Loading...
CC 09-03-2025 Item No. 19 Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters_Written CommunicationsCC 09-03-2025 Item No.19 Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Written Communications From:Connie Cunningham To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:2025-09-03 CC Agenda Item 19 Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 3:56:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 2025-09-03 CC Agenda Item 19 Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, Councilmembers and City Manager, My name is Connie Cunningham, a 38 year resident of the community and currently Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only. I urge the Council to select Option 3 to keep transportation related topics with the Bike Ped Commission. It has been my observation over the past several years, that bicyclists and pedestrians, who are a minority of our traveling residents, suffer from a lack of being heard. Many residents dismiss their concerns. It has been mentioned that there are “drivers' rights". Left out of that phrase is “drivers' responsibilities.” I have taken the bicyclist class that is intended to help bicyclists learn all the rules of the road and to become more aware of specific problems: intersections is a major one. Driver’s who do not understand how to drive with cyclists is another. Cyclists who do not know how to cycle safely is another. I was surprised by many things in the class. My own, (even with a bicyclist in my family that I love dearly) and other drivers’, lack of awareness of anything except cars on the road. I have learned over time that in order to get federal, state and county grant funding, the City needs to have action items in place. An active Bike Ped Commission is a big part of that list of action items. Our city prizes safety and environmental improvements. Keeping a Bike Ped Commission will continue the City’s work on Transportation that is Safe and Environmentally friendly. Sincerely, Connie Cunningham From:Santosh Rao To:City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Liang Chao Subject:Fw: Questions for staff on existing CMC rules and regulations on changes to streets. Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:50:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Clerk, Would you please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you. Thanks, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Begin forwarded message: On Wednesday, September 3, 2025, 1:48 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote: [Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident] Hi David, Chad, I have a few questions and would appreciate if you or someone in staff could help with these. 1. When was Bike Ped Commission first formally created. Which commission covered roads and transportation or related transportation master plans prior to that. 2. Assuming it was planning commission that might have covered for these, when the Bike Ped commission was formed was the charter of planning commission modified to shift charter from PC to BPC. Can we see redline versions of the changes that were made. 3. If charter changes did not occur how did the city assume charter shift to BPC when there was a time that no BPC existed and we still had these types of projects in the city. 4. Would the road improvements to introduce bike lanes or lane removals count as or meet the definition of road diverters per CMC 14.04.125? If so CMC 14.04.125.C(2) implies the item must be deliberated on by city council. If these road changes to divert traffic away from a lane as done on DeAnza are technically diverters should the above CMC have been followed. Dear Mayor Chao, Council Members, Please refer the above CMC. https://codehub.gridics.com/us/ca/cupertino#/ff2020ef-ed71-490f-93f8- 3cd17cf0c716/4b4fb49f-c031-45ee-ac71-9d23572ec56f/9a2621bb-6320-4b26- b735-39f3d79dd806 It defines what the public would like to see. It can be extended to cover all road improvements that involve modifications to lanes, removal of parking, removal of right turns and any other lane changes and council may choose to have these reviewed at PC and CC or PC only with appeal to CC. Note that only PC has rights to approval besides CC. BPC is advisory only and cannot be an approval commission. Therefore given the nature of public impact these road changes have caused I ask that you enhance the above CMC to include all road changes and consider hearing at PC and CC or optionally PC only with appeal to CC. Thank you. ————— Each request for installation, removal or modification of a diverter shall be reviewed by staff, who shall prepare a written report containing the following information to be submitted to the City Council: The actions proposed and the reasons for support of the request For existing diverters, the report shall include the history of the diverter, including the date of installation, reason why it was installed, complaints received, if any, and statements of support received, if any; Existing conditions in the area which would be affected by the proposed installation, removal or modification include, but are not limited to: Traffic volumes, patterns and speeds, Existing traffic control and traffic-control and traffic-management devices, On-street parking levels and patterns, Accident data, and Emergency-vehicle access routes, public transit and school bus routes, and other public service and delivery routes. Both the streets directly affected by the diverter and the streets which would be expected to handle diverted traffic shall be considered. For existing diverters, the accident data should include an assessment of the role, if any, that the diverter may have played (both positive and negative); Design options of the diverter or diverters; Probable impacts of the proposed installation, removal or modification, including but not limited to impacts on the conditions described under subsection C2b of this section; on air pollution, fuel use, and noise; on transit service; on emergency-vehicle access times; on residential quality of life, and estimated costs. Both streets directly affected by the diverter or diverters and the