CC 09-16-2025 Item No. 19 Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study_Written CommunicationsCC 09-16-2025
Item No. 19
Stevens Creek Corridor
Vision Study
Written Communications
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; Tina Kapoor; David Stillman
Subject:Agenda item 19 on today’s meeting
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:36:01 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,
Please include the following as written comments for the 09/16/25 Council meeting, agenda
item 19.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members,
I strongly request that you remove agenda item 19 from the consent calendar and decline to
approve the SCB corridor study. Cupertino should not remain involved in this project.
At the recent steering committee meeting, I observed that San Jose staff were in charge of the
proceedings. Their approach raised real doubts about fairness and whether Cupertino’s
interests are respected. Despite our Vice-Mayor clearly voicing opposition to Cupertino’s
further participation, the committee still adopted a motion that now binds Cupertino as if we
had agreed. This is deeply concerning. A decision taken by other agencies should not be
forced upon our city when our representative opposed it.
I urge the Council to:
1. Reject the SCB corridor study.
2. Withdraw Cupertino from the steering committee.
3.Direct that no further staff resources go into this effort.
Cupertino must decide its own path. Our city’s priorities should reflect the needs of our
residents, not be dictated by outside agencies.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking action to protect Cupertino’s independence.
Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Chad Mosley; David Stillman
Subject:Agenda item 19. SCB corridor study.
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 1:10:26 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.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for the 09/16/25 council meeting agenda item
19.
[Writing on behalf of myself as a Cupertino resident]
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, Council Members,
I am writing in my personal capacity as a Cupertino resident to urge you to pull agenda item
19 from consent calendar and to reject the SCB corridor study. Please do NOT accept the
study. Please do not continue any further Cupertino participation in this SCB corridor
effort.
I attended the SCB corridor steering committee meeting last week. I have attended most prior
steering committee meetings and community meetings on this.
The first thing that concerned me was that the meeting is now run by San Jose city staff. That
reflected during the course of the meeting. The San Jose city staff periodically made some
remarks or comments that just completely raise questions about the validity and propriety of
this effort. It is a back channel attempt to undermine the voters and their elected reps in the
form of council members and their ability to represent their jurisdiction.
What happened at the steering committee was that a vote of the agency reps attending passed
despite feedback to the contrary from Cupertino Vice-Mayor Moore. (Thank you Vice-Mayor
Moore! You did an awesome job representing the sentiment of Cupertino residents who are
opposed to any attempts to further take away road lanes in Cupertino this time on SCB).
Now a vote of this body holds Cupertino to the passed motion despite the Cupertino rep voting
against or abstaining.
This the residents of Cupertino are subject to the effects of this passed motion when it’s
elected reps majority appointed steering committee rep is against it.
This is a clear undermining of the jurisdiction of Cupertino. How can a motion anpproved by
other agency reps be applied to our city when our city rep votes against the motion.
I ask that you reject this corridor study, exit this steering committee and any further
participation in this project. San Jose or Santa Clara or SCC county or the VTA is not going to
decide what happens in Cupertino and how Cupertino city staff shall spend time. San Jose
staff are not to unilaterally without council approval spend any bandwidth on this effort.
Cupertino residents hear transportation is short of bandwidth. We hear transportation has no
time to address operational traffic management issues in the Regnart neighborhood caused by
the Tesselations school traffic. We hear public works and transportation have not been able to
prioritize the Phar Lap Dr cross walk improvements needed for safety. Yet the same
department staff are spending time on this SCB corridor study.
Please reject the study. Please exit the steering committee now. Please direct the city manager
to ensure no further staff time is spent on this SCB corridor project.
Thank you for your decisive action to exit this project with immediate effect.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing in my personal capacity as a Cupertino resident)
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Tina Kapoor; City Clerk; Chad Mosley
Subject:Please pull agenda item 19 from consent calendar.
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 11:41:05 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.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Dear Mayor Chao, Council members,
Please pull agenda item 19 (SCB Corridor) from consent calendar. I attended the steering
committee meeting last week. I have serious concerns about the discussions and proceedings
of the steering committee which I shall elaborate on in a separate mail.
I request that you pull this item from consent calendar for further discussion.
Thanks,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)
From:Kirsten Squarcia
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities" Request for High Capacity Transit in Resolutions
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:17:06 PM
Please add to written comms
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
KirstenS@cupertino.gov
(408)777-3225
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:43 AM
To: Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews
<FloyA@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities' Request for High Capacity Transit in
Resolutions
I think the information included in Vice Mayor's email and the attachments should be
submitted as written communication for the agenda item today so that all of the
Councilmembers and the public have this important background information for this
item.
Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 7:37 AM
To: Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Floy
Andrews <FloyA@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Re: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities' Request for High Capacity Transit in
Resolutions
Vice Mayor,
Thank you for the great background information included in this email, which should
have been provided to the Council, in addition to the Vision Study.
1. The bylaws
2. The resolution the steering committee recommends to each city.
3.
It is also important to learn
the fact that San Jose advocated for a dedicated bus lane.
The fact the Cupertino representative advocated for a transit hub at De Anza
College
I think former Councilmembers, like Rod Sinks, had advocated for a transit hub at the De
Anza College, where their current garage is located. But it was intended for potential
lightrail on Rt. 85, which Cupertino does support as a City, I think.
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
From: Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 2:05 PM
To: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>; Floy Andrews <FloyA@cupertino.gov>; Liang Chao
<LChao@cupertino.gov>
Subject: SCB Vision Study Bylaws and the other cities' Request for High Capacity Transit in
Resolutions
Hi,
Attachments:
1. 2023 Bylaws for the SCB Steering Committee, adopted by that committee (Wei)
2. The Resolution the SCB Steering Committee recommended councils pass which
included continuing the group
3. Santa Clara May 27, 2025 SCB Agenda item with staff recommendations to
continue
4. San Jose April 11, 2025 Resolution to implement the Vision study - Note High
Capacity Transit
5. Santa Clara May 27, 2025 SCB Resolution - Note High Capacity Transit
Both of these cities advanced the High Capacity Transit, further study and staff time,
Cupertino did not.
I went looking around for a website for the SCB Vision Study and did see that Santa Clara
had the agenda and agenda packet which included the meeting minutes on their
website, and San Jose posts meeting information on their website for this project. While
they allow Zoom participants for the meetings, I cannot locate the videos of them. There
are past meeting minutes on the San Jose Website.
Here is the landing page for the project at San Jose: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-
government/departments-offices/transportation/transportation-planning/stevens-
creek-boulevard-corridor-vision-study
Here are past meeting docs posted by San Jose which is where I found the Bylaws:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-
offices/transportation/transportation-planning/stevens-creek-boulevard-corridor-
vision-study/past-events
I have attached the Bylaws which were approved by then Mayor Hung Wei in 2023, I
could not locate them in our Council materials yet, did our City Council adopt or
somehow ratify their Bylaws? Reading the Duties does not lead me to believe the
Committee can direct Staff. What do you think?
ARTICLE III
DUTIES
Section 300. Duties and Responsibilities
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall have the following powers
and duties:
a. Tender its advice to the Stevens Creek Corridor Working Group with respect to
policy matters under consideration related to the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision
Study.
b. Review the status of Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study deliverables.
ARTICLE IV MEETINGS Section 400. Ralph M. Brown Act. All meetings of the
Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall comply with the Ralph M. Brown
Act (“the Brown Act”, Govt. Code Section 54950 et seq. ).
Note that the Bylaws have some other odd things in it (membership, voting, terms)
I would like to point out that Councilmember Hung Wei was appointed to the Steering
Committee in 2023 and continued on until May of 2024, and suggested the following in
February 2024:
II. Councilmember Wei expressed interest in the land currently serving as parking lots
on De Anza College campus, which could be transformed into a major transit hub for
Cupertino and the western region of the South Bay.
V. Councilmember Wei would like Stevens Creek Blvd to be a model for high
capacity, high speed transit while coexisting with pedestrian and bike infrastructure.
Source:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/123700/638899052223970
000
Councilmember Wei advocated for high capacity transit and a transit hub at De Anza
College again at the May 2024 meeting, was unable to attend the September meeting,
and I was appointed to attend the December 18, 2024 meeting.
The September 6, 2024 meeting included a draft Resolution to be passed by each city (I
have attached it) and CM Kamei wanted it to be passed before the Councils might
change!
ii. Vice Mayor Rosemary Kamei requested the project team to update absent Steering
Committee members to gather their input. She emphasized prioritizing pedestrian
refuge islands, a dedicated bus-only lane, and fully protected bike lanes in the
Implementation Plan, highlighting the significant community benefits of a bus-only lane.
5. Next Steps - for discussion: Standard agency resolution approach; for action: Future
Steering Committee meeting dates/locations (if needed) a. Sean T. Daly proposed
developing a standard resolution framework for agencies to support the Vision and
Implementation Plan. This would include guiding staff on resolution content and
fostering support. He also emphasized the need for ongoing coordination between
elected officials and staff across all jurisdictions, along with continuous review and
implementation efforts.
iii. Vice Mayor Kamei recommended to complete this by December, before council
membership changes, and to hold the meeting in the County of Santa Clara, with the
City of Santa Clara as a back-up location in the event that a venue with the County
cannot be secured.
Source:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/123716/638899067762030
000
Kitty
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
KMoore@cupertino.gov
(408) 777-1389
From:Kirsten Squarcia
To:City Clerk
Subject:FW: Item 19 Written Communications Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:22:31 PM
Attachments:image.png
2025 San Jose SCB (a) Resolution.pdf
Resolution 20240906 Agenda Item 5a Standard Agency Resolution Approach.pdf
Santa Clara Resolution No. 25-9445.pdf
SCB Vision Study Preso 3.0.pdf
2023 Bylaws Stevens Creek Str Cmte V1.pdf
20250912 Steering Committee Meeting Agenda Sep 12 2025.pdf
Kirsten Squarcia
Interim Deputy City Manager/City Clerk
City Manager's Office
KirstenS@cupertino.gov
(408)777-3225
From: Kitty Moore <KMoore@cupertino.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2025 2:18 PM
To: Kirsten Squarcia <KirstenS@cupertino.gov>; Lauren Sapudar <LaurenS@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Floy Andrews <FloyA@cupertino.gov>; Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Item 19 Written Communications Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the attachments and this email for Written Communications for Item 19.
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Steering Committee met September 12, 2025 at the San
Jose City Council chambers. I was provided an Agenda which is attached and the body of
the Agenda is below, there were no attachments such as the meeting minutes:
1.
The meeting minutes could not be passed (Item 2) because they were not included.
During that meeting there were Committee bylaws mentioned which I researched and
located on the San Jose website. These Bylaws were passed by that Committee in June
of 2023, I have attached them.
Both Santa Clara and San Jose had already passed Resolutions to implement the Vision
Study and find funding which includes various high-capacity transit like Light Rail and
separated bus lanes. I have attached their 2025 Resolutions which were not provided at
the meeting, I researched their respective websites to locate them.
Here is the title block for the San Jose Resolution:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE ACCEPTING THE
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRICTING STAFF TO
WORK THROUGH THE INTRA-JURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP,
FIND FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENT THE PLANS PROPOSED BY THE VISION STUDY
Here is the title block for the Santa Clara Resolution:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STEVENS
CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRECTING STAFF TO WORK
COLLABORATIVELY THROUGH THE INTRA- JURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP TO STUDY,
DEVELOP, FIND FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSED BY
THE VISION STUDY
I abstained from voting on the Scope item #5 because it included directing staff to an
action I did not have Council authorization for (we only conditionally accepted the Vision
Study) or the Municipal Code allowance to do (direct staff).
The San Jose SCB Vision Study website I reference is here:
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-
offices/transportation/transportation-planning/stevens-creek-boulevard-corridor-
vision-study
I shared the same presentation at the SCB Steering Committee meeting that I shared at
the September 3, 2025 Cupertino City Council meeting and I have attached it to this
email as well.
Best regards,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
KMoore@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1389
NVF:MDT:MDT
4/11/2025
T-42992 / 2198564 1
Council Agenda: 04-22-2025
Item No.: 2.14(a)
DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov for
final document.
