HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable PacketTuesday, February 10, 2026
6:45 PM
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Amended
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference; and
Teleconference Location Pursuant to Government Code section 54953(b)(2);
C-174 Anand Vihar, Delhi, India 110092
Planning Commission
SANTOSH RAO, CHAIR
TRACY KOSOLCHAROEN, VICE CHAIR
DAVID FUNG, COMMISSION MEMBER
SEEMA LINDSKOG, COMMISSION MEMBER
STEVEN SCHARF, COMMISSION MEMBER
IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
For more information: (408) 777-3200 | www.cupertino.gov
AGENDA
1
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
1 of 91
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
Amended on 2/6/26 at 2:14 p.m. to update Item No. 1 Staff Report and the subject and
recommended action; remove Hillside Exception agenda item; move Mary Avenue agenda
item under New Business and update draft resolutions; renumber all agenda items, and
update participation language.
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do
so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.gov/youtube and
www.Cupertino.gov/webcast
4) Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT: Members of the public wishing to
address the Planning Commission may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall:
a. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not
on the agenda, and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public
comment period for each agendized item.
b. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of
Speaker Cards is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it
is helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.
c. Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and
speak into the microphone when recognized by the Chair.
d. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may
reduce the speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an
item. A speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up
to 2 minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum.
e. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to
connect any personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a
document (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may
do so in one of the following ways:
· At the overhead projector at the podium or
· E-mail the document to planning@cupertino.gov by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the
slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
Page 2
2
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
2 of 91
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
2) Written communications as follows:
a. E-mail comments to planningcommission@cupertino.gov
b. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino Planning
Commission, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
c. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received by 5:00 p.m. on
the day of the meeting will be included in written communications published and
distributed before the beginning of the meeting.
d. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received after the 5:00
p.m. deadline, but through the end of the Planning Commission meeting, will be posted to
the City’s website by the end of the following business day.
3) Teleconference in one of the following ways:
a. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers
must register in advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_QnbitLmIRxKQELH_sLkQ0Q
Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
webinar.
· Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized,
speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
· Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can
directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their
internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser,
such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
b. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and
speakers may join the meeting as follows:
i. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 829 9330 2505
ii. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
iii. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of
their phone number.
c. Via an H.323/SIP room system:
i. H.323 Information:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 829 9330 2505
ii. SIP: 82993302505@zoomcrc.com
d. Online via the teleconferencing device (Audio and Video) being used to
provide access to the meeting from a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to
Page 3
3
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
3 of 91
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
Gov. Code 54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this
agenda.
i. Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to
cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to
participate and comment from the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is
prepared to accept their comment.
ii. If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to
the meeting from the remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the
other options for remote participation provided above.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AND APPOINTMENTS
1.Subject: Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make the following
appointments to other Commission and Committees: a Housing Commission
Non-Voting Representative and an Economic Development Committee Representative.
Recommended Action: Elect Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make the
following appointments to other Commission and Committees: a Housing Commission
Non-Voting Representative and an Economic Development Committee Representative.
Staff Report
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.Subject: Approval of the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
1 - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of
copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing
to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the
Page 4
4
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
4 of 91
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino.org. Plans
will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.
3.Subject: 2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule
Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment 1) and
consider changes.
Staff Report
1 - Planning Commission Meetings 2026 Meeting Schedule
4.Subject: Review of the proposed Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation and
determination of the location, purpose, and extent of property disposition for
consistency with the General Plan.
Recommended Action: 1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary
Avenue public right-of-way vacation (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General
Plan.
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent of
the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the
General Plan.
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution - Vacation
2 - Draft Resolution - Disposition
3 - Map of Parcel
OLD BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
Effective January 1, 2023, Government Code Section 65103.5 (SB 1214) limits the distribution of
copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing
to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under SB 1214 may make an appointment with the
Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to planning@cupertino.org. Plans
will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.
STUDY SESSION
5.Subject: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a
summary of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action: Receive an update on the development of the Active
Transportation Plan and provide feedback on the agenda packet attachments.
