CC 4-07-2026
#1
Active Transportation Plan
Presentation
Active Transportation Plan
City Of Cupertino
City Council Meeting
April 07, 2026
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Commission and Council Comments
Revisions and New Scoring from Fall 2025
Commission Comments
The ATP was presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission following Phase 1.
• Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – August 20, 2025
• Planning Commission – September 9, 2025
Areas of Consensus
• Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN.
• Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures.
• Technology needs greater emphasis.
Council Comments
The ATP was also presented to the City Council following Phase 1.
City Council – November 04, 2025
Direction to Staff on Prioritization
• Use objective metrics for prioritization.
• Add Cost to the ranking criteria.
• Add impact to vehicular traffic on arterial streets as a criterion. • Add and prioritize technology solutions.
New Bicycle
Network Criteria
Revisions:
● Greater consideration
to projects either on or
near the HIN
● More points and
precision for school
scoring
● New arterial impacts
● Added destinations
for seniors
● Removed Fairness
criterion
● Added Cost-
Effectiveness as a
criterion
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN) 20
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential
Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5
Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5
Balance Roadway Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking
removal 10
Potential need for lane reduction or parking
removal on a City arterial 10
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10
New Pedestrian
Network Criteria
Revisions:
● Greater consideration
to projects either on or
near the HIN
● More points and
precision for school
scoring
● Added destinations
for seniors
● Removed Fairness
criterion
● Added Cost-
Effectiveness as a
criterion
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN) 20
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential
Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5
Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10
New Sidewalk
Network Criteria
Revisions:
● Greater consideration
to projects either on or
near the HIN
● More points and
precision for school
scoring
● Added destinations
for seniors
● Removed Fairness
criterion
● Added Cost-
Effectiveness as a
criterion
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN) 20
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential
Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5
Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10
New
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
A New Project Category:
● The Council and
community requested
that transportation
technologies be given
greater consideration.
● Corridors created by
analyzing collision
history, reviewing
pedestrian
intersection
recommendations,
and assessing the
City’s ability to control
and implement
projects.
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a VZAP High Injury Network Intersection 10
Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per
mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
10 Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and
signs" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
10 Level of Traffic Stress Average PLTS for the corridor 10 Access
School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 20 Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
10 Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting the corridor
10 10SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Draft Project List
Scored Projects Using Revised Criteria
Scoring
Network Projects
Takeaways:
● Top Projects:
- School-related
- Vision Zero-related
- Low cost
● Scoring also prioritizes
implementable
projects with fewer
tradeoffs and less
delivery complexity.
Type Description Location Cross St Cross St Score
1 Pedestrian A Intersection De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 90
2 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 89 3 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 88 4 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83 5 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr 82
6 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd 81 7 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 81 8 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 81 9 Shared Use Crossing
Stevens Creek
Undercrossing
(Feasibility Study)
Stevens Creek Trail Linda Vista Trail 80
10 Pedestrian C Intersection Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 80
11 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 80 12 Shared Use Trail Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 79 13 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave John Dr 78
14 Bicycle Neighborhood Route From Stelling Rd to De Anza Blvd via Pepper Tree Ln/ Bonny Dr/ Shelly Dr/ Terry Way/ Rodrigues Ave 78
15 Shared Use Trail Lawrence Mitty
Trail Stevens Creek Blvd Barnhart Ave 78
16 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 Side) Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 75 17 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 75 18 Pedestrian A Intersection Miller Ave Phil Ln 75
19 Pedestrian C Intersection Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 75 20 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 75 Project Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Shared Use
Pedestrian
Network Map
Top 5 Projects
1) De Anza Blvd/
Lanazeo Dr: A
2) De Anza Blvd/
Rodrigues Ave: C
3) De Anza Blvd/ Mariani
Ave: A
4) Stelling Rd/ Alves Dr: B,
C
5) Stevens Creek Blvd/
Stelling Rd: B, C
Bicycle
Network Map
Top 5 Projects
1) Vista Dr, Class III
2) Forest Ave, Class III
3) Stevens Creek
Undercrossing Feasibility
Study
4) Tantau Ave, Class III
5) Tamien Innu, Trail
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Proposed New Guidelines
Project Impact Assessment and Effectiveness
Project Impact Assessment Guidelines
Why?
• Based on Council, Commission, and community requests for project-specific comprehensive traffic operations analysis.
What?
• Present the preliminary engineering phase (30% design) to Council to determine whether the project should undergo a detailed analysis tailored to its specific impacts.