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE ACCEPTING THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD
CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRICTING STAFF TO
WORK THROUGH THE INTRA-JURISDICTIONAL
WORKING GROUP TO DEVELOP, FIND FUNDING, AND
IMPLEMENT THE PLANS PROPOSED BY THE VISION
STUDY
WHEREAS, on August 8, 2017, the San José City Council approved an amendment to
the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan to adopt the Stevens Creek Urban Village
Plan which was created through coordination among staff from the cities of San José,
Cupertino, Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA); and
WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon
Initiative, San José, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and VTA jointly proposed a high-capacity
transit line from Diridon Station in San José to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing
inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2019, the San José City Council adopted Resolution 79105
supporting a complete streets and near term transit implementation plan for the Stevens
Creek Boulevard Corridor the Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Study which was
developed collaboratively between the cities of Cupertino, San José, Santa Clara, the
County of Santa Clara, and VTA; and
WHEREAS, in 2022 the City entered into various cost sharing agreements with the cites
of Cupertino, Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA and contracted with
Iteris, Inc., to complete the Vision Study; and
NVF:MDT:MDT
4/11/2025
T-42992 / 2198564 2
Council Agenda: 04-22-2025
Item No.: 2.14(a)
DRAFT -- Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or CityClerk@sanjoseca.gov for
final document.
WHEREAS, the process of completing the Vision Study was launched in January 2023
and guided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee comprised of elected
officials from the various jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of agency
staff, and a community advisory group; and
WHEREAS, the Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and must be presented
to the governing body of each jurisdiction for approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
JOSE THAT:
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study is accepted and City staff is
directed to work through the intra-jurisdictional working group to develop, find funding,
and implement the plans proposed by the Vision Study.
Agenda Item 5a: Standard Agency Resolution Approach
The following are recommended common components to agency resolutions in support of the
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision and Implementation Plan. The three recommended
components are:
● Vision Statements
● Continuing Coordination
● Maintenance of a list of actions/projects to allow for coordination of funding,
multijurisdictional coordination and support.
1. VISION STATEMENT
XXXXX declares that it supports the Vision of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor:
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation infrastructure changed little in the past
50 years while the area it serves grew into a worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore, we
envision the transportation corridor our community deserves to support continued residential
and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen
mode.
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by:
A high-capacity transit system supported by station access enhancements to connect the
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to
De Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable
travel to local and regional destinations. Station areas would be well-maintained and inviting
community assets.
A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment. High-quality pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a
20-minute walk of transit stops.
Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for connections to neighborhoods,
businesses, and expressways and freeways.
This Vision would be implemented by an open and inclusive process of continuous evaluation
to promote equitable access and use.
2. CONTINUING COORDINATION
We will continue our cooperative relationship to implement the Corridor Vision through staff
and elected official representation in the collaboration, information sharing, monitoring of
implementation and pursuit of additional funding resources for multijurisdictional projects.
. We will continue to provide staff representation for the staff-level Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor Vision Working Group [for a period of…]
. We will designate one elected official as a representative and one as an alternate to the
Stevens Creek Boulevard Vision Steering Committee according to its bylaws as adopted
November 03, 2023 [with meetings no more often than quarterly or less often than annually]
3. ACTION/PROJECT LIST
We will maintain a list of corridor actions and projects, supportive of the Corridor Vision, to be
implemented and tracked through a shared list of Vision Implementation Projects [which may
be substituted by the sponsoring agency for feasibility, scope, cost, or other unforeseen issues]
. Since the Vision Study Implementation Plan is not funding resource constrained, this list could
be altered to prioritize projects with identified funding sources.
Resolution/Accepting the City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Page 1 of 2
Rev: 7/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 25-9445
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE STEVENS CREEK
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY AND DIRECTING
STAFF TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY THROUGH THE INTRA-
JURISDICTIONAL WORKING GROUP TO STUDY, DEVELOP,
FIND FUNDING, AND IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROPOSED BY THE VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clara has participated in discussions with neighboring
communities and agencies since a multi-jurisdictional group was established in 2018, comprised
of the City of Santa Clara, City of San Jose, City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara and the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) (the “Working Group”) to discuss key regional
issues affecting the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor with a focus on transportation and
circulation;
WHEREAS, as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative,
the Working Group proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San José to De
Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040;
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2019, the Santa Clara City Council adopted Resolution 19-8781
to support working collaboratively with the VTA, County of Santa Clara and the cities of
Cupertino and San Jose regarding a Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor vision study (Vision
Study) that considers both complete streets and high capacity transit;
WHEREAS, in early 2024, the City of Santa Clara entered into an agreement with the City of
San Jose in order to share the cost necessary for the City of San Jose to contract with a
consultant (Iteris, Inc.) to complete the Vision Study;
WHEREAS, the process of compiling the Vision Study was launched in January 2023 and
guided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee comprised of elected officials from
the various jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of agency staff, and a community
advisory group; and,
//
WHEREAS, the final draft Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and must be
presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for approval.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City of Santa Clara hereby accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision
Study as attached and referenced herein .
2. The City Council directs City staff to work collaboratively through the Working Group to
continue to study, develop, find funding, and implement the recommendations proposed by the
Vision Study as directed by the City Council.
3. Effective date. This Resolution shall become effective immediately.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED
AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA, AT A REGULAR MEETING
THEREOF HELD ON THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2025, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COUNCILORS:
NOES: COUNCILORS:
ABSENT: COUNCILORS :
ABSTAINED: COUNCILORS:
Attachments incorporated by reference:
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Chahal, Cox, Gonzalez, Hardy, Jain, and Park, and
Mayor Gillmor
None
None
None
ATTE ST:~~~~~d-~---
NORA PIME NT I MMC
ASSISTANT CITY CLERK
CITY OF SANTA CLARA
Resolution/Accepting the City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Rev: 7/27/2023
Page 2 of2
Prepared by Iteris, Inc. and Winter Consulting
December 2024
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor
VISION STUDY
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS RESULTS
May 7, 2024
V I S I O N
Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor
CtTYOF
II
CUPl;I\TtNO
l l lVl'I ~
SANJ_-
L '\l'flALtk!>lU ... i.ltl. ....... L.1....1:.'r'
~~
antaClil'ttVal~
Transgortat1c
Auttiority
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | i
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Corridor Steering
Committee
Vice Mayor Rosemary Kamei, City of San José (Chair)
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County (Vice Chair)
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Councilmember Hung Wei, City of Cupertino
Vice Mayor Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Council Member Dev Davis, City of San José
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, City of Santa Clara
Board Member Margaret Abe-Koga, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) Board
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Working Group
John Sighamony, VTA
Tamiko Percell, VTA
David Stillman, City of Cupertino
Matt Shroeder, City of Cupertino
Chris Corrao, City of Cupertino
Ramses Madou, City of San José
David Gomez, City of San José
Jamie Sidhu, City of San José
Aaron Zeelig, City of San José
Natasha Opfell, City of San José
Wilson Tam, City of San José
Raania Mohsen, City of San José
Alex Dersh, City of San José, District 1
Michael Liw, City of Santa Clara
Nicole He, City of Santa Clara
Lesley Xavier, City of Santa Clara
Steve Chan, City of Santa Clara
Reena Brilliot, City of Santa Clara
Ben Aghegnehu, County of Santa Clara
The Study was initiated through the hard work of the previous
Stevens Creek Corridor Boulevard Steering Committee which
included
Vice Mayor Chappie Jones, City of San José (previous Chair)
Council Member Dev Davis, City of San José
Council Member Elect, Rosemary Kamei, City of San José
Mayor Darcy Paul, City of Cupertino
Council Member Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Mayor Lisa Gillmor, City of Santa Clara
Council Member Anthony Becker, City of Santa Clara
Council Member Teresa O’Neill, City of Santa Clara
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Santa Clara County
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Community
Advisory Group
Ofisa Pati, Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI)
Maria Ines Ortega, Cadillac Winchester Neighborhood Association
Bob Levy, City of San José District Neighborhood Leadership Group
Sheng-Ming Egan, Cupertino 4 All
Seema Lindskog, Walk Bike Cupertino
Shyam “Sean” Panchal, Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Pam Grey, De Anza College Administration
Manny DaSilva, DeAnza College
Harry Neil, De Anza College Student
Perry Penvenne, Santa Clara Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Tracie Johnson, South of Forest Avenue Neighborhood Association
Cindy Baldenazi, South of Forest Neighborhood Association
Jennifer Shearin, Walk Bike Cupertino
Kirk Vartan, Local Business Owner on Corridor
Chris Giangreco, Winchester Orchard Neighborhood Association
We want to send a special thank you for all who participated in the project through online, webinars, surveys, interviews and pop-up events.
~ ___ .----:; --,----
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Corridor Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
Vision Statement ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Values and Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Implementation Planning Process ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Engagement .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and Experience ........................................................................................................................................ 9
3. Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Walking and Biking Network Connections ............................................................................................................................................ 15
5. Crossings ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
7. Implementation Action Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
Tables
Table 1: Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2: Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities (in Miles) ................................................................................................................................. 15
Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions ............................................................................................................. 23
Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Actions ....................................................................................................... 24
Table 5: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range ........................................................................................................................................... 24
Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions ................................................................................................. 26
Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor ............................................................................................................................. 27
Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions .................................................................................................. 28
Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions ................................................................................................ 30
Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High-Capacity Transit Systems ................................................................................................ 31
~ ___ .----:; --,----
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | iii
Figures
Figure 1: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High-Capacity, Separated Transit in the Corridor ......................................................................... 2
Figure 3: An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West ............................................................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 5: Historic Signs in the Corridor .................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 6: Wayfinding Signage at Meridian ............................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 8: Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs ........................................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 7: Slow Speed Public Education on Stevens Creek Boulevard in San José ...................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard ............................................................................................................................................... 9
Figure 10: Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 12: Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes, Shade Trees and Bus Island on Corridor ....................................................................................... 13
Figure 13: Corridor Areas with Right-of-Way Constraints for Sidewalk and Bicycle Lane Implementation ................................................................................ 13
Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area ...................................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 17: Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and Santana Row ............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 18: Conceptual High-Capacity, Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 19: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of I-280 .................................................. 21
Figure 20: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of Winchester Boulevard ......................... 22
Appendices
A. Engagement Summary and Tracker
B. Transit Alternatives Analysis
C. Transit Signal Operations
D. Planned Conditions
E. Parking Survey
F. Conditions Report
~ ___ .----:; --,----
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 1
CORRIDOR VISION
The nine-mile Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street corridor
(Corridor) from Foothill Boulevard to Diridon Station is vital to Santa Clara
Valley. The Corridor currently serves 100,000 residents and 80,000 jobs within
½ mile of the roadway. By 2040, these populations are expected to increase to
120,000 residents and 100,000 jobs.
• One-third of corridor residents are under 18 years old, forecast to rise to
over 40 percent by 2040
• Almost 20 percent of corridor residents have an annual household
income under $50,000.
• 65 percent of households speak languages other than English and over
30 percent have low English proficiency.
• 7.5 percent have a disability
• 5.5 percent live in households without an automobile
The Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José, Santa Clara County, and the
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)—the local government
agencies responsible for transportation in the Stevens Creek Boulevard
Corridor—are committed to continuous investment for pedestrians, cyclists,
transit users, and drivers. We recognize that to unlock the corridor's full
potential, it is essential to have a shared vision for long-term transportation
goals.
Figure 1: The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study Area
-:----_____ -------· -------
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 2
Recognizing the need for a unified approach, the Cities, County, and
VTA partnered to develop this Vision Statement. This Vision will
guide the future of the corridor, ensuring cohesive planning and the
coordinated management of transportation improvements.
A Steering Committee of elected officials from the participating
agencies, a community advisory group, residents, businesses, and
community groups provided the necessary leadership in a
cooperative planning process to create a strong and sustainable
Vision to guide corridor transportation investments for the next 50
years.
Vision Statement
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor transportation infrastructure
changed little in the past 50 years while the area it serves grew into a
worldwide hub of innovation. Therefore, we envision the
transportation corridor our community deserves to support
continued residential and commercial vibrancy: safe and enjoyable
travel for people of every age, ability, and chosen mode.
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by:
• A high-capacity transit system supported by station access
enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa
Clara, and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San
José to De Anza College within twenty minutes, with
connection to Foothill Boulevard, for reliable travel to local
and regional destinations. Station areas would be well-
maintained and inviting community assets.
• A stress-free and enjoyable walking and bicycling
environment. High-quality pedestrian and bicycle
infrastructure would be prioritized to connect neighborhoods
to the corridor within ½ mile or 20-minute walk of transit
stops.
• Safe and efficient vehicle travel would be accommodated for
connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and
expressways and freeways.
This Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and
inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and use.
