ATTEST:
_____________
Lauren Sapudar, Acting City Clerk
________________________
Date
169
CC 02-19-2026
169 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14774 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 6.
Subject: Consider (1) adopting Resolution No. 26-022 to repeal and replace Resolution No. 23-026 regarding the Legislative Review Committee (LRC), (2) adopting the 2026 Legislative Platform, and (3), amending the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Vice Mayor Liang Chao and Councilmember R "Ray" Wang to the LRC, with Mayor Kitty Moore as an alternate.
1. Adopt Resolution No. 26-022 to repeal and replace Resolution No. 23-026, regarding the Legislative Review Committee
2. Adopt the 2026 Legislative Platform
3. Amend the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Vice Mayor Liang Chao and Councilmember R “Ray” Wang to the LRC, with Mayor Kitty Moore as an alternate.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
170
CC 02-19-2026
170 of 303
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: February 19, 2026
Subject
Consider (1) adopting Resolution No. 26-___ to repeal and replace Resolution No. 23-026 regarding the Legislative Review Committee (LRC), (2) adopting the 2026 Legislative Platform, and (3), amending the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Vice Mayor Liang Chao and Councilmember R “Ray” Wang to the LRC, with Mayor Kitty Moore as an alternate.
Recommended Action
1. Adopt Resolution No. 26-___, to repeal and replace Resolution No. 23-026, regarding the Legislative Review Committee
2. Adopt the 2026 Legislative Platform
3. Amend the 2026 Council Committee Assignments to designate Vice Mayor Liang Chao and Councilmember R “Ray” Wang to the LRC, with Mayor Kitty Moore as an alternate.
Background
Many cities adopt legislative platforms to clearly outline official positions on federal and state bills with local impacts. Each year, the Council takes positions on numerous bills that may affect the City. In 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18-010, which established a Legislative Advocacy Policy and formalized the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) to guide the City’s legislative positions. In 2023, Council adopted Resolution No. 23-026, dissolving the LRC in an effort to streamline the legislative process and consider positions as a full council. A council ad-hoc subcommittee was in effect for the 2025 legislative session to review legislation and bring recommendations to the full Council. At the December 16 Council meeting, the full Council approved the subcommittee’s recommendation to adopt a new Legislative Platform for 2026 and reestablish the LRC.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
The Draft Resolution (Attachment A) establishes a Legislative Advocacy Policy intended to support timely, coordinated, and strategic engagement on state and federal legislation affecting the City through a formal, Brown-Acted, LRC, and an annual Legislative Platform.
2026 Legislative Platform
The proposed 2026 Legislative Platform (Attachment C) outlines the City’s legislative priorities and policy positions and serves as a guiding document for the LRC, staff and the City’s lobbyist 171
CC 02-19-2026
171 of 303
when engaging with state and federal legislators. The platform is intended to provide clear direction while allowing flexibility to respond to emerging legislation throughout the year.
Once adopted by the full Council, the LRC would be authorized to take legislative positions that are consistent with the platform without requiring further Council action. Any items not addressed in the platform, or with a monitor position, will require Council approval prior to any legislative position is taken by the City. The Legislative Platform would be reviewed annually prior to the beginning of each legislative session and brought to Council for adoption every January/February.
In developing the proposed platform, staff reviewed the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform, which was the most recent version, and made updates in consultation with the Mayor and the City’s lobbyist. The proposed 2026 Legislative Platform retains the overall policy framework and core positions adopted by the City Council in 2022, while incorporating targeted updates to reflect evolving legislative priorities and recent state and federal actions. Updates include the following:
• Climate Action and Sustainability: Support for funding and remediation of groundwater and drinking water contamination related to emerging contaminants (e.g., PFAS, PCE, TCE).
• Housing and Land Use: Acknowledgment of job-housing imbalance, with continued emphasis on preserving local control, affordable housing, parkland/open spaces, design review authority, and opposition to unfunded mandates and by-right approvals. • Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness: Added support for funding Proposition 36 and retrofitting local emergency operation centers. New monitoring of legislation related to wildfire preparedness and insurance for natural disasters. • Transportation and Infrastructure: Emphasized a data-driven approach to transit policies and added support for local micro-transit programs (e.g., SV Hopper). Added monitoring of transit agency fiscal stability and the use of cap-and-trade funds. • Technology and Governance: New monitoring of artificial intelligence and workforce impacts, digital governance, and remote participation. Updated opposition to legislation that lowers the voting requirements, absent local government approval. • Economic Development and Fiscal Strategy: New monitoring of sales tax legislation and new support for the preservation of retail and commercial spaces.
The detailed changes are redlined in the Proposed 2026 Legislative Platform (Attachment B).
Reestablishing the Legislative Review Committee
Since the dissolution of the LRC in 2023, legislative review has been conducted internally and through ad hoc processes. Based on this experience, Council identified benefits to reestablishing a standing LRC, which would be responsible for reviewing legislation, receiving updates from staff and the City’s lobbyist, and taking legislative positions on topics consistent with the adopted Legislative Platform. Reestablishing the LRC is intended to enhance efficiency by 172
CC 02-19-2026
172 of 303
allowing for focused and timely review of legislative matters and increasing transparency and education for Cupertino’s residents.
For the 2026 legislative session, Mayor Moore recommends amending the 2026 Council Committee Appointments to appoint Vice Mayor Liang Chao and Councilmember R “Ray” Wang to the LRC and appointing herself as an alternate. This amendment is necessary to establish the LRC, and an alternate will ensure that attendance and quorum is met for all scheduled meetings.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Council Goal:
Public Engagement and Transparency
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Kirsten Squarcia, Interim Deputy City Manager Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Resolution
B – Proposed 2026 Legislative Platform (redline)
C – Proposed 2026 Legislative Platform (clean)
D – Amended 2026 Council Committee Assignments (redline) E – Amended 2026 Council Committee Assignments (clean)
173
CC 02-19-2026
173 of 303
RESOLUTION NO. 26-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
REVISITING THE CITY OF CUPERTINO LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council has an interest in weighing in on state, federal, and regional legislative issues that impact the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City receives legislative action alerts sent by various city associations that need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis; and
WHEREAS, the Council had previously established the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) to make recommendations on legislative advocacy issues that could impact the City; and
WHEREAS, the ad -hoc legislative subcommittee recommended that the City adopt a new Legislative Platform for 2026 and reestablish the LRC by resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to revise the Legislative Advocacy Policy to support timely, coordinated, and strategic engagement on state and federal legislation that may impact the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby:
1. Adopt the revised Legislative Advocacy Policy attached hereto as Exhibit A, including reestablishing the Legislative Review Committee and adopting an annual Legislative Platform .
2. Repeal and Replace Resolution No. 23 -026 and any other procedures, policies, or rules adopted by the Council that are inconsistent with this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 19 day of February, 2026, by the following vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
174
CC 02-19-2026
174 of 303
Resolution No. 26-___
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
___________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_____________
Lauren Sapudar, Acting City Clerk
________________________
Date
175
CC 02-19-2026
175 of 303
Resolution No. 26-___
Exhibit A
Legislative Advocacy Policy
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines regarding City legislative advocacy by the City Council.
II. BACKGROUND
A Legislative Platform identifies the City’s broad advocacy positions on issues and legislation with local impacts. Advocacy positions typically relate to pending legislation and current issues, and guide Council and staff on intergovernmental matters directly related to service delivery, or otherwise contribute to the City’s operational success and/or health and well-being of its residents.
III. OBJECTIVE
The primary objective of establishing an annual Legislative Platform is for the City Council and the Legislative Review Committee to adopt official City positions on clearly stated legislative issues at the start of a legislative session. By doing this, the legislative approval process is streamlined by receiving clear direction at the beginning of the legislative session from the City Council on pertinent legislative issues.
IV. POLICY STATEMENT
1. Each year the City Manager shall present for Council’s consideration a draft Legislative Platform. Once approved by the City Council, this platform informs official City advocacy positions on pending legislative issues.
2. The Legislative Platform is utilized by staff throughout the year to determine, in consultation with the Legislative Review Committee, City positions on legislation and intergovernmental issues and minimizes the need for staff to request further direction from Council on legislation and issues as they arise.
3. During the year, staff monitors and researches pending legislation to identify bills that could significantly impact Cupertino. With authorization from the Legislative Review Committee, City staff shall 176
CC 02-19-2026
176 of 303
Resolution No. 26-___
prepare position letters consistent with the Council-approved Legislative Platform for the Mayor’s signature.
4. Items not addressed in the City’s Legislative Platform will require Council approval prior to any legislative advocacy efforts.
5. Legislative priorities should focus on issues directly relevant to or impacting the provision of municipal services. Generally, the City will not address matters that are not pertinent to the City’s local government services, such as international issues.
V. Implementation
The City Manager shall monitor the provisions of this policy. Disagreements in interpretation of the City’s Legislative Platform shall be resolved by the City Council.
City departments are encouraged to monitor and be knowledgeable of any legislative issues related to their discipline. However, any requests for the City to take positions on a legislative matter must be directed to the City Manager’s Office. City departments may not take positions on legislative issues without City Manager’s Office review and approval from the Legislative Action Committee.
177
CC 02-19-2026
177 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
1 The 2026 Legislative Platform is comprised of guiding principles that provide a framework for the City of Cupertino’s regional, state, and federal legislative priorities. Adopted annually, the City’s Legislative Platform serves as a reference guide for legislative positions and objectives that provide direction for the City Council, the Legislative Review Committee, and staff throughout the year. The Legislative Platform is the foundation of a focused advocacy strategy.
Guiding Principles
I. Fiscal Responsibility
The City of Cupertino has a fiduciary responsibility to its residents to ensure assets and resources are properly safeguarded and deployed in a fair, prudent, and efficient manner. As such, the City supports the protection of existing federal, state, and l ocal funding sources and the authorities that provide revenues to the City. Likewise, the City has an interest in the solvency of public entities that provide resources to the City. The City opposes any new mandates that are unfunded or inadequately funded , and supports efforts to eliminate, or provide funding for currently unfunded mandates.
II. Local Control
The City supports local decision -making authority and opposes preemption of local control.
Cities are voluntarily created by the residents of a community to provide local self -government and to make decisions at a local level to best meet the needs of the community. Each community has unique needs and characteristics that are best met by policies set by its local governing body.
Efforts to remove the ability to set policy at the local level should be opposed, while promoting legislation that incentivizes and allows flexibility in the City's effort to cost-effectively meet local priorities.
III. Sustainability
The City of Cupertino is a leader in embracing sustainability efforts in response to current and anticipated environmental challenges. The City continuously looks for innovative strategies to reduce its carbon footprint and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The City supports environmentally friendly legislation and urban sustainability consistent with our Climate Action Plan (CAP). As such, the City supports environmentally friendly legislation and urban sustainability consistent with our CAP goals.
IV. Infrastructure and Mobility
The City seeks to maintain existing infrastructure and enhance the safety and accessibility of sustainable, alternative mobility options for our residents and businesses. The City can accomplish this by supporting legislation that increases funding for tra nsportation, infrastructure, operations, and maintenance in Cupertino.
The City seeks to upgrade and maintain municipal facilities so that they operate at peak energy and water efficiency. In addition, Cupertino seeks to enhance the provision of carbon -free 178
CC 02-19-2026
178 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
2 services, such as electric vehicles and buildings that are free of fossil fuels. Cupertino supports legislation or rulemaking that enhances the City’s ability to procure and implement fuel - switching, on-site renewable energy deployment, and low -carbon or c arbon-free critical power backup services.
V. Healthy, Safe and Resilient Community
One of the City’s primary goals is to provide a healthy and safe environment for our residents.
The City supports legislation that protects and enhances services to the City’s most vulnerable populations, such as the economically disadvantaged, elderly, ho meless, and disabled. In addition, the City supports federal and state assistance for local law enforcement, as well as any measures that would help contribute to local public safety and mental well-being, such as support for parks and open spaces. In order to foster a resilient community, the City supports legislation that strengthens local disaster preparedness, emergency planning and response activities, as well as programs that invest in climate adaptation planning and deployment of adaptation strategies.
VI. Education
The City understands that access to quality education is a key factor in maintaining a strong and vibrant community. The City supports state efforts to ensure that California schools have adequate funding to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and all schools have the personnel and materials needed to create an environment where children can succeed.
City of Cupertino - 2026 Federal Legislative Priorities
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG)
1. Support the preservation, or increase, of funding for the CDBG program.
2. Support increased flexibility in how CDBG funds can be utilized.
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
1. Support amendmentsMonitor to the EB5 Visa Program to ensure that investments are concentrated in target employment areas, such as Qualified Opportunity Zones, that would most benefit from economic development.
2. Support efforts to mitigate the economic impacts on the City, and its businesses, from the coronavirus pandemic.
EDUCATION 1. Support education funding to include support for special needs students.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
1. Support legislation that assists regional and local governments in development and implementing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and conservation strategies. Ensure that states and local governments can continue, and not be preempted in, their efforts to achieve economic improvements through increased energy efficiency, renewable energy and conservation plans that seek to decrease carbon emissions.
2. Advocate for funding for projects for potable water reuse projects, nonpoint source pollution control, and watershed 179
CC 02-19-2026
179 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
3 City of Cupertino - 2026 State Legislative Priorities
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND
FISCAL STRATEGY
1. The City embraces efforts to support legislation or obtain funding for economic development initiatives, including planning and implementation of regional transportation and traffic congestion relief projects, the creation of affordable management. Accelerate authorization for indirect and direct potable reuse projects. Support legislation that generates additional revenue for water infrastructure improvements, provides for the funding of programs mandated for compliance, and addresses drought resilience.
2.3. Advocate forSupport for increased funding for environmental remediation of groundwater/drinking water supplies impacted by hazardous waste (eg. PFAS, PCE, TCE).
HEALTH AND PUBLIC
SAFETY
1. Support legislation to provide services to those experiencing domestic violence, addiction, or mental health issues, including mental health services for youth.
2. Support legislation to aid local governments in the preparation for, and response to, public health emergencies.
3. Monitor legislation related to the public’s right to protest, as well as legislation related to standards on appropriate law enforcement response to public protests, including use of force levels.
LAND USE AND
LOCAL AUTHORITY
1. Oppose legislation , and regulatory efforts , that would diminish or eliminate the authority of cities to zone and plan for the development of telecommunications infrastructure, including the siting of cellular communications towers or transmission sites. Oppose legislation that may reduce
municipal authority, with an emphasis on land use policy, local review, and design standards.
2. Oppose preemption of local authority.
1.3. Oppose new program mandates that are unfunded or
underfunded.
LOCAL AUTHORITY
1. Oppose preemption of local authority.
2. Oppose new program mandates that are unfunded or
underfunded.
TRANSPORTATION &
INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Support adoption of a long -term federal transportation authorization that provides a stable and reliable funding stream for transportation with focus on maintenance and preservation, and funding for roads, bridges, and transit.
2. Support legislation that generates funding to support all modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
3. Support legislation that generates funding for storm drain capacity and maintenance projects.
180
CC 02-19-2026
180 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
4 housing, retail/commercial preservation, and social services.
2. Work with elected representatives to secure funding through the State Budget for priority projects and programs in the City.
3. Support legislation that would provide workers with a living wage.
4. Support legislation and funding for workforce development and skills training programs, including those developed with business and education partners.
4.5. Monitor legislation related to Artificial Intelligence that may impact the workforce .
5.6. Oppose legislation that would increase local costs related to public employee retirement.
6.7. Oppose legislation that limits the City’s ability to collect Transient Occupancy Taxes.
7.8. Oppose legislation that would burden local rate payers with increased state utility costs and mandates.
8.9. Monitor legislation that would provide local governments with additional tax -increment based economic development tools, such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts or tax increment financing districts.
9.10. Oppose legislation that would amend sales tax distribution formulas in a manner that negatively affects the City.
11. Monitor legislation that would amend the definition of independent contractors.
12. Support legislation that preserves retail and commercial spaces.
10.13. Monitor legislation that would allow further increases to the sales tax cap (eg. SB 63)
EDUCATION
1. The City understands that access to quality education is a key factor in maintaining a strong and vibrant community. The City supports state efforts to ensure that California schools have adequate funding to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and all schools have the personnel and materials needed to create an environment where children can succeed.
2. Support legislation that ensures full funding of the State’s Proposition 98 guarantee.
3. Support legislation that would increase funding for schools for programs and salaries.
4. Support legislation that would amend the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act to ensure that facilities funding is sufficient to cover all costs of new facilities, including the acquisition of land.
181
CC 02-19-2026
181 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
5 5. Support legislation that provides students access to educational resources and technology needed to be prepared for higher education or the modern workforce.
6. Monitor legislation that clarifies square footage-based parcel taxes.
ELECTIONS
1. The City supports legislation that encourages and expands civic engagement and voter participation in elections.
2. Oppose legislation that weakens voters’ right to petition through the initiative and referendum processes.
3. Support legislation that provides resources and support for municipal elections.
4. Monitor legislation that affects the California Voting Rights Acts.
5. MonitorOppose legislation that lowers the voting requirements for passage of local special purpose agency funding
propositions, absent local government approval.
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
1. Support legislation that provides funding for local emergency preparedness planning.
2. Support legislation that provides reimbursement for costs associated with public safety power shutoffs and other emergency response efforts.
3. Support legislation that provides funding or incentives for retrofitting, and other seismic preparedness activities including city emergency operation centers.
4. Support legislation that would ensure the City, as well as businesses and residents, have access to communications during emergency events.
5. Support specific funding opportunities to address natural disaster mitigation and evacuation planning.
6. Monitor legislation regulating the use of drone aircraft by public agencies for use in emergency response, or other capacities.
7. Monitor legislation and funding regarding wildfire
preparedness.
6.8. Monitor legislation regarding insurance for natural disasters.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
1. The City supports legislation and policies that emphasize sustainable development, improve environmental standards and the regulatory process, and promote sustainable energy policies.
2. Support legislation that provides incentives and financial support for preservation of natural resources, organic waste recycling, and landfill diversion.
3. Support sustainability efforts that are consistent with the City’s 182
CC 02-19-2026
182 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
6 Climate Action Plan 2.0.
4. Support legislation that assists local governments in the development and implementation of energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and conservation strategies.
5. Oppose legislation that would preempt local government efforts to achieve economic improvements through increased energy efficiency, renewable energy , and conservation plans that seek to decrease carbon emissions.
6. Support increased funding for green buildings, electric vehicle charging stations, and related infrastructure , including residential homes.
7. Support legislation to reduce plastic waste and single -use plastics, such as plastic bags and containers.
8. Oppose legislation that weakens environmental review policy or CEQA.
8.9. Support legislation that expands expanded funding ofthat would environmental remediation (e.g. dry cleaners , PFAS ) across the state.
9.10. Support legislation that expands, promotes, or incentivizes water conservation practices and programs, including the expanded use of local water resources such as recycled water, graywater, and rainwater harvesting.
GOVERNMENT
TRANSPARENCY
1. The City supports government transparency, public access to required meetings and records, and legislation that facilitates these principles while still allowing for necessary municipal operations and services.
2. Support legislation which continues to further increased public access through remote participation.
1.3. Support legislation which allows for remote participation of less than a quorum of the legislative body, commissions, and committees for reasonable cause.
2.4. Oppose legislation that impacts the ability of special districts and joint powers authorities to self-regulate.
3.5. Oppose legislation that expands the Public Records Act without funding to carry out the new requirements.
4.6. Support legislation that improves the ability of local governments to utilize digital communication and archiving.
1. The City values public health and social services. The City supports legislation and policies to access resources that provide high quality police, fire, emergency management, and emergency medical services.
183
CC 02-19-2026
183 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
7 HEALTH & PUBLIC
SAFETY
2. Support legislation to provide services to those experiencing domestic violence, addiction, or mental health issues, including mental health services for youth.
3. Support legislation to provide funding and services for vulnerable populations.
4. Support legislation that allows for local ordinances related to commercial and recreational drone usage.
5. Support legislation to regulate vaping devices and other e- cigarettes and their packaging, advertisement, and promotion to youth.
6. Support legislation to regulate the potency, packaging, and advertisement of recreational cannabis products.
7. Oppose legislation that restricts the ability for the City to adopt ordinances regarding the purchase, distribution, consumption and cultivation of cannabis.
8. Monitor legislation related to organized retail theft, as well as modifications to the definition of petty theft and petty theft value limits.
8.9. Support funding of Prop. 36.
9.10. Monitor legislation related to standards on appropriate law enforcement response to public protests, including use of force levels.
HOMELESSNESS
1. Support legislation that provides funding to create pathways to permanent housing and supportive services.
2. Support legislation and funding to help facilitate and promote regional efforts to address homelessness.
3. Support legislation to address issues affecting the homeless population, including mental health and substance abuse.
4. Support legislation that provides resources for job training , financial counseling, and skills development for those experiencing homelessness, or at risk of becoming homeless.
HOUSING &
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
1. The City acknowledges that areas of California is currently facing dramatic continue to face a job-housing imbalance , severe income disparity and lack of transit options to
affordable areas. The rising cost of housing is one symptom of the deeper economic problem, which can only be solved by addressing the excessive job growth, housing affordability, and lack of transit options together. The City supports legislation that addresses the root causes of thisese problems and positively addresses housing shortages in communities.
2. Oppose legislation that may reduce municipal authority, with an emphasis on land use policy, local review, and design standards.
3. Oppose efforts to erode local decision making over the 184
CC 02-19-2026
184 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
8 appropriate location, scale, and character of residential development or that may reduce public hearing or oversight.
4. Support legislation that gives local municipalities credit and incentives for actions under their direct control, including the approval of housing developments.
5. Support legislation that provides state funding for the construction of affordable housing, including Extremely Low Income, Very Low Income, Low Income, and Moderate -
Income housing.
6. Oppose legislation that would impact the ability of a local municipality to regulate ADUs.
7. Support legislation that promotes the construction and protection of parklands, open spaces, affordable housing, and other community facilities, instead of allowing in -lieu fees in place of actual facilities.
8. Support legislation to address issues that lead to
gentrification, the displacement of long -time residents, the lack of housing for full -time students on campus, and homelessness.
9. Monitor legislation that would impact the rental market and tenant protections.
10. Oppose legislation that provides for by-right up-zoning.
11. Support legislation that requires employers to contribute to the funding of affordable housing to keep pace with job growth.
12. Support legislation to assert local authority to regulate the use of public right of ways.
13. Oppose legislation that erodes the ability of cities to condition and deny projects that inadequately mitigate impacts to the community, including infrastructure, public safety, and schools.
14. Support legislation that would incentivize community colleges to provide housing to students and faculty on campus.
15. Support legislation that would provide streamlined projects with minimum density requirements.
16. Oppose legislation that provides the State with additional powers to overturn local planning decisions and expands “by- right” or ministerial approval.
17. Monitor legislation that modifies previously enacted legislation, such as the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Density Bonus Law., and (e.g. SB 35 project streamlining and SB 330).
1. The City values its ability and authority to make policies 185
CC 02-19-2026
185 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
9 QUALITY OF LIFE
tailored to diverse local needs, enable excellent public services, and protect and enhance the quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses.
2. Support legislation that would provide local funding for libraries, arts and cultural expression in Cupertino.
3. Support legislation and initiatives that provide funding for vibrant parks, trails, and visitor amenities.
4. Monitoring legislation that affects immigration and the rights and benefits of immigrants.
5. Oppose legislation that includes unfunded or underfunded mandates.
TRANSPORTATION &
INFRASTRUCTURE
REHABILITATION
1. The City supports legislation and policies that support and fund data-driven transit solutions that increase the speed and frequency of services.
2. Support Monitor new statewide funding opportunities for maintenance and repair of local roads and highways.
3. Support data-driven, prioritized investments in the
maintenance and rehabilitation of aging infrastructure and allow for system capacity expansion to support smart growth principals.
4. Support legislation that allows for the planning of on -site parking and other planning tools that can increase safety for pedestrians and bicycles (including E -Bikes/Scooters) while considering all mobility methods.
5. Support legislation that ensuresMonitor the use of cap and trade funds derived from transportation fuels which currently go to high -speed rail, transit and intercity rail (SV Hopper grant), transit passes, ZEV incentives, Wildfire Suppression, Affordable housing, and air pollution reduction in
disadvantaged communities. be used for transportation
purposes.
6. Support Monitor legislation and initiatives tohat address regional transportation congestion and transit agency budget deficits.
7. Support legislation that generates funding for wastewater infrastructure, storm drain capacity and maintenance.
8. Oppose legislation that limits or reduces local impact fees that fund local infrastructure , including those associated with lot splits or the addition of a second unit on a parcel.
9. Oppose legislation that would impact local authority of cities to zone and plan for the development of telecommunications infrastructure.
186
CC 02-19-2026
186 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
10 10. Support legislation that enhances the City’s ability to procure and implement fuel -switching, on -site renewable energy deployment, and low -carbon or carbon -free critical power backup services.
11. Oppose legislation that would reduce access to, or otherwise condition the receipt of, local streets and roads funding.
12. Support legislation that would allow flexibility for public contracting associated with routine public works projects.
13. Oppose legislation that would increase taxes on businesses and residents without providing a direct tangible benefit to Cupertino.
