CC 02-04-2025 Item No. 8 Future Agenda Items_Written CommunicationsCC 02-04-2025
Item No. 8
Future Agenda Items
(TBD List)
Written Communications
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Policy consideration to address the gap in approval process for bike path projects, which affect vehicular flows
Date:Monday, February 3, 2025 10:40:17 AM
Please include this in the written communication for the 2/4 council meeting.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 12:31 AM
To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.gov>; Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Policy consideration to address the gap in approval process for bike path projects,
which affect vehicular flows
(Changed the subject to reflect the content of this email thread, where I wish to consider policy
changes to address the gap in approval process for bike path projects, which affect vehicular
flows.)
Here is an example of a project from Palo Alto, where they intends to change the intersection
of San Antoino and Charleston Road to improve pedestrian safety.
They had 4 community meetings and then presented 4 concept idea options first to the
Planning and Transportation Commission and then the City Council and recommended one of
the 4 options. In the staff report, the impact to vehicular traffic is analyzed.
Where can I find any traffic analysis on the impact to vehicular traffic to the intersection of
Stevens Creek and De Anza Blvd, likely the most congested intersection in Cupertino>
Where can I find any community meetings held where options were proposed and evaluated so
that we can meet the needs of all stakeholders?
I don't think our current process include these essential components to a successful project
for a public agency. Thus, there is a gap in our approval process when a project is classified as
a "bike path project", which also includes changes to intersection and signaling for vehicular
traffic.
The role of the Council has been to just approve the funding, with a one paragraph description
of the CIP project. Then, the Council is supposed to just approve the construction contract
without ever seeing the design or providing any input on the design options, it seems.
Thus, it seems there is something missing in this kind of approval process, especially when a
project is not a simple bike path project, which has no impact on other users of the road.
Thank you,
Liang
============
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Transportation-Projects/San-
Antonio-RoadCharleston-Road-Intersection-Improvements-Project
"City Staff conducted four community meetings in 2018 and 2019 and presented four
concept ideas. Based on the feedback received at these meetings, staff further evaluated
concept idea D to develop a recommendation for Planning and Transportation
Commission and City Council approval. City Council reviewed and approved the
preferred alternative concept plan at its meeting on February 10, 2020. Staff is currently
working to complete final design plans, environmental analysis, specifications and estimates
for construction."
The staff report to the City Council, when the 4 options were presented, states
"Both San Antonio Road and East Charleston Road are classified as arterial streets, and their
junction is a major signalized intersection within the City of Palo Alto. For the purposes of this
report, San Antonio Road runs north-south, and East Charleston runs east-west. A frontage
road exists parallel to San Antonio Road on the west side that provides access to Fabian Way,
to the 76 gas station, and to residents and businesses on the northwest quadrant of this
intersection.
This intersection provides a direct connection to the US 101 Freeway, the Jewish Community
Center, Space Systems Loral, and the City of Mountain View. It has been identified as an
intersection of concern due to complaints related to traffic congestion and pedestrian safety.
Comprehensive Plan Goal T-2, concerning Traffic Delay and Congestion, states “Decrease
delay, congestion and VMT with a priority on our worst intersections and our peak commute
times, including school traffic.”
About 4,000 motor vehicles and 20 bicycles travel through this intersection during
the one-hour morning peak on a typical weekday. This intersection currently
operates at a motor vehicle Level of Service C during the morning peak-hour and
Level of Service D during the evening peak-hour but will sometimes exceed its practical
capacity when surges of traffic from multiple directions occur simultaneously. Level of Service
D can be described as approaching unstable flow of traffic and occasionally waiting through
more than one signal cycle before proceeding.
San Antonio Road and Charleston Road are designated as a future enhanced bikeway in
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (2012) in the vicinity of this intersection.
In November 2017, City staff began collecting and analyzing comprehensive traffic volume,
speed and collision data.
In April 2018, staff hosted the first community meeting where community members and
stakeholders provided input on project goals and helped identify issues and opportunities.