Figure 2: Rendering of Before and After Example of Potential High-
Capacity, Separated Transit in the Corridor
Values and Guiding Principles
The Corridor Vision would be implemented in steps. The committed
shared purpose, vision, and values of the Cities of Cupertino, San
José, and Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, and the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) will guide the Vision
implementation process:
Ongoing Collaboration
• Continually engage and collaborate with corridor users and
decision-makers.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 3
• Incrementally improve access, comfort, speed, and
reliability of transit.
• Embrace technological innovations.
Safety of All Corridor Users
• Eliminate transportation-related fatalities and severe
injuries.
• Allow safe passage for vulnerable road users along and
crossing the corridor.
• Reduce the level of stress and increase the accessibility of
walking and biking,
Create a Sustainable Environment to Prioritize People
• Design for all ages, abilities, and incomes of users.
• Maintain the corridor as a clean and inviting place.
• Provide green space and shade, and support native wildlife
and plants.
• Foster enjoyable public space.
• Support reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from
transportation.
A Transit Corridor
• Increase transit frequency and speed.
• Favor transit travel time over auto travel time in roadway
operations.
• Improve access and comfort of waiting for transit.
• Implement a high-capacity, separated transit service in the
corridor.
Convenience and Connectivity
• Improve the convenience of travel for people.
• Ensure access and connectivity for all travelers through
investment to meet resident and business needs.
• Enhance neighborhood and business access.
Figure 3: An Aerial View of the Corridor Looking West
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 4
IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING PROCESS
The Vision Implementation Plan serves as a framework for actions to achieve a
shared Vision for the Corridor. Implementation will occur incrementally on
separate project development timelines, involving distinct processes and
leadership. Some items will be addressed through routine maintenance or
administrative actions at the agency level, while others necessitate months or
years of design and development, requiring newly identified funding sources
and multijurisdictional cooperation.
Regardless of the specific implementation approach, each component of the
Corridor Vision contributes to the overarching goal of safe and enjoyable travel
for people of all ages, abilities, and chosen modes. The implementation
planning process aligns with the Vision Statement, assessing various options.
Strategies and improvements are drawn from the VTA Community Design and
Transportation Manual, refined to match local City and County specifications
and standards, ensuring alignment with the area’s unique character.
Engagement
The Vision Statement for the Corridor was developed through extensive
community input. Key community needs identified included addressing
excessive vehicle speeds, improving safety, enhancing walkability, and
achieving a better balance of transportation modes. To realize this vision, the
community prioritized improved transit service, complete streets, better
integration with the local community, and enhanced connections within the
Corridor. Implementation efforts focus on key priorities such as upgraded
bicycle lanes, improved streetscape design (including shade trees), transit
infrastructure and service investments, and safer pedestrian crossings.
-------
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 5
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Vision would be implemented by a continuous, open, and
inclusive evaluation process to promote equitable access and
use.
The Vision for the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street
Corridor will be implemented cooperatively among Corridor
jurisdictions, transportation agencies, and the Corridor residential
and business communities.
Investment in improving the multimodal transportation conditions in
the Corridor should not wait for separated high-capacity transit,
near-term actions can start to improve conditions for today’s users
while creating an environment that better leverages future long-term
investments. The six (6) recommended implementation components
provide a structure to deliver near-term and long-term benefits of
the Corridor Vision are:
Near Term (actions with about a 5-year development period) –
These actions can be implemented in short timeframes with near-
term benefits.
1. Implement corridor identity and maintenance program(s) to
support Corridor businesses and neighborhoods.
2. Improve bus transit speed, reliability, and experience.
3. Implement walking and bicycling infrastructure on the
Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street Corridor
with an emphasis on physically protected bicycle lanes while
maintaining access to driveways.
4. Build out and enhance pedestrian and bicycle network
parallel, across and connecting to the Corridor.
The near-term actions would also include the initiation of project
development and funding for the high-capacity, separated transit
service.
Near to Medium Term (actions with about a 10-year development
period) – These actions require more development time due to their
complexity and cost. Actions within the next five years will initiate
priority projects.
5. Improve intersections and crossings to minimize
inconvenience and maximize safety for all users.
Long Term (actions with at least a 20-year development period) –
The Vision of a separated, high-capacity transit service in the
Corridor will require considerable time, effort and funding from each
Corridor agency. The next step in the project development process
is to secure funding for preliminary engineering and alternatives
analysis, environmental review and the selection of a locally
preferred alternative (LPA).
6. Separate transit from other vehicle operations for high-
capacity transit service.
While individual projects would have their own development
process with rigorous public engagement, the Corridor agencies
should continue their cooperation at the staff and elected official
level to bring the Corridor Vision to reality as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Incremental Actions to Reach the Corridor Vision
5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years
Corridor Identity and Maintenance
Transit 5 eed, Reliabilit , and Ex erience
Corridor Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
Pedestrian and Bic de Network Connections
Intersection and Crossin Im rovements
Separated Transit
<
V, -0
2
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 6
1. Corridor Identity and Maintenance
The Corridor businesses, neighborhoods, civic groups and
government agencies will define a Corridor brand identity(ies) as
a premier regional destination to live, work, and shop. These
groups will also collaborate to maintain the historic resources,
condition of infrastructure and cleanliness of the Corridor.
Transportation infrastructure that complements the community
supports environmental, economic, and social considerations to
create value to the people who live, work, and shop in the Corridor.
Maintenance of an attractive and clean environment to leverage the
unique corridor identity for the enjoyment of residents, workers, and
shoppers requires organization and resources.
Corridor Plans
The City of Cupertino Heart of the City and Monta Vista Specific
Plans, City of Santa Clara Stevens Creek Boulevard Focus area and
City of San José Stevens Creek, Valley Fair/Santana Row, and West
San Carlos Urban Villages each envision as streetscape that
accommodates more walking, biking, rolling and transit activity. The
plans will be implemented through a variety of physical
infrastructure and placemaking development actions consistent
with the character of a multimodal commercial street. VTA’s
Community Design and Transportation Manual further details the
relationship of transportation and public life that inform the
recommendations of the Corridor Vision Implementation.
Historic Preservation of Signs
The Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor is
home to several vintage and historic signs—predominately in the
googie, mid-century style. Current historic signs in the Corridor
such as the Safeway (former Futurerama Bowl) Sign, Western
Appliance Sign, and the Y Not Sign continue to define a future-
looking aesthetic.
Figure 5: Historic Signs in the Corridor
Transportation Service Signage
The identity of the transportation services and connections of the
Corridor have limited visibility.
Transit identity can take a larger
role in the Corridor’s identity
through wayfinding signage,
real-time transit information,
and better identified transit
stops which allow for better
awareness and utilization of the
Corridor transportation assets.
Wayfinding signage can be used
to direct travelers from the
Corridor to routes which
provide connections across
barriers such as the Cypress
Avenue Bridge over I-280.
Figure 6: Wayfinding Signage at Meridian
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 7
District Management and Maintenance Organizations
Management of public space is usually conducted by municipalities
or adjacent landowners, however in some parts of the Corridor,
business districts and chambers of commerce were formed to
provide business development, clean and maintain public space,
provide beautification, create a civic forum, and sponsor events and
promotions. These organizations include:
• West San Carlos Street Neighborhood Business District
Association
• Winchester Neighborhood Business District
• Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
Figure 8: Corridor Maintenance and Identity Programs
Vehicle Speed Limit
The Corridor speed limit is 35 miles per hour in most locations
except for the segment between Lawrence Expressway and
Harold Avenue which has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. It
is recommended this segment’s speed limit be reduced to 35
miles per hour for consistency and more appropriate
conditions for bicyclists.
Vehicle Speed Reduction Enforcement and Education
Enforcement of speed limits and traffic safety
education can improve safety and comfort for
residents, workers and visitors to the Corridor. The
physical character of the roadway gives the
impression of a higher-than-posted speed limit of 35
miles per hour (40 miles per hour from Lawrence
Expressway to Harold Avenue). In advance of implementing
infrastructure to actively or passively reduce vehicle speeds,
enforcement can be an effective near-term action to address vehicle
speed in the Corridor. Speeding is the largest primary traffic collision
factor in the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor (30% of
collisions), followed by
related driver factors of
failure to heed traffic signals
or signs (19%), improper
turning (19%), and violations
of vehicle right-of-way (12%).
Deployment of periodic
speed enforcement and
vision zero education
campaigns complement
physical infrastructure
countermeasures to reduce
vehicle speeds.
Figure 7: Slow Speed Public Education on
Stevens Creek Boulevard in San José
On-Street Parking
On-street parking can be an important component of a vibrant
commercial corridor. A significant portion of the Stevens Creek
Boulevard/West San Carlos Street has on-street parking in the Cities
of San José and Santa Clara sections of the roadway. A parking
utilization survey in May 2024 analyzed the use of 1,736 parking
spaces: 885 directly on Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos
Street, and 851 spaces within 200 feet of the Corridor on adjacent
streets. Parking utilization ranged from 30 percent of spaces to 70
percent of spaces depending on location and time of day. As shown
in Table 1, the highest utilized section on the Corridor was between
Lincoln Avenue and Shasta Avenue and the highest utilized side
streets were in the Saratoga Avenue to Richfield Drive section of the
corridor.
Source: San José Business Improvement District, Discover Santa Clara,
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 8
Table 1: Corridor On-Street Parking Utilization
Overall, on-street parking is well utilized throughout the Corridor,
especially in areas where businesses are on small lots with limited
off-street parking. Preservation of adequate parking is a key
consideration for the overall design of the corridor roadway right-of-
way, however curbside management which includes consideration
of parking turnover, passenger vehicle and transit loading access,
commercial loading, bicycle and pedestrian safety as factors should
be continued practice to maximize access, mobility, and safety. Any
proposed removal of on-street parking in the future should be
studied further in coordination with the adjacent land
uses/properties.
During the course of the study, the use of the median for car hauler
loading and unloading was mentioned as part of the balance of use
in the public right-of-way since alteration of this condition would
push the activity to neighborhood side streets.
Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
• Convene businesses and business groups to explore:
o Joint advertising and branding opportunities.
o Marketing and special events
o Public safety and hospitality
o Small business grants/loans
• Communicate business resources to Corridor businesses
• Coordinate street cleaning and maintenance including
graffiti removal and sidewalk and vegetation maintenance
• Reduce the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from Lawrence
Expressway to Harold Avenue
• Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and speed education
efforts
• Develop a process for ongoing community input and
engagement for corridor issues through the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
Li ncoln to Shasta 44%
Shasta to 1-880 34%
1-880 to Cypress 41 %
Cypress to Saratoga 17%
Saratoga to Richfield 68%
Richfield to Law rence Expy 4 2 %
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 9
2. Bus Transit Speed, Reliability, and
Experience
The Corridor Cities and the County will work with VTA to
implement bus speed, reliability and experience improvements
in the Corridor.
Buses provide the primary transit mode along the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Corridor—the lines serving the corridor are on VTA’s
Frequent Network. The improvement of service speed, reliability,
and experience is the responsibility of VTA and the Cities and County
that own and operate the infrastructure utilized by the bus system.
Since buses in the corridor share the roadway infrastructure with
other vehicles, designing and operating the roadway with transit
vehicles and riders at the forefront can bring better service,
encourage more transit riders, and support affordable and
environmentally friendly transportation.
Buses primarily operate in the outside (3rd) lanes of the Corridor with
a frequency of about every 10 minutes between the 23 and 523
service. More than 80 percent of the bus stops are locations where
the bus stops in the 3rd lane or in a bicycle lane area which blocks
the 3rd lane vehicles behind it during stops. The speed limit of
35mph on Stevens Creek can have safety implications for mixed
lane operations: in 2020 a motorist fatally rear-ended a VTA bus
which was slowing down for a bus stop.
The City of San José General Plan designated the Corridor a Grand
Boulevard where the needs of transit vehicles and riders are given
priority over other modes of travel. In 2022, the City of San José
passed a “Transit First Policy” which further motivates San José to
improve transit operations and access on Grand Boulevards.
There are 89 intersections and 74 bus stops (both directions) along
the Corridor. The Cities of Cupertino and Santa Clara, as well as San
José, partnered with VTA to implement new shelters, seating,
lighting, and associated improvements at VTA Rapid 523 bus stops
in 2018. The Rapid 523 service operates approximately 22 percent
faster than the Local Route 23 service due to stop consolidation, all-
door boarding, and limited signal priority operations. In addition,
through VTA’s Bus Stop Balancing program six eastbound and four
westbound low ridership or redundant stops were removed.