Page 5
5
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
5 of 91
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
Staff Report
1 - Sep 9, 2025 Staff Report
2 - Revised Prioritization Criteria
3 - Draft Prioritization Results
4 - Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
5 - Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
6 - Project Effectiveness Guidelines
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for staff to provide any updates on matters pertinent to the
Commission and for Commissioners to report on any Commission related activities they have taken part
in since the prior regularly scheduled meeting.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
This portion of the meeting is reserved for the Chair or any two Commissioners to propose a future
agenda item within the jurisdiction of the Commission. A proposal to add a future agenda item shall be
brief and without discussion by the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
If you challenge the action of the Planning Commission in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this agenda, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing. In the event an
action taken by the Planning Commission is deemed objectionable, the matter may be officially appealed
to the City Council in writing within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Commission’s decision. Said
appeal is filed with the City Clerk (Ordinance 632).
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission after publication of the
packet will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development Department located
at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 during normal business hours and in
Planning packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100, written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a
matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
Page 6
6
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
6 of 91
Planning Commission Agenda February 10, 2026
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the agenda,
contact the Planning Department at (408) 777 3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
Page 7
7
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
7 of 91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject:Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make the following appointments to
other Commission and Committees: a Housing Commission Non-Voting Representative and an
Economic Development Committee Representative.
Elect Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make the following appointments to other
Commission and Committees: a Housing Commission Non-Voting Representative and an Economic
Development Committee Representative.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/6/2026Page 1 of 1
8
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
8 of 91
Page 1 of 2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
Subject
Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make the following
appointments to other Commission and Committees: a Housing Commission Non-Voting
Representative and an Economic Development Committee Representative.
Recommended Actions
Elect Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair and make the following appointments
to other Commission and Committees: a Housing Commission Non-Voting
Representative and an Economic Development Committee Representative.
Discussion
Chair and Vice Chair: The Chair and Vice Chair are elected annually among the
Commission members (CMC Section 2.32.040 1). The term for Chair and Vice Chair is for
one year. While any Commissioner can be nominated and elected as the Chair, most times,
the Vice Chair has been selected as the Chair by fellow Commissioners. The selection for
Vice Chair has historically been based on seniority with rotation among Commissioners.
The current Commissioners are listed below in order of term appointment and rotation:
Name Term Date of Appointment Date Term Ending
Other Commission and Committee and Mayor’s Meeting Appointments:
Housing Commission Non-Voting Representative: The Planning Commission usually selects
a Commissioner to attend Housing Commission meetings in order to provide a brief
1 1 CMC Section 2.32.040: The commission shall elect its Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson from among
its members. The terms of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be for one year.
9
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
9 of 91
Page 2 of 2
summary of Housing Commission matters during the “Commission Reports” portion of
the Planning Commission Agenda to keep the Commission informed. A Planning
Commissioner appointee who attends a Housing Commission meeting is not a voting
member and there is no associated term of office. Usually, the selection to be the Housing
Commission attendee is determined by the level of interest of a particular Planning
Commissioner. However, a selection is not required, and any Commissioner may attend
a Housing Commission meeting since they are public meetings. Commissioner Lindskog
was selected to be the Housing Commission representative for the past year.
Economic Development Committee Representative: The City Council re-established the
Economic Development Committee (EDC) on April 15, 2025, with a requirement to have
representatives from several business sectors and commissions, including a requirement
to have two councilmember representatives.2 On July 15 2025, the City Council changed
the composition of the Committee to having one representative each from the City
Council and Planning Commission instead of two councilmember representatives.3 The
EDC will meet quarterly, unless special meetings are called. The initial term of the
representative was established to be until January 30, 2026. Commissioner Kosolcharoen
was appointed as the EDC representative for this initial term which ended on January 30,
2026.
Each subsequent representative serves on a one year term ending January 30 of each
calendar year or until a successor is appointed (usually in conjunction with the election of
the Chair and Vice Chair at the first meeting in February). At this time, the Planning
Commission should select an EDC representative for the first full year term. Upon
appointment, the representative will be provided additional information by appropriate
city staff.
The Mayor's Meeting with Commissioners: Among other meetings of note and as
information, the Mayor’s meeting is a bi-monthly meeting to report on Planning
Commission matters. The meeting format alternates between in-person and remote
attendance. Information is shared from the City Manager’s Office on these meetings. The
meetings must be attended by the Chair. If the Chair is unavailable, the Vice-Chair may
attend on behalf of the Chair. If neither is available, an alternate commissioner may be
chosen to attend. This can be done on an as-needed basis, and no action is required at this
time.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Reviewed and Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of
Community Development
2 See Ordinance No. 25-2269 online here:
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1168800&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino
3 See Agenda Item: https://cupertino.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7476647&GUID=F7BF3F4E-
3941-4592-B381-4A899A6DE4CD&Options=&Search=. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 25-2273
conducted on a 5-0 vote on 7/16/2025 by Council. Ordinance effective date: 30 days after second reading.