14. Support legislation and funding to provide free or reduced-price access to public transit to low-income individuals.
14.15. Support legislation and funding for local micro-transit (eg. SV Hopper)
187
CC 02-19-2026
187 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
1 The 2026 Legislative Platform is comprised of guiding principles that provide a framework for the City of Cupertino’s regional, state, and federal legislative priorities. Adopted annually, the City’s Legislative Platform serves as a reference guide for legislative positions and objectives that provide direction for the City Council, the Legislative Review Committee, and staff throughout the year. The Legislative Platform is the foundation of a focused advocacy strategy.
Guiding Principles
I. Fiscal Responsibility
The City of Cupertino has a fiduciary responsibility to its residents to ensure assets and resources are properly safeguarded and deployed in a fair, prudent, and efficient manner. As such, the City supports the protection of existing federal, state, and l ocal funding sources and the authorities that provide revenues to the City. Likewise, the City has an interest in the solvency of public entities that provide resources to the City. The City opposes any new mandates that are unfunded or inadequately funded , and supports efforts to eliminate, or provide funding for currently unfunded mandates.
II. Local Control
The City supports local decision -making authority and opposes preemption of local control.
Cities are voluntarily created by the residents of a community to provide local self -government and to make decisions at a local level to best meet the needs of the community. Each community has unique needs and characteristics that are best met by policies set by its local governing body.
Efforts to remove the ability to set policy at the local level should be opposed, while promoting legislation that incentivizes and allows flexibility in the City's effort to cost-effectively meet local priorities.
III. Sustainability
The City of Cupertino is a leader in embracing sustainability efforts in response to current and anticipated environmental challenges. The City continuously looks for innovative strategies to reduce its carbon footprint and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The City supports environmentally friendly legislation and urban sustainability consistent with our Climate Action Plan (CAP). As such, the City supports environmentally friendly legislation and urban sustainability consistent with our CAP goals.
IV. Infrastructure and Mobility
The City seeks to maintain existing infrastructure and enhance the safety and accessibility of sustainable, alternative mobility options for our residents and businesses. The City can accomplish this by supporting legislation that increases funding for tra nsportation, infrastructure, operations, and maintenance in Cupertino.
The City seeks to upgrade and maintain municipal facilities so that they operate at peak energy and water efficiency. In addition, Cupertino seeks to enhance the provision of carbon -free 188
CC 02-19-2026
188 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
2 services, such as electric vehicles and buildings that are free of fossil fuels. Cupertino supports legislation or rulemaking that enhances the City’s ability to procure and implement fuel - switching, on-site renewable energy deployment, and low -carbon or c arbon-free critical power backup services.
V. Healthy, Safe and Resilient Community
One of the City’s primary goals is to provide a healthy and safe environment for our residents.
The City supports legislation that protects and enhances services to the City’s most vulnerable populations, such as the economically disadvantaged, elderly, ho meless, and disabled. In addition, the City supports federal and state assistance for local law enforcement, as well as any measures that would help contribute to local public safety and mental well-being, such as support for parks and open spaces. In order to foster a resilient community, the City supports legislation that strengthens local disaster preparedness, emergency planning and response activities, as well as programs that invest in climate adaptation planning and deployment of adaptation strategies.
VI. Education
The City understands that access to quality education is a key factor in maintaining a strong and vibrant community. The City supports state efforts to ensure that California schools have adequate funding to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and all schools have the personnel and materials needed to create an environment where children can succeed.
City of Cupertino - 2026 Federal Legislative Priorities
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT
(CDBG)
1. Support the preservation, or increase, of funding for the CDBG program.
2. Support increased flexibility in how CDBG funds can be utilized.
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
1. Monitor the EB5 Visa Program to ensure that investments are concentrated in target employment areas, such as Qualified Opportunity Zones, that would most benefit from economic development.
EDUCATION 1. Support education funding to include support for special needs students.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
1. Support legislation that assists regional and local governments in development and implementing energy efficiency, renewable energy, and conservation strategies. Ensure that states and local governments can continue, and not be preempted in, their efforts to achieve economic improvements through increased energy efficiency, renewable energy and conservation plans that seek to decrease carbon emissions.
2. Advocate for funding for projects for potable water reuse projects, nonpoint source pollution control, and watershed management. Accelerate authorization for indirect and direct potable reuse projects. Support legislation that generates 189
CC 02-19-2026
189 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
3 City of Cupertino - 2026 State Legislative Priorities
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND
FISCAL STRATEGY
1. The City embraces efforts to support legislation or obtain funding for economic development initiatives, including the creation of affordable housing, retail/commercial preservation, and social services.
2. Work with elected representatives to secure funding through the State Budget for priority projects and programs in the City.
3. Support legislation that would provide workers with a living wage.
4. Support legislation and funding for workforce development and skills training programs, including those developed with business and education partners.
5. Monitor legislation related to Artificial Intelligence that may impact the workforce.
additional revenue for water infrastructure improvements, provides for the funding of programs mandated for compliance, and addresses drought resilience.
3. Support for increased funding for environmental remediation of groundwater/drinking water supplies impacted by hazardous waste (e.g. PFAS, PCE, TCE).
HEALTH AND PUBLIC
SAFETY
1. Support legislation to provide services to those experiencing domestic violence, addiction, or mental health issues, including mental health services for youth.
2. Support legislation to aid local governments in the preparation for, and response to, public health emergencies.
3. Monitor legislation related to the public’s right to protest, as well as legislation related to standards on appropriate law enforcement response to public protests, including use of force levels.
LAND USE AND
LOCAL AUTHORITY
1. Oppose legislation that may reduce municipal authority, with an emphasis on land use policy, local review, and design standards.
2. Oppose preemption of local authority.
3. Oppose new program mandates that are unfunded or
underfunded.
TRANSPORTATION &
INFRASTRUCTURE
1. Support adoption of a long -term federal transportation authorization that provides a stable and reliable funding stream for transportation with focus on maintenance and preservation, and funding for roads, bridges, and transit.
2. Support legislation that generates funding to support all modes of transportation, including transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.
3. Support legislation that generates funding for storm drain capacity and maintenance projects.
190
CC 02-19-2026
190 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
4 6. Oppose legislation that would increase local costs related to public employee retirement.
7. Oppose legislation that limits the City’s ability to collect Transient Occupancy Taxes.
8. Oppose legislation that would burden local rate payers with increased state utility costs and mandates.
9. Monitor legislation that would provide local governments with additional tax -increment based economic development tools, such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts or tax increment financing districts.
10. Oppose legislation that would amend sales tax distribution formulas in a manner that negatively affects the City.
11. Monitor legislation that would amend the definition of independent contractors.
12. Support legislation that preserves retail and commercial spaces.
13. Monitor legislation that would allow further increases to the sales tax cap (e.g. SB 63)
EDUCATION
1. The City understands that access to quality education is a key factor in maintaining a strong and vibrant community. The City supports state efforts to ensure that California schools have adequate funding to ensure that every child has access to a quality education and all schools have the personnel and materials needed to create an environment where children can succeed.
2. Support legislation that ensures full funding of the State’s Proposition 98 guarantee.
3. Support legislation that would increase funding for schools for programs and salaries.
4. Support legislation that would amend the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act to ensure that facilities funding is sufficient to cover all costs of new facilities, including the acquisition of land.
5. Support legislation that provides students access to educational resources and technology needed to be prepared for higher education or the modern workforce.
6. Monitor legislation that clarifies square footage-based parcel taxes.
ELECTIONS
1. The City supports legislation that encourages and expands civic engagement and voter participation in elections.
2. Oppose legislation that weakens voters’ right to petition through the initiative and referendum processes.
3. Support legislation that provides resources and support for municipal elections.
191
CC 02-19-2026
191 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
5 4. Monitor legislation that affects the California Voting Rights Acts.
5. Oppose legislation that lowers the voting requirements for passage of local special purpose agency funding propositions, absent local government approval.
EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS
1. Support legislation that provides funding for local emergency preparedness planning.
2. Support legislation that provides reimbursement for costs associated with public safety power shutoffs and other emergency response efforts.
3. Support legislation that provides funding or incentives for retrofitting, and other seismic preparedness activities including city emergency operation centers.
4. Support legislation that would ensure the City, as well as businesses and residents, have access to communications during emergency events.
5. Support specific funding opportunities to address natural disaster mitigation and evacuation planning.
6. Monitor legislation regulating the use of drone aircraft by public agencies for use in emergency response, or other capacities.
7. Monitor legislation and funding regarding wildfire
preparedness.
8. Monitor legislation regarding insurance for natural disasters.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
1. The City supports legislation and policies that emphasize sustainable development, improve environmental standards and the regulatory process, and promote sustainable energy policies.
2. Support legislation that provides incentives and financial support for preservation of natural resources, organic waste recycling, and landfill diversion.
3. Support sustainability efforts that are consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan 2.0.
4. Support legislation that assists local governments in the development and implementation of energy efficiency,
renewable energy, and conservation strategies.
5. Oppose legislation that would preempt local government efforts to achieve economic improvements through increased energy efficiency, renewable energy , and conservation plans that seek to decrease carbon emissions.
6. Support increased funding for green buildings, electric vehicle charging stations, and related infrastructure , including residential homes.
192
CC 02-19-2026
192 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
6 7. Support legislation to reduce plastic waste and single -use plastics, such as plastic bags and containers.
8. Oppose legislation that weakens environmental review policy or CEQA.
9. Support legislation that expands funding of environmental remediation (e.g. dry cleaners, PFAS) across the state.
10. Support legislation that expands, promotes, or incentivizes water conservation practices and programs, including the expanded use of local water resources such as recycled water, graywater, and rainwater harvesting.
GOVERNMENT
TRANSPARENCY
1. The City supports government transparency, public access to required meetings and records, and legislation that facilitates these principles while still allowing for necessary municipal operations and services.
2. Support legislation which continues to further increase public access through remote participation.
3. Support legislation which allows for remote participation of less than a quorum of the legislative body, commissions, and committees for reasonable cause.
4. Oppose legislation that impacts the ability of special districts and joint powers authorities to self-regulate.
5. Oppose legislation that expands the Public Records Act without funding to carry out the new requirements.
6. Support legislation that improves the ability of local governments to utilize digital communication and archiving.
HEALTH & PUBLIC
SAFETY
1. The City values public health and social services. The City supports legislation and policies to access resources that provide high quality police, fire, emergency management, and emergency medical services.
2. Support legislation to provide services to those experiencing domestic violence, addiction, or mental health issues, including mental health services for youth.
3. Support legislation to provide funding and services for vulnerable populations.
4. Support legislation that allows for local ordinances related to commercial and recreational drone usage.
5. Support legislation to regulate vaping devices and other e- cigarettes and their packaging, advertisement, and promotion to youth.
6. Support legislation to regulate the potency, packaging, and advertisement of recreational cannabis products.
193
CC 02-19-2026
193 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
7 7. Oppose legislation that restricts the ability for the City to adopt ordinances regarding the purchase, distribution, consumption and cultivation of cannabis.
8. Monitor legislation related to organized retail theft, as well as modifications to the definition of petty theft and petty theft value limits.
9. Support funding of Prop. 36.
10. Monitor legislation related to standards on appropriate law enforcement response to public protests, including use of force levels.
HOMELESSNESS
1. Support legislation that provides funding to create pathways to permanent housing and supportive services.
2. Support legislation and funding to help facilitate and promote regional efforts to address homelessness.
3. Support legislation to address issues affecting the homeless population, including mental health and substance abuse.
4. Support legislation that provides resources for job training , financial counseling, and skills development for those experiencing homelessness, or at risk of becoming homeless.
HOUSING &
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
1. The City acknowledges that areas of California continue to face a job-housing imbalance . The City supports legislation that addresses the root causes of this problem and positively addresses housing shortages in communities.
2. Oppose legislation that may reduce municipal authority, with an emphasis on land use policy, local review, and design standards.
3. Oppose efforts to erode local decision making over the appropriate location, scale, and character of residential development or that may reduce public hearing or oversight.
4. Support legislation that gives local municipalities credit and incentives for actions under their direct control, including the approval of housing developments.
5. Support legislation that provides state funding for the construction of affordable housing, including Extremely Low Income, Very Low Income, Low Income, and Moderate -
Income housing.
6. Oppose legislation that would impact the ability of a local municipality to regulate ADUs.
7. Support legislation that promotes the construction and protection of parkland, open spaces, affordable housing, and other community facilities, instead of allowing in -lieu fees in place of actual facilities.
8. Support legislation to address issues that lead to
gentrification, the displacement of long -time residents, the 194
CC 02-19-2026
194 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
8 lack of housing for full -time students on campus, and homelessness.
9. Monitor legislation that would impact the rental market and tenant protections.
10. Oppose legislation that provides for by-right up-zoning.
11. Support legislation that requires employers to contribute to the funding of affordable housing to keep pace with job growth.
12. Support legislation to assert local authority to regulate the use of public right of ways.
13. Oppose legislation that erodes the ability of cities to condition and deny projects that inadequately mitigate impacts to the community, including infrastructure, public safety, and schools.
14. Support legislation that would incentivize community colleges to provide housing to students and faculty on campus.
15. Support legislation that would provide streamlined projects with minimum density requirements.
16. Oppose legislation that provides the State with additional powers to overturn local planning decisions and expands “by- right” or ministerial approval.
17. Monitor legislation that modifies previously enacted legislation, such as the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, Density Bonus Law(e.g. SB 35 project streamlining and SB 330).
QUALITY OF LIFE
1. The City values its ability and authority to make policies tailored to diverse local needs, enable excellent public services, and protect and enhance the quality of life for Cupertino residents and businesses.
2. Support legislation that would provide local funding for libraries, arts and cultural expression in Cupertino.
3. Support legislation and initiatives that provide funding for vibrant parks, trails, and visitor amenities.
4. Monitoring legislation that affects immigration and the rights and benefits of immigrants.
5. Oppose legislation that includes unfunded or underfunded mandates.
TRANSPORTATION &
INFRASTRUCTURE
REHABILITATION
1. The City supports legislation and policies that support and fund data-driven transit solutions that increase the speed and frequency of services.
2. Monitor new statewide funding opportunities for maintenance and repair of local roads and highways.
195
CC 02-19-2026
195 of 303
Proposed City of Cupertino 2026 Legislative Platform
9 3. Support data-driven, prioritized investments in the maintenance and rehabilitation of aging infrastructure and allow for system capacity expansion to support smart growth principals.
4. Support legislation that allows for the planning of on -site parking and other planning tools that can increase safety for pedestrians and bicycles (including E -Bikes/Scooters) while considering all mobility methods.
5. Monitor the use of cap-and-trade funds derived from transportation fuels which currently go to high -speed rail, transit and intercity rail (SV Hopper grant), transit passes, ZEV incentives, Wildfire Suppression, Affordable housing, and air pollution reduction in disadvantaged communities.
6. Monitor legislation and initiatives that address regional transportation congestion and transit agency budget deficits
7. Support legislation that generates funding for wastewater infrastructure, storm drain capacity and maintenance.
8. Oppose legislation that limits or reduces local impact fees that fund local infrastructure , including those associated with lot splits or the addition of a second unit on a parcel.
9. Oppose legislation that would impact local authority of cities to zone and plan for the development of telecommunications infrastructure.
10. Support legislation that enhances the City’s ability to procure and implement fuel -switching, on -site renewable energy deployment, and low -carbon or carbon -free critical power backup services.
11. Oppose legislation that would reduce access to, or otherwise condition the receipt of, local streets and roads funding.
12. Support legislation that would allow flexibility for public contracting associated with routine public works projects.
13. Oppose legislation that would increase taxes on businesses and residents without providing a direct tangible benefit to Cupertino.
14. Support legislation and funding to provide free or reduced-price access to public transit to low-income individuals.
15. Support legislation and funding for local micro-transit (eg. SV Hopper)
196
CC 02-19-2026
196 of 303
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Kitty Moore Primary 1 Liang Chao Primary 2
Annually in June (Online registration will
be available in April)
Sheila Mohan Alternate Bay Area Metro Center
Yerba Buena Conference Room
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, California
Sheila Mohan Primar
y Annually in March
JR Fruen Alternate Sounty of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center – 70 West Hedding Street,
1st Floor, San Jose, CA 95110
Historical Society Advisory Council Liang Chao Primary 3rd Wednesday of the month at 4:30 p.m.
JR Fruen Alternate Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
(hybrid in-person/zoom if possible)
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) *WVMM Rotation Every two months on the 4th Wednesday of the month Saratoga - Primary Santa Clara PD
*Note: Jurisdictions rotate for 2-year terms. Cupertino served for 3 years (2020- 2022).
Monte Sereno - Alternate 601 El Camino, Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Board of Directors Liang Chao Primary Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Sheila Mohan Alternate 7pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Santa Clara County Cities Association - City Selection Committee Liang Chao Primary As needed. Replaces LAC meeting at 6pm Ray Wang Alternate 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Legislative Action Committee Ray Wang Primary Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Liang Chao Alternate 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
League of California Cities - Annual Conference - Voting Delegate Kitty Moore Primary Annual Conference Liang Chao Alternate October 2026
County of Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
Approved by Council on 12/16/2025
Amended by Council on 1/13/2026
Amended by Council on 2/3/2026
197
CC 02-19-2026
197 of 303
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority - Board of Directors JR Fruen Primary Quarterly Sheila Mohan Alternate 1:30pm at Library Services & Support Center 1370 Dell Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Sheila Mohan Primary Quarterly on the 4th Wednesday of the Month JR Fruen Alternate January 28, April 8, July 22, October 28 Headquarters Building Boardroom, 5700 Almaden
Expressway, San Jose, CA or via Zoom teleconference
unless otherwise noticed.
12:00 p.m.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (PAC) Kitty Moore Primary Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Policy Advisory Committee Sheila Mohan Alternate 4pm at VTA River Oaks Campus 3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-106
School Partnership and School Liaison Liang Chao - Primary 1 Sheila Mohan - Primary 2
Quarterly
Cupertino Union School District
(CUSD, FUHSD, De-Anza CC) Kitty Moore - Alternat
e 1309 S Mary Ave, Sunnyvale CA 94087
West Valley Mayors and City Managers Mayor - Primary Monthly on the 4th Wednesday of the Month Vice Mayor - Alternate 12pm
Location changes monthly
State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board JR Fruen Primary Ray Wang Alternate
Quarterly on a Wednesday or Thursday of the month
selected
10am
Location changes each quarter
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority (SVCEA) JPA Ray Wang Primary Monthly on the 2nd Wednesday of the month JR Fruen Alternate 7pm
Cupertino Community Hall
198
CC 02-19-2026
198 of 303
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
City of Cupertino Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings Audit Committee (City of Cupertino) Kitty Moore Primary Meets quarterly, usually 4th Monday of Ray Wang Primary
Liang Chao Alternate
Quinlan Community Center, Conference
Room
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation (Cupertino) All Councilmembers Meets annually, third Monday in November and as needed
City Hall, Conference Room C
Economic Development Committee (Cupertino) Ray Wang Primary Liang Chao Alternate
Regular meetings are held quarterly and as
needed (time and location to be determined)
Disaster Council (Cupertino) Meets no less than annually.
City Hall, Conference Room C
Legislative Review Committee (Cupertino) Liang Chao Primary Ray Wang Primary
Kitty Moore Alternate
Sister City Committees Sheila Mohan As needed
Liang Chao City Hall
* The Mayor, or their
designee per Municipal
Code section 2.40.025
Meets during the legislative session as needed
(time and location to be determined)
199
CC 02-19-2026
199 of 303
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Kitty Moore Primary 1 Liang Chao Primary 2
Annually in June (Online registration will
be available in April)
Sheila Mohan Alternate Bay Area Metro Center
Yerba Buena Conference Room
375 Beale Street
San Francisco, California
Sheila Mohan Primar
y Annually in March
JR Fruen Alternate Sounty of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors’ Chambers, County Government Center – 70 West Hedding Street,
1st Floor, San Jose, CA 95110
Historical Society Advisory Council Liang Chao Primary 3rd Wednesday of the month at 4:30 p.m.
JR Fruen Alternate Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
(hybrid in-person/zoom if possible)
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) *WVMM Rotation Every two months on the 4th Wednesday of the month Saratoga - Primary Santa Clara PD
*Note: Jurisdictions rotate for 2-year terms. Cupertino served for 3 years (2020- 2022).
Monte Sereno - Alternate 601 El Camino, Santa Clara
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Board of Directors Liang Chao Primary Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Sheila Mohan Alternate 7pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Santa Clara County Cities Association - City Selection Committee Liang Chao Primary As needed. Replaces LAC meeting at 6pm Ray Wang Alternate 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
Santa Clara County Cities Association - Legislative Action Committee Ray Wang Primary Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Liang Chao Alternate 6pm at Sunnyvale City Hall, West conference Room 456 W Olive Ave, Sunnyvale 94086
League of California Cities - Annual Conference - Voting Delegate Kitty Moore Primary Annual Conference Liang Chao Alternate October 2026
County of Santa Clara Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee
Approved by Council on 12/16/2025
Amended by Council on 1/13/2026
Amended by Council on 2/3/2026
200
CC 02-19-2026
200 of 303
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority - Board of Directors JR Fruen Primary Quarterly Sheila Mohan Alternate 1:30pm at Library Services & Support Center 1370 Dell Ave., Campbell, CA 95008
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Sheila Mohan Primary Quarterly on the 4th Wednesday of the Month JR Fruen Alternate January 28, April 8, July 22, October 28 Headquarters Building Boardroom, 5700 Almaden
Expressway, San Jose, CA or via Zoom teleconference
unless otherwise noticed.
12:00 p.m.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (PAC) Kitty Moore Primary Monthly on the 2nd Thursday of the Month Policy Advisory Committee Sheila Mohan Alternate 4pm at VTA River Oaks Campus 3331 North First Street, Conference Room B-106
School Partnership and School Liaison Liang Chao - Primary 1 Sheila Mohan - Primary 2
Quarterly
Cupertino Union School District
(CUSD, FUHSD, De-Anza CC) Kitty Moore - Alternat
e 1309 S Mary Ave, Sunnyvale CA 94087
West Valley Mayors and City Managers Mayor - Primary Monthly on the 4th Wednesday of the Month Vice Mayor - Alternate 12pm
Location changes monthly
State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board JR Fruen Primary Ray Wang Alternate
Quarterly on a Wednesday or Thursday of the month
selected
10am
Location changes each quarter
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority (SVCEA) JPA Ray Wang Primary Monthly on the 2nd Wednesday of the month JR Fruen Alternate 7pm
Cupertino Community Hall
201
CC 02-19-2026
201 of 303
AMENDED 2026 Council Committees
City of Cupertino Council Committees 2026 Representative Meetings Audit Committee (City of Cupertino) Kitty Moore Primary Ray Wang Primary
Liang Chao Alternate
Meets quarterly, usually 4th Monday of
Quinlan Community Center, Conference
Room
4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Cupertino Public Facilities Corporation (Cupertino) All Councilmembers Meets annually, third Monday in November and as needed
City Hall, Conference Room C
Economic Development Committee (Cupertino) Ray Wang Primary Liang Chao Alternate
Regular meetings are held quarterly and as
needed (time and location to be determined)
Disaster Council (Cupertino) Meets no less than annually.
City Hall, Conference Room C
Legislative Review Committee (Cupertino)
Sister City Committees As neededSheila Mohan
Liang Chao City Hall
* The Mayor, or their
designee per Municipal
Code section 2.40.025
Liang Chao Primary
Ray Wang Primary
Kitty Moore Alternate
Meets during the legislative session as needed
(time and location to be determined)
202
CC 02-19-2026
202 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14818 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 7.
Subject: Consider Potential November 2026 Revenue Ballot Measure.
Receive information regarding potential revenue ballot measure options and provide direction on pursuing placement of a measure on the November 2026 ballot.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
203
CC 02-19-2026
203 of 303
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 • FAX: (408) 777-3109
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: February 19, 2026
Subject
Consider Potential November 2026 Revenue Ballot Measure
Recommended Action
Receive information regarding potential revenue ballot measure options and provide direction on pursuing placement of a measure on the November 2026 ballot.
Background
In December 2023 and February 2024, Council considered potential revenue -generating ballot measures but ultimately directed staff to forego placement of a 2024 measure due to timing and competing priorities.
Since that time, new fiscal pressures have emerged that warrant revisiting this discussion. Most notably, the County has proposed a 36% increase to the City’s Sheriff’s contract beginning in FY 2026-27. If implemented as proposed, this increase would materially impact the City’s long-term financial outlook and is projected to create an ongoing structural deficit absent offsetting revenue or expenditure adjustments. While negotiations are ongoing and final figures are not yet confirmed, the magnitude of the proposed increase has prompted staff to reexamine potential revenue options to ensure the City remains fiscally sustainable over the long term.