Other transportation services operating in the corridor include the
public Silicon Valley Hopper on-demand shared service in Cupertino
and Santa Clara, private employee buses for large employers, and
private transportation network companies. Efficiency through the
intersections and access to and quality of the bus stops are the
focus of the following bus speed, reliability, and user experience
improvements.
Figure 9: Rapid 523 Stop Enhancements at De Anza Boulevard
Transit Signal Priority
Traffic signals that adjust signal green time based on transit vehicle
proximity currently have limited implementation in the Corridor,
despite corridor-wide infrastructure and technology in place. An
administrative policy for the four agencies operating signals in the
Corridor (the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the
County of San José) to cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor-
wide transit signal priority through a centralized system would be
expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 14% and VTA Local
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 10
23/51 service by 12%, saving 5.5 minutes and 5.9 minutes for end to
end trips respectively.
Queue Jump
A designated waiting areas for buses at the front of an intersection
along with leading bus-only green time is referred to as a queue
jump. This treatment would be effective at the San Tomas
Expressway intersection because the intersection is synchronized
north/south to the expressway and therefore could not be a part of
the east/west Corridor transit signal priority. This queue jump
treatment would be expected to save up to 12 seconds per bus trip
through the intersection running east/west or a 0.5% travel time
savings for Corridor end-to-end trips.
Figure 10: Traffic Signals in the Corridor by Operating Agency
Bus Boarding Islands
Bus boarding islands allow in-lane boarding and remove bus stops
from bicycle lanes while providing additional safety protection for
cyclists. Implementation of bus boarding islands reduces the
amount time of buses spend at a stop and would move bus loading
out of bicycle lanes along the Corridor. Full implementation in the
Corridor is expected to reduce VTA Rapid 523 travel time by 2.1%
and VTA Local 23/51 service by 6.1%, saving 50 seconds and 3.1
minutes for end-to-end trips respectively. The higher travel time
savings for local service is due to the higher number of stops in the
Corridor.
Real-Time Information
VTA provides real-time arrival and service alert information through a
mobile app called Transit and at stop digital signage at light rail and
bus rapid transit stations. Provision of this information on digital
signs at stops in the Corridor would be a major improvement to rider
comfort and understanding of vehicle arrival time.
Transit Experience Improvements
VTA and the Corridor municipalities recently made investments in
transit user experience in the corridor through improved shelters,
lighting, seating, accessibility, and bicycle racks on buses. Corridor
municipalities continue to address fixing cracked sidewalks, tripping
hazards, and adding concrete bus pads where asphalt has been
impacted by frequent stopping. There will need to be periodic,
ongoing capital maintenance activities to maintain the stop areas in
a state of good repair.
Curbside Transit/Business Access Lanes
Transit lanes use pavement markings to prioritize buses for
improvement to transit speed and reliability. Curbside bus lanes are
accessible to emergency vehicles and any other vehicle for right-
turns at intersections, driveways, parking maneuvers. Curbside
transit lanes can also enhance the visibility and branding of transit
service, and provide better visibility for vehicles entering and exiting
the roadway from driveways and neighborhood side streets and can
also be signed as Business Access and Transit Lanes. Given the
width of the roadway and predominately three-lane in each direction
configuration, curbside transit lanes could be implemented with
limited change to current on-street parking.
Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
• Complete an administrative policy for the four agencies
operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of Cupertino,
Santa Clara, and San José and the County of San José) to
Agency Signals Operated
City of Cupertino
City of Santa Clara
County of Santa Clara
City of San Jose
18
7
1
21
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 11
cooperate with VTA to implement a corridor-wide transit
signal priority through a centralized system.
• Design and Transportation Manual (CDT) and VTA’s Speed
and Reliability Program. VTA will develop a speed and
reliability improvement plan for the frequent network routes
of 23, 51, and 523 with a Working Group of Corridor Agencies
where priorities, funding and phased implementation.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 12
3. Corridor Walking and Biking
Infrastructure
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a stress-
free and enjoyable walking and bicycling environment through
the implementation of protected, buffered, or separated bicycle
facilities the length of the Corridor including protection at
intersections. Where sidewalks are not to current standard, they
will be improved through dedications of new development.
Balancing modes in the Corridor requires additional promotion of
infrastructure for walking and biking. Investment in walking and
bicycling infrastructure supports transit riders by providing easier
and more pleasant stop access.
The streetscape of Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos
Street has remained largely unchanged in the last 50 years, even as
the communities it serves have grown and diversified. Key
improvements to modernize and transform the roadway into a
valuable community asset include upgrading bicycle facilities,
ensuring sidewalks meet current width standards, and installing and
maintaining shade trees.
Protection for Bicyclists
According to the National Association of City Transportation
Officials (NACTO), protected bicycle lanes should be installed when
vehicles travel at speeds of more than 25 miles per hour on a
consistent basis. Given the speed limit is predominately 35 miles
per hour or higher in the Corridor, the physical separation of bicycle
lanes is prudent for safety and comfort. The City of Cupertino is
currently implementing physically separated bicycle lanes along
Stevens Creek Boulevard, and the Cities of Santa Clara and San José
plan to implement bicycle separation along the Corridor.
Figure 11: Bicycle Lane Protection Options
Physical bicycle lane separation would include clear space and
clear sight lines for vehicles accessing driveways. It may also
include additional safety treatment for vehicle egress/ingress at
driveways.
Buildout Sidewalk Width
While sidewalks are present the entire length of the Corridor, 85
percent of the sidewalks are narrower than the standards within
their respective City. Generally, the sidewalks in the Valley
Fair/Santana Row area and parts of Cupertino are the widest in the
Corridor. The Corridor has several legacy driveways which slope
through the sidewalk area. Each of the Corridor Cities’ current
standards separate the sidewalk area from the driveway apron to
provide for minimal sloping though the pedestrian walking space
which should be implemented as adjacent buildings are developed.
Pedestrian Infrastructure Enhancements
Whether someone is walking to a restaurant, business, or residence
from a parked car or bike, from an adjacent neighborhood, or from a
transit stop, high-quality pedestrian infrastructure is important.
Sidewalk extensions can be used to shorten intersection crossing
distances and improve pedestrian visibility. Median refuge islands
Source: San José Better Bike Plan, City of San José
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 13
are a treatment at physically large, busy signalized intersections
with long crosswalks. These facilities can provide a safe midpoint
for two-stage intersection crossings. Leading pedestrian intervals at
signalized intersections allow pedestrians to cross at intersections
before vehicles are given a green signal and gives pedestrians
priority over turning-vehicles. While conventional street lights are
intended to illuminate the roadway for vehicles, pedestrian-oriented
lighting illuminates sidewalks and crosswalks to enhance the
comfort and safety of walking at night.
Figure 12: Concept of Physically Separated Bicycle Lanes, Shade Trees
and Bus Island on Corridor
Shade Trees
Shade trees are sparse in the Corridor. Only 45 percent of blocks
have any trees present, and only 23 percent of blocks have trees on
both sides of the roadway. Maintenance of a healthy urban forest
and green infrastructure lowers the temperature at ground level,
reduces glare, reduces stormwater run-off, and provides for native
wildlife.
Right-of-Way Constraints
The corridor right-of-way varies block-to-block; however, the
Corridor can be characterized by seven generalized segments by the
types of transportation infrastructure in place:
A. Cupertino two to four lanes
B. Cupertino six lanes
C. San José/Santa Clara six lanes
D. Valley Fair/Santana Row six lanes
E. West San Carlos Street four lane no current bicycle lane
F. West San Carlos Street four lane with bicycle lane
When applying sidewalk, bicycle lane, and vehicle lane standards to
the existing right-of-way, areas with constrained right of way are
indicated in several sections of the corridor as shown in Figure 13.
Key
-Travel Lane
-Bicycle Lane
-On-Street Parking
-Right-of-Way Constraint
-Raised Median
--Two Way Left Turn Median
Narrow Sidewalk
and Bike Lane B ike Lane Buffers
Being Installed
Median Two-Way
Left-Turn Lane
Narrow Sidewalk
and Bike Lane
Narrow Sidewalk Narrow Sidewalk
No Bike Lane
Narrow Sidewalk
No Bike Lane
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 14
While these constraints do not limit the feasibility of implementing
improvements in the current corridor right-of-way, they do indicate
some deviation from standard design may be necessary to meet
mobility goals without impacting adjacent land use.
Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Recommended
Implementation Actions for Consideration by Agencies
• Physically protect/separate/buffer bicycle lanes on Stevens
Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street to provide
separation of bicyclists from vehicle while maintaining
access to driveways.
• Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards
through dedications by new land use development.
• Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek
Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor. This would
be developed within an urban forestry framework with
sustainable funding for tree maintenance.
• Review locations for installation of median refuge islands
• Review the potential for leading pedestrian intervals at
signalized intersections (LPIs).
• Implement pedestrian-oriented lighting when street lighting
is installed or replaced in the corridor.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 15
4. Walking and Biking Network Connections
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by high-
quality pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure prioritized to
connect neighborhoods to the corridor within a 20-minute walk
of transit stops through the implementation of bicycle and
pedestrian plans.
The Vision of the Corridor as a multimodal roadway is to be
supported by strong connections to walking and bicycling networks.
This allows non-motorized travel for access to transit services and
commercial and residential areas.
Each Corridor agency provide improvements to walking and
bicycling infrastructure in the Corridor area (within ½ mile of the
Corridor). The current and planned status of bicycle infrastructure
based on each of the Corridor City’s bicycle plans is shown in Table
2. Overall, the bicycle network is planned to be expanded by 50
percent –from approximately 80 miles of facilities to 120 miles of
facilities. This expansion includes a major investment in 68 miles of
new or converted trails and protected, buffered, or separated
bikeways. This would bring the proportion of the separated bikeway
network from 11 percent to 63 percent in the Corridor area.
Table 2: Current and Planned Corridor Area Bicycle Facilities (in Miles)
Implementation of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans
Each Corridor agency has plans to design, fund, and construct
projects to implement bicycle and pedestrian improvements. These
are also supplemented by safety planning such as Local Roadway
Safety Plans, Safety Action Plans, Safe Routes to School, Vision Zero
Programs, and the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines.
Implementation of active transportation improvements should
consider the accommodation of electric powered bicycle, scooters,
and other micromobility to ensure emerging modes support, not
conflict with walking and bicycling.
Priority Implementation Actions
The following is a sample of the 70+ parallel and connecting walking
and biking network improvements prioritized by the Community
Advisory Committee:
• Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Project (City of Santa
Clara)
• Moorpark Avenue Traffic Safety Project (City of San José)
• De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike Lanes (City of Cupertino)
• Lawrence Mitty Park Trail (City of Cupertino)
Figure 14 Existing Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area
Figure 15: Planned Bicycle Network in the Corridor Area
Bicycle Facility Type Current Planned
Trail 4.5 12.6
Buffered/Separated Bikeway 4.6 64.5
Unbuffered Bike Lane 52.6 14.3
Bicycle Boulevard/Route 18.9 30.2
Subtotal – Protected Network 9.0 77.0
Total 80.5 121.5
Legend
-Class I -Trail
c:::::) Class II Buffered/Separated Bicycle Lane
-Class II Bicycle Lane
-Class Ill Route/Bike Bo u levard
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 16
5. Crossings
Crossings in the Corridor Area will be upgraded for accessible,
consistent infrastructure that protects vulnerable users,
considers transit access, and ensures direct connections. Safe
and efficient vehicle travel would also be accommodated for
connections to neighborhoods, businesses, and expressways
and freeways.
Crossings of the Corridor whether at intersections, at midblock
locations or across natural barriers, are important to maintain
connectivity among neighborhoods, parks, commercial areas and
access to corridor transit services.
From 2016 to 2022 there was an average of 188 collisions per year in
the Corridor overall and 23 collisions per year involving bicycles or
pedestrians—75 percent of which occurred within 250 feet of an
intersection. Half of vehicle/vehicle collisions resulted in injuries,
while 93 percent of collisions involving bicycles and 97 percent of
collisions involving pedestrians resulted in an injury. Collisions
involving a bicycle or a pedestrian were also five times as likely to
result in a serious injury or fatality. Therefore, special attention to
the treatment of vulnerable road users at these crossings should be
made to ensure conflicting movements do not become collisions.
The Corridor Cities and the County are conducting Local Roadway
Safety Plans (LRSPs), Safety Action Plans and Vision Zero Plans with
specific actions to address intersection and systemic safety. For
example, three Corridor intersections for recommended
improvements identified in the City of Cupertino’s LRSP: Stevens
Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard, Bandley Drive and Blaney
Avenue.