Project Effectiveness Guidelines
Why?
• Council, Commission, community, and staff’s desire to collect more data on bicycle and pedestrian volumes, both generally and for pre- and post-construction analysis.
What?
• A successful project will be one in which more people use the facility while the collision rate 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.
Commission Comments
Recommended New Scoring from Winter 2026
Commission Comments
The ATP was presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission following Phase 2.
• Planning Commission – February 10, 2026
• Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – February 18, 2026
Areas of Consensus
• Safety should be prioritized for the Vision Zero HIN
• School scoring is overweighted and should be reduced
Recommended Adjustment
• Subtract 10 points from Schools and apply 10 to Vizion Zero HIN Commission Comments
Key Takeaways
• Top projects remain unchanged. Most Neighborhood Routes decrease in rank since they rely most heavily on School scoring. • Projects on the HIN that are not also Suggested Routes to School increase. This is especially true for Pedestrian projects on:
• Bollinger Rd, De Anza Blvd, Stelling Rd, and Homestead Rd.
Project Type Location Rank Change
Intersection: A, B, C Intersection Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 78 to 39 +39 Intersection: A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd 62 to 24 +38 Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Calle De
Barcelona 87 to 66 +21
Intersection: A, B Intersection Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 108 to 71 +37 Intersection: A Intersection Torre Ave Pacifica Ave 49 to 97 -48 Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Next Steps
Document Development & Public Review
What Comes Next
Prepare Draft Report
• Compile the different elements of the Plan and address any comments from Council.
• Organize the elements and prepare a Draft Plan document for public review, which will be open for 1 month.
Summer 2026
• The Draft Plan will be brought to the City Council for adoption consideration.
CC 4-07-2026
#11
Harvest Properties
Presentation
City Council
April 7, 2026
Housing Development
20807, 20813, 20823 & 20883 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Project Site
Address
20807, 20813, 20823,
20883 Stevens Creek
Blvd.
Zoning District
P(CG, Res)
(max. 25 du/ac)
Request
122 units- 66 single-
family homes, 56
townhomes, removal
of 249 trees
Project Background
Existing Uses
Stevens Creek Office Center, Voyager Coffee and Panera
Applications
● SB330 Application submitted on April 1, 2024
● Formal application submitted on September 25, 2024
Housing Element Context
● 2023-2031 Housing Element adopted May 2024
● Priority Housing Site #9
● SB330 application before HE adoption
State Housing Laws
● Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
Cannot make project infeasible or reduce density.
● Housing Crisis Act (“SB 330” or “HCA”)
Streamlines permit processing and locks-in fees and
standards. Vesting Date: April 1, 2024
● Density Bonus Law
Allows for additional units, waivers, concessions, and
reduced parking standards.
● No Net Loss (SB 166)
Sites to accommodate RHNA by income level must be
available.
Proposal Data
Project Data Required Proposed
Minimum Density No minimum
17.84 units/acre
Maximum Density Up to 25 units/acre
Building Height 45’ max. 50’ 6”*
Setbacks
Front 35’ 20’ *
Side ½ the height of buildings or
10’, whichever is greater
6-10’ townhomes,
8’-9.5’ SFDs *
Rear 1.5 times the building
height, with 20’ min. 10’ 1” *
Private Open Space
60 s.f. / unit
no dimension less than
6’
> 60 s.f. / unit
Parking 2.8 space per unit
(342 spaces) 272 spaces
* Density Bonus Waiver
Project Details
● 122 units in total
● 66 single-family homes
● 56 townhomes (including all 24 BMR units)
● Three stories, 33 units have access to roof top decks ● Unit living area ranging from 1,380 sq. ft. to 2,329 sq. ft. (net)
● Requires a Use Permit due to vested zoning
● 249 trees removed; 151 replaced on-site, in-lieu fee
● Vesting tentative map for condominium purposes
BMR Units
Project Design
View from Stevens Creek Blvd.
Project Consistency Analysis
● Project is consistent with applicable objective
standards.