streets which would be expected to handle diverted traffic shall be considered; Staff shall request comments on the proposed diverter from the Departments of Public Safety and Community Development and the County Transit District if any routes are impacted, and shall attach these comments to the report; Alternatives to the proposed action; Statements or findings necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act; Staff recommendation. In addition to transmitting the staff report to the City Council, staff shall also send copies of the report to the initiator of the request, to neighborhood organizations in the area of the proposed action, to individuals who have stated an interest in such matters, and to the County Transit District if any bus routes are impacted. Notice of a public hearing shall be given pursuant to the manner set forth in Chapter 19.116 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. After the close of the public hearing, the City Council may order a report recommending that a diverter or diverters be installed or removed or modified, or that no change be made. The report shall contain written findings that the proposed action meets each of the requirements set forth in subsection B of this section, shall specify the effect of the proposed action on traffic volume and on the health and safety of Cupertino citizens as outlined in subsection B4 of this section, and that the action complies with CEQA. The City Council may adopt the staff report as the findings in support of its decision. The Public Works Department shall process the appropriate environmental —————————- Thanks, San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) document. The Director of Public Works shall submit all reports generated pursuant to these regulations to the City Council. The City Council shall by resolution authorize the installation, removal or modification of any diverter. If the proposal is for the installation of a new diverter, then the Director of Public Works shall review the diverter after six months of operation concerning any and report the conclusions of operation concerning any impacts as outlined in subsection C2b of this section and report the conclusions of such review to the City Council. Improvements. The Department of Public Works shall consider physical improvements for the designated diverters during each year's budget process. Any such improvements shall be processed in the same manner as any capital improvement in the City, except that the Department of Public Works may accept contributions in cash or in kind to provide for improvements of diverters. First priority shall be given to improving any diverter to enhance public health and safety. Second priority for placement of physical improvements shall be given to diverters in order of their date of installation. From:Calley Wang To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:9/3 Council meeting comments on agenda items 18 and 19 Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:28:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor Chao, Council Members and Staff, Here are my comments on the following agenda items: 18: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study I urge the council to adopt the Stevens Creek Vision as recommended. The vision plan contains common sense recommendations and best practices for improving safety and attractiveness on suburban streets. As a Cupertino native who travels Stevens Creek by car, bus, foot, and bike and has followed the outreach process from the beginning, I think the vision plan will make the corridor safer, more pleasant and less congested. These will have such a positive impact for seniors, families, and youth, who I often see walking or riding transit on the Cupertino section of Stevens Creek. Morever, the scope of the of the vision should be maintained to include Foothill Boulevard, which this Council initially advocated for to ensure greater funding eligibility for Cupertino's section of Stevens Creek. The Vision also aligns with Cupertino's General Plan goals of promoting walking and biking, better local and regional transit, and an attractive Heart of the City. As Stevens Creek develops, it will become a better place for residents to walk around and for small businesses to thrive. A vocal minority has insisted that Cupertino should prioritize increasing car traffic above all else on Stevens Creek. This would give Stevens Creek all the safety, smooth traffic flow, economic potential, and neighborhood character of Lawrence Expressway. It is a major corridor but it is not an expressway. It forms the commercial heart of the city and should be safe and welcoming for all residents of all ages to visit by car, foot, bike, or transit. Adopting the Vision maintains local control -- it does not cost Cupertino any money or require it to carry out any projects without city approval. It is the best way to secure a future for safe and smooth travel on Stevens Creek for all residents and all visitors. 19: Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters I support Option 3 from the staff report, which is to maintain a commission with oversight on transportation issues. We are asking Planning Commission to do too much with their limited time and city resources, on top of complex state housing requirements. Meanwhile a separate Mobility Commission with a clarified mandate would have the time and attention needed to focus on transportation issues, especially those impacting our most vulnerable road users. Remember that many cyclists and pedestrians in Cupertino are students and kids; their perspectives also deserve to be taken into consideration. Additionally, having a separate commission is in line with best practice in other Bay Area cities like Palo Alto and has successfully obtained lots of outside grant funding for transportation improvements in Cupertino. This is the best choice for maintaining Cupertino's attractive quality of life and the most fiscally responsible choice. Thank you, Calley Wang West Hill Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 From:Jennifer Griffin To:City Council; City Clerk Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com