10
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
10 of 91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
..Title
Subject:Approval of the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Approve the December 9, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
11
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
11 of 91
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, December 9, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre
Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners Seema Lindskog,
David Fung, and Steven Scharf. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the November 12, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes.
MOTION: Lindskog moved and Scharf seconded to approve the November 12, 2025
Planning Commission Minutes. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog, Scharf Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. Subject: Consideration of a new residential development of 57 townhomes, including
11 affordable units, to replace two office buildings on a 2.6-acre site, located close to the
northeast corner of the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd and Randy Lane.
(Application No(s): DP-2025-001, ASA-2024-016, TM-2024-010, TR-2024-045, &
U-2025-006; Applicant(s): Dividend Homes; Location: 20085 & 20111 Stevens Creek
Blvd. (A.P.N.: 316-23-025, -026)
Recommended Action: Staff recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the draft
resolutions recommending that the City Council:
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2. Approve the following permits:
a. Development Permit (DP-2025-001) (Attachment 1);
12
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
12 of 91
Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2025
b. Use Permit (U-2025-006) (Attachment 2);
c. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-016) (Attachment 3);
d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-010) (Attachment 4)
e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-045) (Attachment 5)
Chair Rao opened the Public Hearing and the floor to ex-parte disclosures.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly introduced Senior Planner
Gian Martire, who gave a presentation.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly introduced the applicant, who
gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff and the applicant responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Whitney McNair
• Todd McNair
• Jennifer Griffin
• Jerry Su
• Wayne Gong
• Rich Lordan
• Ed Hsiao
• Lisa Lee
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Chair Rao closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Kosolcharoen moved and Fung seconded to move the staff recommended action
with the modification to reduce the 4 units that are abutting Wheaton drive to two floors,
include hedges along the back, and consider additional trellising on the fences on the back wall.
The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog.
Noes: Scharf. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
At 8:23 p.m., Chair Rao recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:29 p.m. with all
Commissioners present.
3. Subject: Consider a new residential development of 32 townhomes, including 6
affordable units, to replace three office buildings on a 1.77-acre site, located mid-block
13
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
13 of 91
Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2025
corner on Stevens Creek Boulevard between Randy Lane and Blaney Avenue.
(Application No(s): DP-2025-002, ASA-2025-004, TM-2025-002, TR-2025-002, &
U-2025-007; Applicant(s): Dividend Homes; Location: 20045 & 20065 Stevens Creek
Blvd. (A.P.N.: 316-23-095, -096)
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolutions
recommending that the City Council:
1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
2. Approve the following permits:
a. Development Permit (DP-2025-002) (Attachment 1);
b. Use Permit (U-2025-007) (Attachment 2);
c. Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2025-004) (Attachment 3);
d. Tentative Final Map (TM-2025-002) (Attachment 4)
e. Tree Removal Permit (TR-2025-002) (Attachment 5)
Chair Rao opened the public hearing.
Senior Planner Gian Martire gave a presentation.
The applicant spoke.
Commissioners asked questions which staff and the applicant responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Whitney McNair
• Todd McNair
• Jennifer Griffin
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
Chair Rao closed the public hearing.
MOTION: Rao moved and Lindskog seconded to move the staff recommended action with the
modification to reduce the 4 units that are abutting Wheaton drive to two floors, include hedges
along the back, and consider additional trellising on the fences on the back wall. The motion
carried with the following vote: Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Lindskog, Scharf. Noes:
None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS - None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS –
14
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
14 of 91
Planning Commission Minutes December 9, 2025
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly confirmed the date of the next
Planning Commission meeting and highlighted the upcoming Planning Commissioners Academy,
inviting Commissioners to indicate if they wished to register.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly noted that a dozen housing projects
were forthcoming under AB130, with one scheduled for late January and one or two additional
projects anticipated in February.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:18 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
15
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
15 of 91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: 2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule
Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment 1) and consider changes.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/5/2026Page 1 of 1
16
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
16 of 91
Page 1 of 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: February 10, 2026
Subject
2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule
Recommended Action
Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment 1) and consider changes.
Discussion
The Municipal Code sets regular Planning Commission meetings on the second and
fourth Tuesdays of each month at 6:45 p.m. Meetings can be adjourned to a date certain.