Enhanced Crossings for Pedestrians and Bicycles
Marked and highly visible crosswalks help define where pedestrians
can conveniently and predictably cross streets. While the California
Vehicle Code requires drivers to yield to pedestrians in any
crosswalk, whether marked or unmarked.
Streetscape design should prioritize crosswalks as an essential
element of the pedestrian environment, rather than interruptions to
vehicles. Due to the low approach angle at which drivers view
pavement markings, incorporating parallel stripes alongside or
instead of standard perpendicular markings can greatly enhance the
visibility of crosswalks for oncoming traffic. Therefore, to improve
crosswalk visibility ‘standard’ crosswalks delineated by two lines
perpendicular to the vehicle lanes should be replaced with
‘continental’ crosswalks with lines parallel to the roadway or
‘ladder’ crosswalks with both the standard perpendicular
delineation lines and the parallel continental lines or ‘zebra’
crosswalks with diagonal lines.
Currently 79 percent of crosswalks across Stevens Creek
Boulevard/West San Carlos Street are high-visibility continental or
ladder crosswalks, while only 47 percent of crosswalks along
(across side streets) are high visibility crosswalks.
Other enhancements for crossings include pedestrian-oriented
lighting, audible cues announcing roadway location (as installed at
the Kiely Boulevard/Stevens Creek Boulevard intersection) , tactile
or colored waiting areas and crossings, automatic detection of
pedestrians and bicyclists and adjusted crossing times that vary
with the crosser.
Curb Extensions and Protected Intersections
Intersections are primarily designed for processing vehicles and
managing vehicle conflicts. Bicycle and pedestrian oriented
intersection treatments narrow the crossing length and provide
dedicated intersection space for vulnerable users.
• Curb Extensions widen the sidewalk area into the
intersection, narrowing the roadway, decreasing the speed
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 17
of right-turning vehicles, and creating shorter crossings for
pedestrians. They also improve the visibility of pedestrians to
drivers.
• Protected Intersections for bicycles create additional
space on the sides and through intersections for bicyclists
and pedestrians. Buffers, generally raised curbs, separate
bike lanes on the sides and corners of the intersection and
bicycle lanes are striped next to crosswalks through the
intersection. Similar to curb extensions, these treatments
create waiting areas while making vulnerable users more
visible to slower right-turning vehicles.
Figure 16: Protected Crossing on McClellan Road in Cupertino
Connections Across Barriers
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor is the longest continuous
east/west roadway in the study area: other than I-280, there is not a
parallel roadway which makes the full connection from Cupertino to
San José in the study area.
The physical barriers in the Corridor, both natural and man-made
from west to east are:
• Stevens Creek
• Union Pacific Rail Tracks
• State Route 85
• Calabazas Creek
• Saratoga Creek
• Lawrence Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• I-880/State Route 17
• Los Gatos Creek
• VTA Green Line and Blue Line Light Rail Tracks
Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos Street cross over or
under each of these physical barriers. Other facilities which cross
barriers in the Study Area are:
• Saratoga Creek Pedestrian Bridge in Santa Clara
• Cypress I-280 Overcrossing in San José
• Tisch I-280 Overcrossing in San José
• Midtown-Fruitdale I-280 Crossing in San José
• Los Gatos Creek Trail I-280 Undercrossing in San José
• Parkway Park San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing in Santa
Clara
Improved wayfinding and identifying signage of these important
crossings can enhance their usage and access among Corridor area
routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Planned crossings in the study area for pedestrians and bicycles are:
• SR-85 Overcrossing from Grand Ave to Mary Ave in Cupertino
• Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart Park and
create a feasible pedestrian and bicycle connection design
Source: City of Cupertino
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 18
to Stevens Creek Boulevard under I-280 and adjacent to
Lawrence Expressway connecting the cities of Cupertino,
San José, and Santa Clara
• San Tomas Expressway Overcrossing (Greenlee Drive to
Coakley Drive/Constance Drive) in San José
• Carmen Road Bridge in Cupertino
Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions for
Consideration by Agencies
Initiate priority intersections and crossings projects to minimize
inconvenience and maximize safety for all users. These include:
• Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings for
pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Implement curb extensions and protected intersections.
• Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians and bicycles
• Review key hot spots for crossing improvements such as
Monroe Street and Stevens Creek Boulevard at I-880 for
potential reconfiguration to accommodate clearer travel
patterns for all modes.
Figure 17: Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard Between Valley Fair and
Santana Row
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 19
6. Separated, High-Capacity Transit
Residents, businesses, and visitors would be served by a high-
capacity transit system supported by station access
enhancements to connect the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José from Diridon Station and Downtown San José to De
Anza College within twenty minutes, with connection to Foothill
Boulevard, for reliable travel to local and regional destinations.
Station areas would be well-maintained and inviting community
assets.
A high-capacity transit system separated from the roadway would
allow for a 20-minute connection from De Anza College in Cupertino
to Diridon Station and/or Downtown San José. Potential stations
could be at Diridon Station or Downtown San José, Meridian,
Bascom, Winchester, Saratoga. Lawrence, Wolfe, and De Anza
College.
The key components of the system would be easy access to a
system to carry large numbers of people quickly along the Corridor.
The vibrant public spaces and central hubs characteristics of a
separated, high-capacity transit system highlight the tradeoffs
between transit and personal automobile travel. While automobiles
will continue to play a significant role in the transportation system,
they cannot address future transportation demands without
increasing congestion. In contrast, a high-capacity system offers
unique
opportunities to meet these needs while delivering high-quality
service that aligns with principles of human-scale design, universal
accessibility, and support of activity centers.
This system could provide reliable and safe connections among
major connections in the South Valley with short travel times in an
environmentally friendly way without adding to traffic congestion.
The high initial capital cost is the primary barrier to implementation.
However long-term cost savings to users and value to supporting
neighborhoods and businesses with a sustainable, high-quality
transportation service bring enduring benefits to the community.
At-grade separated transit could be side or center running transit
separated / delineated either with hardscape (i.e., concrete curbs or
plantings) or quick-build materials such as paint and plastic posts.
Preliminary analysis included in Appendix B indicates elevated
transit in the Corridor would cost approximately $1.7 billion while
underground transit in the Corridor would cost about $2.8 billion.
Combined with bus speed, reliability, and experience
improvements, the number of transit users in the Corridor would be
expected to double over current conditions.
While the placement of guideway and type of vehicle used is not
specified in this Vision Study, there was a clear community
preference for an elevated fixed-guideway transit service.
Figure 18: Conceptual High-Capacity, Separated Transit Alignment and Stations in the Corridor
SANTA CLARA
Saratoga Winchester
SAN JDSE
SAN JDSE
Bascom Meridian
Diridon
Station
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 20
Alternate Alignment Along I-280
In response to the City of Cupertino's Resolution No. 19-089, an
alternate high-capacity transit alignment along I-280 is being
considered. This alignment aims to address concerns regarding
potential traffic impacts on Stevens Creek Boulevard that may result
from Plan recommendations, while meeting the goal of enhancing
regional connectivity. The I-280 corridor offers unique opportunities
for integrating a high-capacity transit system that minimizes
disruptions to surface street operations.
The proposed I-280 alignment would complement, rather than
replace, the Stevens Creek Boulevard route. While the Stevens
Creek Boulevard alignment focuses on connecting key local
destinations with frequent stops, the I-280 route could provide a
faster route between De Anza College and Diridon Station. This dual-
corridor approach allows for a more flexible system that meets both
local and regional transportation needs.
Key connections will be established through Cupertino's well-
developed bicycle and pedestrian network, including the 3-mile off-
street Tamien Innu Trail stretching from Mary Avenue to Vallco
Parkway. Separated bikeways along Mary Avenue will offer a direct
north-south route from the Don Burnett Bridge to De Anza College.
Additionally, Class IV bikeways surrounding the Wolfe Road
interchange modernization project will provide convenient access
for both shoppers at Main Street Cupertino and visitors to the
redeveloped Vallco Shopping Center.
Further analysis is recommended to evaluate the feasibility and
potential benefits of a high-capacity transit alignment along I-280.
Including this alignment in future studies could enhance the
Corridor Vision by providing additional options to meet
transportation demands.
1 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/key-factors-
successful-project-implementation
Implementation Approach
Implementing a new transit line is complex and requires sustained
effort by champions at the agency staff and elected official levels.
As the County’s transit agency, VTA is best positioned to be the lead
agency for the project. However, partnership with the Corridor
municipalities is necessary for successful implementation as major
improvements such as any grade separation would need Council or
Board approval by individual agencies.
The project would likely be a part of the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA)’s Capital Investment Grant/Expedited Project
Delivery (CIG/EPD) Pilot program. Fortunately, VTA, the County of
Santa Clara, San José and Santa Clara have experience with this
program as the BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project was part of the
CIG/EPD pipeline.
Paraphrasing FTA’s key factors for successful project
implementation1 of a major transit capital program involves
adequate project management and project control practices to
manage:
• Input during planning, design and scoping phases
• Right-of-way acquisition
• Schedule
• Cost Estimating and budget
• Public engagement, information and communication
• Fair and comprehensive contracting documents
• Adequate underground investigation during preliminary
engineering
• Successful coordination with public utilities
• Realistic and independently determined constraints and
expectations.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 21
Figure 19: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of
Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of I-280
Specific considerations for implementation of an elevated transit
service in the Stevens Creek Boulevard/West San Carlos Street
Corridor based on engagement are:
• Elevated transit stations could also provide crossings above
Stevens Creek Boulevard for bicyclists and pedestrians.
2 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-
offices/transportation/transit/airport-connector
• Spacing between pillars/footings should be adequate to
maintain a two-way left turn lane in the shared Santa
Clara/San José section of Stevens Creek Boulevard for the
loading and unloading of car carriers serving car dealerships.
• Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service models
should be explored.
• Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector2 project which
could be expanded into the corridor.
• Review potential connections options to Diridon Station and
Downtown San José.
• Collaborate with Corridor partners to study the feasibility of
a parallel high-capacity transit alignment along I-280.
• Assess how the I-280 alignment could integrate with the
primary Stevens Creek Boulevard route through various
connections, offering a variety of transit options for local
access.
~:.-... ~ F,., ~
•.
"" ,~,
~ __ -.._:. ___ -.::.. .
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 22
Recommended High-Capacity Transit Implementation Actions
for Consideration by Agencies
The next phase of project development consists of preliminary
engineering and alternatives analysis, environmental review and the
selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA). This would be
followed by the funding commitments to complete engineering and
final design and then a full funding grant agreement from outside
funding partners (generally FTA) for construction.
As a new project, securing funding for development and
construction will be vital to implementation. The high-capacity,
separated transit concept was included in Plan Bay Area 2050 (as a
placeholder light rail service expansion) through the joint
cooperation of Corridor agencies. It is currently being evaluated for
inclusion in the upcoming Plan Bay Area 2050+. However, inclusion
in these documents does not guarantee funding. Furthermore, Santa
Clara County Measure A funds likely could not be used for further
development of a separated transit option as the funds for transit
are focused on bus speed and efficiency improvements.
Therefore, the best option is to secure competitive state or federal
grant funds through programs such as: SB 1 programs of Solutions
for Congested Corridors Program or Local Partnership Program
administered by the California Transportation Commission or the
Federal Transit Administration Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented
Development Planning or Accelerating Innovative Mobility Program
or US Department of Transportation Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity Program.
It is recommended a cooperative grant funding strategy be pursued
by the Corridor agencies to place the high-capacity, separated
transit service project forward for multiple competitive grant funding
programs.