Subject:Item 19- Referral of Transportation Matters to the Planning Commission (9/3/25) Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 1:01:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council: (Please include the following as public comment for the Study Session on Item 19 at the Cupertino City Council meeting on 9/3/25: Referring Transportation Matters to the Planning Commission.) Item Number 19 on the Cupertino City Council Agenda for 9/3/25 is a Study Session on the Referral Of Transportation Matters to the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission should have Transportation Matters referred to them. They should be able to look at and review the issues With Transportation Matters and they can study the Transportation changes or updates. They have the expertise and resources to find out exactly the parameters being discussed. The Planning Commission has The whole big picture and can ascertain best how situations may change etc. They can make suggestions And ask questions and get information. They look out for everyone and try to anticipate how something Will affect the infrastructure of the city, especially in the realm of traffic and transportation areas. The Bike and Pedestrian Committee just looks at one area of Transportation and we need to have A larger and more focused evaluation of Transportation issues. The Planning Commission is most Most important commission behind the City Council and they are there to provide the City Council With valuable information from the Planning Commission's investigation into areas of concern and Public interest. Transportation Matters really must involve cars and traffic impacts etc. As our city is pushed to build More and more housing, we must evaluate how the traffic in our city is being managed and how Traffic loads will change and traffic will be impacted by construction and additional car demands Etc. From additional traffic. We need realistic and reliable studies of Transportation impacts from additional construction of Housing etc. so that we can adequately plan for future mobility for everyone. Automobiles are A major source of mobility and we cannot ignore them and their needs in the new Transportation Demands. If SB 79 passes, we will have highrises in many areas of the city. This law says nothing about traffic impacts and the city is left to have to supply all methods necessary to make sure roads are Not at absolute gridlock level. LOS (Level of Service) Is an excellent way to conduct traffic studies as it predicts the future state of an actual intersection. VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) is Often not as reliable as it does not discuss the degradation at particular intersections and there Have been times that developers or others moved bus stops when it was convenient etc. I am really concerned Cupertino is losing all its retail to housing. The housing built will have No associated infrastructure requirements with it so that the city and the public will bear the Cost of that added infrastructure, and one of the added infrastructure will be vehicle impacts To the roadways and the needs for transportation studies. Finding out how cars will move in the new Transportation Future is very importation and the Planning Commission should bear that responsibility. Thank you very much. Best regards, Jennifer Griffin From:Yvonne Strom To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Agenda item 19. Urge the City to keep all transportation related topics with the Bike Ped Commission Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:48:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please include in public comments for item 19 in the City Council meeting on Sept 3. To Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and City Councilmembers, I am writing in support of the Bike Ped Commission and keeping all transportation related topics in their charter. Consolidation would effectively erase representation of any person who is not inside a car. Pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and wheelchair riders have a lawful right to use the public streets. All people, including children and students, have the right to expect their safety is just as important as the motorists they share the space with. Making streets safer for everyone is more efficient for everyone. That's why Cupertino needs the expertise of the BPC on all transportation related topics. Please vote for Option 3 from the Staff report. Respectfully, Yvonne Thorstenson A concerned resident and parent From:Cate Crockett To:City Council Cc:City Clerk Subject:Tonight"s Council Meeting Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:46:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. City Council members, Please support Option 3 and retain all transportation related items with the Bike Ped Commission. Thank you, Cate Crockett 10564 Apricot Ct Cupertino Ca From:Ishan Khosla To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Protect the BPC - Support for Option 3 Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 12:05:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello City Council Members, My name is Ishan Khosla, and I am a junior at Cupertino High School. As someone who relies on biking to get to school, the library, and around town every day, I can confidently say that the BPC has a great impact in improving safety and accessibility for all of our citizens. The proposal to eliminate the Bike-Ped Comission and rather transfer its responsibilities to the Planning Comission simply unjustifiable, and is only an attempt to silence the voices of pedestrians and cyclists. People who walk and bike are one of our most vulnerable populations, and having a commission to represent their needs and safety is crucial to keeping Cupertino accessible to all. Even more, eliminating the BPC will make it much more difficult for Cupertino to obtain federal, state, and county-level grant funding, which can make future projects more expensive and even unfeasible. I ask for your help in supporting Option 3, of Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”. This change will allow the commission to continue improving safety and conectedness for our city, rather than silencing the voices of pedestrians and cyclists across Cupertino. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Ishan Khosla From:Joel Wolf To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Item 19 on September 3 Agenda Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:55:18 AM Attachments:image.png Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Councilmembers I am writing in regard to Item 19 on the September 3 Council Agenda, Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters. The recommended action is to “Provide input to staff on the preferred options for having transportation projects reviewed by commissions and provide direction to staff to take the necessary steps to implement the changes.” The staff report provides Council with four options for the Council to consider. Three of the four options remove some or all (i.e. BPC disbandment) powers and functions from the BPC, transferring these power and functions to the Planning Commission. Only Option 3 maintains the BPC in current form with the exception of a name change. As a current member of the BPC and a 40- year resident of Cupertino who walks and bikes throughout the city, I strongly urge the Council to adopt Option 3. The current “Powers and Functions” of the Bicycle Pedestrian Committee (BPC) as listed in the Cupertino Municipal Code are as follows: It is extremely important that these powers and functions remain with the BPC. There is no advantage of transferring all or part of these powers to the Planning Commission for the following reasons: Expertise—The BPC focuses on the current state of art in micro-mobility modes of transportation (biking, walking, scooters). The BPC monitors and follows the design guidance from local, state and federal agencies for micro-mobility infrastructure. This requires a significant amount of time and energy from the BPC. The Planning Commission will not be able to devote the required time to adequately study, consider and address micro-mobility infrastructure needs for the citizens of Cupertino. Advisory Nature of BPC—The BPC is an advisory commission with no decision-making powers. The BPC recommendations include input from the public. Ultimately, the Council does not have to accept every recommendation from the BPC. However, the work of the BPC allows the council to consider some or all options for viable active transportation modes in the city. This is important when considering making our streets safe, especially for our students going to school, young children, elderly and handicapped. The council should be getting the best advice from a strong BPC dedicated to these issues, whether or not it accepts this advice. Climate Change—The work of the BPC is extremely important in reducing greenhouse gases and associated climate change. The 2022 Cupertino Climate Action Plan recommends a 15% and 23% share for active transportation modes by 2030 and 2040, respectively. This plan includes many other recommendations related to active transportation modes. The work of the BPC, including a strong Active Transportation Plan, are important in achieving these goals. Reduction in the powers and functions of the BPC will make it much more difficult to achieve these goals Traffic Reduction—The work of the BPC can provide alternatives to driving which can reduce congestion. The construction of nearly 4700 housing units by 2031 in Cupertino could add significantly to congestion and pollution within the city. The BPC can provide alternative solutions to driving for both future and current residents making Cupertino a more pleasant community to live. Public Confusion—Splitting or eliminating the current powers and functions of the BPC will add to public confusion regarding the appropriate commission to bring active transportation issues to. This simply does not serve the public well. I strongly urge the Council to adopt Option 3. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Joel Wolf Joel Wolf Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission​​​​ JWolf@cupertino.gov From:Robert Neff To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Item 19 - Support option 3 expand and rename Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 11:38:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council, As a commuter who drives his bike through Cupertino almost daily, I have been impressed with the progress and span of recent bike and ped projects in Cupertino, including new trails, better wayfinding, and new separated bike lanes. The scale and speed of improvements has been exceptional. Regarding item 19 on your agenda, I understand that you have a structure where all local transportation projects go through the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. In the neighboring city of Los Altos, the city has a "Complete Streets Commission" which handles all transportation projects, and I think that works well to get expertise and feedback for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements and impacts on one commission. In contrast, in my city of Palo Alto, we have a Pedestrian and Bicycles Advisory Committee which only advises staff, while a separate Planning and Transportation Commission works through city council. There are many planning issues these days, so the transportation focus from that commission is shortchanged. I think the Los Altos model works well, with a commission dedicated to transportation issues of all kinds. I think choosing option 3, with a renamed BPC continuing with a sole transportation focus is the better approach. -- -- Robert NeffPalo Alto PABAC memberrobert@neffs.net From:helen wiant To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Please Support Option 3 in Staff Report on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 10:31:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. There are many things in our community that need attention, change and improvement. Limiting or eliminating the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission is certainly not one of them. Just because someone in the planning commission