Meetings can be cancelled for lack of business pursuant to the Brown Act (Section 54955 -
54955.1 and 54956). Should the Commission decide to cancel any meetings now, a Special
Meeting may be held, as needed (CMC Section 2.32.050(A)1).
The regular meeting schedule for the 2026 calendar year (see Attachment 1) has been
attached, with potential dates of conflict identified. Things to note in the calendar are:
1. The City Council’s Procedures Manual establishes the month of August to be an
annual recess period and therefore, no meetings are held in August. In order to
align with the Council meeting schedule, in 2023, 2024 and 2025, the Planning
Commission decided to take a recess as well.
2. The Municipal Code Section 2.32.050(A) requires that Planning Commission
meetings that fall on legal holidays be moved to the following day .2 Since regular
meetings occur on Tuesday, this would cause the meeting to be scheduled for a
Wednesday.
3. In addition, the following meeting dates occur following a scheduled holiday, in
the event the Commission wishes to consider flexibility in personal time off
1 CMC Section 2.32.050(A): The City Planning Commission shall hold regular meetings on the second and
fourth Tuesdays of each month at six forty-five p.m. and may adjourn any regular meeting to a date
certain, which shall be specified in the order of adjournment and when so adjourned, such adjourned
meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes. Such adjourned meetings may likewise be adjourned
and any so adjourned meeting shall be a regular meeting for all purposes.
City Planning Commission meetings that fall on legal holidays shall automatically be moved to the
following day.
2 Ibid.
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
(408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • planning@cupertino.org
17
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
17 of 91
Page 2 of 2
scheduling since there may be issues with obtaining a quorum for these meetings:
▪ May 26th (day after Memorial Day)
▪ September 8th (day after Labor Day)
▪ November 24th (2 days before Thanksgiving) – cancelled by Planning
Commission (5-0) in 2024 and 2025
▪ December 23rd (2 days before Christmas Eve) – cancelled by Planning
Commission (5-0) in 2024 and 2025
Staff recommends that the Commission decide whether to cancel any meetings and
adopt the 2026 meeting schedule.
Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Reviewed: Michael Woo, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community
Development
Attachments:
1 – Planning Commission 2026 meeting schedule
18
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
18 of 91
Planning Commission Meetings 2026
January
1/1/2026: New Year’s Day
1 13/2026: Planning Commission Meeting- Canceled
1/19/2026: Martin Luther King’s Birthday
1/27/2026: Planning Commission Meeting - Canceled
February
2/10/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
2/16/2026: President’s Day
2/17/2026: Lunar New Year
2/24/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
March
3/10/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
3/24/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
3/31/2026: Cesar Chavez’s Birthday
April
414/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
4/28/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
May
5/12/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
5/25/2026: Memorial Day
5/26/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
June
6/09/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
6/19/2026: Juneteenth
6/23/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
July
7/3/2026: Independence Day
7/14/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
7/28/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
August
8/11/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – Council Recess (cancelled in 2023, 2024,
2025)
8/25/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – Council Recess (cancelled in 2023, 2024,
2025)
September
9/7/2026: Labor Day
9/8/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
19
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
19 of 91
9/22/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
October
10/13/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
10/27/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
November
11/10/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
11/11/2026: Veteran’s Day
11/24/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – cancelled in 2024 and 2025
11/26/2026: Thanksgiving Day
11/27/2026: Day Following Thanksgiving Day
December
12/8/2026: Planning Commission Meeting
12/22/2026: Planning Commission Meeting – cancelled in 2024 and 2025
12/24/2026: Christmas Eve
12/25/2026: Christmas Day
12/31/2026: New Years Eve
20
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
20 of 91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject:Review of the proposed Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation and determination of the
location, purpose, and extent of property disposition for consistency with the General Plan.
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation (APN
326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent of the disposition
of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/6/2026Page 1 of 1
21
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
21 of 91
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
Subject
Review of the proposed Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation and
determination of the location, purpose, and extent of property disposition for
consistency with the General Plan.
Recommended Action
1. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) finding that the Mary Avenue public right-of-
way vacation (APN 326-27-053) is consistent with the General Plan.
2. Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 2) finding that the location, purpose, and extent
of the disposition of the Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is consistent
with the General Plan.