On January 13, 2026, Council revisited tax revenue ballot measure option s considering updated fiscal forecasts and emerging structural cost pressures. Council emphasized the need to:
- Demonstrate fiscal necessity;
- Prioritize renewal of existing revenue sources (particularly the Utility Users Tax); - Explore revenue options that distribute impact beyond residents; and - Carefully evaluate feasibility and implementation complexity.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
The City competitively selected HdL Companies (“HdL”) through a Request for Quote process to assist with an analysis of potential revenue tax measures. HdL produced the Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Report (February 2026), as Attachment A , that evaluates five potential revenue tools:
- Vacancy Tax
204
CC 02-19-2026
204 of 303
- Transactions and Use Tax (TUT)
- Parcel Tax
- Business License Tax
- Business License Tax for Ride-Share Services
The report does not recommend a preferred option but outlines voter thresholds, implementation requirements, administrative considerations, and revenue estimates.
Summary of Revenue Options
1. Transactions and Use Tax (TUT)
A TUT is an additional local sales tax, measured as a percentage of taxable retail sales occurring within the City. It is added on top of the statewide base sales tax rate and collected by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). TUT revenu e is typically unrestricted unless approved as a special tax for a designated purpose. Cupertino currently has capacity for up to a 0.25% increase under the state cap. - Estimated revenue: approximately $2.7 million annually per 0.125% ($5.4 million total) - Voter threshold: simple majority (general tax)
- Implementation: Effective April 1 following a November election - Approximately 28.8% of TUT revenue would be paid by non-residents Pros: Broad base, partial non-resident contribution, relatively high feasibility.
Cons: Regressive in nature; subject to economic cycles.
2. Business License Tax
The City’s Business License Tax is already codified in the Municipal Code. The current tax structure is based on rates originally established in 1992 and adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
- Estimated revenue:
o $2 million to $3.1 million annually under models similar to Mountain View or East Palo Alto;
o Up to $10.2 million annually under a more aggressive employment -based structure
- Voter threshold: simple majority (general tax).
- Implementation: Determined based on City Ordinance adoption after measure approval.
Pros: Significant revenue potential; flexible structuring.
Cons: Administrative complexity; potential business opposition.
Rideshare Tax:
A ride-share tax is specific to ride-share services that operate within the City. Council previously expressed interest in exploring a ride-share-specific tax component, which would need to be structured as part of a business license tax. While passage would only require a simple majority, 205
CC 02-19-2026
205 of 303
estimating potential revenue would require additional research regarding the number of ride- share operations and trips within the City.
Pros: Distributed to all users; reduce traffic congestion if fees discourage use.
Cons: Administrative complexity; regressive in nature.
3. Vacancy Tax
A Vacancy Tax is imposed on certain residential or commercial properties that remain unoccupied for a defined period of time. The tax is typically intended to encourage productive use of property and may be structured as either a flat annual fee or a percentage of assessed value.
Revenue may be restricted or unrestricted depending on how the measure is drafted. Estimated revenue range:
- Estimated revenue: $846,000 to $1.4 million annually, depending on structure - Voter threshold: varies depending on structure (excise vs. parcel tax). - Implementation: Varies depending on the type and scope of tax.
Pros: Incentivizes property owners to lease or sell unused properties; revenue in areas with blight.
Cons: Negligible impact on vacancies; increase short term rental market; difficult to enforce.
There was no consensus at the January 13 meeting to pursue this option.
4. Parcel Tax
A Parcel Tax is a flat or formula -based tax imposed on property parcels within the City, independent of assessed value. Unlike property taxes, which are based on assessed value, a parcel tax is typically a fixed amount per parcel or based on parcel characteristics (e.g., square footage, land use). Parcel taxes require two -thirds voter approval and are usually designated for specific purposes. Revenue potential varies widely depending on structure:
- Estimated revenue: From several hundred thousand dollars to over $5 million annually depending on rate and design.
- Voter threshold: two-thirds.
- Implementation: Varies depending on the structure of the tax.
Pros: Stable revenue; less regressive as a fixed amount.
Cons: Requires specific purpose; borne entirely by property owners.
There was no consensus to pursue this option at this time.
5. Utility Users Tax (UUT)
A Utility Users Tax (UUT) is a locally imposed tax on utility services such as electricity, gas, telecommunications, cable, and wireless services. The tax is typically calculated as a percentage of a customer’s utility bill and is collected by service providers and remitted to the City. UUT revenue is generally unrestricted and may be used for general governmental purposes.
The City
206
CC 02-19-2026
206 of 303
currently has a UUT in place, which is set to sunset in FY 2030–31. Renewal would require voter approval but would not generate new near-term revenue unless modified.
Council expressed consensus on renewal of the UUT but likely not in 2026.
Feasibility and Ranking Considerations
Based on HdL’s evaluation matrix and Council’s January 13 direction, the relative characteristics of each option can be summarized:
Staff requests direction regarding which options, if any, should move forward to polling and public outreach.
Fiscal Context
As directed on January 13, staff is updating second quarter budget forecasts and incorporating recent fiscal changes, including updated investment return projections, among others . These updates will be provided in a supplemental report.
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
If Council directs staff to proceed with development of a ballot measure, the following approximate costs are anticipated:
- Consultant services for polling, public outreach, legal review, ballot language development, and strategic advisory services: approximately $150,000 to $200,000 based on initial discussions with multiple firms; and
- Estimated County of Santa Clara costs to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot:
approximately $150,000, based on historical costs.
These estimates are preliminary and would be refined prior to returning to Council with a consultant agreement or appropriation request.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Option Revenue
Potential
Administrative
Complexity
Voter
Threshold
Non-Resident
Impact
TUT Moderate–High Lo w–Moderate 50%+1
(general) ~28.8%
Business
License Tax Moderate–High Moderate 50%+1
( general) Indirect
Vacancy Tax Low–Moderate Hig h 50%+1 or 2/3 L imited
Parcel Tax Variable Mo derate 2/3 None
207
CC 02-19-2026
207 of 303
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Acting Director of Administrative Services and City Treasurer Reviewed by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Report (02.2026)
208
CC 02-19-2026
208 of 303
City of Cupertino
Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Report
Development Driven by Data
ECONSolutions by HdL
120 S. State College Blvd., Ste 200
Brea, CA 92821
www.hdlcompanies.com
209
CC 02-19-2026
209 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
2 City of Cupertino February 2026
CITY OF CUPERTINO REVENUE ENHANCEMENT OPPORTUNITIES REPORT
BACKGROUND
The City of Cupertino (“City”) is exploring potential revenue enhancement opportunities to raise additional tax revenue. The City retained the services of HdL to prepare a report evaluating various revenue enhancement opportunities.
Hinderliter de Llamas Associates (HdL) is a 42-year-old consulting firm with corporate offices in Brea, California, along with offices in Pleasanton and Fresno, as well as offices in Texas, Colorado, and Georgia. HdL is a highly respected consulting firm working in sales tax, property tax, tax & fee administration, revenue analysis, economic development, and cannabis management. HdL ECONSolutions was formed by HdL in 2014 to provide a variety of economic development products, services, and special projects in further serving local governments. HdL ECONSolutions has done work for more than 235 local governments and 25 developers in California and presently is working for 35 California cities and several private sector developers on a variety of economic development related services. HdL has prepared similar Revenue Enhancement Opportunity Studies for the cities of Goleta, Rancho Cucamonga, Carpinteria, and Jurupa Valley, as well as Sacramento County.
SUMMARY
The report identifies five potential revenue enhancement opportunities:
• Vacancy Tax
• Transactions and Use Tax
• Parcel Tax
• Business License Tax
• Business License Tax for Ride Share Services
This report evaluates each of the revenue opportunities by describing:
• The nature of the tax.
• The process to implement the tax and feasibility of implementation. • The pros and cons of each , including potential impacts on the residents and businesses within the community.
• The potential revenue estimates.
The summary table at the end of this report provides an overview of this evaluation. This report also includes an analysis of the approximate sales tax revenue generated by residents versus non-residents.
The report does not make a recommendation or state a
preference for one revenue source over another. However, it clearly outlines the above- described evaluation of each possible opportunity.
210
CC 02-19-2026
210 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
3 City of Cupertino February 2026
This report uses revenue data from the most recent fiscal year for which audited data was made available (FY2024) unless noted. Additionally, all revenue estimates are based on this actual data and do not consider potential or anticipated development. A more detailed revenue estimate should be prepared to support any ballot measure.
GENERAL SUMMARY OF VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REVENUE OPTIONS Each option requires local voter approval by the residents of Cupertino. The required threshold for voter approval is described for each option in the table below.
City measures for voter approval require submission to the county registrar of voters before being placed on the ballot. In 2026, proposed ballot measures must follow the timeline below for submission:
1. August 7 (88 days) - City Council must approve and submit a resolution to the County Registrar of Voters
2. August 11 (84 days) – Primary arguments for a measure must be filed with the City Clerk’s Office
3. August 12 (83 days) – Last day to amend or withdraw a ballot measure
4. August 18 (77 days) – Submission of rebuttal arguments and impartial analyses
5. October 5 (29 days) – Registrar of Voters begins mailing vote-by-mail packets
6. November 3 – Election day
All filed arguments and analyses are subject to a 10- day public review period, during which a writ of mandate may be sought to amend or delete the material.
VACANCY TAX
Description
A vacancy tax is a form of tax on unoccupied properties within the physical boundaries of a city. The tax can be on any type of property and can include properties for lease and sale. The structure of the tax can vary according to the discretion of the city and can either be structured as an excise or parcel tax.
Revenue Option
General Use of Funds:
Voter Approval
Threshold
Special Use of Funds:
Voter Approval
Threshold
Vacancy Tax Simple majority (50 + 1) Two-thirds majority Transactions and Use Tax Simple majority (50 + 1) Two-thirds majority Parcel Tax - Two-thirds majority
Business License Tax Simple majority (50 +1) Two-thirds majority Business License Tax for Ride
Share Services Simple majority (50 + 1) Two-thirds majority 211
CC 02-19-2026
211 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
4 City of Cupertino February 2026
Currently, the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco charge vacancy taxes on unused properties. No cities in California were found to charge taxes specifically on unused short -term rentals. Notably, a voter -approved tax in San Francisco on vacant multi-family units has been suspended until a final court decision can be reached.
Among active vacancy taxes, the City of San Francisco imposes a commercial vacancy tax on retail space that is unused for more than 182 days. The tax rate is $250 per linear foot of street-facing building frontage, and increases based on the term of vacancy. The City of Oakland imposes a vacant property tax on all properties in use for less than 50 days in a year. The tax rate is $6,000 per parcel of single-family home, nonresidential, or undeveloped property , and $3,000 per vacant multi -family unit. The Ci ty of Berkeley similarly charges a flat tax on vacant residential units that increases based on the term of vacancy. Each program provides a range of exemptions, such as for financial hardship and active construction.
There would be a cost to administer the collection and audit of any vacancy tax. That cost could vary depending on whether the city chooses to administer the collection in house or contracts with a third party. Based on existing vacancy taxes, this cost is substantial.
Implementation Process
A vacancy tax requires a ballot measure approved by the residents of the local jurisdiction.
The implementation process varies depending on the type and scope of the tax.
An excise tax on vacant properties requires City Council approval to place a measure on the ballot with a two -third vote for general purpose funding (4 out of 5 for the City of Cupertino) or a simple majority for special purpose funding. Voter approval of a majority (50% plus 1) is required for general purpose funding and two- thirds for special purpose funding.
A parcel tax on vacant properties requires City Council approval with a simple majority to place a measure on the ballot. Voter approval requires a two-third vote regardless of the use of the funds. If the City were to pursue consideration of a vacant parcel tax, a separate analysis on defining the purpose and the taxing structure and providing more refined revenue estimates for each option would be required.
Pros and Cons
Pros
Incentivizes property owners to lease or sell vacant or unused properties.
Can provide substantial revenue in areas with significant blight.
Cons
Existing vacancy taxes are shown to have a negligible impact on vacancies.
Vacancy taxes could increase the number of properties on the short-term rental market.
Enforcement is difficult and requires substantial resources to verify exemptions. 212
CC 02-19-2026
212 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
5 City of Cupertino February 2026
Potential Revenue Estimate
Estimating potential revenue depends on the number of unused properties, their length of vacancy, the tax rate, and the structure of the tax. This varies from city to city. A city can impose differing tax rates based upon the classification of property . However, more variations in tax rates make the administration and collection of the tax more complicated and thus more costly.
Extrapolation Rate Approach
One way to estimate potential revenue is to look at one or more peer cities in the region that currently impose the tax and extrapolate their revenue to Cupertino on a per capita basis. HdL estimated revenue from a vacant property tax in Cupertino by extrapolating vacancy tax revenue from the City of Oakland on a per capita basis. Although there are likely significant differences between the number of vacant properties in Oakland and Cupertino, this method presents one approach for estimating potential revenue.
Analysis of Vacancy Tax Revenue Based on Average Per Capita Total Population of Selected Peer Cities 440,646
Total Vacancy Tax Revenue of Surveyed Cities $6,357,011 Average Tax Revenue Per Capita $14.43
City of Cupertino Population 58,710
Estimated Revenue Based on Average Per Capita $846,984
Modeled Approach
Another way to estimate potential revenue is to look at estimates of vacant properties in Cupertino and calculate their tax following the model of one or more peer cities. HdL estimated tax revenue from vacant properties in the City of Cupertino using industry data on business properties and U.S. government estimates of vacant residential properties in the City of Cupertino. The tax was estimated on a per property basis following the Oakland model. Vacant property is defined as having been unused for more than 6 months. There may be significant differences between these estimates and the results of any in- depth study due to differences in definitions, measurement, and exemptions.
Analysis of Estimated Revenue from Vacant Properties (More than 6 Months) Description Amount
Estimated Number of Vacant Business Properties 9
Estimated Number of Vacant Single-Family Homes 148
Estimated Number of Vacant Units in Multi-Family Homes 154 Tax Rate Per Vacant Single-Family Home and Business Property $6,000 Tax Rate Per Vacant Unit in Multi-Family Home $3,000
Potential Revenue $1,404,000
Data on vacant properties from Costar and U.S. Census American Community Survey 213
CC 02-19-2026
213 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
6 City of Cupertino February 2026
TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX
Description
A Transactions and Use Tax (TUT) is an additional sales tax levy on top of the Bradley- Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax imposed by individual cities. What is referred to as the Bradley -Burns local portion of the sales and use tax is the 1% allocated to the jurisdiction where the sale is negotiated or the order is taken. Cities, counties, and special districts have the ability to add on to the Bradley-Burns tax for their specific uses.
Existing law authorizes cities and counties, subject to limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use district tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law. This includes a requirement that the combined rate of all taxes that may be imposed in accordance with that law in the jurisdiction not exceed 2% for a total sales and use tax rate of 9.25%. The TUT is destination-based, meaning it is allocated to the jurisdiction where the goods are delivered or placed into use.
A local government does not have the ability to make exemptions as to what goods and services are exempt from the TUT. The TUT would be applicable to all goods and services subject to the statewide sales and use tax. Items that are exempt from TUT include certain food products for human consumption (many groceries), sales to the U.S. Government, prescription medicine and certain medical devices, and items paid for with food stamps.
Starting April 1, 2026, the combined Bradley -Burns and TUT tax rate in the City of Cupertino will be 9.75%, which is the baseline rate within Santa Clara County. This includes the state base rate of 7.25% along with a county-wide Transactions and Use Tax add-on of 2 .5%. Of this county -wide add-on, 0.75% is exempt from the cap. The state legislature has authorized an additional 0.5% county -wide add-on exempt from the cap for voter approval in 2026.
1 Local governments can impose a TUT in increments of
0.125%, up to the state cap amount. Therefore, there is capacity to impose a TUT of up to 0.25%, and still be under the 2% cap.
Currently, there are 407 cities in the state that have approved a TUT , and in the 2025 election, voters in nine California cities considered adding or extending add-on transactions and use taxes, with eight passing. In Santa Clara County, there are currently four cities which impose a TUT add on to the County rate of 9 .75%. Cities with a TUT in Santa Clara County include:
• Campbell – 1%
• Los Gatos – 0.125%
• Milpitas – 0.25%
• San Jose – 0.25%
1 As authorized by 2025-2026 SB 63, 2023-2024 SB 335, and 2017-2018 SB 797 (California Legislative Information).
214
CC 02-19-2026
214 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
7 City of Cupertino February 2026
There would be an administrative expense paid to the State Board of Equalization associated with the monitoring of the collection and audit of the TUT. An estimate of this cost is included in the potential revenue estimates provided by HdL. There would also likely be additional expenses associated with county administration of the tax.
Implementation Process
Enactment of a TUT requires a ballot measure approved by the residents of the city .
Placing a measure on the ballot requires supermajority City Council approval with a two- thirds vote (4 out of 5 for the City of Cupertino). Once on the ballot, the measure must have a two-third voter approval for special purpose funding or a simple majority (50% plus 1) for general purpose funding to pass.
A TUT would be implemented no sooner than 110 days after the election date. For a November ballot measure, it will be implemented on April 1 of the following year, unless a later date is stated in the measure. For financial purposes, an April 1 start date means cash flow will start in June. With a normal 60 -day accrual period, a city can expect one quarter worth of revenue for that fiscal year , with the first full fiscal year impact not felt until the following year. A sample implementation timeline is provided below:
• November 2026 - successful ballot measure
• April 2027 – effective date
• June 2027 – first cash flow
• FY2027 – one quarter fiscal impact
• FY2028 - first full year fiscal impact
Process to Increase the Transactions and Use Tax Beyond the 2% Cap Limit The existing Revenue and Taxation Code authorizes cities and counties, subject to certain limitations and approval requirements, to levy a transactions and use tax for general or specific purposes, in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth in the Transactions and Use Tax Law to exceed the 2% limit. The authorization to exceed the 2% limit requires state legislative action, in the form of legislation to allow for a specific jurisdiction to exceed the limit. The California State Legislature must approve the bill to allow the city to make this exemption. The city will still need to follow the local voter approval process to approve the measure.
Pros and Cons of TUT and Increases
Pros
Sales taxes are borne by both residents and non- residents purchasing goods and services from businesses in the taxing jurisdiction. HdL estimates that 28.8% of a Cupertino TUT would be paid by non-residents - individuals and businesses residing and located outside of the City.
Cons
Sales taxes are regressive by nature. Taxes on general goods and services consume a greater proportion of a lower/moderate income family’s income. 215
CC 02-19-2026
215 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
8 City of Cupertino February 2026
Potential Revenue Estimate
In July 2023, HdL prepared a Transaction District Add-on Sales Tax Estimate Report for the City of Cupertino. Based on the City’s economic profile, revenue from a proposed
0.25% transactions and use tax is expected to be less than the revenue generated by the existing Bradley-Burns sales and use tax after adjusting for differences in the tax rate.
While HdL estimates there would be an increase in revenue from residents’ purchase of automobiles in other jurisdictions and online shopping orders delivered within the C ity, this is outweighed by the allocation of business and industry goods to the location of delivery or first use, and not where the sales are negotiated or from where they originate.
After adjusting for differences in tax rates, a voter approved 0.25 % TUT in Cupertino is estimated to generate approximately 62% of the existing Bradley-Burns local tax, or $5.4 million per year using FY2023 as a baseline. If the City were to pursue a higher tax rate through state legislation, the increased tax amount can be calculated by the estimates of the additional 0.125% increments. In rounded numbers, an additional TUT could generate an additional $2.7 million per eighth of a cent.
PARCEL TAX
Description
A parcel tax is a tax on a parcel of property within a city. The tax must be imposed for a specific purpose. The revenue collected may only be used for that specific purpose. 2 For
example, library services, public safety, roads, or infrastructure improvements are common purposes. The owner of the individual property pays the tax. The amount of the tax is set by the city and can vary depending on the type of use of the property . For example, single-family residences, multi-family properties, and commercial, industrial, or vacant properties can have different rates. Recent rulings have also allowed for parcel taxes based on the square footage of developed land or property improvements, so long as the tax is not based on the assessed value of the property. 3 The amount of tax can also be the same rate for all parcels regardless of land use. The city can also exempt certain classifications of properties. All of the tax rate decisions are at the discretion of the city. The tax rate should also be roughly proportional to the use of the services, so a tax rate study is required. A CPI increase may be built into the tax if it is supported by the tax rate study.
Parcel Taxes are most commonly imposed by school districts and special districts. The tax process is most utilized by cities for specialized services, such as libraries or public
2 Parcel taxes are defined as special taxes under the California Constitution ( Article XIII A Section 4 ) and California Government Code (Section 64610). Special taxes must include a specific purpose in their ballot measure under the California Government Code (Section 50075). 3 Based on rulings by the 1 st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco and 2 nd District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles (2023).
216
CC 02-19-2026
216 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
9 City of Cupertino February 2026
safety services. In Santa Clara County, the City of San Jose approved a CPI -adjusted parcel tax of $29.84 per single family home in 2014 to fund library operations.
Parcel Taxes are not to be confused with Property Asse ssments, which are taxes assessed on specific properties for specific services provided to those properties, such as landscape maintenance and street lighting. These are referred to as Special Districts.
As with the other taxes described, there would likely be an administrative expense associated with the monitoring of the collection and audit of the tax.
Implementation Process
Implementation of a parcel tax requires a ballot measure approved by the residents of the city. Placing a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a simple majority.
Voter approval requires a two-thirds vote regardless of the use of the funds.
There are many variations as to which parcels would be taxed and at what rates and the purpose of the tax . If the C ity were to pu rsue consideration of a parcel tax, a separate analysis on defining the purpose and the taxing structure and providing more refined revenue estimates for each option would be required.
Pros and Cons
Pros
Parcel taxes are a steady stream of income because they are based on a fixed fee. They are not subject to the volatility of land values.
Parcel taxes can be less regressive than sales or value- based taxes since they are a fixed amount.
Cons
Residents and landowners of the city pay parcel taxes. Non- residents or visitors of the city are not subject to this type of tax.
Though parcel taxes are less regressive than sales taxes, they still impact lower/moderate income individuals disproportionately.
Potential Revenue Estimate
The City can set the tax rate based on a fixed amount for various categories of land use or area of developed land. The table below identifies the parcel inventory for the City.
City of Cupertino Parcel Inventory
Type Percent Number Square Feet of Improvements
Commercial 0.7% 127 872,316
Industrial 0.4% 65 5,699,267
Residential, including multi-family 85.9% 14,936 34,324,164 Miscellaneous 13.0% 2,264 10,439,225
Total 100% 17,392 51,334,972
217
CC 02-19-2026
217 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
10 City of Cupertino February 2026
The City can set a different tax rate for various categories of land use. There are many combinations of rates and property types the C ity could choose to produce the most equitable tax structure. For example, the City could apply a tax of $0.25 per square feet of improvements and a flat tax of $100 per parcel on vacant properties. T he tax amount per parcel category can vary significantly, but the following illustration provides a general scope of understanding of the tax and potential revenue it could generate.
Using the below tables as a model, the C ity could choose a residential rate of $0. 15 per square foot of improvement s, generating approximately $5.14 million in revenue, along with a $150 per parcel rate for commercial and industrial properties, for a total of $28,800 ($19,050 for commercial plus $ 9,750 for industrial) for a grand total of $ 5.17 million per year.
Analysis of Parcel Tax Revenue Based on Number of Parcels (000s of $) Property Type
Number of
Parcels $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200
Commercial 127 $3.2 $6.4 $9.5 $12.7 $15.9 $19 $22.2 $25.4 Industrial 65 $1.6 $3.3 $4.9 $6.5 $8.1 $10 $11.4 $13.0
Residential,
including
multi-family
14,936 $373 $747 $1,120 $1,494 $1,867 $2,240 $2,614 $2,987 Miscellaneous 2,264 $57 $113 $170 $226 $283 $340 $396 $453 Total 17,392 $435 $870 $1,304 $1,739 $2,174 $2,609 $3,044 $3,478
Analysis of Parcel Tax Revenue Based on Per Square Foot of Improvements (000s of $) Property Type
Square Feet
of
Improvements $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 Commercial 872,316 $44 $87 $131 $174 $218 $262 $305 $349 Industrial 5,699,267 $285 $570 $855 $1,140 $1,425 $1,710 $1,995 $2,280 Residential,
including
multi-family
34,324,164 $1,716 $3,432 $5,149 $6,865 $8,581 $10,297 $12,013 $13,730 Miscellaneous 10,439,225 $522 $1,044 $1,566 $2,088 $2,610 $3,132 $3,654 $4,176 Total 51,334,972 $2,567 $5,133 $7,700 $10,267 $12,834 $15,400 $17,967 $20,534
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX
Description
Most cities impose a business license tax on businesses that operate within the physical boundaries of the city. There are various methodologies for calculating the tax . The presumption of a business license tax is to tax business es for the services provided by the city to support its business community, i.e., public safety, infrastructure impacts, etc. 218
CC 02-19-2026
218 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
11 City of Cupertino February 2026
The City of Cupertino imposes a Business License Tax. This tax is based on the type of business and square footage of any floor area, less fifteen percent. City staff proposed an updated employee -based tax in 2018 that was not approved by Cupertino’s City Council.
In the November 2024 election, there were 15 cities in California that proposed general revisions or updates to their business license or special operations taxes, all of which passed.
There would likely be an additional administrative expense associated with increased monitoring of the collection and audit relative to the City’s current fee structure.