● One Density Bonus concession to waive requirement in
the BMR Manual that BMR units be comparable to
market rate units in terms of unit type and dispersion. ● 12 Density Bonus waivers:
● Height limitation per HOC
● Front, Side, Side and rear-yard deck, Rear, eaves
setbacks
● Lot Coverage, Lot Width, and Building Forms
● Parking space size, tandem garages, and parking
setback
Height Limitations
• Heart of the City
(HOC) height limit
of 45’
• 35 units impacted
Setbacks
Dev. Standard Required Proposed
Front Setback 35’ from edge of
curb
33’ from edge
of curb
Side Setback ½ height of
building or 10’ 6’
Side Setback -
Deck 15’ 6’
Rear Setback ½ height of
building or 20’ 10’ 1”
Rear Setback -
Deck 20’ 10’ 1”
Eaves Up to 3’
encroachment
>3’
encroachment
Lot Coverage, Width, and Forms
Project Data Required Proposed
Lot Coverage 40% max 44%
Lot Width 70’ wide 26’ Wide
(townhomes)
Building Forms
1:5:1 ratio setback
adjacent to
residential, 75”9’ per
bldg. height
Buildings 1,2,17,18,
37-40 (setback of
6’)
Parking
Project Data Required Proposed
Parking Setback Not within setback
Garages for Bldgs.
1,2,3, and 17 within
side setback
Parking Stall Size 20’ x 20’ min. (2
spaces in garage)
18.4’x20’, with 28
tandem garages
● Proposed public art plaza in the “central green”
● Park Land Dedication to be through payment of in-lieu fee ($5,880,000 for 98 units), consistent with Quimby Act
Public Art and Park Land Dedication
BMR Requirements
Number of
Units
Number of
Bedrooms
Average Unit
Size
BMR Units 24 3 2,357 gross SF
Market-Rate
Units 98 3-4 3,206 gross SF
● 24.4 BMR units – 12 moderate and 12 median
income, in-lieu fee for 0.4 units, only 3 beds and
in townhomes
● Concession for Proposed BMR units to be smaller
than market rate units in type and dispersion:
Planning Commission
● Recommended approval of the project, 5-0 vote
● Motion recommended identifying
supportive measures for relocation of retail
tenants
● Discussion items included:
● Loss of retail and retail outreach
● Number and type of waivers and
concessions
● Tree removals and replanting
● Six speakers, including adjacent property owners
and retail tenants
AB 130 Exemption
AB 130 Exemption Memorandum prepared:
● Reviewed Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
● Project qualifies for a statutory exemption under
Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.
Noticing and Public Comments
Noticing
● Site Signage
● Legal ad
Public Comments
● Six speakers at Planning Commission
● Letters in support of the project, providing housing
● Additional letters opposing development, primarily due to loss of retail
● Letter requesting Planning Commission continuance
due to private easement agreement, determined not
to be in project scope
● Mailed notices (500 feet)
Recommended Actions
1. Find the project exempt from CEQA;
2. Adopt Resolutions and approve the requested
permits:
a. Use Permit (U-2024-008);
b. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-
011)
c. Tentative Subdivision Map (TM-2024-006); and
d. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-033).
CC 4-07-2026
#13
Commissions Handbook
Presentation
April 7, 2026
Commissioner’s Handbook
Update
Floy Andrews
Interim City Attorney
Updates to Commissioner’s Handbook
- Provide for alternates
- Promote broad community participation
- Continue attendance requirements, but
Council must approve removals
- Recognize Commissioner autonomy, and
ensure Commission’s actions are fairly
represented
- Add general updates prepared by Staff
Appoint Alternates
- When members miss meetings it can
impact quorum, preventing action
- A non-voting alternate can be “seated” by
the Chair and then participate as a voting
member, satisfying quorum requirements,
allowing commission to conduct business
- Appointing alternates also increases
community participation
Promote Broad Participation
- Council has recognized the importance of
broad community participation
- Restricting individuals to serving on only one
advisory body enhances participation by
providing opportunities for others
- New update would discourage but not
forbid individuals from serving on two
advisory bodies
Attendance Requirements
- Current rules contain attendance
requirements
- When a member fails to meet those
requirements the City Clerk notifies the City
Council and makes a recommendation for
removal
- City Council retains authority over removal
for failing to meet attendance
requirements
Commissioner Autonomy
- Sitting Commissioners do not abandon their
autonomy and their right to share their
personal viewpoint
- Update three provisions in the
Commissioner’s Handbook
“Commissions” - Update 1
Remove: “This underlying philosophy makes it
improper for an individual commissioner, acting in their official capacity, to try to persuade the Council into
the acceptance of a recommendation other than that
voted by the majority of the commission. The role of a
commission is to assist the City Council in the formation of policy, having been created for the purpose of
advising.”
“Commissions” - Update 1
Add: “Individual commissioners are at liberty to express their personal opinions to the City Council on items within the scope of their commission’s jurisdiction if they clearly state that they are speaking on behalf of themselves only.