Discussion
The Mary Avenue project site (APN 326-27-053) is Site ID 10 of the General Plan’s
Housing Element, adopted by the City on May 14, 2024, and which the California
Department of Housing and Community Development found in substantial
compliance with the State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code § 65580 et seq) on
September 4, 2024. The site is in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east
of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from 0.79 acres of
underutilized right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway
85, that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family
residential uses, a dog park, condominiums, and Highway 85.
In response to an August 18, 2022 Request for Proposals (RFP) for affordable
housing development project at this property, the site has an active proposal for a
40-unit, two story affordable (100% Low and Very Low Income) housing project
developed by Charities Housing. The project will include 19 units for residents
with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
The City Council is responsible for approving public right-of-way vacations.
However, pursuant to Government Code section 65402(a), the Planning
Commission is authorized to review certain proposed vacations for consistency
22
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
22 of 91
with the City’s General Plan.
The General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040 includes the Housing Element
that lists the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) as a priority housing site
for a 100% affordable housing development (Site ID 10, Table B4-8). All priority
housing sites, including Mary Avenue, were rezoned for housing development.
Additionally, the proposed Mary Avenue project requires a public right-of-way
vacation. The proposed vacation is consistent with the General Plan since it
involves a priority housing site identified in the Housing Element and effectuates
the pertinent goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set forth in the Housing
Element, including:
- Policy HE-1-2: Housing Densities (provide a full range of densities for ownership
and rental housing) and corresponding strategies and objectives:
- Strategy HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions (“Provide
adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance to
accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land use plan that
offers opportunities for, among other things, services, and amenities”). By
furthering a high-density 100 percent affordable housing project in the
northern area of the City (north of Stevens Creek Boulevard), the Mary
Avenue right-of-way vacation will assist the City in meeting the Policy’s
Objective of “4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755
moderate-, and 1,953 above moderate-income units) prioritized in areas
with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the City’s north side ”
- Strategy HE-1-3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing Options
(“Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater
flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address
housing needs including special-needs groups, and lower-income
households”). By furthering a housing project that provides 19 units for
residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities, the Mary Avenue
right-of-way vacation will assist the City in meeting the Policy’s Quantified
Objective of “200 lower-income units to improve housing mobility and
reduce displacement risk.”
-Policy HE-2.3: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for Persons
with Special Needs and corresponding Strategies:
23
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
23 of 91
- Strategy HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development (“Work with
housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-income
housing for special-needs groups”). The Mary Avenue right-of-way
vacation furthers a 100 percent affordable housing project including 19
units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities, which
will assist the City in meeting the Policy’s Quantified Objective to “Create
opportunity for 450 units for lower-income households that will be within
close proximity to services and other resources in high-opportunity areas.
Include development of 250 units affordable to special-needs, lower-income
households to reduce displacement risk for these populations.”
- Strategy HE-2.3.6: Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-Based Housing
(“Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned by the
City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city.
The City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit
developer interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’.”)
The Mary Avenue right-of-way vacation furthers the overall Policy strategy
regarding disposition of surplus properties.
- Strategy HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental Disabilities
(“Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of units
for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.”) The Mary Avenue right-of-way vacation will further a
housing project by Charities Housing, which is a registered 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization, which includes 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities. This development will allow the
City to meet the Policy’s Objective of “housing units for persons with
disabilities to reduce displacement risk.”
-Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, Table B4-8 Priority Housing
Sites in Residential Zones
- Additional Site Details lists the Mary Avenue site as Site ID 10, stating “Site
10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood and is located east of
Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out from unused
right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway 85 that
includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family
residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.” The City’s
General Plan explicitly anticipates the vacation of the right-of-way,
24
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
24 of 91
including vacation of the on-street parking in its Housing Element for the
purpose of developing a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very
Low Income) housing project including 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities.
Section 65402(c) also sets forth that the Planning Commission shall make a
determination regarding whether the location, purpose and extent of the
disposition of property for an affordable housing project is consistent with the
City’s General Plan. Since the Mary Avenue Property (APN 326-27-053) is a site
listed on the Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, and for all the reasons
described in detail above, this request is being submitted to the Planning
Commission for determination as to the conformity of the location, purpose and
extent of the disposition of the Mary Avenue Property (APN 326-27-053) with the
City’s General Plan.