3 https://www.vta.org/projects/eastridge-bart-regional-
connector#accordion-environmental-documents
Example Project Development Timeline
A project development timeline was developed based on the
Eastridge to BART Regional Connector 3 timeline:
• Preliminary Engineering of three years (2025-2028)
• Design and Engineering of two years (2029-2030)
• Environmental Clearance of five years (2031-2036)
• Utility Relocation of two years (2037 – 2039)
• Construction of five years (2040-2045)
Figure 20: Conceptual Graphic of Before and After Implementation of
Elevated High-Capacity Transit System, West of Winchester Boulevard
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 23
7. Recommended Implementation Actions For Consideration by Agencies Summary
1 Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation
Table 3: Recommended Corridor Identity and Maintenance Implementation Actions
Action Responsible agencies Next Step
1.1 Corridor Business Forum Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Convene Corridor Business Forum
1.2 Street cleaning and maintenance coordination Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Staff-level coordination of maintenance
activities
1.3 Set the speed limit to 35 miles per hour from
Lawrence Expressway to Harold Avenue
Cities of Santa Clara and San José Conduct Engineering and Traffic survey
1.4 Communicate business resources to Corridor
businesses
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Develop summary of eligible grants and loan
programs for businesses
1.5 Coordinate vehicle speed enforcement and
speed education efforts
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Implement Vision Zero and Speed Reduction
Public Education
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 24
2 Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation
Table 4: Recommended Bus Speed, Reliability, and Experience Implementation Actions
Action Responsible agencies Next Step
2.1
Complete an administrative policy for corridor-
wide transit signal priority through a centralized
system
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, County of Santa Clara, and VTA
operating signals in the Corridor (the Cities of
Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José and the
County of San José) to cooperate with VTA to
implement a corridor-wide transit signal
2.2 Develop a program of Corridor bus speed,
reliability and experience improvements
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, County of Santa Clara, and VTA in partnership with a Working Group
Table 5b: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range
Potential Capital Component Responsible Agencies Unit Cost Quantities
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San José
with VTA Implemented through staff coordination
Queue Jump at San Tomas
Expressway County of Santa Clara with VTA) $1.25m - $1.5m $1.25m - $1.5m
Bus Bulbs/Islands Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara $270k-$400k Twenty 523 stops $5.4m-$8m
Real-Time Information VTA stop Twenty 523 stops $800k-$1.5m
Transit Experience
Improvements $470k-$4.7m
Curbside Transit/Business
Access Lanes
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara with VTA
$500k-$1m per
mile
2.5 miles in San José $1.25m-$2.5m
$1.25m-$2.5m
4 miles in Cupertino $2m-$4m
Total Cost Estimate Range $13.4m-$24.7m
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 25
Table 5a: Capital Project Components and Cost Estimate Range by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction (Location) of Improvements Range
Cost by Jurisdiction
City of Cupertino $3.6m-$7.3m
City of Santa Clara $2.8m-$5.7m
City of San José $4.4m-$9.4m
County of Santa Clara $1.6m-2.2m
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 26
3 Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation
Table 6: Recommended Corridor Walking and Biking Infrastructure Implementation Actions
Action Responsible Agencies Next Step
3.1
Physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes
on Stevens Creek Boulevard and West San Carlos
Street to provide physical separation of bicyclists from
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara Implement corridor improvements
3.2 Widen sidewalk widths consistent with City standards
3.3 Plant shade trees on the sides of the Stevens Creek
Boulevard and West San Carlos Street Corridor
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Develop urban forestry framework with
sustainable funding for tree maintenance
3.4 Install median refuge islands
3.5 Install leading pedestrian intervals at signalized
intersections
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara
Review the potential for leading pedestrian
intervals at signalized intersections
3.6 Install Pedestrian-oriented lighting Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San
José, and the County of Santa Clara when street lighting is installed or replaced
The ongoing implementation of physically protected/separated/buffered bicycle lanes along Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor will
be completed through incremental projects and funded through a variety of sources, for most projects the funding is not identified as
shown in Table 7.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 27
Table 7: Physically Protected Bicycle Lane Projects to Compete Corridor
Responsible
Agency Project Estimate
($2024)
Funding Source
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 2A) Wolfe Road to De Anza Boulevard $1.6m Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant
Stevens Creek Boulevard Class IV Bikeway
(Phase 2B) De Anza Boulevard to Mary Avenue $1.6m Bay Area Cycle 2 Grant
TBD TBD
TBD
City of San José
Stevens Creek Boulevard Protected Bike Lanes -
Winchester Boulevard to Monroe Street TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Improvements from I-880 to McEvoy $10m TBD
Lanes (south side) - Winchester Boulevard to $2m TBD
City of Santa
Clara
Stevens Creek Blvd Physically Separated Bike
Lanes (north side) - Winchester Boulevard to $2m TBD
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 28
4 Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation
Table 8: Recommended Walking and Biking Network Connections Implementation Actions
Action Responsible agencies Next Step
4.1 Support the continued development and
implementation of walking and biking network
improvements in parallel and connecting
corridors to the Stevens Creek Boulevard
Corridor
José, and the County of Santa Clara priority projects (over 70 identified in the
study area) such as:
•
•
•
•
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 29
5 Corridor Crossings Implementation
Table 9: Recommended Corridor Crossings Recommended Implementation Actions
Action Responsible agencies Next Step
5.1 Implement enhanced, high-visibility crossings
for pedestrians and bicyclists. San José, and the County of Santa
Clara
Identify and implement enhanced, high-visibility
crossings
5.2 Implement curb extensions and protected
intersections. San José, and the County of Santa protected intersections such as the Stevens Creek
5.3 Prioritize crossings of barriers for pedestrians
and bicycles
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and
San José
projects such as:
• Safety improvements at the intersections of
Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard,
Bandley Drive and Blaney Avenue (City of
Cupertino)
• Crossing of SR-85 from Grand Avenue to Mary
Avenue (City of Cupertino)
• Crossing of I-280 at Mitty Park (John Mise Park)
(City of San José)
• Crossing of San Tomas Expressway at Greenlee
Drive/Coakley Drive/Constance Drive (City of San
José)
• Saratoga Creek Trail north of Sterling-Barnhart
Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard under I-280 and
adjacent to Lawrence Expressway (Cities of
Cupertino, San José, Santa Clara, and the County
5.4 Review key hot spots for operational and
crossing improvements San José, and the County of Santa Creek Boulevard at I-880 for potential reconfiguration
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 30
6 Separated, High-Capacity Implementation
Table 10: Recommended Separated, High-Capacity Recommended Implementation Actions Action Responsible agencies Next Step
6.1 Include project in Plan Bay Area 2050+ and San José, the County of Santa Advocate for project inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2050+
and future Plan Bay Area cycles
6.2 Secure funding commitments and San José, the County of Santa Develop framework funding strategy
6.3 Work with VTA to initiate project development
process
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, and the County of
Santa Clara
and alternatives analysis, environmental review and
the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA) in a
6.4 Include corridor-specific considerations in
project development process
Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and San José, the County of Santa
Clara, and VTA
process:
• Light rail as well as innovative vehicle and service
models should be explored
• Coordination with the SJC Airport Connector
project which could be expanded into the corridor
• Review potential connections options to Diridon
Station and Downtown San José
• Analyze an alternative alignment along the I-280
corridor in Cupertino
• Review coordination of corridor transit connections
Preliminary estimates of the capital costs for various separated, high—capacity systems and service types are shown in Table 11.
STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD VISION STUDY | 31
Table 11: Preliminary Estimate for Capital Cost of Separated, High-Capacity Transit Systems
Potential Capital Component Description Cost Estimate
(in $2024)
Estimated Corridor
Travel Time
Estimated Daily
Ridership
Existing Conditions
Current peak hour conditions for
average VTA Lines 523 and 23 in the - 39.4 minutes for Line 523
50.4 for Line 23 9,800
Transit/Business Access Lane
Early action option as part of Bus
Speed, Reliability and Experience
Improvements
$13.4m-$27.7m 30.4 minutes 12,600
At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit
Lane $53m 29.3 minutes 12,950
At-Grade Side Running Separated Transit
Lane – Excluding Cupertino Section
Includes development of 10 side
station areas—with limited
improvements at non-separated lane $29m 31.9 minutes 12,650
At-Grade Center Running Transit Lane Includes development of 10 center
station areas $95m 27 minutes 12,600
Elevated Transit Line
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or $1,750m 20 minutes 20,200
Elevated Transit Line - I-280 alignment in
Cupertino
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or $1,750m 20 minutes 19,250
Underground Transit Line
Includes development of 8 stations
including Downtown San José or $2,800m 20 minutes 20,200
KM Research on Stevens Creek Blvd Vision
Study
VTA’s Role and Responsibilities
•The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), as the designated Congestion Management Agency
(CMA) in Santa Clara County
•Leads the county’s Congestion Management Program (CMP) in accordance with California Statute,
Government code 65088.
•The CMP’s goal is to develop a transportation improvement program to improve multimodal transportation
system performance, land use decision -making, and air quality among local jurisdictions.
•Source: https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2021CMPDocumentV2_Reduced.pdf
Presentation overview
•Needs analysis topics
•What is Cupertino already implementing?
•Traffic Counts
•Land use/Community College data
•Current Conditions
•Cost-benefit issues
•How is VTA Light Rail performing
•How is VTA performing per State Auditor
•Impacts to Sales Tax Revenue
•What are the Vision Study obligations
•VTA Board Actions
•Lack of collaboratively seeking input
•Proposed Resolution Modifications
Citywide Active Transportation Plan
The Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) aims to enhance the City's transportation infrastructure by promoting and faci litating active transportation modes, such as
walking and bicycling, for all ages and abilities. The project will review existing infrastructure, policies, and community n eeds associated with bicycling and walking.This analysis
will involve data collection and close community engagement with diverse stakeholders, including local businesses, schools, a nd community organizations. Status: Active
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
The Vision Study is a collaborative multi -jurisdictional two-year project that builds on prior transportation planning initiativ es to establish a unified vision for the future of the
corridor. Its goal is to align the shared values and priorities across the corridor, ensuring that future transportation inve stments are well-coordinated across San José, Santa
Clara, Cupertino, the County, and VTA. Status: Active
Foothill Expressway Multimodal Feasibility Study
This is a Santa Clara County project to study the feasibility of implementing a Class I mixed -use path along Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra Boulevard, from Alpine
Road/Santa Cruz Avenue in San Mateo County to Cristo Rey Drive/Starling Drive in Cupertino. Status: Active
Vision Zero Action Plan and Collision Dashboard
On July 9, 2024, the Cupertino City Council unanimously voted to adopt the Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan. This Plan guide s policies and programs with the goal of eliminating
fatalities and severe injuries on Cupertino roadways by 2040 for all roadway users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ri de transit, and travel by other modes. Vision Zero
programs prioritize safety over other transportation goals, acknowledge that traffic fatalities and serious injuries are prev entable, and incorporate a multidisciplinary Safe
System approach. Status: Completed in 2024
Local Roadway Safety Plan
The City of Cupertino's Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies traffic safety improvements throughout the City for all m odes of transportation and for all ages and abilities
for the purpose of reducing fatal and severe injury collisions. Status: Completed in 2023
Cupertino has been actively working on many multi -modal
Transportation Plans, but has no post-Covid regional vehicular counts.
What are traffic conditions on Stevens
Creek Blvd. in Cupertino like?
•No average daily traffic counts to determine need of one corridor over another
•No SV Hopper data on SCB
•No TDM Monitoring report of Apple private bus ridership
•No report of other ride sharing services
•By observation can tell that SCB is less congested than Lawrence Expressway, I -280, or SR-85
Views of Stevens Creek Blvd.
San Jose/Santa Clara facing East
SCB in SJ/SC facing east.
Auto drop off typical
SCB EB east of San Tomas Expwy.
Car Dealerships continue
SCB EB, East of Ardis Ave.
SCB EB, Santana Row
Notice median trees, no on street parking
West San Carlos EB at I-880/17 offramp
Median trees, no on street parking
West San Carlos EB at Dana Ave
Median trees, on street parking, Auto Sales
West San Carlos EB at around where the
eastern terminus would be
Westbound Stevens Creek Blvd. at
Lawrence Expressway
WB SCB at I-280
WB SCB approaching Tantau Ave.
WB SCB approaching Miller
Mature median trees, protected bike lanes
WB SCB west of Blaney Ave.
WB SCB west of Blaney Ave.
SB SCB approaching De Anza Blvd.
Newly replanted median with Oak trees
WB SCB west of DA Blvd.
Median with power lines, fencing, plantings
WB SCB at the Cupertino Sports Center
Median with power lines, fencing, planting,
trees.
What stood
out in the
screenshots?
•Light traffic - points to the importance of having data
•Stevens Creek Blvd. in Cupertino and West San Carlos St. both
have extensively planted medians with trees
•SCB in Cupertino has no on street parking until west of SR -85
•SCB in Santa Clara/San Jose has a center median turn lane and
auto dealerships beginning west of Lawrence Expwy. to near
Santana Row. The center turn lane is used for vehicle unloading for
dealerships.
•SCB in Santa Clara/San Jose has on street parking for most of the
street except for the Santana Row/Valley Fair Mall area.
•With the wide street, on-street parking, median turn lanes, areas of
SCB would be more welcoming with trees and other amenities.
•Public art is more noticeable along SCB in Cupertino.