or city council is unhappy with a project promoting safety for bikers and pedestrians is not a good reason to limit or even eliminate the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission. Frankly this smacks of a tendency towards authoritarian governance. Involving the Planning Commission in the review of transportation-related matters is not at all more efficient or constructive or beneficial to Cupertino, but rather it is regressive for our community and politically motivated. We elect 5 council members who take input from commissions and from the community and make their decisions. If you don’t like the results, make your voices heard in the next election but please don’t try to silence the voices that you disagree with. The Bike Pedestrian Commission has an important responsibility and has achieved truly great benefits for our community at no expense to cars. The BPC mission — to review, monitor, and make recommendations on transportation matters to improve safety, mobility, and overall quality of life for all residents — is essential for a thriving Cupertino. The Planning Commission already has a huge responsibility to provide expert advice on land use matters. Given the significant challenge in housing in our state and the resulting issues in our local communities, land use needs focused and informed attention of the Planning Commission. Adding transportation to their responsibilities would necessarily deprioritize the attention that transportation requires and would also lose focus and expertise on how to continue improving the safety and health of our community. Therefore I strongly support Option 3 presented by the city staff, to leave all transportation matters under current Bike Pedestrian Commission purview. All the other options are regressive and result in added staff cost, confusion in responsibilities, reduced focus on transportation issues, loss of specialized bicycle and pedestrian advisory body, and negative impact on transportation grant eligibility. They are bad for Cupertino. Please vote for Option 3. Helen Wiant 10354 Westacres Drive Cupertino, CA From:Andrea Lund To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Please continue with BPC oversight Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:27:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, I’m a resident of Cupertino writing in strong support of Option 3 regarding Item No 19 on tonight’s City Council meeting agenda. I urge the Council to continue with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight, renaming it to the Transportation and Mobility Commission. This option ensures that the transportation needs of all Cupertino residents are considered, regardless of their ability to own and operate a motor vehicle, while minimizing disruption to existing structures within the city’s government. I am concerned that Options 1, 2 and 4 will marginalize the needs of children, the disabled and the elderly. Multimodal transportation options, including active transportation on foot and bicycle, vastly improve the quality of life in our city. The integration of bicycle and pedestrian projects into the Planning Commission would further our city’s dependence on motor vehicles. The proximity of my home to the highways that cut through Cupertino already make me feel as if I have no choice to use my car, though my family and I prioritize walking and biking when we can. We value the health benefits (both mental and physical) of walking and riding bikes and aim to reduce our carbon emissions by making as many short trips through town as we can on foot and bike. We benefit from many of the bicycle and pedestrain infrastructure projects that have been completed over the last decade, but we still see many opportunities for further improvement of our quality of life through active transportation. As a mother to small children who are approaching school age, I am also concerned about the safety of streets and availability of walking and biking paths for children to get to and from school. The motor vehicle traffic around the schools in our neighborhood is awful at drop-off and pickup times, and would be made worse if motor vehicle infrastructure is further prioritized over active transportation. Many opportunities to further improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and quality of life in our city would be threatened if Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight is somehow split, shared or taken over entirely by the Planning Commission. In the interests of all residents of Cupertino, regardless of mode of transportation, please vote for Option 3 to continue with Bicycle Pedestrian Commission oversight. Thank you for consideration and for keeping the interests of all residents of Cupertino at the forefront of your deliberations. Sincerely, Andrea Lund From:Siva Annamalai To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 9:09:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi Cupertino City Council members and Officials of Cupertino City, I learnt that the council and city staff will be discussing various options for the oversight of transportation matters in the city of Cupertino. I am a resident of the city of Cupertino and have been a resident for the last 29 years and feel the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission of the city has done a great job of highlighting the needs of ensuring the development in the city is done taking into consideration the safety needs of pedestrians and bicyclists in the city. I commute to work on a bicycle at least 3 times a week and have experienced first hand the spectacular work done by this commission and would strongly recommend that the city vote to preserve this commission. Considering the options on the table for the council to vote on I feel option 3 - continue with BPC oversight, rename to 'Transportation and Mobility commission' makes the most sense and I would urge the council to vote for this option. Regards, Siva Annamalai. From:Revathy Narasimhan To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Please continue with BPC oversight Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 