Environmental Impact
The City has performed an environmental assessment for the Mary Avenue
housing project, and the Planning Commission has determined that it falls within
the Categorical Exemption set forth in Section 15332 which exempts Class 32 Infill
Development Projects because (a) the project is consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development
occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project. The proposed vacation of the
Vacation Area does not constitute a separate project under CEQA and is an
implementation action within the scope of the affordable housing development
project. Based on the whole of the administrative record, Planning Commission
recommends that City Council adopts a Categorical Exemption per CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 for this project.
Next Steps
The Planning Commission’s determination will be considered by the City Council,
currently anticipated for March 3, 2026, as part of the Council’s review of the
proposed Mary Avenue right of way vacation.
Sustainability Impact
There is no sustainability impact.
25
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
25 of 91
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Jennifer Chu, Senior Civil Engineer
Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Reviewed by: Gian Martire, Senior Planner
Michael Woo, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development
Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - Draft Resolution
3 - Map of Parcel
26
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
26 of 91
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO FINDING AND REPORTING THAT VACATION OF THE
PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE MARY AVENUE
PROPERTY (APN 326-27-053) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) (“Property”) is
situated along the westerly edge or Mary Avenue, between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Lubec Street, as further described in Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the Property is listed as Site ID 10 of the Priority Housing Sites
in Residential Zones, Appendix B to the Housing Element of the Cupertino
General Plan. The Property has an active proposal for development of a 40-unit,
two-story, affordable housing project to be developed by Charities Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Property is currently owned by the City of Cupertino, and
a portion of the Property, to the extent such portion is within the public right-of-
way within Parcel 1 on the Parcel Map filed for Record in the Office of the
Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 2, 2023, in Book
953 of Maps, Pages 53 and 54, attached hereto as Attachment B, is designated as
public right-of-way, and is being utilized for on-street parking (the “Vacation
Area”); and
WHEREAS, the City must vacate the Vacation Area within the Property in
order to facilitate construction of the housing project; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65402(a) requires that
City’s Planning Commission make a determination that the vacation of the
Vacation Area is in conformance with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, The City of Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-
2040 includes the Housing Element that lists the Property as priority housing Site
10; and
WHEREAS, the vacation of the Vacation Area will facilitate an affordable
housing project that meets several goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set
forth in the Housing Element included in the City of Cupertino General Plan:
Community Vision 2015-2040; and
27
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
27 of 91
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 2
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence
presented by the City, city staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino does hereby find and report as follows:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it,
including the staff report and presentation, facts, exhibits, public testimony and
other evidence and materials submitted or provided to the Commission.
Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2: The City has performed an environmental assessment for the Mary
Avenue housing project, and the Planning Commission has determined that it falls
within the Categorical Exemption set forth in Section 15332 which exempts Class
32 Infill Development Projects because (a) the project is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well
as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed
development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
substantially surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat
for endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project. The proposed vacation of the
Vacation Area does not constitute a separate project under CEQA and is an
implementation action within the scope of the affordable housing development
project. Based on the whole of the administrative record, Planning Commission
recommends that City Council adopts a Categorical Exemption per CEQA
Guidelines section 15332 for this project.
Section 3: The Planning Commission finds and reports on, in accordance with state
law based on the evidence in the public record that the vacation of the Vacation
Area is in conformity with the City’s General Plan (Community Vision
2015-2040) since it involves a priority housing site identified in the Housing Element
and because it will assist the City in meeting the pertinent goals, policies, strategies,
and objectives set forth in the Housing Element, including:
a. Policy HE-1-2: Housing Densities (provide a full range of densities
for ownership and rental housing) and corresponding Strategies:
28
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
28 of 91
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 3
(i) Strategy HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
(“Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land use
plan that offers opportunities for, among other things, services, and amenities”).
The Mary Avenue public right-of-way vacation will assist the City in
implementing Strategy HE-1.3.1 by furthering high-density housing that will help
the City meet the Objective of “4,588 units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687
low-, 755 moderate-, and 1,953 above moderate-income units) prioritized “in areas
with high rates of housing cost burden, such as the City’s north side ... and the
Garden Gate neighborhood ….”
(ii) Strategy HE-1-3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing
Options (“Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater
flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address housing needs
including special-needs groups, and lower-income households”) by furthering a
housing project that provides 19 units for residents with intellectual or
developmental disabilities. The provision of these 19 units will assist the City in
meeting the Quantified Objective of “200 lower-income units to improve housing
mobility and reduce displacement risk.”
b. Policy HE-2.3: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for
Persons with Special Needs and corresponding Strategies:
(i) Strategy HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development
(“Work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-
income housing for special-needs groups.”). The Mary Avenue project is a 100
percent affordable housing project which will provide 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities, and will thus assist the City in meeting
the Quantified Objective to “Create opportunity for 450 units for lower-income
households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in
high-opportunity areas. Include development of 250 units affordable to special-
needs, lower-income households to reduce displacement risk for these
populations.”