Implementation Process
Increases to a business license tax require a ballot measure approved by the residents of the city . Placing a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a two- thirds vote for general purpose funding (4 out of 5 for the City of Cupertino) or a simple majority for special purpose funding. Voter approval of a majority (50% plus 1) is required for general purpose funding and two-thirds for special purpose funding.
Pros and Cons
Pros
Business license taxes can generate a significant amount of revenue. Voter approval is by the residents and not necessarily the business owners , with residents more likely to approve the tax.
Cons
It can be considered a regressive tax in that the amount that businesses pay is considered a cost of doing business and therefore passed on to customer s in the cost of goods and services.
A business license tax, depending on the amount, may dissuade businesses, most likely small businesses, from locating or staying within the City. However, the tax structure can be tailored to minimize the impact on small or locally owned businesses through ti ered rates, exemptions, or lower thresholds for certain classifications.
Potential Revenue Estimates
There are several different models that cities use for business licens e taxes. Some are based on flat fees, based on the number of employees , or gross revenue generated by the business. A city can impose differing tax rates based on the classification of a business. However, more variations in tax rates make the administration and collection of the tax more complicated and thus more costly.
Presently, HdL’s business license division administers business license programs for 136 cities in California. The recommended structure for a newly implemented business license tax is based on the gross receipts model. This model is the least regressive approach 219
CC 02-19-2026
219 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
12 City of Cupertino February 2026
because it is based on the revenue increases of the business and not other factors such as employees or a flat fee.
Given the variation in models, one way to estimate potential revenue is to look at one or more peer cities in the region that currently impose a business license tax, determine their actual tax on a per establishment basis, and extrapolate it to Cupertino by the number of establishments that typically require a business license. This study uses this approach to estimate the revenue from gross receipts and employment-based models. It also includes an analysis of the potential revenue from the model proposed by City staff in 2018.
City Model-Based Rate Approach - Gross Receipts
HdL identified the City of East Palo as the closest city to Cupertino with a gross receipts tax. Their estimated business license tax and fee revenue was extrapolated on a per license basis to Cupertino using city-level business license data.
Analysis of Business License Tax and Fee Revenue Based on Average Per License Description Amount
Total Number of East Palo Alto Business Licenses 1,729
East Palo Alto Business License Tax and Fee Revenue $2,290,256 East Palo Alto Average Tax and Fee Revenue Per License $1,325 Number of Business Licenses in Cupertino 2,986
Potential Business License Tax and Fee Revenue Based on Average Per License $3,955,295
City of Cupertino Business License Fee Revenue $831,321 Additional Potential Revenue from a Business License Tax $3,123,974 Source: California State Controller's Office and Cupertino and East Palo Alto Business License Data
Based on the per -license analysis, it is estimated that the C ity could achieve approximately $3.12 million in additional annual revenue based on the assumptions in the analysis scenario. The revenue data was reported by cities to the State Controller’s Office (SCO) and therefore was recorded into a common database based on the SCO’s reporting requirements. This is more accurate than drawing the information from each city, each of which may choose different reporting formats, dates, and/or criteria.
City Model-Based Rate Approach - Employment
HdL identified the City of Mountain View as the most similar city to Cupertino with an employment tax. Their estimated business license tax and fee revenue was extrapolated on a per-license basis to Cupertino using city-level business license data.
220
CC 02-19-2026
220 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
13 City of Cupertino February 2026
Analysis of Business License Tax and Fee Revenue Based on Average Per License Description Amount
Total Number of Mountain View Business Licenses 5,900
Mountain View Business License Tax and Fee Revenue $5,595,339 Mountain View Average Tax and Fee Revenue Per License $948 Number of Business Licenses in Cupertino 2,986
Potential Business License Tax and Fee Revenue Based on Average Per License $2,831,811
City of Cupertino Business License Fee Revenue $831,321 Additional Potential Revenue from a Business License Tax $2,000,490 Source: California State Controller's Office and Cupertino and Mountain View Business License Data
Based on the per -license analysis, it is estimated that the C ity could achieve approximately $2 million in additional annual revenue based on the assumptions in the analysis scenario.
Proposed 2018 Cupertino Model-Based Approach
The City of Cupertino proposed an employment tax on businesses in 2018 that was not approved by City Council. This measure was supported by a survey of local businesses’ employment to estimate business license tax and fee revenue. Revenue from this measure was estimated for present -day Cupertino by extrapolating city -level business license data using the 2018 distribution of businesses and employees.
Analysis of Business License Tax and Fee Revenue Based on 2018 Draft Ordinance Employee Range Number of Businesses Employee Count Base Rate Employee Rate 1-9 2,669 2,901 $150 $0
10-49 256 3,413 $500 $0
50-99 34 2,040 $500 $0
100-249 21 2,772 $500 $50
250-499 4 1,040 $500 $100
500-999 1 600 $500 $200
1,000 - 4,999 - - $500 $300
5,000+ 1 24,000 $500 $425
Source: Cupertino Draft Ordinance, 2018 Business Study, and Business License Data Based on this analysis, it is estimated that the C ity could achieve approximately $10.29 million in additional annual revenue based on the assumptions in the analysis scenario.
221
CC 02-19-2026
221 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
14 City of Cupertino February 2026
BUSINESS LICENSE TAX FOR RIDE-SHARE SERVICES
Description
A ride-share tax is a component of a business license tax specific to ride-share services (transportation network companies) that operate within the physical boundaries of the city. Cities are prohibited from imposing any tax independent of a business license tax on these services. Ride -share operators are subject to city business license taxes as independent contractors.4 Additionally, taxes on transportation network companies can also be levied on the gross receipts that occur within the city. The structure of the tax can vary according to the discretion of the city.
In California, the City of San Francisco is the only city that includes a ride- share specific provision in its business license tax. The City of San Francisco charges a 1.5% tax on the gross receipts of shared rides and 3.25% tax on the gross receipts of all other rides that originate in San Francisco for the portion of the trip within the city (Proposition D).
There would be a cost to administer the collection and auditing of the tax. That cost could vary depending on the structure of the tax and if the C ity chooses to administer the collection in house or contract with a third- party. It would likely be substantial. For example, enforcement of the business license tax for ride- share operators in San Francisco required two years of compliance actions with multiple requests for information and subpoenas.
5 Implementation Process
A ride share tax would be part of a business license tax, which requires a ballot measure approved by the residents of the City . Placing a measure on the ballot requires City Council approval with a two-third vote for general purpose funding (4 out of 5 for the City of Cupertino) or a simple majority for special purpose funding. Voter approval of a majority (50% plus 1) is required for general purpose funding and two- thirds for special purpose funding.
Pros and Cons
Pros
Taxes on ride shares are borne by both residents and non- residents purchasing goods and services from businesses in the taxing jurisdiction.
If the cost of the tax is transferred to riders, it could disincentivize car trips and reduce traffic congestion.
Cons
The tax can be seen as regressive if based on a fixed percentage of the ride share.
Individuals without a car may rely more heavily on these services.
4 Based on the California Supreme Court decision in Castellanos vs State of California (2024). 5 San Francisco Treasurer (2016).
222
CC 02-19-2026
222 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
15 City of Cupertino February 2026
The tax can be difficult to enforce, depending on the structure.
Potential Revenue Estimates
To determine the potential revenues for a ride -share tax, further input would need to be provided on the scope and structure of the tax. Research would also need to be done on the number of ride -share operators, the value of ride -share trips originating in the C ity, and the portion of those trips that are within the City’s boundaries.
SUMMARY
Vacancy Tax
A vacancy tax is a form of excise tax on unoccupied properties for lease and sale in the physical boundaries of the city . The structure of the tax can vary according to the discretion of the city. The cost to administer and enforce the tax would likely be substantial and lawsuits have paused administration of approved measures. Based on a potential excise tax on unused short-term rentals and vacant properties, such a tax could generate between $846,984 and $1.4 million in tax revenue
Transactions and Use Tax (TUT)
From experiences of other cities, a TUT has one of the higher feasibilities of voter approval than other tax options. One of the reasons is that a portion of the revenue collected will come from non-residents making purchases within the city, and the fact that many surrounding communities already impose a similar tax. The potential revenue generated is on the higher side of other options , at approximately $5.4 million in annual revenue for a 0.25% tax. HdL estimates that 28.8% of a Cupertino TUT would be paid by non-residents.
Parcel Tax
Parcel tax revenue can only be used for the specific purpose for which the tax is levied.
The tax is borne by the property owners within the city. The feasibility of passing a ballot measure is less than other tax forms because of this fact and the requirement to demonstrate the specific purpose of the tax. The cost of administration is less than other tax options because the collection is the responsibility of the County . The revenue estimates depend on the amount of tax levied for specific parcels and must be tied to the nexus of the fee to service.
Business License Tax
The feasibility of voter approval of a business license tax may be slightly less than a TUT.
The tax is borne by the businesses in the city, who may pass on the additional cost in higher prices for goods and services. There are many variations in how the tax is structured. This report estimates adoption of a tax structure similar to nearby cities could generate between $2 and $1 0.2 million in annual revenue depending on the selected structure of the tax.
223
CC 02-19-2026
223 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
16 City of Cupertino February 2026
Business License Tax for Ride Share Services
A ride-share tax is a form of business license tax on ride share services that operate within the physical boundaries of the city. These businesses may pass on the additional cost in higher prices for goods and services. The structure of the tax varies by jurisdiction but is generally based on the value of vehicle trips that originate in the city for the portion of the trip within the city. To determine the potential revenue, further input would be needed on the scope and structure of the tax, along with additional research.
Potential Tax Summary
Potential Tax Evaluation Matrix
Administrative
Ease Equity Revenue
Potential
Estimated
Compliance and
Administrative
Costs
Possible
Tax
Types
Vacancy
Tax
There would be
costs and effort
with setting up
the tax and
notifying property
owners and
tracking and
monitoring the
collections.
Potentially
regressive if
exemptions are
not provided for
financial
hardship.
$846,984 - $1.4
million
Substantial costs
to monitor
compliance.
Monitoring and
compliance
would require an
in-house or third-
party to
administer.
Transactions
and Use Tax
There would be
costs and effort
with setting up
the tax and
notifying
businesses and
tracking and
monitoring the
collections.
Regressive, but
nonresidents
would pay a
percentage of tax
within City
purchases
(28.8%).
$5.4 million per
0.25%
There would be
an additional cost
to monitor the
increased tax,
but that cost is
minimal.
Parcel Tax
Prior to placing
the ballot on the
measure there is
a requirement for
a study to
quantify the
nexus of the fee
to service.
Monitoring and
verifying the
collection would
most likely
require a third
party
Somewhat
regressive and
impacts only
property owners.
$435 thousand
- $20.5 million
Monitoring and
compliance
would require an
in-house or third-
party to
administer.
224
CC 02-19-2026
224 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
17 City of Cupertino February 2026
Business
License Tax
A change in the
structure would
require
notification to
business and for
the county to
change its
administration
process.
There would be
costs and effort
tracking and
monitoring the
collections.
Potentially
regressive. Tax is
only on
businesses, but
they may pass
extra costs to
customers.
$2 - $10.2
million
Monitoring and
compliance
would require an
in-house or third-
party to
administer.
Business
License Tax
for Ride
Share
Services
There would be
costs and effort
with setting up
the tax and
notifying
businesses and
tracking and
monitoring the
collections.
Potentially
regressive. Tax is
only on
businesses, but
they may pass
extra costs to
customers.
Additional
research
required
Substantial costs
to monitor
compliance.
Monitoring and
compliance
would require an
in-house or third-
party to
administer.
225
CC 02-19-2026
225 of 303
www.hdlcompanies.com • 714.879.5000
18 City of Cupertino February 2026
Resident vs. Non-Resident Analysis
The City of Cupertino has requested an estimate of the approximate amount of sales and use tax revenue generated by residents versus non- residents. I ndividuals, and businesses residing and located within the city will collectively be referred to as residents, while individuals and businesses residing and located outside of the city will collectively be referred to as non-residents.
The table below summarizes the results of the analysis based on actual Bradley -Burns local Sales and Use Tax and estimated Transactions and Use Tax (TUT) revenue data for 2023 (fiscal year). It also reflects the percentage of sales and use tax estimated by non-residents for each of the seven major industry groups. The Bradley-Burns Sales and Use Tax is a uniform tax administered by the state, of which 1% is allocated to the jurisdiction where the sale is negotiated or the order is taken. Transactions and use taxes are administered by local jurisdictions and allocated to the district where a purchase is delivered or placed into use.
HdL estimates that 92.9% of Bradley-Burns local Sales and Use tax revenue in fiscal year 2023 was generated by non- residents, while the percentage of a proposed 0.25% TUT paid by non-residents is estimated at 28.8%.
Percent of Sales and Use Tax Revenue Generated from Non-Resident Spending Economic Segment
Non-Resident
Bradley-Burns Sales
and Use Tax (SUT)
Non-Resident
Transactions and Use
Tax (TUT)
Autos and Transportation 54.3% 1.7%
Building and Construction 69.1% 13.6%
Business and Industry 97.4% 9.0%
Food and Drugs 69.1% 69.1%
Fuel and Service Stations 69.1% 69.1%
General Consumer Goods 69.1% 38.1%
Restaurants and Hotels 69.1% 69.1%
Estimated Percentage of Tax Revenue
Generated by Non-Residents 92.9% 28.8%
226
CC 02-19-2026
226 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14858 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 8.
Subject: Parkland Ballot Measure - Mapping, Zoning, Legal Review, and Election Considerations Receive the report and provide direction to staff on whether to pursue development of a parkland rezoning ballot measure for consideration at the November 2026 election.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
227
CC 02-19-2026
227 of 303
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 • FAX: (408) 777-3109
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: February 19, 2026
Subject
Parkland Ballot Measure – Mapping, Zoning, Legal Review, and Election Considerations Recommended Action
Receive the report and provide direction to staff on whether to pursue development of a parkland rezoning ballot measure for consideration at the November 2026 election.
Background
On January 13, 2026, the City Council conducted a study session regarding a potential November 2026 ballot measure related to parkland protections and rezoning considerations. At that meeting, Council reviewed examples from other jurisdictions, including the City of Milpitas’ Measure K (2016), which requires a two-thirds voter approval to redesignate or develop land zoned for park and open space purposes.
Following discussion, Council requested additional information before determining whether to proceed with placing a measure on the November 2026 ballot. Specifically, Council directed staff to:
- Produce a comprehensive map of City parkland, recreation areas, and open space, - including current zoning designations;
- Identify any parcels with zoning inconsistencies or potential cleanup needs; - Review applicable state law protections governing abandonment or redesignation of parkland; and
- Provide information regarding election logistics, timing, and associated fiscal impacts.
This memorandum responds to Council’s request and outlines the legal framework, logistical requirements, and estimated fiscal implications associated with pursuing a parkland ballot measure.
Mapping and Zoning Analysis
A. Comprehensive Parkland and Open Space Mapping
The city currently has an up-to-date map on the website reflecting the zoning designation for each property, including city parks and open space. The map can be found at: Zoning Code and 228
CC 02-19-2026
228 of 303
Planning Maps Cupertino CA. Further, the Recreation, Parks and Community Services chapter of the City’s General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040 provides Goals, Policies and Strategies for park maintenance and development, as well as figures that map existing open space, park areas, trail linkages, and park access.
B. Zoning Consistency and Cleanup Assessment
A comprehensive review of the current sites zoned for Open Space (OS) or Public Park (PR) could be conducted to determine any conflict between site use and zoning designation , and any other areas that could be considered parkland. Currently, any property zoned OS or PR is being utilized as open space or park. Some sites may be currently utilized as open space but are zoned as Public Buildings (BA). The City could evaluate public school sites zoned BA and private recreational facilities zoned FP-o and Agricultural Residential.
C. Service Center Zoning and Land Use Review
The city’s service center site at 10555 Mary Avenue is zoned BA (Public Building) and a General Plan Land Use Designation of Public Facilities. The BA designation is for properties with public buildings on the property. No anticipated conflict with use and zoning.
Legal and Ballot Language Evaluation
A. Review of Existing State Law Protections
State law currently provides certain protective hurdles that must be met before a city may dispose of municipal parkland. These hurdles limit a City’s ability to easily abandon formally designated park land or land improved and used for public park purpose s demonstrating a city’s intent to dedicate the land as park land in the future. (See Government Code Section 38440, et seq.) Under these Government Code provisions, to abandon park land or land improved and used as park land, a city must adopt a resolution declaring its intent to do so. Then it must hold a noticed hearing regarding the proposed abandonment, after providing physical posted notice in the park area. Thereafter, members of the public may file written protests to the abandonment. Any written protest is automatically sustained, unless the city council overrules the protest by a two - thirds vote in favor of abandoning the park land. If the city council does so vote, a special election must be held to submit the question to the full electorate. A simple majority vote of the electorate is required to abandon the park land. After such majority vote, the city council is required by statute to adopt an ordinance abandoning the park land, which then allows the city to sell or otherwise dispose of the land in the same manner as any other surplus city land.
One exception to the above process applies when a city desires to trade a small portion of a park for a parcel of private land contiguous to an existing park so long as the land is of equal or greater value than the portion the city will trade. (Govt. Code Section 38441.) Under these circumstances, no public protest is required. The city council may simply vote in favor of the trade.
229
CC 02-19-2026
229 of 303
B. Scope of Potential Ballot Measure
Local cities have passed ballot measures to heighten these requirements, making it more difficult for their city councils to abandon public park land. For example, the electorate of the City of Milpitas passed Measure K in 2016 with 84.5% of the vote. The Measure focused on preventing the development of residential, commercial or industrial buildings and preventing the re-zoning of land designated as “Parks and Open Space” in the City’s General Plan. Measure K requires proponents of such a development or rezoning to bring a ballot measure to the voters and obtain a two-thirds vote in favor of the change at a general election. This is a much higher standard than the simple majority vote of the electorate under current state law.
The City of Santa Clara, during the same general election in 2016, also offered a ballot measure to its electorate, Measure R, to protect the parkland within their City. Santa Clara voters passed Measure R with 89.6% of the vote. Santa Clara is a Charter City whose Charter provided minimal protections to park land pertaining mainly to notice and bidding procedures.
Both Milpitas and Santa Clara now require a two -thirds vote of the electorate to permit the transition of parkland within their city to non-park uses. Moreover, neither process requires an initial public protest to an already formulated City Council action , which is also a requirement under current state law.
Since the City of Cupertino is a General Law City, it would make sense to consider a measure similar to the Milpitas ballot measure, although an analysis of the inventory of City land included or designated as parkland or open space in the City’s General Plan should be completed to ensure the ballot measure addresses the specific land the City Council would be interested in protecting by this effort.
Election Logistics
To qualify a measure for the November 2026 General Municipal Election, the City must adhere to statutory deadlines for ballot language adoption and submission to the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. These deadlines generally require Council action to place the measure on the ballot no later than early August 2026.
In advance of that deadline, sufficient time must be allocated for public outreach, stakeholder engagement, polling (if desired), legal drafting, and refinement of ballot language. Based on preliminary conversations with multiple consultants experienced in municipal ballot measures, there remains adequate time to conduct polling, public engagement, and develop compliant ballot language for placement on the November 2026 ballot, provided direction is given in early 2026.
If Council ultimately directs staff to proceed, future actions would include adoption of a resolution placing the measure on the ballot, approval of ballot language and impartial analysis procedures, and coordination with the County Registrar.
230
CC 02-19-2026
230 of 303
Next Steps
Staff will return to City Council in February 2026 to formally present the information included in this memorandum and seek direction on whether to pursue placement of a parkland ballot measure on the November 2026 ballot.
If Council elects to proceed, staff will return with:
- A recommended scope of work for consultant services;
- A proposed budget appropriation; and
- A detailed work plan and timeline outlining polling, outreach, ballot language development, and required Council actions.
If Council determines not to pursue a measure at this time, no further action will be taken.
Include sustainability impact if necessary. If no impact, state “No sustainability impact.” Fiscal Impact
If Council directs staff to proceed with development of a ballot measure, the City should anticipate the following approximate costs:
- Consultant services for polling, public outreach, legal review, ballot language development, and strategic advisory services: approximately $150,000 to $200,000 based on initial discussions with multiple firms; and
- Estimated County costs to place the measure on the November 2026 ballot: approximately $150,000, based on historical costs.
These estimates are preliminary and would be refined prior to returning to Council with a consultant agreement or appropriation request.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Protections for Parkland/Consider establishing protections for parkland, similar to those adopted by the cities of Sunnyvale and Milpitas
Council Goal:
Quality of Life
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Acting Director of Administrative Services and City Treasurer Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
231
CC 02-19-2026
231 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14752 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 9.
Subject: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the agenda packet attachments.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
232
CC 02-19-2026
232 of 303
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: February 19, 2026
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the agenda packet attachments.
Executive Summary
The City of Cupertino is developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to update and consolidate the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. The ATP is a City Work Program project and fully funded through TDA Article 3 funds. Phase 1 of the project established the technical foundation for the Plan, which included a Needs Assessment and Existing Conditions Review that applied methods such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress to identify where walking and biking are most challenging and where short vehicle trips could realistically shift to active modes. Community input validated the analysis and emphasized strong support for improving safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network (HIN), connectivity to schools, designing for all ages and abilities, and balancing project tradeoffs for drivers.
Phase 2 advanced the Plan through continued engagement and produced clear priorities for both pedestrian and bicycle networks. The ATP and the draft prioritization criteria were presented to Commissions and Council in fall 2025, where there was strong consensus and feedback converged on prioritizing safety (especially near schools and on the HIN), using objective metrics to score projects, and elevating technology solutions. These comments led staff to revise the scoring frameworks and create a new project category, Transportation Technology Corridors. Staff also developed two new policy memos to address comments on potential project impacts and on how to measure project effectiveness. Next steps are to release a draft ATP for public review in 233
CC 02-19-2026
233 of 303
spring, incorporate revisions, and return to City Council for adoption in late June or early July.
Background
With substantial progress made on implementing the recommended projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, a new, comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is being developed that will build on those successes and address evolving community needs. Additionally, this unified, citywide plan will align bicycle and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of motorized vehicles. This coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses overlapping concerns.
The City Council approved the FY 24/25 City Work Program on April 3, 2024, with the ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to wholly fund the Plan's development.
On December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc., for development of an ATP.
Phase 1 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review, community outreach, and technical analysis to develop data-driven project recommendations.
The first step of Phase 1 was to develop a Plan Review Memo to ensure the ATP is consistent with and supports local and regional policies, including Cupertino plans like the General Plan’s Mobility Element and Vision Zero Action Plan, the Countywide Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant documents.
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured the shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and rolling are easy, safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and objectives were developed by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from existing Cupertino plans and refining them using input gathered during Phase 1 outreach to also reflect today's community needs and concerns. The community ranked these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active transportation network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero. Enact measures to anticipate human error and minimize the impact of traffic crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that offers comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key destinations for all residents and visitors in the City.
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated in all City roadway maintenance activities.
234
CC 02-19-2026
234 of 303
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the City by providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent usage and improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs).
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects to improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts to all other transportation modes whenever possible, including transit and personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed across all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
During Phase 1, the project team also conducted a Needs Assessment and an Existing Conditions Review. These documents examined the City’s transportation network in detail, identifying where walkers and bikers feel stressed or disconnected. Analyses such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress were applied to determine areas in the City where existing short driving trips could realistically shift to walking or biking. Together, these analysis methods established a clear picture of where gaps are greatest and where investments could potentially yield the greatest community benefits.
In parallel with the analysis task, staff reached out to the community to learn which destinations they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or biking.
Residents consistently expressed concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network (HIN), the need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, the need to consider potential project impacts on drivers, and the importance of designing facilities for people of all ages and abilities. Feedback from the community helped validate the technical analysis, and together, these two sources, along with state and federal design guidance documents such as the Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 94 and the Federal Highway Administration Bikeway Selection Guide, were leveraged to develop draft network recommendations.
Draft project prioritization criteria that align with the Plan goals were established to assist in ranking the draft network recommendations. The scoring metrics were selected to be consistent with community goals and VTA Measure B funding requirements. These criteria were presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (August 20, 2025), Planning Commission (September 9, 2025), and City Council (November 4, 2025) for review and public comment. These draft project prioritization criteria included the following metrics to rank recommended projects:
• Collision History
• Stress Level
• School Proximity
• High Frequency Transit Proximity
• Parks & Other Destination Proximity
• Active Trip Potential
• Roadway Impact
• Public Input
235
CC 02-19-2026
235 of 303
Phase 2 Summary
Following Phase 1, the project transitioned to the Network Recommendations Phase (Phase 2).
All Phase 1 documents can be referenced on the project webpage at www.cupertino.gov/atp.
This information was included in the staff report (Attachment A) for the November 04, 2025, City Council meeting. During this phase, public engagement continued, with the community encouraged to review and comment on the draft network recommendations. Phase 2 ran from August 20 to November 30 and consisted of eight pop-up events and three public hearings. The online input webmap was also updated to allow community members to review and comment on the project recommendations using the project webpage.