8:52:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear esteemed council members, Regarding: Agenda item No. 19 on the Council Meeting on September 3rd. Subject: Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters I am a proud Cupertino resident for the last 14 years, and our family has raised both our kids in the local elementary, middle, and high schools. We are very thankful to the city for supporting the schools and the kids. A significant factor in our decision to raise our family in Cupertino was the safety it provides for populations that are either too young or too old/have other disabilities to drive. Our kids were part of the first group, and we see over about 20,000 such kids across the elementary and high school districts. We also have several elderly neighbours in the second group. I am writing this email so their voices are heard. I see kids regularly bike and walk to school. I heard routinely from my kids how safe they felt with the dedicated bike lanes. I am thankful each time I cross my neighborhood street, Rainbow Drive, with a flag in hand that the city provides, and am so thankful for the many lighted crosswalks we have around -> all this was possible because there was a group dedicated to thinking and planning what it meant to be safe on the roads as every member of the city. It is easier to focus on the folks in the cars, but having a dedicated group meant we specifically considered the folks who didn’t use the car, advocated for their needs, and have a shining example of how this works well in practice now! For this reason, I ask that you continue to have a group dedicated to bike and pedestrian safety. I support Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission”. Thanks Revathy Resident, Cupertino. From:Sharlene Liu To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:council mtg agenda 19: do not disband BPC Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 11:18:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Cupertino City Council, I am providing input for agenda #19: option for commission oversight on transportation matters. I strongly support Option #3, which is to keep a bike-pedestrian commission and rename it to "transportation and mobility commssion". Having a commission focused on transportation and mobility issues is essential to the smooth functioning of Cupertino. Where I live, Sunnyvale, we have both commissions. There is rarely an overlap in function between these 2 commissions. Our Planning Commission focuses almost exclusively on real estate development while our BPAC focuses exclusively on active transportation. The expertise needed on each commission is distinct from each other. Rarely will you find commissioners interested in both areas -- real estate development and active transportation. By combining them, you will surely lose the focus needed in each area. I used to be on the Sunnyvale BPAC, and I can say that I was not interested in Planning Commission work, and my counterparts in the Planning Commission were not interested in BPAC's work. I live on the border of Cupertino and I often bike into Cupertino. I am often impressed by the progress Cupertino makes in its bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Cupertino's BPC and its transportation staff are commendable in what they achieve. Keep up the good work. Don't disband the BPC. Warm regards, Sharlene Liu Former Sunnyvale BPAC commissioner Sunnyvale resident living near Cupertino From:Seema Lindskog To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Agenda Item 19 - Please keep all transportation matters with the Bike Ped Commission Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:31:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council members, I'm on the Planning Commission but I am writing today as a resident of Cupertino who drives, walks, and bikes in our city. As Chair of Walk Bike Cupertino and as a current Planning Commissioner, I have a uniquely deep understanding of the responsibilities and work done by both the Bike Ped Commission and the Planning Commission. They are fundamentally different roles that cannot be combined. The BPC requires in-depth understanding and experience of walking and biking in our city, NACTO standards, and active transportation best practices. Most importantly, the BPC's charter is to represent and advocate for pedestrians and cyclists, which requires extensive personal experience as a pedestrian or a cyclist. The MTC, in their Resolution 4108, requires all TDA3 projects to be prioritized by the city's BPC. They also require that, in order for a city to be eligible for MTC grants, the city's BPC must be constituted of commissioners who are active cyclists and pedestrians "who are familiar with bicycle and pedestrian needs in the jurisdiction" to "represent the interests of the bicycle and pedestrian communities" (See MTC Memo entitled TDA3_BAC_Guidance dated October 6, 2014). Planning Commissioners on the other hand are tasked with implementing the General Plan, specifically in the area of "zoning, subdivisions, and sign ordinances." (Cupertino City Municipal Code). That is a completely different focus that requires a completely different type of expertise. All of our neighboring cities in the South Bay and the Peninsula have a dedicated BPC to focus on transportation issues. Every single one. Do we really want Cupertino to have the dubious notoriety of being the only city that values its pedestrians and cyclists so little that it eliminates their dedicated representation in our city governance and effectively silences their voice? What does that say about our city? What message does it send to Cupertino pedestrians and cyclists, a majority of whom are our children and our parents? How will you look in the eye the next student cycling to school who gets hit by a car and justify this action? Please consider carefully whether this is the legacy you want to be remembered for - silencing the voices of our children and seniors and enshrining disregard for their safety in our city governance. Do the right thing. Choose Option 3 and keep all transportation matters with the Bike Ped Commission. Thanks, Seema Lindskog ___________________________________________________________________ "You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a representative or spokesperson for any other organization. From:Alvin Yang To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Options on Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:06:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear City Council, I am writing to urge you to not encroach on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission's responsibilities on transportation and instead take up option 3 of the staff memo to re-designate the BPC as the Transportation and Mobility Commission. Nearly every other city in the Bay Area has a separate transportation commission from its general planning commission. Cities all across the bay all recognize that it is important to have a separate entity to manage transportation issues separate from general planning because transportation is an equally broad and important aspect of city planning that requires a different perspective from the planning commission. The BPC has created an important voice for people using alternative means of transportation in Cupertino including those who are unable to drive. By rolling some or all of the BPC's responsibilities into the planning commission you are effectively silencing these people; who I remind you are your very own constituents. As a reminder there are not only many students who are below the driving age that bike/walk to school there is also an increasing amount of elderly in Cupertino who will eventually be unable to drive as well. How will these people get around Cupertino if cars are the only viable mode of transportation? It's incredibly shortsighted and ignorant to disregard the voices of anybody who does not drive to get around. As it stands now, the BPC has done a great deal of work in creating a transportation system that benefits all users. The BPC has also helped secure a great deal of grant funding for the many projects that have promoted alternative modes of transportation. These funds would not have been acquired if, say, a plan was put forward for more car-centric infrastructure. Not only that, the overhead costs of planning commission are much higher than the BPC's and would only further increase as you move more responsibilities over to the planning commission. By eliminating or diminishing the BPC it would cost the city more and earn the city less grant funding. I hope you make the choice that prioritizes the well-being and safety of all your citizens as well as the financially responsible decision. Regards, Alvin Yang From:J Shearin To:City Council; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Clerk Subject:City Council item 19: Keep the BPC & Planning Commission functions as is Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:38:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please include this letter in official communication for the 9/3/2025 Council meeting. Dear Mayor Chao and City Councilmembers: Changing the responsibilities of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and the Planning Commission is an unnecessary change which adds additional cost to our city while making it harder for the city to receive grant funding. I urge you to not pursue this step which does not seem to have any benefits to the residents of our city. The City Council is the appropriate place to consider all the input from the commissions and residents of the city, and to weigh the various positives and negatives of a project. We’ve always had a separate Planning Commission and Bicycle Pedestrian Commission because of several important reasons: (1) They have different functions and priorities The Planning Commission’s focus is on land use, and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission’s focus is on safe transportation. Rolling these two functions into one Commission will inevitably result in the loss of resident input as there are fewer opportunities for residents to speak on the issues they care about. The city should encourage more resident input, and not less. This is important for resident transparency and engagement. (2) As the staff report for this Study Session states, rolling the BPC functions into the Planning Commission or increasing the Planning Commission mandate to more transportation matters will likely result in “a measured increase in staff time", which is more of our taxpayer dollars being spent on an unnecessary change. (3) Bicycle Pedestrian Commissions (or “Transportation, Complete Streets Commission, etc) exist because several grant-awarding bodies require them as a condition for a city receiving grant money for a wide variety of projects. This includes not only bike lanes, but also grants for safety features such as speed monitoring signs. Continuing to have separate commissions with distinct responsibilities keeps these positives for our city. Thank you for considering my input, and your work on behalf of Cupertino. Sincerely, Jennifer Shearin resident of Cupertino From:Stacy Bruzek Banerjee To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:Agenda item #19 Transportation Matters Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:24:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Honorable Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers, I am the Chair of the VTA BPAC (the Bicycle and Pedistristrain Advisory Committee for VTA and Santa Clara County) ... I am writing this email as a parent who has raised a child who attended CUSD and FUHSD schools. My son and his friends rode their bicycles on Cupertino city streets to reach school, to frequent Cupertino businesses (restaurants, boba shops, etc etc.), and to visit friends. Of course this came with many safety risks, and frankly alot of fear of the potential of being hit by a vehicle such that the bike was often left in the garage ... especially after we witnessed one of my son's long-time friends hit on a Cupertino street as they were biking to high school about a year ago (not the fault of the student, yet the student flew up in the air ...). Cupertino's Bicycle Pedestrian Commission working with city staff has made