•Cupertino is farther ahead in implementing bicycle and pedestrian
improvements and general beautification.
Available traffic counts place
Stevens Creek Blvd. as third
heaviest traveled street.
Traffic counts from pre -pandemic
Indicated significantly more traffic on
De Anza Boulevard through the city.
All segments of De Anza Boulevard
Had heavier traffic than any portion
Of Stevens Creek Blvd.
Wolfe Road between Homestead Rd.
And Stevens Creek Blvd. also had
Heavier traffic than any portion of
Stevens Creek Blvd.
What transit systems does Cupertino have?
•Apple HQ TDM Shuttle system between buildings and across the Bay Area – private system for employees,
no constrained routes. Acknowledge this significant program paid for with private funds.
•VTA bus lines on specific routes, while they could move, various housing laws tie to the locations, movement
is not in the foreseeable future
•Silicon Valley Hopper serving and funded by a grant shared between Cupertino and Santa Clara, no
constrained routes for travel within these two cities with added stops at Caltrain and Kaiser. Grant funded.
•Uber/Lyft private ride service, no constrained routes
•RYDE – WVCS and Saratoga Senior Coordinating council, no constrained routes
•Foothill De Anza inter-campus shuttle (new contract, may not have started?), route between De Anza
College, Sunnyvale Satellite Campus, and Foothill College
What was included
in Apple’s
negotiated TDM?
While there are no
publicly available
TDM monitoring
reports available,
teleworking has
likely resulted in
surpassing the
targets.
TDM Measure Description
Mode Shift Target Reduce SOV use from 72% → 66%
during peak (34% alt modes)
Shuttle Expansion Broader commuter & intra-campus
shuttle service
Transit & Bike Subsidies $100 transit, $20 bike per employee
per month
Amenities Bike-sharing, lockers, showers,
racks, pumps
Parking Control & Off-site
Mitigation
Limited spaces, parking sensors,
traffic impact improvements
Monitoring & Penalties 15-min interval traffic counts,
10-year period, up to $5/trip fines
Where do De
Anza College
Students
reside?
How do De Anza
students access
courses?
12,441 Online
6,606 Hybrid (in person/online)
6,202 Face to Face (in person)
total headcount = 16,478 (total is less than
sum because students may be taking a
course in either of the 3 modes)
source:
https://deanza.edu/ir/research/enrollment/Enroll
mentComparisonReportWinter2024.pdf
De Anza
Headcount
by Zip Code
What Community College Districts are
De Anza students from?
•De Anza students live within the San José Evergreen Community College District (CCD) boundaries (30%),
while
•23% come from the West Valley/Mission CCD,
•17% are from the De Anza service area,
•4% are from the Foothill service area, and
•2.4% are from the Gavilan Joint CCD
•76.6% total headcount from these districts
30% of total
students from
Evergreen
College
District
23% of total
students from
West Valley/
Mission College
District
17% of total
students from De
Anza service area
and 4% are from
the Foothill
service area
2.4% of De
Anza students
are from the
Gavilan CCD
(South County)
VTA Bus lines 523 and 23 serve Stevens Creek Blvd.
Ridership
across SCB in
Cupertino:
1,690
Boardings,
1,630 Alightings
(includes
Homestead #s)
De Anza
College
Boardings/
Alightings
< 400
passengers
per day
What fiscal impacts could
drastically altering the
streetscape have on San
Jose?
Revenue drop.
There are 10+ auto
dealerships and 5+ parts
dealers on SCB in SJ.
SJ had $2.7 B Food/ Drink
& $2.1 B in taxable Motor
Vehicle and Parts
Dealerships sales ’24
source: CDTFA
Taxable Sales - Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4)
Calendar Year City
Business
Group Code Business Type Number of Outlets
Taxable Transactions
Amount
2024 San Jose C01 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 485 $ 2,121,442,248
2024 San Jose C02 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 684 $ 1,835,299,061
2024 San Jose C03
Building Material and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers 290 $ 1,131,729,568
2024 San Jose C04 Food and Beverage Stores 774 $ 687,021,764
2024 San Jose C05 Gasoline Stations 208 $ 1,147,072,231
2024 San Jose C06 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 1941 $ 1,145,979,627
2024 San Jose C07 General Merchandise Stores 511 $ 1,604,986,597
2024 San Jose C08 Food Services and Drinking Places 3089 $ 2,718,786,494
2024 San Jose C09 Other Retail Group 5495 $ 4,609,261,780
2024 San Jose CTR Total Retail and Food Services 13477 $ 17,001,579,370
2024 San Jose OTH All Other Outlets 10061 $ 5,694,367,542
2024 San Jose TTL Total All Outlets 23538 $ 22,695,946,912
Establishments
may be skipped
entirely – no
parking/no
nearby stop
What impacts could
drastically altering the
streetscape in Santa
Clara result in?
Motor Vehicle and
Parts Dealers #1
taxable transactions
followed by Food
Services/Drinking
Places. 10+ Auto
Dealerships on SCB in
SC.
Removing parking/few
stops will impact
revenue.
Taxable Sales - Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4)
Calendar
Year City
Business Group
Code Business Type
Number of
Outlets
Taxable Transactions
Amount
2024 Santa Clara C01 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 166 $ 748,362,788
2024 Santa Clara C02 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 170 $ 143,055,968
2024 Santa Clara C03
Building Material and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers 42 $ 130,996,475
2024 Santa Clara C04 Food and Beverage Stores 122 $ 97,679,590
2024 Santa Clara C05 Gasoline Stations 30 $ 179,606,931
2024 Santa Clara C06 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 185 $ 69,336,954
2024 Santa Clara C07 General Merchandise Stores 68 $ 284,768,601
2024 Santa Clara C08 Food Services and Drinking Places 562 $ 634,408,387
2024 Santa Clara C09 Other Retail Group 884 $ 118,002,677
What impacts
could drastically
altering the
streetscape in
Cupertino result
in?
High Capacity,
few-stop transit
may bypass local
businesses
entirely.
Revenue drop.
Taxable Sales - Cities by Type of Business (Taxable Table 4)
Calendar
Year City
Business
Group
Code Business Type
Number of
Outlets
Taxable Transactions
Amount
2024 Cupertino C01 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 7 $ 2,029,159
2024 Cupertino C02 Home Furnishings and Appliance Stores 56 $ 143,434,537
2024 Cupertino C03
Building Material and Garden Equipment and
Supplies Dealers 25 $ 25,820,853
2024 Cupertino C04 Food and Beverage Stores 37 $ 43,818,716
2024 Cupertino C05 Gasoline Stations 18 $ 69,621,418
2024 Cupertino C06 Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores 124 $ 52,205,338
2024 Cupertino C07 General Merchandise Stores 32 $ 37,538,317
2024 Cupertino C08 Food Services and Drinking Places 210 $ 266,714,476
2024 Cupertino C09 Other Retail Group 420 $ 37,247,845
6.1 Project is
already included
in Plan Bay Area
2050+ at $2.8B
with no needs
assessment,
Cost-Benefit
Analysis or
prioritization by
VTA
How is the Light
Rail System
performing?
FY 25 Goal:
23,000 Avg.
Weekday
Boarding Riders
FY 25 Q2 Actual:
15,712
Has not
recovered to pre-
Covid levels
Source: Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study December 2024, http://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=4&ID=13376&MeetingID=4346
MTC Plan Bay Area 2050+
•https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/attachments/6184/9avii_24_1550_Updated_Handout_Attach
ment_F_Transportation_Project_List.pdf
•https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025 -
06/PBA_2050_plus_Final_Blueprint_Compendium_061125.pdf
•The plan does not represent a commitment of funding by any level of government for any particular
strategy or project
•https://planbayarea.org/sites/default/files/documents/Amended_Plan_Bay_Area_2050_Transportation_Proje
ct_List.pdf Light Rail for $2.83 Billion planned in the Amended Plan Bay Area 2050, without Cupertino’s
Legislative Body (Council) approval, technical analysis, needs assessment, or cost benefit analysis.
On May 1, 2025, the VTA Board of
Directors Approved the SCC Vision Study
with no Cupertino Board Representation,
no input from the Cupertino City Council,
no regional needs analysis, and no cost-
benefit Analysis.
•https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-02/vta-overview.pdf
Comments from the State Auditor Report
on VTA
•“VTA Did Not Perform Cost -Benefit Analyses When It Planned Two Major
Capital Projects” - CA State Audit June 11, 2024
Source: 2023 -101 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
“Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight”
Published: June 11, 2024|Report Number: 2023 -101
•https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023 -101/
Criteria Needs Analysis Cost-Benefit Analysis
Purpose Is the project necessary?Is the project worth it?
Focus Travel demand, system gaps,
problem severity Costs vs. quantified benefits
Outcome Justification for studying a solution Decision to build, delay, modify, or
cancel
Required for Funding?Often part of early planning (yes)Required for federal/state grants
(always)
Type Descriptive (defines problems)Evaluative (measures value of
solutions)
Why Both Matter
•A needs analysis without a CBA can lead to projects that are justified but
wasteful.
•A CBA without a needs analysis risks evaluating the wrong solution to the wrong
problem.
•Together, they ensure public funds are spent wisely, fairly, and effectively.
Suggest
Process
Improvements:
Encourage the VTA BOD to prioritize projects based on regional
needs, cost-benefit analysis, and funding. Consult with the
cities prior to approving studies which impact them.
VTA and the BOD need to follow the 2024 State Auditor
recommendations and conduct cost -benefit analyses
Request VTA to provide traffic data and land use growth
patterns from the CMA reports if available. Where is significant
county growth occurring?
Take care in any future collaborations to ensure the scope is
thoughtfully aligned with cities’ needs, wants, and budgets.
Options: modify the Resolution and bring it back to Council or
accept a modified Resolution in the Agenda Packet
•Accept the SCC Vision Study conditionally.
•Acknowledge our wish to work collaboratively on data -driven, fiscally responsible infrastructure
•Recognize all of the planning and implementation staff, especially Public Works has already done making Cupertino
the leader in the corridor for safety and multi-modal transit.
•Cupertino's support for future implementation efforts will be conditioned on:
1. Inclusion of a comprehensive regional travel demand and needs analysis;
2. Completion of a cost-benefit analysis, including local fiscal impacts for any high-capacity transit proposal;
3. Review of future transportation technologies (e.g., autonomous vehicles, microtransit);
4. Consideration of Cupertino’s existing flexible, unconstrained transit ecosystem;
5. Preservation of Cupertino’s corridor investments;
6. Full City Council review and approval of any implementation steps involving infrastructure or land use changes.
•Clarify that nothing in this resolution shall be construed to express support for any specific infrastructure
alignment, mode, or funding plan without the above conditions being met and subsequent Council review.
RESOLUTION No. 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR STEERING COMMITTEE
ADOPTING AND ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF ITS MEETINGS,
PROCEEDINGS AND BUSINESS
WHEREAS, the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee has found it necessary
and desirable to adopt Rules of Order for the conduct of its business, now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, a
collaborative committee of the City of San José that the Stevens Creek Corridor
Steering Committee does hereby adopt Rules of Order for the conduct of its
business, as follows:
RULES OF ORDER
OF THE
STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR STEERING COMMITTEE
Preamble. These Bylaws are the procedural rules and regulations for the Stevens
Creek Corridor Steering Committee. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
was created to provide guidance and oversee the planning work involved in the Stevens
Creek Corridor Study, a collaborative effort between the Cities of San José, Santa
Clara, and Cupertino, the County of Santa Clara, and the Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA).
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 100. Name of Steering Committee
The official body referred to in these Bylaws shall be known and referred to as the
“Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.”
Section 101. Office of Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
The official office and mailing address of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee shall be:
City of San Jose – Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
Attn: Omar Din
200 East Santa Clara Street
San José, CA 95113
Section 102. Meeting Place of Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
Except as otherwise may be provided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
from time to time, the regular meeting place shall be at San José City Hall, 200 East
Santa Clara Street, San José, CA.
Section 103. Number of Members
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall consist of members appointed
from participating jurisdictions (the Cities of San José, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, the
County of Santa Clara, and the Valley Transportation Authority). Members will be
appointed by the governing bodies of these five jurisdictions or appointed by executive
staff, depending on each agencies’ general practice.
Each of these five jurisdictions shall have two votes on the committee. Each jurisdiction
may choose if they prefer to appoint either one member or two members to cast these
two votes.