Phase 2 public outreach once again highlighted repeated concerns about intersection conflicts, particularly with right-turning vehicles, limited visibility, red light running, and speeding through major intersections. For pedestrian projects, respondents strongly supported the proposed Class I shared-use facilities (Tamien Innu, Union Pacific Trail, and Lawrence Mitty Trail). For the Lawrence Mitty Trail, the community specifically noted the value of extending the shared-use path northward and into Santa Clara to improve school access. There was also broad support for the recommended sidewalk projects. Participants noted that safety issues at intersections become more pronounced during commuting hours due to the high volume of traffic. The intersections most frequently mentioned were those along Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Prospect Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue. The community’s preferred pedestrian projects were:
• Tamien Innu
• Lawrence Mitty Trail
• Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (Typology A, B, C Intersection) • Union Pacific Trail
• Pacifica Dr and Torre Ave (Typology A Intersection)
For bicycling, popular projects included upgrading bike lanes on corridors such as Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue, and addressing intersection safety issues along Stevens Creek Boulevard, especially near Highway 85 and De Anza College. The community’s preferred bicycle projects were:
• Stevens Creek Blvd (Separated Bike Lanes)
• Blaney Ave (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Homestead Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
• Bollinger Rd (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Stelling Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
Overall, participants expressed support for enhanced network connections to schools and requested that some of the proposed buffered bike lanes be upgraded to separated bikeways to improve safety due to high-speed traffic. The corridors that received the most feedback included the recommended shared-use paths, as well as Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and Bollinger Road. Many participants favored the suggested shared-use paths, expressing that they would provide safe alternatives to major roadways and 236
CC 02-19-2026
236 of 303
intersections. Concerns about speeding and unsafe intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard were highlighted, particularly near Highway 85 and De Anza College. Separated bikeways were supported on Foothill Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Wolfe Road. Most unique comments were regarding the recommended neighborhood bike routes, with overall support for the enhanced neighborhood network serving schools.
Across both pedestrian and bicycle projects, recurring priorities were improving safety for students travelling to schools (Lincoln Elementary, Monta Vista High, and Cupertino High were referenced the most), implementing traffic calming and speed-reduction measures on local streets (speed tables, RRFBs, and when legally permissible implementing automated speed enforcement measures), strengthening connectivity between parks, schools, and neighborhoods, and improving intersection safety.
Commission and Council Feedback
Following Phase 1, the ATP was taken to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council to solicit feedback on the ATP and the draft project prioritization criteria. Based on the Council's direction and the Commissions’ feedback, staff revised both the draft prioritization criteria and draft policy and program recommendations to address comments from the three bodies. Additionally, staff prepared two new policy memos to accompany the ATP, which will be applied to new ATP projects to better evaluate potential project impacts and project effectiveness.
A review of the Commission and Council feedback showed clear consensus among the Commissions and the Council regarding each body’s comments on the ATP and the draft project prioritization criteria. These areas of agreement were:
• Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN. • Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures, and Fairness should be removed as a criterion.
• Support for improving future decision-making with more robust data collection. • Technology solutions need greater emphasis.
Specifically, on August 20, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission provided the following comments to staff:
• The Commission emphasized considering road maintenance before approving new projects.
• Concerns were raised about including public likes and dislikes in the evaluation process, and it was suggested that they be treated cautiously.
• Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data, and to avoid penalizing projects that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to the City Council.
• There was strong support for prioritizing safety, with extra points suggested for projects near schools and along high-injury corridors.
237
CC 02-19-2026
237 of 303
• 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.
On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission provided feedback to staff through the following motion:
• Access Criteria: Award fifteen points if within one-half mile of a school and include senior housing and senior facilities in the “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity” definition.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Rename “Sustainability” to “Connectivity” and award ten points for being within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress facility, raising the section maximum to twenty points.
• Balance Criteria: Subtract five points if five or more regularly used parking spaces are removed, and subtract fifteen points if a car lane is eliminated for ten percent or more of the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is subjective, unmeasurable, and likely to increase community divisiveness.
• Additional ATP Recommendations: Improve high-injury intersections with cameras, evaluate adaptive right-turn-on-red technology, conduct baseline bike counts, and partner with multiple providers for routine bike education.
On November 4, 2025, the City Council provided the following feedback to staff through the following motion, during which Vice Mayor Moore made a friendly amendment to add grant funding (Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang accepted the friendly amendment).
• Drop “Public Input” from ranking criteria since it’s not objective and unreliable. • Remove Fairness as a ranking criterion, as the CIP adoption process will address that. • Add “Cost-efficiency (user impact)” to ranking criteria - low cost, high impact projects should have high priority; and grant funding.
• Add impact to vehicular traffic to arterial streets as a ranking criterion to subtract points. • Add and prioritize technology solutions such as sensor-driven pedestrian and bicyclist detection
o Safe driving technology – speed feedback signs, red light cameras • Need input from drivers on dangerous points.
• School crossing - needs traffic management too, in addition to bike and ped infrastructure.
• Need data:
o Longer trip data from cell phone data, in addition to short trip data o Project list generated
o Data for De Anza Buffered Bike Lane collected so far.
o Hopper data
o TDM data from Apple
Staff addressed the comments specifically related to the draft prioritization criteria by:
238
CC 02-19-2026
238 of 303
• Modifying the scoring for the HIN and High Injury Intersections (HII) to give greater consideration to projects along the HIN/HII or locations in close proximity. • Modifying School Proximity scoring so that Suggested Routes to School is the chosen metric, rather than a distance-based proximity score for schools. This is more precise and appropriate, as it specifically addresses safety on known walking and biking routes to school.
• Adding senior facilities to the Destinations proximity for scoring. • Creating a new project category for transportation technology. • Removing the Fairness criterion so that all metrics are based on objective data. • Adding additional negative scoring for projects that impact Cupertino arterials. • Adding cost effectiveness as a scoring criterion.
The revised criteria tables are included in Attachment B, and the draft scored project list is in Attachment C. These prioritization results are undergoing QA/QC with the City of Cupertino and are intended as draft results to inform discussion with the City Council.
Staff addressed general comments on the ATP by creating a new project category for technology, developing two policies to apply to the new ATP network recommendations during project delivery, and making minor revisions to the program and policy recommendations (Attachment D). These changes include:
• The creation of a new project category for transportation technology, so that technology solutions are grouped into corridors and equally ranked against traditional network recommendations, not just listed as policy and program recommendations. This new project category is titled Transportation Technology Corridors. • A Project Impact Assessment Memo, which lays out the approach for comprehensively assessing project impacts and a path for project delivery when the full extent of parking or roadway impacts is discovered during design.
• A Project Effectiveness Memo, which describes how the City can better evaluate long- term project effectiveness.
• Minor edits to the program and policy recommendations to better reflect the character of Cupertino and address comments received during public hearings.
The first major revision to the ATP following the last Planning Commission review in September was the addition of a new project category, Transportation Technology Corridors.
This new category addresses the community’s desire and the Council's direction to prioritize technology.
To achieve this, transportation technologies were added to the ATP network recommendations as standalone corridor projects rather than as programmatic elements as previously identified.
Staff began by reviewing Typology C intersection recommendations (intersection signal and control changes) located at Cupertino-owned signalized intersections and evaluated their overlap with the Vision Zero HIN. Following this exercise, staff analyzed collision data to identify corridors with higher collision rates where “unsafe speed” is listed as the primary collision factor, or where collisions occurred due to traffic signal or sign violations. Lastly, 239
CC 02-19-2026
239 of 303
corridors and the intersections along them were screened for implementation feasibility to determine appropriate Technology Corridors. This process helped staff select five corridors that would benefit most from transportation technologies, based on collision history and the City’s ability to control and implement different technologies. These corridors are:
• De Anza Blvd: From Homestead Rd to Prospect Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd: From Foothill Blvd to Wolfe Rd
• Homestead Rd: From De Anza Blvd to Tantau Ave
• Wolfe/ Miller Rd: From Homestead Rd to Calle de Barcelona • Stelling Rd: From I-280 to Rainbow Dr
Technology solutions in this project category could include red-light cameras, speed- enforcement cameras (when legally permissible), adaptive detection for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and audible pedestrian detection. Transportation Technology Corridor projects will be treated the same as traditional network recommendations, and their scores will be normalized against bicycle, pedestrian intersection, and sidewalk projects. Technology Corridors will be ranked in the final project list alongside all other project types.
The next notable change is the addition of two new policy documents to be presented to Council for consideration. These documents aim to address two commonly heard themes from the community, Commissions, and Council related to the need to better consider project tradeoffs before construction and to collect more data on ridership resulting from bicycle improvement projects. These two memos (Attachments E and F) describe the approach that staff will follow for new ATP network recommendations.
For evaluating project impacts, the Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment E) states that following the Council-approved initiation of any new ATP project, and when parking or traffic impacts are identified during the preliminary engineering (30% design) phase, staff will return to the City Council to present the 30% design, identified impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that meeting, the Council will determine whether the project should undergo a detailed impact analysis tailored to its specific impacts. This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail that is available only once the 30% design phase has been completed.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical accuracy because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-based models, require defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking layouts, and other project features to produce meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion patterns, and parking utilization. Additionally, tying the analysis to the identification of parking or traffic impacts at 30% ensures that funding is focused on projects that clearly reveal meaningful operational or parking impacts, rather than expending significant resources on every concept in the ATP, regardless of its risk profile. A description of the potential scope and cost estimates for that work is included in Attachment 4.
The second policy memo (Attachment F) describes the process by which the City will use data to measure the success of new network recommendations in the ATP. This approach exclusively applies to Class II (striped bicycle lane), Class IIB (buffered bicycle lane), and Class IV 240
CC 02-19-2026
240 of 303
(protected bicycle lane) bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is to ensure that transportation projects identified in the ATP and completed through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are successful in furthering the City’s stated goals.
The ATP supports two City policy priorities. These are traffic safety (Vision Zero Action Plan) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Plan). The City’s Vision Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the Climate Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part by shifting short driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
To demonstrate progress toward these goals, staff must track the number of people using new facilities and the safety of those facilities over time. This proposed evaluation approach will allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such as whether these projects encourage the use of active transportation modes, whether collision rates are decreasing even as ridership increases, and, potentially, which types of improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
Historically, due to the costly nature of this work, city staff has relied on occasional spot counts or project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle and pedestrian volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes establishing an approach that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along with project-specific before-and-after counts for certain bikeway projects. This effort will require the purchase or lease of bike-ped counting equipment and, potentially, the associated analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian activity can be measured in a repeatable way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive snapshot baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at ATP priority project locations. This initial effort would record how many people are currently biking (and walking, where feasible).
Following completion of the baseline count, for individual bikeway projects approved by the Council, staff proposes a before-and-after evaluation approach for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways.
Upon Council approval of project initiation, staff would begin a pre-construction data collection period at the project site. This establishes a clear pre-project picture of both ridership and safety.
After the project is constructed, staff would then repeat this process for post-construction. With these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average daily and peak-period bicycle volumes, as well as changes in collision rates. The key metric will not just be the number of collisions, but collisions relative to the number of bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project would be one in which more people use the facility while the collision rate per bicyclist or pedestrian remains the same or decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives.
These new policies are intended to improve transparency and accountability around new active transportation projects. It also provides Council with a way to compare projects and project types, allows designs to be refined based on what works best in practice, and creates a feedback loop between adopted policy goals and real-world outcomes. By committing to these approaches, the City can signal that success is defined not only by miles of bikeway delivered, 241
CC 02-19-2026
241 of 303
but by thoughtful design and quantifiable improvements in safety and mode shift toward sustainable transportation.
Next steps for the ATP will include preparing a draft report for public review in the spring.
After the public review period, staff will incorporate any needed revisions and bring the Draft Plan to the City Council for adoption in late June or early July.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will develop infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and accessibility for all non- motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include mode shift strategies to promote walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile dependency, which will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier, more sustainable community. The development and implementation of an Active Transportation Plan is a Transportation Measure (TR-1) in the City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (2022).
• Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15 percent of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040 Fiscal Impact
The project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes, FY 24-25
Active Transportation Plan: This is a consolidation of existing and new transportation efforts that aim to further the goals outlined in the City’s Vision Zero Initiative, including:
18.1 Review and update bike plan
18.2 Review and update pedestrian plan
18.3 Review current Complete Streets Policy and propose adjustments to create a better interface between all modes of transportation
Council Goal:
Transportation
California Environmental Quality Act
The project is not subject to CEQA.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – November 04, 2025, City Council Staff Report
242
CC 02-19-2026
242 of 303
B – Revised Project Prioritization Criteria
C – Draft Prioritized Project List
D – Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
E – Draft Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
F – Draft Project Effectiveness Guidelines
243
CC 02-19-2026
243 of 303
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: November 4, 2025
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
With substantial progress already made on the implementation of recommended projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, a new, comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was necessary to build on those improvements and address evolving community needs. Staff also recognized the importance of creating a unified, citywide plan to align bicycle and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of motorized vehicles. This coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoiding duplication, aligning initiatives, and addressing overlapping concerns.
On April 4, 2023, the City Council approved the FY 23/24 City Work Program (CWP), which identified the ATP as an item “to be considered” for inclusion in the following year’s work program. The City Council approved the FY 24/25 CWP on April 3, 2024, with the ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to support the development of the Plan. With funding secured, staff advertised a Request for Proposals for consultant services to assist in developing the Plan. On December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc., for development of the Active Transportation Plan.
Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
Phase 1 of the Plan occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review, community outreach and input, and analysis to develop data-driven project recommendations.
244
CC 02-19-2026
244 of 303
The first step of Phase 1 was developing a Plan Review Memo to ensure the ATP is consistent with and supports local and regional policies, including Cupertino plans like the General Plan’s Mobility Element and Vision Zero Action Plan, the Countywide Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant documents.
Building on that policy context, the project team then conducted a Needs Assessment, supported by an Existing Conditions Review. These documents examined the City’s transportation network in detail, identifying where walkers and bikers feel stressed or disconnected. Analyses such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress were applied to estimate how many short driving trips could realistically shift to walking or biking. Together, these data-driven methods established a clear picture of where gaps are greatest and where investments could have a significant community impact.
In parallel with the analysis work, staff reached out to the community to learn what destinations they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or biking.
Between March and June 2025, the City held 12 outreach events, engaged with more than 1,300 residents and gathered close to 3,000 individual comments. Residents expressed consistent concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network, the need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, the need to consider the potential project impacts to drivers, and the importance of designing facilities that are for people of all ages and abilities. Feedback from the community helped validate the technical analysis, and together these two sources informed project recommendations. All the outreach performed in Phase 1 is summarized in the Public Participation Memo, which is available on the City’s project webpage.
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured the shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and rolling are easy, safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and objectives were developed by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from existing Cupertino plans and then refined using the input gathered during Phase 1 outreach to also reflect today's community needs and concerns. The community ranked these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active transportation network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero. Enact measures to anticipate human error and minimize the impact of traffic crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that offers comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key destinations for all residents and visitors in the City.
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated in all City roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the City by providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent usage and 245
CC 02-19-2026
245 of 303
improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs).
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects to improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts to all other modes whenever possible, including transit and personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed across all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
In alignment with the Plan goals, draft project prioritization criteria were developed to assist in ranking the projects identified in the Plan. This ranking will occur following Phase 2 public outreach once the public has evaluated and commented on the recommended projects. The criteria were selected to align with community goals and VTA Measure B funding requirements. These criteria are being presented to the Commissions and Council for review and public comment. The draft project prioritization criteria (Attachment A) include the following metrics to rank recommended projects:
• Collision History
• Stress Level
• School Proximity
• High Frequency Transit Proximity
• Parks & Other Destination Proximity
• Active Trip Potential
• Roadway Impact
• Public Input
Next Steps
As Cupertino transitions into Phase 2 of the project, public engagement will continue throughout this stage, with opportunities for residents to review and comment on the draft project recommendations. The outcome will be a comprehensive, actionable Active Transportation Plan that the City Council can consider for adoption by spring 2026. All Phase 1 deliverables and Phase 2 outreach information can be found on the City’s project webpage at www.cupertino.gov/atp.
246
CC 02-19-2026
246 of 303
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will develop infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and accessibility for all non- motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include mode shift strategies to promote walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile dependency, which will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier, more sustainable community.
Fiscal Impact
The project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation in budget unit100-88-844 750-243.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes, FY 24-25
Active Transportation Plan: This is a consolidation of existing and new transportation efforts aiming to further goals outlined in the City’s Vision Zero Initiative, including:
18.1 Review and update bike plane
18.2 Review and update pedestrian plan
18.3 Review current Complete Streets Policy and propose adjustments to create a better interface between all modes of transportation
Council Goal:
Transportation
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
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:
A – Draft Project Prioritization Criteria
247
CC 02-19-2026
247 of 303
City of Cupertino | 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino Matt hew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: December 10, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Project Prioritization Criteria
Introduction
Proposed improvements will prioritize the development of a complete active transportation network that imposes fair outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for people of all ages and abilities. Draft criteria were originally proposed in the Summer of 2025, with criteria screened with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council in the Fall of 2025 for their input. Following input from these bodies, prioritization criteria were updated to better reflect feedback.
Criteria for prioritization have been aligned with the Goals of the Active Transportation Plan:
- Safety
- Access
- Sustainability
- Multimodal Balance
- Cost Effectiveness
Pro
jects will be scored according to their corresponding tables below, then scores will be normalized to create a unified set of scores for a single project list.
Project Type Maximum Score Score modifier Consolidated list maximum score
Bicycle Network
Recommendations
100 1x
100
Pedestrian Intersection
Recommendations
80 1.25x
Pedestrian Sidewalk
Recommendations
80 1.25x
Transportation Technology
Corridor Recommendations
90 1.11x
248
CC 02-19-2026
248 of 303
City of Cupertino | 2
Table 1: Bicycle Network Project Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 20 pts if on a HIN corridor
10 pts if within 1000 ft
0 pts if not
20 30
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of stress analysis 10 pts: BLTS 4 5 pts: BLTS 3
0 pts: BLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20 pts if along a suggested route 0 pts if not 20
30 High Frequency
Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway 5 pts within 0.25 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5 Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on # of
destinations within 0.5 mile per
mile of project length. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle trip potential or high e-bike trip potential
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average
ATP score 5
10 SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average gap score 5
Balance
General Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon aerial imagery
10 pts if no parking removal or lane
reduction is needed to implement
project
0 pts if needed to implement
project
10 20
Arterial Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon aerial imagery 10
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost
10 pts if below $500k
5 pts if $500k - $2M
0 pts if over $2M
10 10
249
CC 02-19-2026
249 of 303
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Table 2: Pedestrian Intersection Project Prioritization Matrix Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 20 pts if on a HIN corridor
10 pts if within 1000 ft
0 pts if not
20 30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian level of stress analysis 10 pts: PLTS 4 5 pts: PLTS 3
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20 pts if along a suggested route 0 pts if not 20
30 High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway 5 pts within 0.25 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5 Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on # of
destinations within 0.5 mile 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active pedestrian trip potential Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average ATP score 5
10 SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average gap score
5 Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost
10 pts if below $500k
5 pts if $500k - $2M
0 pts if over $2M
10 10
250
CC 02-19-2026
250 of 303
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Table 3: Pedestrian Sidewalk Projects Prioritization Matrix Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 20 pts if on a HIN corridor
10 pts if within 1000 ft
0 pts if not
20 30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian and bicycle level of stress analysis 10 pts: PLTS 4
5 pts: PLTS 3
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20 pts if along a suggested route 0 pts if not 20
30 High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway 5 pts within 0.25 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5 Parks & Other
Destination Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on # of
destinations within 0.5 mile. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active trip potential Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average ATP score 5
10 SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average gap score 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost
10 pts if below $500k
5 pts if $500k - $2M
0 pts if over $2M
10 10
251
CC 02-19-2026
251 of 303
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Table 4: Transportation Technology Corridors Prioritization Matrix Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal
Max
Score
Safety
Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a VZAP High Injury Network Intersection
4 pts for every intersection ranked 1-7 in the corridor 2 pts: if 7-24
0 pts: 24-48
10 40
Collision History # of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero Dashboard Data)
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on percentage of total collisions on the corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “unsafe speed”.
10 Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and signs" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on percentage of total collisions on the corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “traffic signals and signs”. 10
Level of Traffic
Stress Average PLTS for the corridor
10 pts: PLTS 4
5 pts: PLTS 3
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 20 pts: >75% of length on Suggested Route
10 pts: 25–75%
0 pts: <25% 20
30 Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the corridor
Scale 0 to 10 pts based on # of within .25 miles of corridor per mile of project length.
10 Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting the corridor
Scale 0 to 10 based on average ATP score for bicycle/e-bike 10 20
SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas Scale 0 to 10 based on average gap score 10 252
CC 02-19-2026
252 of 303
Pedestrian Bicycle
Shared Use Technology
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total 1 Pedestrian A Intersection De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 30 25 6 0 10 1.25 90 2 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 30 27 5 0 10 1.25 89 3 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 25 28 7 0 10 1.25 88 4 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 30 20 6 0 10 1.25 83 5 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 20 25 6 20 10 1 81 6 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 25 20 5 20 10 1 80 7 Shared Use Trail Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 30 25 5 20 0 1 80 Neighborhood Route Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr 25 26 8 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Bonny Dr Pepper Tree Ln McClellan Rd 20 27 7 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Terry Way Rodrigues Ave Shelly Dr 10 25 7 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way 10 24 7 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr 10 23 7 20 10 1 9 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 20 25 5 0 10 1.25 75 10 Pedestrian A Intersection Miller Ave Phil Ln 25 23 2 0 10 1.25 75 11 Pedestrian C Intersection Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 25 23 2 0 10 1.25 75 12 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 25 24 1 0 10 1.25 75 13 Shared Use Trail UPRR Prospect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 22 2 20 0 1 74 14 Pedestrian A, B Intersection McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 25 24 0 0 10 1.25 74 15 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave 25 24 5 0 5 1.25 74 16 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 20 26 3 0 10 1.25 74 17 Bicycle Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 25 23 6 10 10 1 73 18 Shared Use Crossing McClellan Rd Undercrossing Linda Vista Trail Stevens Creek Trail 20 23 0 20 10 1 73 19 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 30 20 7 10 5 1 72 20 Shared Use Trail Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct 20 21 1 20 10 1 72 21 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 20 24 3 0 10 1.25 71 22 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Miller Ave/Wolfe Rd 32 20 12 0 0 1.11 71 23 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 25 21 1 0 10 1.25 71 24 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 10 23 8 20 10 1 71 25 Pedestrian A Intersection September Dr McClellan Rd 20 21 4 0 10 1.25 70 26 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave 25 23 2 0 5 1.25 69 27 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd 15 28 7 0 5 1.25 69 28 Pedestrian A Intersection Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr 20 22 3 0 10 1.25 69 29 Shared Use Trail Lawrence Mitty Trail Stevens Creek Blvd Barnhart Ave 30 10 8 20 0 1 68 30 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 25 21 4 0 5 1.25 68 31 Shared Use Crossing Carmen Rd Bridge Carmen Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 25 22 1 20 0 1 68 32 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Tantau Ave Judy Ave 25 21 4 0 5 1.25 68 33 Pedestrian A Intersection Torre Ave Pacifica Dr 15 25 5 0 10 1.25 68 34 Pedestrian A Intersection Portal Ave Merritt Dr 20 22 3 0 10 1.25 68 Neighborhood Route Phil Ln Finch Ave Stendhal Ln 15 25 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Hyde Ave Shadygrove Dr Bollinger Rd 15 20 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Stendhal Ln Shadygrove Dr Phil Ln 15 20 3 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln 10 20 3 20 10 1 77 Bicycle
Bicycle
68 8
35 DRAFT PRIORITIZATION RESULTS - PROJECT LIST
These prioritization results have not yet undergone complete QA/QC with the City of Cupertino and are intended as draft results to inform discussion with the Planning Commission.
For Bicycle projects with multiple segments, scores were averaged. Each segment score was scaled to its length within the overall project (e.g., a segment 33% of the length of a project makes up 33% of its total score). They are bracketed top and bottom in the spreadsheet for easier viewing.
Because each project type (bicycle network recommendations, pedestrian sidewalk recommendations, pedestrian intersection recommendations, and transportation technology corridor recommendations) used different criteria, all projects were normalized to a 1-100 scale.
Projects are grouped by type to show which scoring criteria were applied. Shared-use paths were scored using the bicycle criteria in response to repeated community requests to provide an all-ages-and-abilities design and strengthen off-street route options.
Scores have been rounded to the nearest whole number and, as such, may not add up to the final score.