improvements on the roadways given their focused attention to bicycle and pedestrian safety issues and needs. Our family is appreciative of these improvements. HOWEVER, there are many more Cupertino streets that still need improvement (like the one where my son's friend was hit). Many parents don't let their kids have the independence (and health benefits!) of biking because the streets aren't safe. Instead there are more cars on the road (making congestion) to take kids to/from school, to drive them to/from activities, to take them to meet friends, etc. To solve this, the dedicated and specialized attention of a commission that focuses on multi- modal transportation CONTINUES to be needed. The roadways were designed a long time ago when there were fewer cars, slower speeds, less distraction, school buses, etc etc. Today the BEST improvements can be planned ONLY when a commission has dedicated focus AND expert multi-modal experience, and knowledge (including bicycle, pedestrian). It's BEST to have a commission dedicated to transportation and have that commission chartered for all transportation related items. Further, MTC Resolution 4108 states, "Each county and city is required to have a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) or equivalent body review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle pedestrian, or active transportation plans. BPACs should be composed of both bicyclists and pedestrians." My interpretation of MTC's intent here is that they are looking for the city BPAC/equivalent to be filled with experts in the area of active transportation. What comes to mind for me is people who traverse the city streets -- miles each day -- using active transportation, know NACTO guidelines, understand Complete Streets policy, follow the VTA Bicycle Program, know local transportation plans (including those of adjacent jurisdictions), etc. are the right experts. With all respect intended, this is NOT the job description, or the skill set, or experience, or knowledge base of a typical planning commissioner. In fact, I have spoken to several planning commissioners over the last couple of years from different cities in the county ... and what I regularly hear from them is that they are not bike/ped experts. Cities throughout Santa Clara County recognize these things and prioritize commissions dedicated to mobility (with focus on bicycle and pedestrian needs) including: Sunnyvale BPAC Santa Clara BPAC San Jose BPAC Los Altos Complete Streets Commission ("safe mobility for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users") Saratoga Trails Advisory Committee ("planning, acquisition, and development of trails and sidewalks") AND Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission "considering pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, traffic controls, lighting, vehicular circulation and parking" Campbell BPAC Los Gatos Complete Streets & Transportation Commission ("related to bicycle, pedestrian, and other multi-modal transportation means") Los Altos Hills Pathways Committee ("Bicycle Plan", "public trails, and pathways") Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee Mountain View BPAC The City of Cupertino should continue to join other nearby cities and bring leadership through a dedicated commission to solve the multi-modal safety issues on its streets. Please vote to ensure dedicated commission focus on mobility and to prevent anyone walking and biking -- a student, an elderly person, anyone -- from being severely injured or killed on your streets. Thank you, Stacy Banerjee From:Taghi Saadati To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:BPC Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 7:42:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello, as an avid biker & long time resident of Cupertino I urge you to keep BPC as their recommendations has made Cupertino safer for pedestrians & cyclists. Also, I support option 3 which I believe it would continue safety recommendations for pedestrians & cyclists. FYI, recently the city of Mountain View made a major safety improvement on Califia Avenue , West of Shoreline Blvd., by moving the bike lane next to the curb & parking next to moving cars, plus safety improvements for street crossings. I hope Cupertino could do the same on street with a lots of moving cars like Stevens Creek Blvd. Thank you Taghi Saadati Sent from my iPhone From:Hervé Marcy To:City Council Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office Subject:City Council 9/3 item 19 Date:Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:34:05 PM Attachments:OpenPGP_0x2E75B4858B936689.asc OpenPGP_signature.asc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Mayor Chao and esteemed councilmembers, I am part of the Bicycle pedestrian commission of the City of Cupertino, but am writing in my name only. 98% of all Bay Area cities have a separate Bike Ped/Transportation Commission and Planning Commission. And there are good reasons for that: the planning commission has a very specific mission, which is vastly different from the BPC. Planning commissioners are not nominated for their knowledge of biking and pedestrian infrastructure. They do not know the challenges that vulnerable groups, such as seniors and people with disabilities, face when using the city infrastructure and nor should they, because the BPC is here for that! It allows an increase in community feedback and input from pedestrians, cyclists and residents impacted by projects. I am of the opinion that decentralizing power is healthy . If you believe in the fact that "powerful interest groups" can manipulate decisions, then you should be worried about concentrating power into the hands of a single commission. You may be in power today, but if you are not tomorrow, the agenda of your opponent may be much easier to implement with a single commission. It is not a matter of policy, it is a matter of good city governance. For these reason, I am humbly asking you to vote for Option 3 - Continue with BPC oversight, rename to “Transportation and Mobility Commission” on item 19 on the agenda. Best regards, Hervé Marcy -- Hervé MARCY herve@hmarcy.com