Knoll Trail
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Anton Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Bianchi Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Carmen Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Carmen Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Crossroads shopping mall
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Imperial Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Miller Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Pasadena Ave (Mann Shopping Center) • Stevens Creek Blvd @ Portal Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Saich Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Scenic Blvd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Stelling Rd (shopping center)
• Stevens Creek County Park
• Tantau Ave @ I-280
• Torre Ave @ Town Center Ln
• Wilson Park
Areas where residents would like multimodal balance (yellow dots) include:
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Wolfe Rd
• Lawson Middle School
• Portal Park
Areas that are barriers or gaps (red dots) include:
• Auburn Dr @ Drake Dr
• Beardon Dr @ Greenleaf Dr
• Blaney Ave @ Lucille Ave
• Bollinger Rd @ Alderbrook Ln
• Bollinger Rd @ Blaney Ave
• Bollinger Rd @ Clifden Way
• Bollinger Rd @ Martinwood Way
• Crescent Rd @ Orchard Ct
• De Anza @ McClellan
• De Anza Blvd @ Bollinger Rd
• De Anza Blvd @ I-280
• De Anza Blvd @ SR 85
• De Anza Blvd @ Rodrigues Ave
• Lawrence Expressway @ Mitty Way
• McClellan Rd @ North East Corner of Monta Vista High School Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 28 City of Cupertino
• Miller Ave @ Phil Ln
• Miller Ave @ Vicksburg Dr
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Bianchi Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Blaney Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Bubb Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ SR 85 Offramp
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ De Anza Blvd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Saich Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Stelling Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Vista Dr
• Tantau Ave @ Loree Ave
• Wolfe Rd @ I-280 N Onramp
• Wolfe Rd @ Vallco Pkwy
General Comments on Outreach Boards
• You can fit 12-13 bicycles in one parking space. 3 car spaces would make enough bike parking to fill community hall.
• Pickup and drop off time around the schools is a mess. Please build designated drop off points 1-2 blocks from the schools to spread out car load. I bike to school faster than my neighbor who drives because he has to sit in drop off traffic in front of school. I have witnessed crashes in front of school, been in crashes, and provided police witness testimony on crashes. The area in from of schools is far too congested and dangerous.
Online Interactive Map
The online interactive map for phase one was structured to enable users to provide feedback in the form of routes and points on the map. Before accessing the map, users were also able to provide feedback on priorities among plan goals.
Map input options included:
• Preferred walking and biking routes
• Challenging locations for walking and biking
• Desired destinations
• Streets causing concern about the potential for parking loss or congestion Interactive Map Summary – Phase 1
Summary of Desired Destinations
• Cupertino Library, Eaton Elementary, Apple Park Visitor Center, Jollyman Park, and more. • Concerns include a lack of safe access, especially for children and seniors. • Suggestions include better crossings, sidewalks, and trail connections.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 29 City of Cupertino
Summary of Barriers and Gaps
• Unsafe crossings (e.g., Homestead Rd, McClellan Rd, Blaney Ave, Bollinger Rd). • Missing infrastructure like crosswalks, bike lanes, or pedestrian bridges. • Visibility issues due to sun glare, parked cars, or trash bins. • Speeding and traffic flow concerns, especially near schools and intersections. • Suggestions include adding speed bumps, protected bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and better signage.
Summary of Multimodal Balance
• Balancing the needs of different travel modes in areas with:
o High congestion (e.g., Stevens Creek Blvd, Wolfe Rd). o New developments (e.g., The Rise).
o Suggestions include traffic light synchronization, designated drop-off zones, and better multimodal planning.
Key Themes
• Bike Infrastructure: There are a limited number of protected bike lanes in the City, a high prevalence of unsafe intersections for bicyclists, and the desire for trail extensions (e.g., Regnart Creek Trail). • Pedestrian Safety: There are issues with pedestrian visibility, speeding cars, a need for better signage, and pedestrian refuge islands.
• Traffic Behavior: There is congestion near schools and shopping areas, illegal or unsafe parking, speeding, and a failure to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Roads and Trail Conditions: There is a desire for improving road design for multimodal use, maintaining and expanding trails, and repainting or redesigning intersections.