Project Type Legend
Criteria ScoringProject Location
Draft
253
CC 02-19-2026
253 of 303
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total Criteria ScoringProject Location
36 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 20 23 6 0 5 1.25 68 37 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Calvert Dr Loree Ave 20 20 3 0 10 1.25 67 38 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct 20 25 3 0 5 1.25 67 39 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr 20 24 3 0 5 1.25 66 40 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr 360' East of Stelling Rd 520' West of Beardon Dr 20 24 3 0 5 1.25 66 41 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Bandley Dr Valley Green Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 25 5 6 20 10 1 66 Buffered Bike Lane N Stelling Rd Garden Gate Dr Gardena Dr 25 25 6 10 5 1 Separated Bikeway N Stelling Rd Homestead Rd Gardena Dr 25 5 5 10 10 1 Neighborhood Route September Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr 20 20 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Orograde Pl Stelling Rd Festival Dr 15 22 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Festival Dr Stelling Rd Festival Dr Dead End 10 21 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr Dead End 0 20 3 20 10 1 44 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave 20 25 2 0 5 1.25 65 Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Denza Blvd Hwy 85 30 28 9 0 0 1 Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Hwy 85 Foothill Blvd 30 28 4 0 0 1 46 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Bubb Rd Edward Way Vai Ave 25 21 1 0 5 1.25 64 Neighborhood Route Portal Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Wintergreen Dr 15 21 5 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave 20 1 5 20 10 1 Buffered Bike Lane N Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Beekman Pl 25 20 4 10 5 1 Separated Bikeway N Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Beekman Pl 25 20 4 10 10 1 49 Pedestrian A Intersection Terry Way Rodrigues Ave 10 26 5 0 10 1.25 63 50 Pedestrian A Intersection Bonny Dr Sola St 10 26 5 0 10 1.25 63 51 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Scofield Dr Western Dr De Anza Blvd 30 9 7 0 5 1.25 63 52 Pedestrian A Intersection Stendhal Ln Phil Ln 15 23 3 0 10 1.25 63 Neighborhood Route Janice Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Carmen Rd 15 21 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route San Fernando Ave Orange Ave Blackberry Farm 10 21 3 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Carmen Rd - Scenic Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Scenic Cir Pathway 10 20 1 20 10 1 54 Pedestrian A Intersection Forest Ave Randy Ln 10 24 6 0 10 1.25 63 Neighborhood Route Fort Baker Dr Hyannisport Dr Presidio Dr 10 21 2 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr 10 21 2 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd 10 20 2 20 10 1 56 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd 30 9 6 0 5 1.25 62 Trail Memorial Park Path Memorial Park Alves St 20 7 10 20 5 1 Trail Memorial Park Path Christensen Dr Mary Ave 20 6 6 20 5 1 58 Pedestrian A Intersection Bixby Dr Portal Ave 10 24 5 0 10 1.25 61 59 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Santa Lucia Rd 20 20 1 10 10 1 61 60 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Portal Ave 15 23 5 0 5 1.25 61 61 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Merritt Dr Larry Way 15 21 2 0 10 1.25 60 62 Pedestrian B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Phar Lap Dr 15 23 1 0 10 1.25 60 63 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Torre Ave 10 27 6 0 5 1.25 60 64 Pedestrian C Intersection Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr 10 25 3 0 10 1.25 60 65 Pedestrian C Intersection Bubb Rd McClellan Rd 15 21 2 0 10 1.25 60 66 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 30 3 10 0 5 1.25 60 Neighborhood Route Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End 10 23 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr 10 20 3 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd 10 22 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd 10 21 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Crescent Rd - Hillcrest Rd Amelia Ct Cupertino rd 10 21 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr 0 20 3 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park 0 22 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way 0 20 2 20 10 1 68 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 15 6 8 20 10 1 59 69 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Bubb Rd 230' South of Stevens Creek Blvd 1,200' North of Results Way 30 5 6 0 5 1.25 58 70 Pedestrian B Intersection Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr 10 25 1 0 10 1.25 57 71 Bicycle Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Calle De Barcelona 30 0 7 10 10 1 57 72 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr 0 28 7 0 10 1.25 57 73 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 30 3 2 0 10 1.25 57 74 Pedestrian A Intersection Wheaton Dr Portal Ave 10 23 3 0 10 1.25 57 Neighborhood Route Rose Blossom Dr McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln 10 22 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom Dr Stelling Rd 5 20 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits (South) 10 0 5 20 10 1 76 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 6 4 0 5 1.25 56 77 Pedestrian A Intersection Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 10 24 1 0 10 1.25 56 Neighborhood Route Palm Ave Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 10 20 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek Blvd 5 20 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Voss Ave Lockwood Dr Foothill Blvd 0 20 1 20 10 1 79 Pedestrian A Intersection Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 10 23 2 0 10 1.25 56 80 Pedestrian A Intersection Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 10 23 1 0 10 1.25 56 Neighborhood Route Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr 10 23 2 20 5 1 Neighborhood Route Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr 15 5 9 20 5 1 Neighborhood Route Ann Arbor Ct Christensen Dr Ann Arbor Ave 0 4 2 20 5 1 82 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Forest Ave Blaney Ave 10 22 3 0 10 1.25 55 Neighborhood Route Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave 10 20 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr Bollinger Rd 15 0 4 20 10 1 84 Pedestrian C Intersection Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 5 23 6 0 10 1.25 55 85 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 25 3 6 0 10 1.25 55 86 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stern Ave Tilson Ave 10 21 3 0 10 1.25 54 87 Pedestrian A Intersection Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 54 88 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr 10 25 3 0 5 1.25 54 89 Pedestrian A Intersection Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 10 21 2 0 10 1.25 54 90 Bicycle
Neighborhood Route Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr 20 1 3 20 10 1 54 91 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 30 2 1 0 10 1.25 54 92 Pedestrian A Intersection Randy Ln Merritt Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54 93 Pedestrian B Intersection Merritt Dr Vista Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54 Bicycle 65
63 62
56 56
56 59
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle 55
Bicycle
64 63
62 Bicycle
Bicycle
Shared Use
Bicycle 65
Bicycle 65
Bicycle
42 43
45 47
48 53
55 57
Bicycle67
75 78
81 83
Draft
254
CC 02-19-2026
254 of 303
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total Criteria ScoringProject Location
94 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1 54 95 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave John Dr 5 24 4 0 10 1.25 53 96 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr 10 24 3 0 5 1.25 53 97 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 53 Neighborhood Route Linda Vista Dr Hyannisport Dr Santa Teresa Dr 10 20 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Santa Teresa Dr Rae Ln Terrace Dr 0 20 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd 10 0 1 20 10 1 99 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Homestead Rd 10 20 2 10 10 1 52 100 Pedestrian A, C Intersection Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd 10 25 2 0 5 1.25 52 101 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 52 Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 300 ft South of Perimeter Rd 25 20 6 0 5 1 Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Homestead Rd Pruneridge Ave 25 0 6 0 5 1 Separated Bikeway N Wolfe Rd Pruneridge Ave 300 ft. South of Perimeter Rd 25 20 3 0 10 1 103 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 15 23 1 0 2 1.25 51 104 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 10 20 5 0 5 1.25 50 105 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Orion Ln 25 1 3 0 10 1.25 50 106 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 25 1 4 10 10 1 50 107 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr 10 24 1 0 5 1.25 49 108 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Forest Ave 260' East of Randy Ln 110' West of Toni Ct 10 21 3 0 5 1.25 49 109 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Richwood Dr Miller Ave 20 3 6 0 10 1.25 49 110 Pedestrian B Intersection Mary ave Lubec St 5 23 1 0 10 1.25 49 111 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd 10 23 1 0 5 1.25 49 112 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd Lawrence Expy Westlynn Way 30 0 3 10 5 1 49 113 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 25 2 2 0 10 1.25 48 114 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48 115 Pedestrian A Intersection Pacifica Dr Whitney Way 0 25 4 0 10 1.25 48 116 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 5 20 3 0 10 1.25 48 117 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 15 0 2 20 10 1 48 118 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48 119 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Mary Ave 500' South of Lubec St 160' North of Point Reyes Ter 5 25 3 0 5 1.25 48 120 Pedestrian A Intersection San Fernando Ave Orange Ave 0 24 4 0 10 1.25 48 121 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Stelling Rd I-280 Rainbow Dr 12 26 5 0 0 1.11 47 122 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl 25 0 2 10 10 1 47 123 Pedestrian A Intersection Granada Ave Orange Ave 0 23 4 0 10 1.25 47 124 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47 125 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Stevens Creek Blvd 200' East of Lockwood Dr Prado Vista Dr 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47
126 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Permanente Rd 15 20 1 0 10 1 46 127 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of Echo Hill Ct 30 1 1 0 5 1.25 46 128 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Homestead Rd Calle de Barcelona 15 16 10 0 0 1.11 46 129 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Lockwood Dr 160' East of Lockwood Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46 130 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Lebanon Dr 170' East of Lebanon Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46 131 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Stevens Creek Blvd 170' East of Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46 132 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd California Oak Way 5 20 2 0 10 1.25 46 Neighborhood Route Erin Way Stelling Rd Kirwin Ln 15 1 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Kerwin Ln Erin Way Kim St 10 0 4 20 10 1 134 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor De Anza Blvd Homestead Rd Prospect Rd 16 5 20 0 0 1.11 45 135 Pedestrian A Intersection Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr 0 24 2 0 10 1.25 45 136 Pedestrian B Intersection Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr 0 24 2 0 10 1.25 45 137 Pedestrian A Intersection 100' East of Scenic Ct Cir Pathway 0 25 1 0 10 1.25 44 138 Pedestrian B Intersection Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln 0 21 4 0 10 1.25 44 139 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave 5 21 4 0 5 1.25 44 140 Pedestrian
Sidewalk (1 side) Stelling Rd Catalano Ct Orion Ct 25 1 4 0 5 1.25 44 141 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Saich Way Alves Dr 10 8 7 0 10 1.25 44 142 Pedestrian A Intersection Scenic Blvd Palm Ave 0 24 1 0 10 1.25 43 143 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 20 5 4 0 5 1.25 43 144 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 20 5 4 0 5 1.25 43 Buffered Bike Lane Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd 15 0 4 10 10 1 Neighborhood Route Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd 15 0 1 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Squirewood Way Scotland Dr Stelling Rd 25 0 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Scotland Dr Squirewood Way Kingsbury Pl 10 0 3 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Jamestown Dr Plum Blossom Dr Prospect Rd 5 0 6 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Gardenside Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr 5 0 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Bloom Dr 5 0 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Plum Blossom Dr Primrose Way Jamestown Dr 0 1 6 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln 0 1 4 20 10 1 146 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln 0 21 3 0 10 1.25 42 Neighborhood Route De Foe Dr Kim St Dumas Dr 0 20 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Kim St Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr 5 1 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln 0 3 5 20 10 1 148 Pedestrian A Intersection Merriman Rd Voss Ave 0 22 1 0 10 1.25 42 149 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Voss Ave Palm Ave 5 22 1 0 5 1.25 42 150 Pedestrian A Intersection Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 20 0 3 0 10 1.25 42 151 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 15 6 7 0 5 1.25 42 152 Pedestrian B Intersection Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 0 22 2 0 10 1.25 42 153 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 25 1 2 0 5 1.25 42 154 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 20 1 2 0 10 1.25 42 155 Pedestrian A Intersection Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 10 7 6 0 10 1.25 41 156 Pedestrian A Intersection Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 2 0 10 1.25 41 157 Pedestrian A Intersection Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 0 21 1 0 10 1.25 41 158 Pedestrian A Intersection Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave 0 22 0 0 10 1.25 41 159 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct 20 4 7 0 2 1.25 41 43 45
42 Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
52 51
Bicycle
98 102
133
145
147
Draft
255
CC 02-19-2026
255 of 303
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total Criteria ScoringProject Location
160 Pedestrian C Intersection Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr 20 1 1 0 10 1.25 40 161 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of Stelling Rd 10 7 10 0 5 1.25 40 162 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr 0 20 2 0 10 1.25 40 163 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd Tantau Ave 26 10 0 0 0 1.11 40 Neighborhood Route Waterford Dr Stelling Rd Primrose Way 5 0 4 20 10 1 Neighborhood Route Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom Dr 0 1 6 20 10 1 165 Pedestrian A Intersection Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave 15 1 4 0 10 1.25 38 166 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct 20 2 1 0 5 1.25 36 167 Pedestrian A Intersection Lance Dr Bollinger Rd 15 1 2 0 10 1.25 35 168 Pedestrian A Intersection Imperial Ave Olive Ave 10 3 4 0 10 1.25 34 169 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stelling Rd Squirehill Ct Rainbow Dr 20 1 1 0 5 1.25 33 170 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Regnart Rd 15 0 1 0 10 1.25 33 171 Pedestrian A Intersection Kirwin Ln Erin Way 10 1 4 0 10 1.25 32 Buffered Bike Lane Grant Rd Crist Dr Homestead Rd 15 5 4 0 10 1 Buffered Bike Lane Homestead Rd Bernardo Ave Stelling Rd 5 0 1 0 10 1 Separated Bikeway Homestead Rd Grant Rd Bernardo Ave 5 2 1 0 10 1 173 Pedestrian B Intersection Bollinger Rd Miller Ave 10 1 4 0 10 1.25 31 174 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave 10 3 1 0 10 1.25 31 175 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Kim St Kirwin Ln Bollinger Rd 5 1 4 10 10 1 30 176 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd 15 2 2 0 5 1.25 30 177 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 10 4 4 0 5 1.25 29 178 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Canyon Rd Riverside Dr 10 2 0 0 10 1.25 28 179 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Waterford Dr 10 1 1 0 10 1.25 27 180 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Seven Springs Pkwy 10 1 1 0 10 1.25 27 181 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr 10 0 6 0 10 1 26 182 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Kirwin Ln Lonna Ln De Anza Blvd 10 3 5 0 2 1.25 25 183 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Kim St Bollinger Rd 5 1 3 0 10 1.25 25 184 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Stevens Creek Blvd Rancho Ventura St 10 3 2 0 5 1.25 24
185 Pedestrian A, C Intersection De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd 10 0 3 0 5 1.25 23 186 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir 314' South of Rancho Ventura St 10 2 1 0 5 1.25 23
187 Pedestrian A Intersection Kirwin Ln Felton Way 0 4 5 0 10 1.25 23 188 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Martinwood Way Bollinger Rd 0 4 4 0 10 1.25 22 189 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) McClellan Rd 250' East of Stevens Canyon Rd 90' West of San Leandro Ave 10 2 0 0 5 1.25 21 190 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl 10 1 1 0 5 1.25 21 191 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Prospect Rd Stelling Rd 10 0 0 0 5 1.25 20 192 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Kim St Kirwin Ln 0 2 3 0 10 1.25 19 193 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr 5 0 0 0 10 1.25 19 194 Pedestrian A Intersection Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave 0 4 1 0 10 1.25 18 195 Pedestrian A Intersection Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd 0 1 3 0 10 1.25 18 196 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd 5 2 1 0 5 1.25 17 197 Pedestrian A Intersection Dempster Ave Stokes Ave 0 2 1 0 10 1.25 16 198 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln 5 1 1 0 5 1.25 15 199 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr 0 3 4 0 5 1.25 15 200 Pedestrian A Intersection Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr 0 1 1 0 10 1.25 15 201 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way 0 1 5 0 5 1.25 14 202 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd 0 1 5 0 5 1.25 14 203 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Via Roncole Prospect Rd 0 0 3 0 5 1.25 11 204 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct 0 1 1 0 5 1.25 9 205 Pedestrian A, C Intersection
Canyon Oak Way Cristo Rey Dr 0 0 0 0 5 1.25 6
32 39Bicycle164
172 Bicycle
Draft
256
CC 02-19-2026
256 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 1
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: January 1, 2026
Re: Cupertino ATP: Policy and Program Recommendations
This memo provides a summary of new legislation that may impact policy and program recommendations, as well as a consolidated, updated set of recommended policies and support programs to enhance the existing walking and rolling networks in the City of Cupertino. Several plans are referenced throughout this document, but the Active Transportation Plan will be referred to in capital letters as the Plan.
The memo first summarizes Recent Regional, State, and Federal Policies, then presents detailed tables of Policy and Program Recommendations. Although regional Equity informs all recommendations, these tables focus on the following key areas of potential policy and programmatic investment: Engineering, Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation. As an appendix, there is also an overview of relevant Existing Cupertino Policy Recommendations.
Recent Regional, State, and Federal Policies
The following State-level legislation has been passed in the last five years and will affect the implementation of this Active Transportation Plan and its accompanying policies and programs.
Roadway Safety Enhancements
Daylighting (AB 413): This law, which took effect in 2024, aims to improve visibility at crosswalks by prohibiting vehicles from stopping or parking within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of crosswalks with curb extensions.
Speed Safety System Pilot Program (AB 645): This program, established by a bill signed in October 2023, permits select cities to install speed cameras to deter reckless driving. Cities like San Francisco have already implemented the program, deploying cameras in high-risk areas. There is potential for Cupertino to implement speed cameras if this pilot is successful.
Reckless Driving Crackdown (SB 1509): This legislation aims to deter reckless driving, particularly speeding, by strengthening enforcement and considering the use of technology like speed cameras.
Safer, More Inclusive Street Design (SB 960): This bill enhances the California State Highway System by requiring Caltrans to incorporate features such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit facilities into its planning and projects.
Speed Limit Setting (AB 43): Legislation was passed to authorize Caltrans and local authorities to set, retain, or restore speed limits on highways, including the possibility of a reduction of five mph in some circumstances.
257
CC 02-19-2026
257 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 2
Infrastructure Funding and Regulation
Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Though not state-specific legislation, California was expected to receive over $40 billion in federal funds from this bipartisan act, to be invested in various transportation projects, including roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. However, many federally funded active transportation projects are currently facing political obstruction, and their future is unclear.
CEQA Exemptions for Bicycle and Mass-Transit Projects (SB 288): This bill added statutory California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for bicycle projects. SB 922 extended and enhanced the CEQA exemptions for sustainable transportation projects—including bike lanes, pedestrian infrastructure, bus rapid transit, and light rail—through 2030. This expedites the approval and construction of these climate-friendly projects by reducing administrative delays and costs, thereby promoting cleaner, safer, and more equitable transportation options statewide.
258
CC 02-19-2026
258 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 3
Policy and Program Recommendations
This section includes descriptions of existing and proposed policies and programs, organized by programmatic/policy category: Equity, Engineering, Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation. These policy and program recommendations align with the goals of the Active Transportation Plan: Safety, Accessibility, Maintenance, Sustainability, Multimodal Balance, and Fairness. Examples are provided for many to illustrate implementation.
Equity
The proposed programmatic and policy recommendations outlined in this memo should be prioritized through a regional equity lens to support efforts to improve the City’s active transportation network. This should be incorporated into all future policies and programs through early community involvement, targeted outreach, attending existing community events, hosting events in affected communities, and providing translation services.
259
CC 02-19-2026
259 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 4
Engineering
Pedestrian and bicycle support facilities provide increased comfort and convenience for individuals who use active modes to get around. Table 1 summarizes existing and proposed engineering policies and programs in the City that work in conjunction with existing infrastructure to improve the user experience. Infrastructure improvements should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit stops, medical centers, senior centers, City services, commercial areas, and HIN/HII.
Note: Several of the recommended policies and programs in this section are already in place in Cupertino but have significant potential for codification and expansion.
Table 1 Existing and Recommended Engineering Policies and Programs Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Vision Zero Policy The City adopted a local Vision Zero Action Plan to better understand local collisions and collaborate
across City Departments to improve safety for walking
and rolling in Cupertino.
Safety Cupertino Vision Zero
Action Plan
Complete Streets
Policy
The City adopted a local Complete Streets policy to
ensure streets are designed to enable safe,
convenient, and comfortable travel for users of all ages and abilities, regardless of their mode of
transportation.
Accessibility and
Multimodal
Balance
Cupertino Complete Streets
Policy
Online Information
and Service Requests
The City currently operates a telephone, app, and
online service request system (Cupertino311), which
allows residents to submit an issue or request for a
specific service for traffic signals, roadway issues, or sidewalk obstructions.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Cupertino Maintenance
Services
Wayfinding Wayfinding signage provides important destination, distance, and navigation information to roadway
users. Specific wayfinding signs designed for people
walking and bicycling can be expanded and improved
at key locations across the City to further support
active transportation.
Accessibility Cupertino Wayfinding
Project
Recommended
Pedestrian-Scale
Lighting
Pedestrian-scale streetlights are designed at a lower
height and intensity to enhance visibility, safety, and comfort for people walking in urban or public
spaces. By increasing visibility, it improves safety and crime outcomes. It also enhances the walkability and
aesthetic appeal of public spaces, encouraging more
foot traffic and fostering a sense of community. LED
lights can be used to reduce energy costs, and
shields can be used to minimize night sky pollution
or limit light pollution on adjacent private property.
Safety
Alameda, CA
260
CC 02-19-2026
260 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 5
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Crossing Facility
Improvements
City may improve crossing facilities by implementing
high-visibility crosswalks, advance stop or yield
markings, pedestrian refuge islands, and raised
crosswalks or intersections. These enhancements
would make people walking and rolling more visible
to drivers.
Safety Sacramento, CA
Evaluate Right
Turn on Red
Restrictions
Evaluate intersections to limit vehicles from turning
right at a red-light signal on a case-by-case basis, when traffic operations analysis indicates that the restriction can be implemented without creating unacceptable
vehicle delay.
Safety Ann Arbor, Michigan
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
The City may consider LPIs at signalized
intersections, with a plan moving forward to update
key intersections.
Safety CA AB 2264 (2022)
Active Detection at
Intersections for
People Walking and
Rolling
Develop an inventory of signalized intersections
without active detection for people walking and
rolling and create a way forward for standardization
and inclusion at signal heads. Establish a
standardized approach for integrating reliable
detection technologies—such as passive infrared,
video, or radar sensors—ensuring they are
accurately placed along built and desired routes.
Define clear specifications for detector performance,
placement, and integration with signal systems, and
incorporate upgrades into signal maintenance,
capital projects, and retiming efforts. Include staff
training, contractor guidance, and periodic
evaluation to ensure effective and consistent
deployment citywide.
Safety and
Accessibility
Santa Clara County, CA
Active Detection White
Paper
Curb Extensions at
Intersections
Consider additional curb extensions at school-zone
intersections and mid-block crossings to reduce
vehicle speeds and improve overall transportation
safety.
Safety San Francisco, CA
Sidewalk and Curb
Cut Improvement
Program
The City may develop a sidewalk and curb cut
improvement program with a dedicated funding
stream to close sidewalk gaps and add curb ramps at
key locations. This program would allow the City to
be more responsive to local citizen complaints for
sidewalk and curb cut enhancements.
Safety, Fairness,
and
Maintenance
Palo Alto, CA
261
CC 02-19-2026
261 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 6
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
End-of-Trip Facilities End-of-trip facilities such as bike parking, water stations, kiosks, and fix-it stations help encourage
people to bike more by providing the amenities they
need at the end of their trip. These facilities are
typically most suitable in City right-of-way areas
with high concentrations of walking and rolling, such
as the Cupertino Library.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
Los Angeles, CA
Lower Speed Limits Create a program to analyze and reduce speeds where appropriate along arterial and collector
roadways based on the CA Manual for Setting Speed
Limits. Lowering the speed limits on streets may
lessen the severity and frequency of crashes.
Safety Santa Monica, CA
Lower School Zone
Speed Limits
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358.8, the City
may consider reducing speed limits around School
Zones, which may be lowered to 15 mph on all two-
way residential streets within 500 feet of schools,
and 25 mph up to 1,000 feet from schools.
Safety and
Accessibility
Oakland, CA
Quick Build Project
Implementation
Quick Build projects typically include less expensive
materials such as paint, thermoplastic, and
bollards/delineators (or other sturdy but removable
materials). These improvements share many of the
same safety benefits as their permanent
counterparts, but can be implemented more quickly
and cost-effectively, allowing the City to be
responsive to safety concerns while still planning for
long-term funding and implementation. The City
should consider implementing Quick Build projects
identified in completed school walk audits, in
addition to other priority areas.
Safety and
Maintenance
CalBike Design Guide
Quick Build White Paper
Expand the City Tree
Canopy
Consider planting shade trees and other greening
elements along corridors where people may be
walking and rolling, and within school zones.
Caltrans considers street trees to be traffic-calming
elements as they are often attributed to a perceived
narrowing of the roadway, a sense of rhythm and
human scale created by framing the street, and the
perception that the driver is in a place where they
are more likely to encounter people walking or
rolling and cross-traffic.
Sustainability
and Fairness
San José, CA
262
CC 02-19-2026
262 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 7
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Update Street Design
Standards
Review and update all relevant policy and design
standards regarding bikeway facilities, path and
sidewalk design, materials, and supporting amenities
to be consistent with the most recent best practices
and state and federal standards for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and in compliance with the latest ADA Standards for Accessible Design and Public
Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
Accessibility,
Maintenance,
and Multimodal
Balance
Sacramento, CA
Maintenance
Program
Maintenance is deeply tied to the usability and
lifespan of these engineering recommendations.
Cupertino can develop more detailed protocols for
regular street sweeping and debris removal on
bikeways—particularly Class IV protected lanes and
Class I multi-use paths—to maintain comfort and
reduce risks. Expanded, detailed vegetation
management can address overgrowth that obstructs
visibility at intersections, encroaches onto sidewalks
and paths, and blocks signage. The 311 reporting
system for issues like potholes, flooding, or
obstructions should be widely promoted and
integrated into existing municipal apps and customer
service portals. Maintenance guidelines should
specifically account for newer infrastructure types,
such as roundabouts, green paint treatments, and
modular curbs or delineators, to ensure that
materials are durable and repairable. Coordination
between construction, maintenance, and repaving
schedules is a proven strategy to reduce disruptions
and extend pavement life, and Cupertino can adopt a
“dig-once” approach to align upgrades with
resurfacing or utility work. Regular inspections,
performance audits, and a publicly accessible
maintenance log can help ensure transparency,
accountability, and timely repairs.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Sacramento, CA
263
CC 02-19-2026
263 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 8
Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting active transportation culture and can encourage overall mode share shifts. Table 2 provides an overview of existing and recommended walking and rolling encouragement programs.