Section 104. Term of Members
Each member shall serve a term of two (2) years commencing at noon on the first meeting
of the calendar year, and continuing to the first meeting of the second year. With the
exception of the Chair and Vice Chair, a member may be removed from the Stevens
Creek Corridor Steering Committee by a majority vote of the Stevens Creek Corridor
Steering Committee, at any time and for any reason.
Section 105. Designees
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee members may not elect to appoint a
designee to serve as a member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee in the
event the member is unable to attend a scheduled meeting.
Section 106. Vacancies on the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
A Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee member may be deemed to have vacated
their membership with the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee if they fail to
attend two (2) consecutive meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.
If a Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee member voluntarily elects to no longer
participate as a member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, they must
notify committee supporting staff of their intention to cease participation with the Steering
Committee.
ARTICLE II
OFFICERS
CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Section 200. Enumeration of Officers
The officer of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall be a
Chairperson.
Section 201. Appointment of Officers
Officer(s) shall be nominated and appointed by majority vote of the Stevens Creek
Corridor Steering Committee.
Section 202. Term of Office of Chairperson
a. The Chairperson shall be appointed for annual terms.
b. If any Officer(s) should cease to be member(s) of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee prior to the expiration of their term of office, a vacancy shall be deemed
to have occurred in the specific office. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee will appoint a replacement by majority vote, with the term running until
the prior Officer(s) term expiration.
Section 203. Powers and Duties of Chairperson
The Chairperson shall have the following powers and duties:
a. Preside at all meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.
Section 204. Absence of Chairperson
In the event of the absence or disability of the Chairperson at any meeting or hearing of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee shall elect one of its members as Chairperson pro tempore to preside over
such meeting.
Section 205. Chairperson Pro Tempore, Powers and Duties
The Chairperson Pro Tempore shall have and perform all powers and duties of the
Chairperson in the event of, and only during the absence or disability of the Chairperson.
Section 206. Duties of Supporting Staff
a. Supporting shall attend all meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee, and keep a record of minutes of all that transpires at such meetings.
ARTICLE III
DUTIES
Section 300. Duties and Responsibilities
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall have the following powers and
duties:
a. Tender its advice to the Stevens Creek Corridor Working Group with respect to
policy matters under consideration related to the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision
Study.
b. Review the status of Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study deliverables.
ARTICLE IV
MEETINGS
Section 400. Ralph M. Brown Act.
All meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall comply with
the Ralph M. Brown Act (“the Brown Act”, Govt. Code Section 54950 et seq. ).
Section 401. Regular Meeting
Regular meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee shall be held
quarterly, or as needed, and agendized by supporting staff. Notice shall be given of each
Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee meeting in accordance with the Brown Act.
Section 402. Special Meetings
a. Special meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may be called at
any time by the Chairperson, or by a majority of members, whenever in their
opinion the business of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee requires
it. The notice of a special meeting shall specify the time, place, and the business
to be conducted or transacted at the meeting. No other business shall be
considered at the special meeting. The notice shall be filed with the supporting
staff in his/her office. Supporting staff shall cause a copy of the notice to be served
upon each member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee at least
twenty-four (24) hours before the time of the meeting specified in the notice, or for
such greater period of time as may be required by law or set forth by City policy,
rules or regulations, either by personal delivery or by mail. Each member shall, for
mailing purposes, file his/her name and address with supporting staff.
b. Written notice may be dispensed with for any member who at or prior to the time the
meeting convenes files with the supporting staff a written waiver of notice. The
waiver may be given by fax or electronic mail. Written notice may also be
dispensed with for any member who is actually present at the meeting at the time
it convenes.
c. The written notice shall be posted at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the special
meeting, or for such greater period of time as may be required by law or set forth
by City policy, rules or regulations, in a location that is freely accessible to
members of the public.
Section 403. Continued Meetings
Subject to the requirements of law, meetings of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee, whether regular or special, may be adjourned by the Stevens Creek Corridor
Steering Committee to reconvene at a time to be specified by the Commission at the
time it adjourns. In such an event, no other official notice need be given of the time at
which such adjourned meeting will reconvene, unless required by law. Any such
reconvened meeting shall, in such a situation, be considered a continuation of the prior
meeting.
Section 404. Quorum
A quorum to do business shall consist of a majority of members of the Stevens Creek
Corridor Steering Committee, but a lesser number may constitute a quorum for the
purpose of adjourning a meeting or adjourning a meeting to a stated time and place. In
the absence of all the members of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee from
any meeting, the supporting staff for Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may
adjourn the meeting or adjourn the meeting to a stated time and place.
Section 405. Procedure
Except as otherwise provided by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee or the
rules and regulations adopted by the City of San José, the procedure to be followed by
the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee at its meetings shall be that set forth in
Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee may act
by motion, but an affirmative vote of at least a majority of the quorum present shall be
necessary for all decisions of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee except in
matters of adjournment.
Section 406. Voting
No action shall be taken by the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee except by
affirmative vote of a simple majority of those voting, as long as there is a quorum present.
All voting by Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee members shall be by voice or
hand vote and the record of each member's vote shall be entered by the supporting staff
in the record of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee proceedings. Upon
request of any member of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, a roll call vote
shall be taken on any matter upon which a vote is called, and shall be recorded by the
supporting staff in the record of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s
proceedings.
Section 407. Order of Business
The order of Business shall be set by supporting staff. The Stevens Creek Corridor
Steering Committee may at any time alter the order of business at any meeting; and said
order of business shall be altered to the extent necessary to comply with the provisions
of Article IV hereof relating to hearing procedures.
Section 408. Matter of Agenda
Notification of matters to be presented to the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee
shall ordinarily be given or delivered to the supporting staff at least seven (7) days in
advance of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee meeting.
ARTICLE V
CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER LAW
Section 500. Consistency with Other Law
To the extent that the above rules and regulations differ from or are inconsistent with the
provisions of the San José Municipal Code or State or Federal law, the appropriate
provision of law will prevail.
ARTICLE VI
AMENDING Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee BYLAWS
Section 600. Provision for Amending Bylaws
a. These Bylaws may be amended by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of
the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, at a regularly scheduled
Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee meeting.
b. At least two (2) weeks prior notice of the intent to amend these Bylaws shall be
provided to the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee.
c. Notice of the intended changes to these Bylaws shall be provided to all active members
of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee, and to the public as required
by law and/or City policy, but such notices shall be provided no later than the notice
of intent to amend these Bylaws.
Bylaws of the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee adopted and made
effective on this __________ day of ________________, 2023, by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Chairperson
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
1
Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee Meeting Agenda
September 12, 2025, 2:00 PM
City of San José - Council Chambers
ZOOM WEBINAR FOR THE PUBLIC, REGISTRATION:
Webinar Registration - Zoom
To register and receive meeting login information, please visit:
https://sanjoseca.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dtg-n0fxQBiVTLzVuirmiw
To submit comments during or before the meeting or participate via Zoom, email:
ramsesmadou@sanjoseca.gov.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee was created to provide guidance and oversee
the planning work involved in the Stevens Creek Corridor Study, a collaborative effort between
the Cities of San José, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, the County of Santa Clara, and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The Committee will improve transportation
options along the corridor and increase the collaboration between the cities and agencies
represented to bring our residents a more traversable and interconnected future.
Invited:
Council Member Rosemary Kamei, City of San José, Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision
Study Chair
Councilmember Kitty Moore, City of Cupertino
Vice Mayor Kelly G. Cox, City of Santa Clara
Supervisor Susan Ellenberg, Santa Clara County
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
2
1. Introductions
Roll call of Steering Committee members
Committee Chair Council member Kamei of San José to lead introductions of participating
agencies
2. Steering Committee administration
a. For discussion and action: Approve last meeting minutes (action item)
3. Overview of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
4. Adoption Process Updates
5. Implementation Work Scope #1 (action item)
6. Next steps
7. Public Comment
Members of the Public are invited to speak on any item that is within the subject matter
jurisdiction of the Committee. Meeting attendees are usually given two (2) minutes to speak
on any discussion item and/or during the online ZOOM virtual webinar forum; the time limit
is at the discretion of the Steering Committee and may be limited when appropriate.
Speakers using a translator will be given twice the time allotted to ensure non -English
speakers receive the same opportunity to directly address the Committee.
If you would like to provide public comment, please see the directions below. All members
of the public will remain on mute until the individual identifies they would like to speak and
then will be unmuted.
The procedure for this meeting is as follows during public comment:
● City Staff will call out names of the public who identified the items they want to speak on.
You may identify yourself by the “Raise Hand” feature on Zoom, or dial *9 on your phone.
● As your name is called, City Staff will unmute you to speak. After we confirm your audio is
working your allotted time will begin.
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
3
8. Adjournment
Note
Electronic device instructions:
For participants who would like to join electronically from a PC, Mac, Ipad, iPhone or Android
device, please register at the link below to receive information on how to access and participate
in the meeting virtually:
To register and receive meeting login information, please visit:
Please ensure your device has audio input and output capabilities. During the session, if you
would like to comment, please use the ‘raise hand’ feature in the Zoom conference call.
1. Use a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Mute all
other audio before speaking. Using multiple devices can cause audio fee dback.
2. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify
you that it is your turn to speak.
3. When the Chair calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.”
Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
Telephone device instructions:
To access the meeting via phone, please register for the meeting by clicking below and you will
receive instructions on how to access the meeting via phone via email:
https://bit.ly/4iuHInd
Public Comments prior to meeting: If you would like to submit your comments prior to or
during the meeting, please email them to ramses.madou@sanjoseca.gov. Comments received
will be included as a part of the meeting record but will not be read aloud during the meeting.
The Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study is committed to open and honest
government and strives to consistently meet the community’s expectations by providing
excellent service, in a positive and timely manner, and in the full view of the public.
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee
4
You may speak to the Steering Committee about any discussion item that is on the agenda, and
you may also speak during Public Comments on items that are not on the agenda and are
within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Steering Committee. Please be advised that, by
law, the Steering Committee is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during
Public Comments. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, no matter shall be acted
upon unless listed on the agenda, which has been posted not le ss than 72 hours prior to
meeting. Agendas, Staff Reports, and some associated documents for agenda items may be
viewed on the Internet at http://www.stevenscreekvision.com. All public records relating to an
open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the
California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be
available for public inspection by clicking the link associated specifically to documents on this
agenda, at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the
legislative body. Any draft resolutions or other items posted on the Internet site or distributed
in advance of the commission meeting may not be the final documents approved by the
commission. Contact the City of San José for the final document. On occasion the Steering
Committee may consider agenda items out of order. The Steering Committee meets
occasionally, with special meetings as necessary.
To request an accommodation or alternative format under the Americans with Disabilities
Act for City-sponsored meetings, events or printed materials, please call 650.924.1237 as
soon as possible, but at least three business days before the meeting.
Please direct correspondence and questions to:
City of San José
Dept. of Transporation
Ramses Madou | Division Manger
D: 650.924.1237 | ramsesmadou@sanjoseca.gov
From:Babu Srinivasan
To:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Reject the SCB Corridor study report and exit the SCB corridor project
Date:Tuesday, September 16, 2025 3:09:18 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,
Please include the following as written comments for the 09/16/25 Council meeting, agenda
item 19.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore, and Council Members,
I strongly request that you remove agenda item 19 from the consent calendar and decline to
approve the SCB corridor study. Cupertino should not remain involved in this project.
At the recent steering committee meeting, I observed that San Jose staff were in charge of the
proceedings. Their approach raised real doubts about fairness and whether Cupertino’s
interests are respected. Despite our Vice-Mayor clearly voicing opposition to Cupertino’s
further participation, the committee still adopted a motion that now binds Cupertino as if we
had agreed. This is deeply concerning. A decision taken by other agencies should not be
forced upon our city when our representative opposed it.
In addition, I cannot understand why Cupertino’s limited transportation staff are spending time
on this corridor study while urgent local needs remain unaddressed. Traffic congestion in
neighborhoods like Regnart due to Tesselations School, and long-pending safety
improvements such as the Phar Lap Drive crosswalk, continue to affect families. If staff have
no time to prioritize these pressing issues, they should not be assigned to outside projects that
work against Cupertino residents’ wishes.
I therefore urge the Council to:
1. Reject the SCB corridor study.
2. Withdraw Cupertino from the steering committee.
3.Direct that no further staff resources go into this effort.
Cupertino must decide its own path. Our city’s priorities should reflect the needs of our
residents, not be dictated by outside agencies.
Thank you for your leadership and for taking action to protect Cupertino’s independence.
Respectfully,
Babu