Intersections with a High Number of Votes (including direct quotes from comments)
1. Wolfe Road and I-280 (5 comments, 112 votes)
a. “Proposed housing development should have access to Portal Park and schools without using Wolfe Road.”
2. Stevens Creek and Highway 85 (11 comments, 32 votes) a. “A safe crossing over CA-85 is desperately needed. Currently the only way across in this area is Stevens Creek Boulevard, which has fast-moving and lane changing traffic, plus many exits/ramps/intersections. Best would be to have a crossover on Mary just north of this area to Fitzgerald or University Way.”
3. Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard (8 comments, 29 votes) a. “This intersection is really dangerous. I avoid it whenever possible, and it makes reaching businesses and locations on the other side difficult. It’d be awesome if we could get a protected intersection here like there are in Fremont or San Jose.”
4. Pacifica Drive and Whitney Way (6 comments, 27 votes) a. “Drivers often don’t yield to pedestrians.”
5. McClellan Drive and De Anza Boulevard (3 comments, 17 votes) Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 30 City of Cupertino
a. “The beginning of the protected bike trail on McClellan going east is unprotected and cars often drive into the bike lane while making a right turn and even sometimes when going west to east on McClellan.”
Streets with a High Number of Comments/Votes (including direct quotes from comments)
1. Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (3 comments, 27 votes) a. “Stevenson & Wolf is extremely congested, especially during the commute hours. With the 3000 apartments from The Rise and Wolfe Road Housing, commuting through this road will be infeasible.
The City should prioritize preemptively to assure larger flow of vehicle traffic on these roads.”
2. McClellan Road (4 comments, 4 votes)
a. “McClellan road where there is a protected bike is lane feels so much safer than it used to. The speed reduction has helped as well--cars are no longer whipping past as they used to.”
3. Stelling Road (3 comments, 6 votes)
a. “Of the parallel roads to get from Sunnyvale through Cupertino on a bike, this route seems best balanced between safety and convenience. Though the Hollenbeck portion in Sunnyvale without bike lanes is not safe. Be good if Cupertino and Sunnyvale could coordinate to make the entire stretch a bike friendly corridor.”
4. UPRR Tail (4 comments, 4 votes)
a. “Union Pacific Railroad to the Permanente Quarry. As the Quarry will be decommissioned, this stretch of the railroad will be entirely unused.”
5. Budd Road (2 comments, 3 votes)
a. “Route to drop kids to Lincoln and Kennedy middle school.“ Summary of Streets and Intersections with Many Likes and Dislikes
1. Blaney Avenue and Regnart Creek Trail (Intersection) (2 comments, 22 likes, 0 dislikes) a. Cars speed at this intersection and do not yield to pedestrians/bicyclists. Requests for additional traffic calming measures.
2. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Carmen Road (Intersection) (2 comments, 25 likes, 9 dislikes) a. Support for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge
3. Merritt Drive and Norwich Avenue (Intersection) (1 comment, 11 likes, 77 dislikes) a. Conflicting opinions about the benefit of creating an access point at this location versus the preference to keep an existing wall, and direct pedestrians/bicyclists to use the Tamien Innu trail.
4. Kim Street and Regnart Creek Trail (Intersection) (1 comment, 9 likes, 29 dislikes) a. Conflicting opinions about the benefits of expanding the Regnart Creek Trail, versus privacy concerns for nearby residents.
5. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road (street) (3 comments, 25 likes, 0 dislikes) a. Concern about the current level of congestions, and it being exacerbated by forthcoming housing development.
6. Blaney Avenue (3 comments, 12 likes, 0 dislikes)
a. Request for additional parking at Stevens Creek Boulevard for commercial uses.
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 31 City of Cupertino
Online Survey Results
City of Cupertino staff developed an online survey, which was hosted on the project website and promoted by City communications. A total of 240 survey responses were collected among people who visit, live, go to school, or work in Cupertino. Results of the survey are presented in the following tables.