Table 2 Existing and Recommended Encouragement Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
The City should continue the existing Safe Routes to
School Program and place greater emphasis on
working with school districts to address on-site
circulation and spillover traffic.
Safety,
Accessibility, and
Fairness
Cupertino SR2S Program
Bike to Work/
Wherever Days
The City can continue to sponsor Bike to Work/
Wherever Day events in support of regional efforts.
Accessibility Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition BTWD
Adopt-a-Trail
Program
The existing Santa Clara County program provides
individuals, groups, businesses, and clubs the
opportunity to adopt a section of trail on an annual
basis. Each sponsor supports their Adopted Trail with
financial contributions and volunteer trail work.
Maintenance Santa Clara County
Adopt-a-Trail
Recommended
Open Streets Open Street events promote and celebrate bicycling and walking and encourage participation from
neighborhoods.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
CicLAvia
Social Walks/Rides Support City departments and local organizations in hosting social rides or walks, like Bike for Boba.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
San José, CA
Walking School
Buses and Bike
Trains [SR2S]
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains are organized
groups of students walking/biking to school under the
supervision of a guardian, teacher, or adult volunteer.
These groups follow predetermined routes and can
operate on an occasional or daily basis, depending on
the interest from families.
Accessibility and
Fairness
Alameda County, CA
Portland, OR
264
CC 02-19-2026
264 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 9
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Bike Parking
Inventory
Map existing racks in the City and upload them to the
open data portal. Develop and publish a public-facing
guide that outlines various types of secure
micromobility parking infrastructure, such as bike
corrals, covered racks, and lockers (like Oonee Pods).
The guide should explain the ideal use cases for each
option, based on factors such as location (e.g., transit hubs, business districts), user needs (e.g., long-term
vs. short-term parking), and security levels. Including photos, technical specifications, and maintenance
considerations will help the City, businesses, and
community organizations make informed decisions
about selecting and installing the right facilities.
Accessibility,
Maintenance,
and Fairness
APBP Essentials of Bike
Parking
Bike Rack
Program
Consider establishing a Bike Rack Installation Program
to provide secure, convenient bicycle parking that
supports everyday bicycling and reduces parking
barriers.
Accessibility
Petaluma, CA
Bicycle Parking
at Large Events
Revise Cupertino Municipal Code regarding event
permits to include “Conditions for Issuance” to
require events expected to draw more than 5,000
attendees must provide secure, attended bicycle
parking for attendees at no charge.
Accessibility Oakland, CA
Electric
Micromobility
Expansion
Cupertino has an opportunity to lead in sustainable
transportation by developing a forward-thinking
policy that actively encourages the use of electric
micromobility devices—such as personal e-bikes, e-
scooters, and other small electric vehicles—in line
with state and regional standards. These devices
make active transportation more accessible by
extending travel distances, reducing trip times, and
performing well in various weather conditions. This
policy can define appropriate use on bike lanes,
multi-use trails, and low-speed streets, with safe
speed limits that prioritize both comfort and safety.
The City can encourage electric micromobility use
and discourage illegal devices and modifications
through public education, safe riding guidance, and
improved infrastructure, such as secure parking with
charging options.
Accessibility and
Fairness
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
265
CC 02-19-2026
265 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 10
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Trail Steward
Volunteers
Engage with volunteer organizations to regularly
maintain and address community safety concerns
around vegetation and debris on shared-use paths.
Events can be opportunities for volunteers to help
their community.
Maintenance Richmond, CA
Rails-to-Trails Maintenance
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
Implementation
Plan
Develop a Transportation Demand Management
Implementation Plan or Report to increase support
for commuters bicycling or walking to work. This may
include identifying additional metrics for businesses
to count active transportation-supportive policies
towards their own TDM plans and goals.
Sustainability
and Multimodal
Balance
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Walk and Roll
Ambassadors
Walk and Roll Ambassadors are trained community
volunteers who promote safe walking and rolling,
especially among students and families. They
engage in outreach, education, and encouragement
activities to foster active transportation and build a
culture of mobility and safety. These roles are
particularly important in communities where English
is not the first language.
Safety and
Accessibility
Bike East Bay
Partner with
Bicycle
Organizations
The formation of strong relationships with local
bicycle advocates and bicycle clubs will encourage
mutually beneficial collaboration and help the City
reach its plan goals. The City is encouraged to
partner with organizations in the area.
Accessibility CalBike List of Local Partners
Partner and
Coordinate
with County
Agencies
Coordinate with representatives from various County
agencies, including County Public Health and VTA, for
project and program implementation.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Santa Clara County, CA
Bicycle Friendly
Business
Program
Similar to the Bicycle Friendly Community
designation, the Bicycle Friendly Business program
recognizes businesses for their efforts to encourage a
more bicycle-friendly atmosphere. This requires
businesses to implement various strategies to cater
to the diverse needs of customers and employees.
The City of Cupertino Civic Center Plaza has Gold
award status.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
League of American
Bicyclists
266
CC 02-19-2026
266 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 11
Education
Walking and rolling education programs help individuals interested in active transportation feel more comfortable, safe, and confident navigating streets and shared-use paths. Table 3 outlines existing educational programs in the City as well as potential program expansion.
Table 3 Existing and Recommended Education Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
The existing SR2S Program provides education and
resources for school site administrators, parents, and
children on bicycle safety, pedestrian awareness, and
traffic concerns.
Safety,
Accessibility, and
Fairness
Cupertino SR2S
Walking and
Rolling Safety
Campaign
Create a City-sponsored outreach campaign to
encourage all road users to abide by local laws and be
courteous to other users. This campaign may be
targeted at a single user type (e.g., cyclists) or at
multiple users. Local stakeholders may assist in
developing goals that are rooted in community
concerns and issues. Campaigns should be deployed
at regular intervals throughout the year to promote
an attitude of safety awareness. Safety campaigns
should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit
stops, commercial areas, and at high collision
corridors.
Safety and
Accessibility
Cupertino Vision Zero PSA
Campaign
Bicycle Rodeos
[SR2S]
The City of Cupertino SR2S Program offers bicycle
rodeo programming at Cupertino Unified schools,
providing a blacktop training course on bicycle safety.
Safety Cupertino SR2S
Recommended
“New
Infrastructure”
Education
Campaign
Often, when infrastructure changes occur, there is a
missing education component to the community
about how to interact with the new design or feature.
Education materials and messaging can be developed
during the installation of infrastructure, which the
general public may be unfamiliar with, such as unique
interchanges/roundabouts, two-stage turn boxes, or
advisory shoulders.
Safety and
Multimodal
Balance
UC Davis
267
CC 02-19-2026
267 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 12
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Driver Education
Program
Establish a citywide driver education program that
focuses on improving awareness and promoting safe
interactions with people walking, biking, and rolling,
incorporating best practices from Vision Zero and Safe
Systems approaches. The program could include
modules on recognizing vulnerable road users,
crosswalk laws, yielding at intersections, safely passing cyclists, and navigating areas with high activity or
limited visibility. The curriculum can be conducted in
partnership with local school districts and SR2S
coordinators. For older adults or existing drivers,
collaborate with the DMV and community centers to
offer targeted refresher workshops. The City can
promote the program through strategic outreach
campaigns—such as during Bike to Everywhere Month
in May—using social media, public service
announcements, and partnerships with local
employers, transit agencies, and neighborhood
associations. Additional outreach tools could include
short educational videos,
translated materials, and interactive online modules.
Safety League of American
Bicyclists
Bicycle Safety
Education for
Adults
Partner with local organizations to provide classes for adults to learn bicycle safety. Support growth by
advertising and providing meeting space in Cupertino.
Safety and
Accessibility
Sonoma County, CA
Huntington Beach, CA
Electric
Micromobility
Education
With the proliferation of e-bikes and other electric
micromobility devices, people may not understand or
be misinformed about how to use these modes safely
and legally. An education campaign can be targeted at
e-mobility, especially among students who may be
excited about the increased travel opportunities
offered by such devices.
Safety and
Accessibility
California Highway Patrol
268
CC 02-19-2026
268 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 13
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Waste Bin
Placement
Provide clear instructions on the City website and in
utility bills about the proper placement of waste bins.
Where on-street parking exists, bins should be placed
near the curb, within the parking aisle. Residents
should be instructed to place bins against the curb
where no on-street parking exists to minimize
intrusion into the bicycle lane. Collaborate with waste management companies to add reflective markings to
waste bins to increase their visibility at night and
reduce the risk of bicycle collisions with misplaced
bins. The City could also work with management
companies to stencil “Do Not Place In Bicycle Lane”
on the waste bins to remind residents of proper
placement.
Maintenance
and Multimodal
Balance
Pomona, CA
Mini Main Street
Education Events
[SR2S]
Host Mini Main Street safety education events and
install permanent traffic gardens at select schools. Mini Main Streets and traffic gardens provide safe
environments for children to practice roadway safety.
Safety Mountain View, CA
269
CC 02-19-2026
269 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 14
Enforcement
Enforcement programs help to institutionalize safe walking and rolling transportation systems. By prioritizing relationships between law enforcement and individuals who walk and roll, these programs help create a safe environment for all users. Table 4 below lists the proposed enforcement programs for the City.
Table 4 Recommended Enforcement Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Recommended
Traffic Ticket
Reduction
Help develop a partnership program with the Santa
Clara County Sheriff and a bicycle education provider
to offer bicycle education as a traffic court option.
People who receive a citation/infraction on a bicycle
for California Vehicle Code violations would be
permitted to attend a Basic Street Skills
class to reduce or waive fines.
Safety and Fairness Marin County, CA
Bike Patrol
Program
Partner with the County Sheriff to develop a program
that provides routine patrolling on bicycles. The
program would enable increased community
engagement and promote bicycle safety.
Safety and Fairness El Cerrito, CA
Targeted
Enforcement
Target enforcement of vehicular violations at
locations with a high incidence of red-light running
and HIN/HII.
Safety and Fairness San José, CA
270
CC 02-19-2026
270 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 15
Evaluation
Programs to help evaluate and track progress toward reaching the Plan’s goals are essential for long-term success and effective project implementation. Table 5 lists proposed programs that help identify what’s working, what’s not working, and where additional efforts are needed following the completion of the plan.
Table 5 Recommended Evaluation Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Active
Transportation
Online Portal
Update and maintain the GIS portal to display recent
and ongoing active transportation project planning
and status, as well as annual statistics on pedestrian
and bicycle-involved collisions. This portal may also
include links to other active transportation
resources throughout the City.
Safety and
Accessibility
Cupertino Open Data
Portal
Recommended
School Walk Audit
Reports [SR2S]
Update reports with new safety assessments at each
school to identify specific barriers and challenges
faced by students who walk or roll to school and
develop countermeasures to address the identified
deficiencies.
Safety Cupertino SR2S
Annual Walking
and Rolling
Collision Reports
Annual reviews of collisions involving vulnerable
roadway users with the County Sheriff will help the
City assess traffic safety issues and track progress
towards a safer community for people walking and
rolling.
Safety San Francisco, CA
Walking and
Rolling Count
Program
(Manual and
Automated)
Conducting regular walking and rolling counts can
help the City understand how travel behavior is
changing over time. This would include manual and
automated data collection. Manual counts are useful
for capturing nuanced data (age, gender, helmet use,
group sizes) and validating automated counters. This
can be done in collaboration with universities,
advocacy groups, or volunteers to expand manual
count capacity. Automated counters (infrared,
pneumatic tubes, LiDAR, video AI) provide long-term,
high-frequency data and reduce staff time. The use of
automated counting technology, such as in-ground
sensors, infrared counters, or video analytics, can be
integrated into ongoing signal maintenance and street
Maintenance
and Multimodal
Balance
Oakland, CA
NCHRP Report 797
271
CC 02-19-2026
271 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 16
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
improvement projects to minimize installation costs.1
When combined with models that predict where
walking and bicycling would be expected, count data
can also identify locations where people are expected
to travel by these modes but do not, often due to a
lack of infrastructure. Coordinate with regional
planning and transit agencies and adjacent
municipalities to ensure consistency in methodologies
(e.g., same time periods, equipment calibration, and
data formats) and include metadata on count
conditions (e.g., weather, construction, events) for
context.
Walking and
Rolling Count
Program
(Aggregated
Data)
To complement physical counters and enhance
citywide data coverage, the City could purchase or
subscribe to aggregate mobility datasets from
companies like StreetLight Data and Replica, which
provide insights derived from anonymized GPS,
cellular, and location-based services data. These
datasets can provide a broader understanding of
walking and biking patterns, helping to identify
underserved neighborhoods or emerging trends in
travel behavior. Conduct regular validation of
aggregated data against manually collected data.
Safety,
Maintenance,
and Multimodal
Balance
San Francisco, CA
1 For example, the GridSmart SMARTMOUNT Bell Camera may be configured on existing poles at intersections to count people walking and rolling as they cross, with subscription to an additional software module.
272
CC 02-19-2026
272 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 17
Appendix: Existing Cupertino Policy Recommendations
General Plan Mobility Element
The City of Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element, adopted in 2015 and updated in 2024, outlines goals, policies, and strategies for transportation network improvements necessary to accommodate Cupertino's anticipated growth. The Element aims to make alternative modes of transportation attractive choices, helping to reduce strain on the automobile network and improve the health and quality of life for residents and businesses.
Regional Coordination
• Regional Transportation Planning: Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest.
• Citywide VMT Reduction: Framework for reducing VMT citywide includes limiting parking supply and implementing a citywide bikeshare program.
• Regional Trail Development: Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor, and Ridge Trail.
Complete Streets
• Street Design: Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize mobility for all transportation modes, including automobiles, walking, bicycling, and transit. • Adjacent Land Use: Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and bicycle lanes, crosswalks, and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision of the Planning Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation options for all Planning Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also consider the urban, suburban, and rural environments found within the City. • Connectivity: Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community. • Community Impacts: Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of transportation rather than constructing barriers to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, since street closures move the problem from one street to another.
• Traffic Calming: Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to reduce speeds and make them user-friendly for alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
Walkability and Bikeability
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that outlines policies and improvements to streets, the extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings: Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at key • locations across physical barriers such as creeks, highways, and road barriers. • Development: Require new development and redevelopment to increase connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, and shopping and employment destinations throughout the city.
• Street Widths: Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connectivity by limiting street widening purely for automobiles as a means of improving traffic flow. • Curb Cuts: Minimize the number and width of driveway openings. 273
CC 02-19-2026
273 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 18
• Capital Improvement Program: Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and eliminate gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program. • Bicycle Parking: Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle parking.
• Outreach: Actively engage the community in promoting walking and bicycling through education, encouragement, and outreach on improvement projects and programs. • Spaces for Pedestrians: Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians, providing a safe route to building entrances.
• Proactive Enforcement: Prioritize enforcement of traffic speeds and regulations on all streets with bike lanes, bike routes, and around schools.
Transit
• Access to Transit Services: Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.
• Transit Facilities with new development: Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all new development projects include amenities to support public transit, including bus stop shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate, and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating, and lighting.
• Vallco Shopping District Transfer Station: Work with VTA and/or other transportation service organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates a hub for alternative transportation services such as car sharing, bike sharing, and/ or other services.
Safe Routes to School
• Safe Routes to School: Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools serving the city. • Prioritize Projects: Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements include projects to enhance safe accessibility to schools.
• Connections to Trails: Connect schools to the citywide trail system. • Education: Support education programs that promote safe walking and bicycling to schools.
Transportation Impact Analysis
• Protected Intersections: Consider adopting a Protected Intersection Policy, which would identify intersections where improvements would not be considered, which would degrade levels of service for non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations include intersections in Priority Development Areas (PDAs) and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is a key consideration, such as near shopping districts, schools, parks, and senior citizen developments.
Roadway System Efficiency
• Street Width: Except as required by environmental review for new developments, limit widening of streets as a means of improving traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational improvements to preserve community character.
Transportation Infrastructure
• Transportation Improvement Plan: Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation improvements to meet the City’s needs.
• Multimodal Improvements: Integrate the financing, design, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects. Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as improvements for vehicular circulation to enable travelers to transition from one mode of transportation to another (e.g., bicycle to bus).
274
CC 02-19-2026
274 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 19
Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan provided a vision and specific steps to create safer and more comfortable conditions for people to bike in Cupertino. The Plan included the following relevant recommended policies:
• Policy 1.A.1: Support and expand the City of Cupertino Safe Routes to School program. • Policy 1.A.2: Partner with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to offer routine adult and family bicycle education classes in Cupertino.
• Policy 1.B.1: Incorporate messaging in all City media that promotes the benefits of active lifestyles and raises awareness of walking and bicycling facilities in the community. • Policy 1.C.1: Partner with tourism and economic development agencies to promote Cupertino as a destination for active recreation and active lifestyles. • Policy 1.C.2: Create a Bicycle Friendly Business program to recognize and promote bicycle-friendly businesses in Cupertino.
• Policy 1.C.3: Collaborate with county and regional partners to create bikeway connections to the local tourism generators and to promote active recreation in the region. • Policy 1.D.1: Work with Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office to review collision locations and ‘close call’ reports and identify locations for increased enforcement of motorist and bicyclist behavior. • Policy 1.E.1: Review the Bicycle Transportation Plan performance measures at regular intervals to review progress and update priorities as necessary.
• Policy 1.E.2: Conduct bicycle counts citywide at regular intervals to better understand the profile of residents bicycling in Cupertino as well as measure the impacts of newly implemented infrastructure and programs.
• Policy 2.A.1: Annually review the number, locations, and contributing factors of bicycle-related collisions to identify and implement ongoing improvements at collision locations throughout the transportation network.
• Policy 2.A.2: Identify opportunities to reduce bicyclist exposure by reducing locations or lengths of conflict areas with vehicles or by providing dedicated and separated facilities where feasible. • Policy 2.A.3: Adopt a Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2026. • Policy 2.A.4: Study the need for 15 mph School Zone speed limits and adopt in appropriate locations by 2020.
• Policy 2.A.5: Develop a City policy for the regular documentation of bike facility quality and maintenance of bicycle facilities throughout the City.
• Policy 3.A.1: Implement the recommendations from this Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. • Policy 3.A.2: Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and construction of upgrades or resurfacing of all existing roadways.
• Policy 3.B.1: Create a low-stress network in parallel to the arterial bikeway network, providing an alternative that is appealing to residents of all ages and abilities. • Policy 3.B.2: Upgrade and improve the existing arterial bikeway network to increase bicyclist comfort and lower barriers for more risk-averse users.
• Policy 3.B.3: Develop a citywide wayfinding system, providing access to appropriate locations such as employment centers, schools, and commercial centers.
• Policy 3.B.4: Prioritize the installation of bicycle parking in the public right-of-way at key commercial and retail destinations.
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The ensuing 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan provides a vision and specific steps for creating an inviting, safe, and connected pedestrian network. The plan establishes a framework for developing and maintaining pedestrian facilities and recommends policies, programs, and messaging to promote walking. That includes the following relevant recommended policies:
Infrastructure and Operations
275
CC 02-19-2026
275 of 303
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 20
• Develop/adopt a Complete Streets Design Manual
• Design standard speeds in pedestrian areas do not require a routine need for traffic calming • Adopt a Complete Streets internal checklist
• Formalize traffic calming practices
• Reconsider speed limit criteria
• 15 mph zones near schools, parks, community facilities, or senior housing • Establish an accessible design checklist
Evaluation and Planning
• Include pedestrian and bicycle counts as a routine element of motor vehicle counts • Conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts for the planning/evaluation of the City's trail system
Education and Enforcement
• Continue promoting walking and biking through the SR2S program • Develop/implement targeted safety campaigns for other groups (adults, seniors, drivers)
Project Implementation
• Secure funding for broader education efforts
• Continue to collaborate with related and adjacent agencies • Explore opportunities for improving coordination with major employers • Develop a line item in the CIP for implementation of the PTP Vision Zero Action Plan
Finally, the 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan focused on broad strategies and actions aimed at eliminating severe injuries and fatalities on the City’s transportation network. Of particular note, it identified a High Injury Network (HIN) and a set of High Injury Intersections (HII) based on collision history. This set of HIN and HII areas should be priorities for targeted investment of many of the recommendations in this memo. Robust community engagement on this plan resulted in the following relevant recommended policies:
• A.1 - Establish a Vision Zero Task Force
• A.2 - Identify sustainable funding sources for a Vision Zero program • A.6 - Integrate Vision Zero safety principles into forthcoming City plans and design documents • A.8 - Continue monitoring existing speed limits on City streets in accordance with the changes made by AB 43 to further lower speeds
• A.12 - Set up periodic pedestrian and cyclist counts at standardized locations • B.2 - Create a carefully ranked roster of extra safety projects • B.3 - Install quick, light, and adaptable projects proven to achieve real, tangible benefits (Quick-Build projects)
• B.6 - Update signal timing plans to enhance safety for all modes of transportation, which may include adjustments to all-red intervals and pedestrian crossing times. • B.8 - Create an internal procedure for evaluating and implementing Vision Zero countermeasures on projects located within the HIN
• B.9 - When identifying safety enhancements, ensure countermeasures align with the City's Complete Streets policy
• D.1 - Implement the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
• D.2 - Prioritize pedestrian crossing improvements on the High Injury Network • D.3 - Complete projects that enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety at intersections with turning vehicles • D.4 - Develop and maintain an Active Transportation Plan • D.5 - Install high-visibility crosswalks in proximity to schools. • D.6 - Develop a comprehensive Safe Routes to Schools Plan 276
CC 02-19-2026
276 of 303
Active Transportation Plan Impact Evaluation Guidelines Following the Council-approved initiation of any new Active Transportation Plan (ATP) project, and when parking or traffic impacts are identified during the preliminary engineering phase (30% design), staff will return to the City Council to present the final 30% design, identified impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that meeting, the Council will determine whether the project should undergo a detailed impact analysis tailored to its specific impacts. This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail that is available only once the 30% design phase has been completed.
The detailed impact analysis described in these guidelines is intentionally scheduled for this phase of a project because at this phase, the City is advancing a concept from the ATP into preliminary design. It does not approve final plans or commit to construction.
The purpose of this early design effort is to translate a plan-level concept into a specific layout that defines lane configurations, parking, intersection control, and other geometric and operational details.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical accuracy because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix- based models, require defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking layouts, and other project features not known prior to 30% design in order to produce meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion patterns, and parking utilization.
By conducting a detailed analysis at the 30% phase, the City balances accuracy with flexibility. A complete set of 30% design plans is sufficient for accurate modeling and is early enough in the design process to allow the Council to call for modifications or discontinue the project if the identified impacts are unacceptable. In addition, tying the analysis to the identification of parking or traffic impacts at 30% ensures that funding is focused on projects where the preliminary design reveals meaningful operational or parking impacts, rather than expending significant resources on every concept in the ATP, regardless of its risk profile.
Accordingly, if the Council requests an impact analysis following the 30% phase, then additional budget must be approved for the project’s Engineering Services Consultant to manage data collection and to evaluate the 30% design within the context of the City’s transportation network through traffic or parking analysis. 277
CC 02-19-2026
277 of 303
The tasks below summarize the scope of what could potentially be required for project impact analysis. Following the completion of 30% design for impacted projects, the Consultant will prepare a cost estimate for transportation analysis, which will also be presented to the Council for consideration when the Council reviews the 30% plans.
If Council supports this approach, staff will incorporate this impact evaluation framework into the final Active Transportation Plan as an internal policy that then applies to new ATP projects.
The tasks below may not apply to all projects, but it is assumed that impact analysis would roughly equate to 10% of project construction costs.
Task 1. Data Collection and Analysis Memorandum
Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
Prepare a memorandum describing the proposed approach to data collection and analysis. The memo will list all relevant data to be collected based on the project’s determined impacts and document sources, formats, and methods. This could include signal phasing, vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, an inventory of existing traffic control devices, or an inventory of parking supply. It will specify which transportation network or traffic operation elements, such as intersection delay, roadway segment operations, or parking, each dataset will support. The draft memorandum will be submitted to City staff for review before initiating data collection.
Task 2. Initial Data Collection
Cost: $15,000 - $30,000
• Obtain commercially available origin–destination data, through providers such as StreetLight, Inrix, or Replica for the project area, including both peak periods.
Collect turning-movement counts at project area intersections for both peak periods, including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes, right-turn-on-red movements, and initial queues at signalized intersections.
• Conduct a field visit of the project site and broader study area to verify existing and planned facilities identified in the data collection tasks, confirm any facilities constructed since prior programming documents, and investigate unusual trends in traffic patterns.
278
CC 02-19-2026
278 of 303
Task 3. Traffic Operations Analysis
Cost: $20,000 - $40,000
• Document existing conditions based on collected counts and field observations.