The Council appreciates hearing the rationale supporting both the majority position and the minority position, as this enriches the decision-making process. [However, if the
individual commissioner’s personal recommendation is
inconsistent with a position taken by the full commission, the individual commissioner should also provide the City Council with a general description of the full commission’s position.]”
“Recommendation & Report” - Update 2
Update as follows:
“The Commissioner selected by the Chair as
the commission representative should strive to
represent the position of the commission as a
whole at the meeting, as necessary,
regardless of the Commissioners’ personal
views.”
“Use of City Email” - Update 3 (a)
Remove: “When using your City email to
advocate or discuss a matter within the
scope of your commission’s jurisdiction, ensure
that the email cannot be construed to
represent the views of the full commission,
unless the commission has affirmatively voted
to approve the position presented.”
“Use of City Email” – Update 3 (a)
Add: “When advocating or discussing a
matter within the scope of your commission’s
jurisdiction, ensure that the email cannot be
construed as representing the views of the full
commission, unless the commission has
affirmatively voted to approve the position
presented. Please do not forward or reply to a
City email from your personal email address.
Once your term on the commission is over,
your City email will be terminated.”
“Use of City Email” – Update 3 (b)
Remove: “All City emails are subject to the
Public Records Act and you should use your
City email only to conduct City business as a
commissioner. . . . Please do not forward or
reply to a City email from your personal email
address. Once your term on the commission is
over, your City email will be terminated.”
“Use of City Email” – Update 3 (b)
Add: All City emails are subject to the Public Records
Act, and you should use your City email to
communicate about any matter within the jurisdiction
of your commission. Emails sent from a personal email
account are also subject to the Public Records Act to
the extent they address a matter related to your
commission’s jurisdiction. Please use your City email
when so communicating to enhance efficiency and
transparency. . . . Please do not forward or reply to a City email from your personal email address. Once your
term on the commission is over, your City email will be terminated.
Other staff updates
• Clarify roles for staff liaison, commission
administrator, and chair
• Add guidelines for hybrid meetings and
remote participation
• Include language on Commission Work
Plans
• Details on training requirements
• Other administrative updates
Questions
CC 4-07-2026
#14
Chamber of Commerce
Agreement
Presentation
April 7, 2026
Determine Next Steps For The
Agreement With The Cupertino
Chamber Of Commerce.
City Council
Daniel Degu
Economic Development Manager
Agenda
• Background & Purpose of Agreement
• Agreement Overview
• Service Highlights
• Financial Summary
• Options & Fiscal Impact
• Next Steps / Council Direction
Background & Purpose
Background
• Long-standing partnership with the Chamber
• No formal agreement prior to 2023
Purpose of Agreement
• Formalize partnership, create coordinated
economic development support
• Expand reach to businesses
• Support post-pandemic economic recovery
Agreement Overview
• Agreement authorized: June 6, 2023
• Executed: April 4, 2024 (Year 1 start)
• Year 2 began: April 30, 2025
• Current expiration: April 30, 2026
Service Highlights (Years 1–2)
Services Areas:
• Technical Assistance, Marketing & Promotion, Events
& Meetings
Highlights:
• 10 business workshops
• 5 Women’s business luncheons
• 6 Business outreach meetings
• Marketing & promotion of 20 business-related City
events
Financial Summary
Funding Structure
• Up to $52,000 annually
• $50/hour billable rate
Expenditures
• Year 1: $23,150
• Year 2: $4,150 (to date)
Options & Fiscal Impact
Option 1 (Recommended): Revised scope, reduce funding
to $5,000/year.
• Services include: 6 workshops, 4 luncheons, monthly
coordination, contingency budget.
• Savings: $47,000 annually.
Option 2: No extension, agreement ends April 30, 2026.
• Savings: $52,000 annually
Option 3: Status quo, continue current scope.
• Maintain $52,000 annual funding
Option 1: Revised Scope
• Aligns services with current economic development
priorities
• Accounts for role of new Economic Development
Committee
• Maintains key programs:
• Technical assistance workshops
• Women’s business luncheons
• City–Chamber coordination
• Improves cost efficiency, supports continued
partnership with a focused approach
Next Steps / Council Direction
1. Authorize Agreement Extension with Revised Scope
of Work (Recommended)
2. Authorize Agreement to Expire without Extension
3. Authorize Agreement Extension with Existing Scope
and Funding