CC 09-03-2025 Item No. 19 Commission Oversight of Transportation Matters_Written Communications_2CC 09-03-2025
Item No.19
Options on Commission
Oversight of
Transportation Matters
Written Communications
From:Neil Park-McClintick
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Item 19—Support option 3, Protect Walking and Cycling
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 5:20:21 PM
Attachments:image.png
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 support option 3 for item 19—to preserve the distinction between the planning
commission and the bicycle and pedestrian commission.
Most municipal governments—including all of our neighbors in Santa Clara County—
maintain a transportation-focused commission separate from their planning commission.
These commissions promote good governance by allowing cities to better allocate staff time,
leverage outside funding, and provide an essential advisory voice for a future where residents
don’t have to rely on driving everywhere.
Part of what makes Cupertino so livable today is our willingness to embrace positive changes
that encourage walking, biking, and transit. Thanks to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission,
Cupertino is far more walkable and cycling-friendly than many other cities. While some
drivers may complain about these improvements, few would actually want to live in a fully
car-dependent environment—examples of which exist across the U.S., a country already
heavily car-oriented:
In addition to the positive effects of cycling and pedestrian infrastructure, having a separate
mobility-focused commission is also just good governance. The planning commission will
always be focused on residential, commercial etc projects and the rules that enable land use
potential. With the largest Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirement ever placed on
municipal governments, the planning commission will understandably be preoccupied with
planning around thousands of new homes. They will not and should not be using valuable staff
and commissioner time on whether a new crosswalk is needed in a neighborhood, or if a speed
bump could reduce fatalities.
Even Cupertino’s own staff report underscores this point. The only listed con for Option 3—
the option to preserve a dedicated mobility commission—is that it does not align with
Council’s stated direction. That is not a substantive reason. Making decisions simply because
“Council wants to” without evidence or rationale is poor governance. It risks placing
Cupertino on par with the kind of arbitrary, power-consolidating decision-making we criticize
at the national level.
Please support option 3.
Thank you,
Neil Park-McClintick
former 15+ year resident of Cupertino, with family still there
From:John G
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Council Agenda item 19, Transportation, Plase support Option 3
Date:Wednesday, September 3, 2025 4:02:14 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 Cupertino Council,
Please support option 3 in order to maintain a dedicated Bike Ped Commission.
This is in order to maintain good governance and obtain grant funding.
Thank you,
John
John Geis
408-209-6970 mobile
jgeis4401@gmail.com