Subsequent community meetings were held to discuss and present revised alternative
concept ideas for the intersection. Staff received many constructive comments from the
community. Most were related to specific pedestrian improvements, overall traffic safety,
parking concerns, and maintaining or improving the current vehicle operations. With input from
stakeholders and evaluation by the consulting team, two alternative concept plans were
developed.
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 5:35 PM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Christopher Jensen
<ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.gov>; Serena Tu <SerenaT@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: Items for the 2/18 agenda
My request is for the City attorney to suggest a policy proposal to resolve the gap we currently
have where the design of a Bike path project was never put on any public meeting agenda for
approval, either by a commission nor a council.
I respectfully am asking this question at the policy level.
I hope that the city attorney can provide a policy level suggestion for this issue.
As a policy maker, when I see a deficiency in the current policy, my role is to think about a way
to improve the current policy so that the staff, with the leadership of the city manager can
follow.
I do not think it is prudent to allocate funding to a project and then approve the contract of a
project when the council and the public have no idea on what's in the project, since it was not
ever approved at any public meeting.
The cost of a project could vary a lot depending on what options are used to implement it,
especially for bike path projects.
I'm looking for an improve policy to allow more transparency and accountability into the
current process.
Thus, I welcome any policy-level
suggestions.
Thank you for your help in my attempt to improve the process so that the public don't always
react only after a contract is approved or after a project has been implemented.
Regards,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Chad Mosley <ChadM@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: Items for the 2/18 agenda
As I've explained to Pamela this morning, I realized there is gap in our approval process for bike
path projects that have impact on vehicular flow.
When a project is added to the CIP list, the project is funded. But that does not mean every
aspect of the project is already approved by the Council.
A bike path project like Stevens Creek Blvd would first have the design, which is “reviewed” by
the Bike Ped Commision, but the commission does not actually approve the design.
Plus, the design being review is never put on the meeting agenda of the Bike Ped Commission
and it is not posted on the Bike projects page. Thus, except a handful of people, who tend to be
bike enthusiasts on the Bike Ped Commission, no one else had even SEEN the design or is
given any access at all since the design is not posted any where.
Then, the contract comes T the council, but the agenda item material does not include any
design document. The Council is asked to approve the contract on a bike path project that they
have no idea, except that it’s Class IV bike path and there is some intersection improvements.
Whether the separator is concrete or bollards? What changes aew there for the intersection?
What’s the effect on the vehicular flow?
None of those are in the agena packet since the design is “seemed approved”. But by whom?
There are many options for a bike path design and even more options for the intersection
designs. The impact of each design on safety and vehicular flow are all different. The price tags
are also different.
Now that we are facing structural deficit for the foreseeable future, we cannot afford to always
take the most expensive (maybe safest option) so we can improve the safety only for a small
section of the road.
So, there is a gap in how the bike Ped projects are approved in Cupertino. The vast majority of
people who will get impacted by those projects would never ever see the design thst will
impact them, unless they happen to attend the one Bike Ped Commission meeting in person.
Thus, I hope to fix that gap inbthe approval process.
What do you suggest?
Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From:Liang Chao
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fw: [Agenda] Plan for future agenda items
Date:Sunday, February 2, 2025 10:30:13 AM
City Clerk,
Please enter this into the written communication for the TBD list item on the 2/4 council
agenda.
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 5:32 PM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov>
Subject: [Agenda] Plan for future agenda items
To help me find emails related to agenda setting, I have added "[Agenda]" to the subject line.
The email below was sent to both of you on 12/19/2024.
I laid out what I have in mind so that we can plan ahead. And in case any items require more
information from me, I could provide them ahead of time.
Of course, I do need your advice on how to proceed with them while complying with the Muni
Code and Council Procedures manual.
I am thankful that Pamela did put the #1 "Update Sister City Policy" on the draft agenda for
1/22 at first, which I have removed since I need to think more about it.
I am thankful that Pamela did put the "review commission/committes" item on the draft 2/4
agenda, which led me to think that the staff is working on that item.