Table 4: How did you learn about the project? (Select all that apply.) Response Number Percentage
From friends 129 54%
City communications 81 34%
Other 32 13%
Yard signs or banners 23 10%
Tabling event 7 3%
Total 272 113%
Table 5: What is your age?
Response Number Percentage
Under 18 7 3%
18-29 19 8%
30-49 81 34%
50-64 96 40%
65+ 37 15%
Total 240 100%
Table 6: How do you travel around Cupertino? (Select all that apply.) Response Number Percentage
Personal car 227 95%
Walk 153 64%
Bike 84 35%
SV Hopper 31 13%
Rideshare services(e.g., Uber/Lyft) 20 8%
VTA bus 18 8%
Electric device (scooter, bike, or other) 13 5%
Total 546 228%
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 32 City of Cupertino
Table 7: If you walk or bike, what purpose is it primarily for? (Select all that apply.) Response Number Percentage
Exercise/recreation 198 83%
Shopping/errands 113 47%
Commuting to work/school 78 33%
Social visits 74 31%
Connecting to transit 33 14%
Other 10 4%
Total 506 211%
Table 8: How often do you currently walk or bike in Cupertino? Response Number Percentage
Several times a week 93 39%
Daily 86 36%
Occasionally 34 14%
Rarely 19 8%
Never 8 3%
Total 240 100%
Table 9: On a scale from 1 (not very stressful) to 10 (very stressful), how comfortable do you feel when walking or biking in Cupertino? Response Number Percentage
1 - not very stressful 55 23%
2 36 15%
3 16 7%
4 18 8%
5 - neutral 12 5%
6 14 6%
7 28 12%
8 31 13%
9 14 6%
10 - very stressful 16 7%
Total 240 100%
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 33 City of Cupertino
Table 10. What would encourage you to walk or bike more in Cupertino? (Select all that apply.) Percentage Not at all Slightly Moderately Significantly Wider sidewalks 47% 22% 21% 11%
Shorter crossings 46% 19% 18% 17%
Protected intersections 33% 17% 18% 32%
Better street lighting 19% 22% 27% 31%
Traffic calming 25% 21% 22% 32%
Traffic enforcement 33% 26% 19% 23%
Slower traffic speeds 36% 23% 20% 21%
Concrete protected bike lanes 58% 9% 9% 24%
Bollard protected bike lanes 53% 14% 16% 17%
Wider buffered bike lanes 53% 16% 14% 16%
Secure bike parking 44% 21% 16% 19%
CC 11-04-2025
Item #14
City Manager Report
Supplemental Report
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: November 4, 2025
Agenda Item #14
Subject
City Manager Report
Background:
The City Manager Report has been updated to include information on an upcoming event honoring Veterans Day. The link to the updated newsletter is included in Attachment B.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Report
Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1:
B. Updated Report
Wednesday, October 29, 2025
A Message from the City Manager
Hello Neighbors,
As October comes to a close, so does our month-long celebration of Cupertino’s 70th anniversary. Thank you to everyone who stopped by City Hall to pick up a special giveaway and snap a photo—it was wonderful to see so many community members showing their hometown pride.
Throughout the month, we enjoyed events like the first-ever Restaurant Week and Puzzle Hunt, celebrating the unique spirit of our community. We are also excited to feature the “My Cupertino” Art Showcase as part of this evening’s Cupertino Community Service Awards, where we will honor this year’s CREST Award winners and recognize our dedicated City Commissioners.
In addition to celebrating our City’s history, we remain focused on keeping our community safe. The Cupertino Disaster Council will meet on Thursday, October 30, to review local preparedness programs and emergency response initiatives. As part of these efforts, I, along with some council and commissioners recently graduated from the CERT Academy, equipping us to support emergency response and strengthen neighborhood preparedness.
Thank you to everyone who joined the festivities, shared your stories, or volunteered your time, your participation made this milestone truly memorable and reflects the community spirit that makes Cupertino so special.
Read the full City Manager’s Newsletter October 29, 2025 and all previous editions at cupertino.gov/cmnewsletter.
Warm Regards,
Tina Kapoor
Interim City Manager