Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 11-04-2025 Item No. 13 Active Transportation Plan Update_Desk ItemCC 11-04-2025 Item #13 Active Transportation Plan Desk Item PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 • FAX: (408) 777-3333 CUPERTINO.GOV CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM Meeting: November 4, 2025 Agenda Item #13 Subject Update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase 1 activities and an overview of what to expect during Phase 2 Recommended Action Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria Staff’s responses to questions received from council members are shown in italics. Q1: Provide a summary of the Commission feedback on the Active Transportation Plan Phase 1 work and Phase 2 draft project prioritization criteria. Staff response: On August 20, 2025, The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received a presentation summarizing Phase 1 work and introducing Phase 2 with a focused discussion to provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria. The commissioners provided the following feedback and recommendations: • Emphasis was placed on considering road maintenance before approving new projects, along with the importance of balancing both positive and negative public feedback. • There was strong support for prioritizing safety, particularly for cyclists, pedestrians, seniors, and disabled individuals, with extra points suggested for projects near schools and along high-injury corridors. • Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data rather than emotions, and to avoid penalizing projects that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to City Council. • The evolving nature of the city was acknowledged, with a push to ensure plans address both current and future needs, particularly in growing residential areas. • Concerns were raised about including public dislikes and emotional comments in the evaluation process, and it was suggested they be treated cautiously. • A comprehensive, citywide vision for active transportation was encouraged, rather than treating projects in isolation. • Recommendations included identifying a few key focus areas—like school access or pedestrian safety—for the next 5–10 years, supported by clear implementation packages and measurable outcomes. • Speed reduction on streets beyond main corridors was advocated, with support for non-barrier bike lanes and solutions that slow vehicles without removing car lanes. • Staff were asked to return with a list of top projects and a structured plan highlighting three or four main priorities to guide the commission’s work moving forward. On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation summarizing Phase 1 work and introducing Phase 2 with a focused discussion to provide feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria. The commission passed a motion with the following recommendations: Modify the scoring criteria as follows: • Access Criteria: change the school proximity score to “Fifteen points if within one- half mile of a school”. Add “senior housing and senior facilities such as the Senior Center” to the metric definition of “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity.” For pedestrians. • Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Change “Sustainability: name to “Connectivity.” Add ten points if it’s within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress facility like Class IV bike lanes, making the total maximum score for this section twenty points instead of ten points. • Balance Criteria: Focus on impact rather than infrastructure. Subtract five points if removal of a substantial number (five or more) of regularly used parking spaces (used fifty-one percent or more of the time). Subtract fifteen points if it eliminates a care lane for a substantial (ten percent or more) portion of the project length. • Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is not an objective, measurable measure of the positive or negative impact of a project and will lead to an escalating arms race of competing public comments and create more divisiveness and animosity within the community. • Additional Project Recommendations: Add a project to make the most high-injury network intersections with red lights and stop signs safer using tools such as red light and speeding cameras. Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology where necessary. Conduct a bike count of existing usage as a baseline on major proposed bike projects. Partner with bicycle education providers (in addition to SVBC) to offer routine adult and child education courses in Cupertino. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager Chad Mosley, Public Works Director Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, Interim City Manager Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report: A. Draft Project Prioritization Criteria Attachments Provided with Supplemental 1: B. Phase 1 Public Participation Summary Attachments Provided with Desk Item: N/A