However, I was told this morning that the "review commission/committes" item is not ready
yet, since the staff report is not ready yet.
Perhaps, I misheard. I thought I heard that the city attorney is the responsible staff or this item?
Thus, I sent an email to the city attorney this morning about that.
To reduce confusion like this, it might be helpful to let me know what's a better way to plan
these items. I wish that I could have been given a heads up on what items will likely not be
ready. And what information I can provide to help facilitate efficient agenda preparation.
Here are the items that I hope to see on the 2/18 agenda:
An action item to re-enact the Economic Development Committee and the Legislative
Action Commitee with the original Muni Code, before they were removed in early 2023.
Study session on the roles and responsibilities of commitee/commission to consider:
Update the Responsibility for Planning Commission to add transportation and
small cell
Update the Audit Committee responsibilities to restore previous responsibility for
oversignt
Action item to put City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex to the FY 2025-26 CIP list
As I understand, a version of this item was coming to the Council agenda last
November.
We can have an update of the work done last year in the public-private
partnership, interim city hall purchase, etc.
Thank you in advance for your assistance and advise on how to proceed smoothly.
Regards,
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2024 9:16 AM
To: Pamela Wu <PamelaW@cupertino.gov>; Christopher Jensen <ChristopherJ@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Proposed Agenda Items for 11/22 Council meeting
I thought that we'll have another 1:1 today, which was originally scheduled to answer a list of
questions that I have sent. And also any follow-up from the 12/17 meeting.
And I had hoped to take the time to discuss upcoming agenda items for the 1/22 Council
meeting.
But I did not see it in the calendar.
Here are the items that I have in mind for your consideration. I have put in my estimate for staff
work and council discussion time.
1. (small) Update Sister City Policy - simple update to clarify that any staff travel to join
international delegation requires prior council approval
2. (small) Update the Audit Committee responsibilities - simple update to restore previous
responsibilities to provide better oversight
3. (small) Economic Develop Commission - The Muni Code was already adopted back in
2022 and interviews were already complete, but it was removed in early 2022.
4. (small) Legislative Review Committee - This is a long-standing sub-committee of the
City Council, which existed before I joined the Council. Given that the state laws
significantly affected the city's local planning in recent years, we need to reactivate the
Legislative Review Committee to be more responsive to any proposed bills.
5. (moderate) Update the Responsibility for Planning Commission to add transportation
and small cell - to fill in some holes that we've seen in the recent years so that we
involve the public more in decision making
6. (small) City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex add to the FY 2025-26 CIP list => Add
them to the CIP list, as the Council did in late 2022 for City Hall Renovation and early
2022 for City Hall Annex
7. (moderate to large) Council Procedures Manual update
8. (moderate to large) Work Program Prioritization
The items I hope to place on the 1/22 Council agenda are:
(small) City Hall Renovation and City Hall Annex add to the FY 2025-26 CIP list
(small) Update Sister City Policy to clarify staff travel
(small) Update the Audit Committee responsibilities
(moderate to large) Work Program Prioritization
(moderate to large) Council Procedures Manual update
The items I hope to place on the 2/4 Council agenda are
(small) Economic Develop Commission
(small) Legislative Review Committee
(moderate) Update the Responsibility for Planning Commission to add transportation
and small cell
As I understand the TBD list is already on the 1/22 Council agenda? If so, I hope to include a
discussion on whether we should continue the same approach or make any changes.
I hope to have a list of agenda items for future council meetings so I have some idea in
scheduling, such as the quarterly budget updates, annual update for the Housing Element,
items for work program and CIP list, community grant, CDBG grant and any development
project.
The City Manager's report back in 2019-20 has a list of all future agenda items so we have
some idea what's upcoming and when.
In Fremont, I am told they send a draft agenda for the next two months to all Councilmembers
since the staff do need to know ahead of time to prepare anyway.
Thank you for helping me to navigate the agenda setting process.
Liang
Liang Chao
Council Member
City Council
LiangChao@cupertino.org
408-777-3192