Results will be summarized in narrative text, Level of Service (LOS) tables, figures visualizing lane configurations, traffic controls, and volumes, and supporting calculation outputs. If appropriate for evaluating the impacts of interest, speeds along the project area will be estimated and validated based on the City’s latest Engineering Traffic Survey, and queue lengths in dedicated turn lanes and through lanes between intersections under gridlock conditions will be evaluated. • Develop and refine Synchro traffic models to represent Existing and Existing-Plus- Project conditions. The models will be used to identify any adverse or significant impacts associated with the proposed project improvements. • Assess proposed intersection and corridor layouts for accessibility, including lane widths and turning radii, and identify opportunities for new or modified traffic control devices to support operations and safety.
• Develop recommendations to address identified potential operational impacts.
Task 4: Parking Impact Analysis (If needed)
Cost: $5,000 - $15,000
• Prior to conducting a parking survey, develop a geodatabase of on-street parking supply along the project area. The database will count, by block face, the number of spaces, as well as all applicable parking regulations, such as permits. The initial inventory will rely on the City’s GIS database, aerial imagery, and street-level photography, then verified in the field, and summarized in an exhibit that depicts curb conditions and the total existing parking supply.
• Perform parking occupancy counts at 30-minute intervals by block face during typical weekday midday (noon–2:00 p.m.) and evening (8:00–10:00 p.m.) periods, and on a Saturday to represent weekend conditions.
• Compare parking supply changes associated with the project design to observed parking demand to quantify the number of on-street spaces affected. The analysis will include spaces in front of nearby properties within a 500-foot buffer of the 279
CC 02-19-2026
279 of 303
affected spaces to determine potential redistribution and broader neighborhood impacts.
Task 5: Impact Report
Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
The combined work will result in a set of findings and recommendations on specific traffic operations and parking impacts resulting from the project. The report will be used to inform potential further project development and frame public communications. The report will be evaluated by the City Council to assess the extent of the impacts and consider whether the project’s preliminary design should be modified to minimize the learned impacts or discontinued entirely.
280
CC 02-19-2026
280 of 303
Project Effectiveness Guidelines
This memo describes the process for using data to measure the success of new projects recommended in the Active Transportation Plan (ATP), specifically for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is to ensure that transportation projects developed by the ATP and completed through the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) successfully advance the City’s goals and priorities.
The ATP supports two City policy priorities. These are traffic safety (Vision Zero Action Plan) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Plan). The City’s Vision Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the Climate Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part by shifting short driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
To demonstrate progress toward these goals, staff must track the number of people using new facilities and the safety of those facilities. This proposed data-driven evaluation approach will allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such as whether these projects encourage the use of active transportation modes, whether collision rates are decreasing even as ridership increases, and, potentially, which types of improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
The City does not currently own the counting technology needed to answer these questions on a citywide scale. Historically, staff has relied on occasional spot counts or project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle and pedestrian volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes establishing an approach that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along with project-specific before-and-after counts for key bikeway projects. This will require the purchase or lease of bike-ped counting equipment and, potentially, the associated analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian activity can be measured in a repeatable way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at all ATP project locations across the City. This initial effort would record how many people are currently biking (and walking, where feasible). The equipment could be repositioned over several weeks or months to cover all project locations within the ATP, providing the City with a clearer picture of existing conditions.
281
CC 02-19-2026
281 of 303
For future Council-approved and initiated bikeway projects, staff proposes a before- and-after evaluation for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways. As a project moves into design, staff will begin a data collection period at the project location to determine existing volumes. Counters would be deployed at a set of locations along the project limits to record bicycle activity on typical weekdays and weekends. At the same time, staff would track reported collisions using Sheriff reports and SWITRS. This establishes a clear pre-project picture of both ridership and safety.
After the project is constructed and open to the public, and a suitable amount of time has passed to account for possible changes in transportation behavior, staff will repeat this process during the post-project period, using the same locations and equipment to ensure comparable data. With these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average daily and peak-period bicycle volumes, as well as changes in collision rates. The key metric will not just be the number of collisions, but collisions relative to the number of bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project will be one in which more people use the facility while the collision rate per rider remains the same or decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives.
To proceed with this approach, the City will need to either purchase equipment or contract for services. One option is to purchase a set of movable counters. This would involve an upfront capital cost but would give the City full control over how and when the equipment is deployed. This approach would also build internal expertise over time. Another option is to lease equipment or work with a contractor that provides turnkey services, including counter deployment, data processing, and reporting. This method would reduce the upfront cost and technical burden, but could be more expensive if used intensively over many years. A hybrid approach is also possible, in which the City purchases a small number of cameras for ongoing monitoring and supplements them with leased equipment or contractor services for larger, one-time efforts such as the initial citywide baseline.
Staff envisions this work rolling out in phases. In the near term, following Council direction, staff would refine this evaluation approach, identify preferred equipment and procurement approaches, and bring forward a funding request. Once counters or services are secured, staff will conduct the citywide baseline count at ATP priority project locations. As ATP individual projects advance, staff will complete the one-year 282
CC 02-19-2026
282 of 303
before-and-after evaluations and prepare project summaries for Council and the community that describe changes in volumes and safety. Ultimately, this data can be incorporated into public-facing tools such as dashboards or annual reports for residents to review projects.
This approach is intended to improve transparency and accountability around active transportation projects. It gives Council a simple way to compare projects and project types, it allows designs to be refined based on what works best in practice, and it creates a feedback loop between adopted policy goals and actual outcomes. By committing to this measurement approach, the City can signal that success is defined not only by miles of bikeway delivered, but by quantifiable improvements in safety and mode shift toward sustainable transportation.
If Council supports this approach, staff will incorporate these guidelines into the final ATP as an internal policy that then applies to new ATP projects. 283
CC 02-19-2026
283 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14623 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 10.
Subject: City Manager Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
284
CC 02-19-2026
284 of 303
Thursday, February 12, 2026
A Message from the City Manager
Hello Neighbors,
As we gallop into the Year of the Horse, I’m celebrating by putting my beginner Mandarin to use: 新年快樂 ! (My pronunciation is improving, I promise.) I wish each of you a prosperous year filled with good luck and success.
I hope everyone had a chance to enjoy the Big Game this past Sunday, whether gathering with family and friends, attending a local watch party, taking advantage of dining deals at Cupertino restaurants, or exploring public art featured on the Explore Cupertino map. If you missed out, many specials continue through February 16; see details below. Cupertino was proud to be part of the excitement as this major event came to the Bay Area.
In this newsletter, you’ll learn how the City is bringing unlicensed and expired businesses into compliance, expanding affordable housing including the first development of its kind for residents with disabilities at Mary Ave, and how Cupertino has joined with other West Valley cities to negotiate a fair policing contract with the County Sheriff’s Office.
We’re also sharing updates on the City’s progress toward digital accessibility compliance, upcoming community events, and ways to strengthen emergency preparedness.
Read the full City Manager’s Newsletter February 12 , 2026 and all previous editions at cupertino.gov/cmnewsletter.
Warm Regards,
Tina Kapoor, City Manager
285
CC 02-19-2026
285 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14622 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 11.
Subject: Councilmember Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
286
CC 02-19-2026
286 of 303
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember J.R. Fruen
Report Dates: 1/27/26 to 2/9/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
Event 1. January 27, 2026 – Celebrity Storytime at the Cupertino Library – At the invitation of the Library District, I read from Thank You, Neighbor by Ruth Chan to some of our youngest residents as part of Silicon Valley Reads 2026.
Event 2. January 28, 2026 – Cupertino Chamber of Commerce Science & Technology Speaker Series – I attended an informative talk featuring Jerry L. Davis, a cybersecurity expert, on the use, hazards, and challenges to cybersecurity at the dawn of the era of AI.
Event 3. January 29, 2026 – IGL Lunch & Learn on SB 707 – I attended a seminar hosted by the Institute for Local Government on new Brown Act standards under the recently-enacted SB 707, which expands public access to public meetings and further modernizes remote access standards for public officials.
Event 4. February 4, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents
Event 5. February 5, 2026 – State of the District Address – I attended the annual State of the District address hosted by the Cupertino Union School District. In addition to the wealth of additional information on the District’s condition and performance, invitees were provided with tours of multiple schools. As part of that tour, I was taken to Lincoln and Muir (CLIP). It was especially endearing to return to my kindergarten classroom at Lincoln Elementary School after more than 40 years. The desks have changed, and the color scheme is updated, but the tables are still the same!
287
CC 02-19-2026
287 of 303
City Council Councilmember Report
2 Event 6. February 9, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents
288
CC 02-19-2026
288 of 303
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Report Dates: 1/27/26 to 2/9/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
1/28/26 In my capacity as a Santa Clara Valley Water Commissioner, I attended the first quarterly meeting of the Commission. The Commission reviewed last year’s work plan, and Staff provided an update on accomplishments. The Valley Water’s Water Supply Master Plan 20250 was also discussed. This is the guiding document to ensure long-term water supply investments to ensure water reliability in the County. Water conservation, recycling, completing the Sisk Dam seismic retrofits are some of the issues critical to water sufficiency in our region.
1/30/26 Attended the ribbon-cutting ceremony of NaiSnow, a store specializing in natural, health-based tea and tea products including boba. This is NaiSnow’s first location on the West Coast. Vice Mayor Chau and City staff also attended the opening ceremony.
2/26/26 Participated in a one-on-one meeting with Kevin Duggan, in preparation for the Council retreat on February 28.
2/8/26 Inaugurated 17the 2026 Youth Convention hosted by Maitri. The theme was Youth and Mental Health, and I made some 289
CC 02-19-2026
289 of 303
City Council Councilmember Report
2 remarks about Cupertino’s activities for teens and young people including the upcoming Teen Resources Fair on March 21, and stressed the importance of staying connected and building strong relationships to alleviate anxiety and stress.
290
CC 02-19-2026
290 of 303
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: February 19, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Mayor Kitty Moore
Report Dates: 1/26/26 to 2/9/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
January 26, 2026. Audit Committee Meeting. The Audit Committee received the OPEB and Pension Section 115 Trust Performance Report for Q2 and received the Q2 Treasurer’s Investment Report. The change in balances since 2022 was discussed with a focus on LAIF and investment strategies along with the new cash management policy in effect. The Committee had a robust discussion on the OPEB and Section 115 Trust Investment Policy and whether to include environmental investment policy language (Environmental and Social Governance, ESG) and whether to add Global Infrastructure as a new investment category. It was noted that the environmental (ESG) investments could be in conflict with Global Infrastructure investments. For example, in reducing fossil fuel investments from an environmental (ESG) policy, Global Infrastructure
could include expansion of fossil fuel production, use, or transport. The Committee received the Internal
Audit and Fraud, Waste and Abuse update and the
proposed Audit Committee Workplan, requesting the
addition of budget auditing.
Per the Brown Act, trips must be reported at the next
Regular Meeting. This trip information was provided
in Written Communications for the Feb. 3, 2026
meeting. The following is that trip report:
January 27, 2026. Travel to the 94
th U.S. Conference of
Mayors in Washington. D.C. View from plane:
291
CC 02-19-2026
291 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
2 January 28, 2026. Jogged very early to the Mall in about 16F temperatures in the snow to snap some photos before the agenda started.
Note: Many of these sessions live-streamed on C-SPAN.
Attended “Opening Plenary Session” followed by Breakout Session: “Mayors Water Council” regarding water and wastewater issues including PFAS and funding reductions particularly in a partisan way regarding infrastructure. “How Cities are shaping Global Affairs” with Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser as Moderator, regarding international partnerships. Participated in televised Press Conference.
292
CC 02-19-2026
292 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
3 “Plenary Lunch” with multiple speakers including Dr. Frank Luntz regarding the Words that Work. Special guest students from West
Point joined us at our table. They had traveled 5 hours to be a part of the conference and visit D.C.
“The State of Federal Housing Legislation” had some
concerning legislation with a carrot and stick approach to cities to take away their CDBG funding.
“AI Powered Cities” breakout session with an AI
overview which included Boston Mayor Michelle Wu.
“Mayors-Only Session: Keeping Mayors Safe” followed
by an “Opening Reception” where a representative from Keep America Beautiful shared their grant opportunities.
January 29, 2026. “Mayors and Business Leaders Plenary Session”, a combined session. One of the
highlights of this session was an
appearance by FIFA President
Giovanni Infantino along with the
World Cup Trophy. The Fifa President
informed us that this year’s World Cup
will be the largest sporting event in
world history. He was presented with a
shirt signed by all of the Mayors and
President Infantino gave a FIFA World
Cup Soccer Ball to the U.S. Council of
Mayors President David Holt.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey was a
surprise speaker who came to speak about
Minneapolis and ICE, receiving two standing
ovations and making national news. There was a
large press conference outside of the conference
room afterwards for him.
Break-out session: “Generosity and Leadership in Times of Crisis” shared information about disaster relief and GoFundme campaigns. World Central Kitchen, which has supported many disaster relief efforts, has been an early aid 293
CC 02-19-2026
293 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
4 effort in disasters and has helped teach how to scale up food providers. Mayors from Baltimore, MD and Asheville, NC shared their experiences and offered advice on disaster preparedness.
“America 250” session discussed ways to join in the national semiquincentennial celebration. Several activities for July 4th were presented along with reading the Declaration of Independence and September 11, 25 years later, tribute. We were asked to video an America 250 reflections spot which will be compiled and shared with the cities.
“Healthy and Sustainable Cities”plenary lunch. This had several speakers and some awards from the beverage council. There was a surprise visit from Mayor Frey of Minneapolis who received two standing ovations and had a large press conference afterwards.
Breakout Session: “Cities and and Universities: Building Partnerships for Innovation and Workforce Readiness” This session had an emphasis on university research and how the focus has changed under the current administration.
“Mayors Game Changer – Transforming Cities in Sports and Entertainment” This lively meeting shared information on how cities can become sports and entertainment hubs. Oklahoma City’s rowing
center was highlighted as an example of a transformation of a river which was usually dry, into a rowing and sports complex. The river was dammed to create a long and
narrow reservoir suitable for rowing and facilities were built around it. Arshay Cooper, Author of “A Most
Beautiful Thing” who grew up in a rugged part of
Chicago, and became Captain of the first All-black high school rowing team and now helps youth out through
rowing, spoke about his history and autographed copies of his book.
“Welcome to Washington, D.C. Reception” at the Embassy of the Republic of Singapore. Hosted by the Honorable Lui Tuck Yew, Singapore’s Ambassador to the United States.
294
CC 02-19-2026
294 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
5 After a slightly difficult bus ride due to
heavy snow, we were greeted at the embassy
and provided Singaporean hors d’oeuvres,
music provided by two students of the New
England Conservatory, and two lively
dragons came in and one ate a head of
lettuce hanging from the ceiling from a red
rope. The hosts spoke, along with D.C. Mayor Bowers, and Council of Mayors President Holt thanking and welcoming everyone.
Images inside the Singapore Embassy:
January 30, 2026. “Honoring Leadership in the Arts Plenary Session” This was an awards ceremony for local leadership in the arts which have helped seniors suffering Parkinson’s, inmates; pediatric awards for bringing the arts to hospitalized children, wounded soldiers and veterans, and how doctors are now prescribing arts as part of therapy.
• Arts are a $1.2 Trillion economic activity
• 5% of US GDP
• 5.6 M jobs
• For every $1 invested in the arts there is a $9 return 295
CC 02-19-2026
295 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
6 • The NEA budget was restored
• 76% of Americans believe arts are important to them
“Current Issues Relating to FEMA and Disaster Management”. This session was livestreamed on C-SPAN. The session covered an update on the FEMA Review Council: 1) Changed the threshhold for per capita index, 2) Change the cost share, currently at 75%, pushing more costs to states, 3)Block grant proposal to help streamline reimbursements, 4) potential privitization of National Flood Insurance, 5) How to close out prior disaster because some are 10-20 years old and are still on the books, could have a settlement agreement, 6) Future Mitigation Funding. 3 “Wildcards” are 1) parametric insurance such as wind speed, flood level, or earthquake size could trigger an auto payout for instance, 2) Reconsider deductible model with possibly incentives, and 3) Category changes such as public buildings which may not be funded by the Feds. This will be an iterative process.
The return on investment for mitigations is great, for every $1 spent there is an $11 savings in disaster repair costs. Meaning mitigating a home prior to a disaster saves money when a flood or fire strikes.
Next, the discussion moved to the Fix FEMA Act which has 6 elements: 1) elevate it to a Cabinet-level agency, 2) States should play a larger role, including cost share, expend their own funds for mitigations, 3) Permitting reform so that mitigations are not problemmatic, 4) align survivor’s expectations. Have a common application process, 5) Mitigation for resilience. Consider formula-based grants and pre- approved lists, and 6) Transparency in regulatory reform. It is recommended to fix the current progrm rather than wait for an overhaul.
“Energy Certainty in American Cities” This was another session which mentioned data centers. The example city was Mesa, AZ. The distance that battery storage may be from a residential area under new safety and battery standards, which are unlike the batteries at the Moss Landing fires of 2025, is 1000.’ Other potential microgrid power sources mentioned besides solar included fuel cells and nuclear.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors Energy Policy Resolutions are due in May for the Annual Conference and energy is a priority.
“Closing Plenary Lunch” This session focussed on housing issues. Former President Bill Clinton provided closing remarks via recorded message which again centered on ICE in Minneapolis.
This session ended with the adjournment of the Council.
Return Travel January 30, 2026.
January 31, 2026. 2026 Silicon Valley Lunar New Year Together & Night Market in Santa Clara. Two-day festival with multiple local elected officials who wished 296
CC 02-19-2026
296 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
7 everyone a Happy Year of the Horse, and participated in a parade behind the dragons.
February 2, 2026. Agenda look-ahead meeting. These ongoing meetings review agenda balancing and ordering items.
February 2, 2026. Attended 3rd week of Mandarin and Taiwanese culture class by Silicon Valley Chinese School.
February 2, 2026. SOTC pre-meeting. Chinese New Year Photo.
February 2, 2026. Sheriff’s Contract Ad-hoc Committee Meeting.
February 3, 2026. Special and Regular Meeting of the Cupertino City Council.
February 5, 2026. Check in with Staff.
February 5, 2026. CUSD State of the District. CUSD Superintendent Stacy Yao provided an update on the school district which importantly included that the district is now Basic Aid, which means that their funding has significantly increased, is based off property taxes and that adding more students does not increase their funding as in prior funding methodologies. The district is putting Measure Z funds to work maintaining school facilities. Additionally, the Superintendent acknowledged the need to cut staffing due to the declined enrollment.
February 6, 2026. Meeting with offsite consultant for the Council Retreat.
February 6, 2026. Attended the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce LAC meeting with guest speaker Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens. This was the first in-person LAC since 2020 and was well-attended.
297
CC 02-19-2026
297 of 303
City Council Mayor Moore Report
8 February 9, 2026. Agenda review.
February 9, 2026. Mandarin language class: Lunar New Year phrases and customs.
February 9, 2026. Sheriff’s Contract Ad-hoc Committee Meeting. Ongoing meetings to discuss the Sheriff-proposed 36% contract hike to the Sheriff’s Contract. 298
CC 02-19-2026
298 of 303
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14693 Agenda Date: 2/19/2026
Agenda #: 12.
Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
299
CC 02-19-2026
299 of 303
Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Ci
ty Council
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
Study SessionStudy Session
26-14843 Su bject: Consideration of No Net Loss
Ceremonial Items
26-14842 Su bject: Recognition of March as Youth Art Month Consent Calendar
25-14213 Subject: Approval of an agreement to replace Cupertino’s HR and Fi
nancial Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system
25-14425 Su bject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Report for 25-14426 Su bject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for 25-14670 Su bject: Approval of February 19, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 26-14754 Subject: Construction contract for the Sports Center and Quinlan Co
mmunity Center Rooftop Repair Project, to address leaks, to ______ in the amount of $______.
Public Hearings
25-14401 Subject: Public hearing on the abatement of public nuisance from weeds o
r other fire hazards pursuant to provisions of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 9.08 and Resolution No. 25-XXX
26-14789 Subject: Vacate a Portion of Public Right-of-Way Located Along the Wes
terly Edge of Mary Avenue (APN 326-27-053)
Future Agenda Items
25-14694 Su bject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
25-14459 Subject: Receive the City Manager's Mid-Year Financial Report for Fiscal Y
ear 2025-26
26-14785 Subject: Introduce Ordinance No. 25-2279: “An Ordinance of the City Co
uncil of the City of Cupertino Amending City Code Title Five (Business Licenses and Regulations) to Establish Chapter 5.51 to Regulate Film Production.”
26-14859 Su bject: Surplus Land Act - Mary Avenue
Councilmember Reports
25-14624 Su bject: Councilmember Reports
DRAFT
300
CC 02-19-2026
300 of 303
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Ci
ty Manager Report
25-14650 Su bject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, March 17, 2026
Study SessionStudy Session
26-14827 Su bject: Study Session on the Wolfe Road Project Consent Calendar
26-14792 Subject: Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Granicus in the am
ount of $______
26-14778 Subject: 2025 General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Report (
APR)
25-14424 Su bject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending 25-14671 Su bject: Approval of March 3, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 26-14759 Subject: Extension of Contract with _____ for Crossing Guard services for a t
erm of two years
26-14760 Su bject: Authorize the installation of a new traffic signal at Tantau/Forge Public Hearings
26-14876 Subject: Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and T
ree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Priority Housing Sites 29 through 32. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant:
SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004).
Future Agenda Items
25-14695 Su bject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
25-14532 Subject: Review of contractual duties and scope of work for Cupertino Ch
amber of Commerce agreement (Moore/Chao added by email on 10/1/25 and 11/10/25)
25-14490 Subject: Adopt the Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) and Pension T
rust Investment Policies
26-14851 Su bject: City property - Blesch for City Work Program Councilmember Reports
25-14625 Su bject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14651 Su bject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, April 7, 2026
Study SessionStudy Session
DRAFT
301
CC 02-19-2026
301 of 303
Thursday, February 12, 2026
26-
14757 Subject: Fiscal Year 2026-2027 Capital Improvement Programs and Fi
ve-year Plan.
Ceremonial Items
26-14833 Su bject: Proclamation in Recognition of April as Donate Life Month Consent Calendar
25-14436 Su bject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending 26-14773 Su bject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Report for 25-14672 Su bject: Approval of March 17, 2026 City Council meeting minutes Public Hearings
25-14593 Subject: Consider a Use Permit, Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Appr
oval, and Tree Removal Permit to consider the construction of a 122-unit residential development, consisting of 66 small-lot single family homes and 56 townhomes at Steven’s Creek Office Center and a retail building (Voyager Coffee and Panera Bread). The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s):
U-2024-008, TM-2024-006, ASA-2024-011, TR-2024-033; Applicant(s):
Harvest Properties, Inc.; Location: 20807, 20813, 20823, & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd; APNs: 326 32 050, -051, -052, and-053).
Future Agenda Items
25-14696 Su bject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
26-14755 Subject: Revisions to Plastic Bag ordinance to align with State r
equirements.
25-14125 Subject: Introduce first reading of an ordinance to make minor updates an
d minor technical corrections to the Cupertino Municipal Code as follows: amending (Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Chapter
5.04 Administration, Section 5.04.480 Appeal Procedure) and (Title 11 Streets and Vehicles, Chapter 11.28 Miscellaneous Parking Regulations, Sections 11.28.010 Definitions and 11.28.050 Sale of Merchandise); 3.23.020 Definitions. ("Public works project") to align with AB2192; 13.04.180 Advertising and Sale Restrictions; 13.04.130 Behavior of Persons in Parks (P) Feeding Waterfowl Prohibited
Councilmember Reports
25-14626 Su bject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14652 Su bject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, April 21, 2026
Ceremonial ItemsCeremonial Items
DRAFT
302
CC 02-19-2026
302 of 303
Thursday, February 12, 2026
26-
14861 Subject: Recognition of Administrative Professionals Week, April 19-25 Consent Calendar
25-14128 Subject: Second reading and enactment of an ordinance to make minor u
pdates and minor technical corrections to the Cupertino Municipal Code as follows: amending (Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Chapter
5.04 Administration, Section 5.04.480 Appeal Procedure) and (Title 11 Streets and Vehicles, Chapter 11.28 Miscellaneous Parking Regulations, Sections 11.28.010 Definitions and 11.28.050 Sale of Merchandise); 3.23.020 Definitions. ("Public works project") to align with AB2192; 13.04.180 Advertising and Sale Restrictions; 13.04.130 Behavior of Persons in Parks (P) Feeding Waterfowl Prohibited
25-14427 Su bject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for 26-14758 Subject: Award a Construction contract for the 2026 Pavement M
aintenance Phase 1 Project to ___________ in the amount of $__________.
26-14761 Subject: Award a Construction contract for the 2026 Pavement M
aintenance Phase 2 Project to ___________ in the amount of $__________.
25-14673 Su bject: Approval of April 7, 2026 City Council meeting minutes Future Agenda Items
25-14697 Su bject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
25-14521 Subject: Approval to execute a contract with Santa Clara County Office of t
he Sheriff for a five-year period 2025/26 to 2030/31
Councilmember Reports
25-14627 Su bject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14653 Su bject: City Manager Report
DRAFT
303
CC 02-19-2026
303 of 303