(ii) Strategy HE-2.3.6: Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-
Based Housing (“Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned
by the City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city. The
City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit developer
interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’.”). The vacation of the
Vacation Area is consistent with the overall policy strategy regarding disposition
of surplus properties because it reflects a successful solicitation of developer
29
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
29 of 91
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 4
interest and because it will allow a non-profit developer an opportunity to build a
100 percent affordable project on the surplus land.
(iii) Strategy HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities (“Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of
units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.”). The vacation of the Vacation Area will further a housing project
that provides 19 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities,
which will assist the City in meeting the Objective of providing “housing units
for persons with disabilities to reduce displacement risk.”
c. Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, Table B4-8 Priority
Housing Sites in Residential Zones – Additional Site Details lists the Mary Avenue
site as Site ID 10. It states that “Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate neighborhood
and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel carved out
from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent to Highway
85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include multi-family
residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.” The City’s General
Plan explicitly anticipates the vacation of the right-of-way, including vacation of
the on-street parking in its Housing Element for the purpose of developing a 40-
unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very Low Income) housing project
including 19 units for residents with intellectual or developmental disabilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Cupertino this 10th day of February,2026, by the following vote:
Members of the Planning Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
Date
30
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
30 of 91
01276.0036 2086072.1
Resolution No. ___________________
Page 5
ATTEST:
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Date
31
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
31 of 91
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of California
legally described as follows:
All of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map, in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa
Clara, State of California, filed for Record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, on May 2, 2023, in Book 953 of Maps, Pages 53 and 54.
APN: 326-27-053
32
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
32 of 91
ATTACHMENT B
PARCEL MAP
33
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
33 of 91
01276.0036 2086072.1
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CUPERTINO FINDING THAT DISPOSITION BY THE CITY OF CITY-
OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT MARY AVENUE (APN 326-27-053) IS
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY OF CUPERTINO GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-27-053) is situated along
the westerly edge of Mary Avenue, between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Lubec
Street as set forth in more detail in Attachment A (“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the property is listed as Site ID 10 of the Priority Housing Sites
in Residential Zones, Appendix B to the Housing Element of the Cupertino
General Plan: Community Vision 2015-2040; and
WHEREAS, the property has an active proposal for development of a 40-
unit, two-story, affordable housing project to be developed by Charities Housing
that meets several goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set forth in the Housing
Element included in the City of Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2015-
2040 (“Housing Project”); and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65402(c) requires that
City’s Planning Commission make a determination that the location, purpose and
extent of the disposition of the Property for the Housing Project is in conformity
with said adopted general plan or part thereof ; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence
presented by the City, city staff, and other interested parties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Cupertino does hereby find and report as follows:
Section 1: The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it,
including the staff report and presentation, facts, exhibits, public testimony and
other evidence and materials submitted or provided to the Commission.
Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are
incorporated herein by reference.
34
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
34 of 91
Resolution No. _____________
Page 2
01276.0036 2086072.1
Section 2: The City has performed an environmental assessment for the Housing
Project, and the Planning Commission has determined that it falls within the
Categorical Exemption set forth in Section 15332 which exempts Class 32 Infill
Development Projects because (a) the project is consistent with the applicable
general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations; (b) the proposed development
occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially
surrounded by urban uses; (c) the project site has no value, as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species; (d) approval of the project would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water
quality; and (e) the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public
services. None of the exceptions to Categorical Exemptions set forth in the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15300.2 apply to this project. Based on the whole of the
administrative record, Planning Commission recommends that City Council
adopts a Categorical Exemption per CEQA Guidelines section 15332 for this
project.
Section 3: General Plan Conformity. The location, purpose and extent of the
proposed Housing Project have been submitted to the Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission hereby finds and reports that the Project is in conformity
with the City’s General Plan, including with respect to the location, purpose and
extent of the proposed Housing Project. The Housing Project involves a priority
housing site identified in the Housing Element and will assist the City in meeting
the pertinent goals, policies, strategies, and objectives set forth in the Housing
Element, including:
a. Policy HE-1-2: Housing Densities (provide a full range of densities
for ownership and rental housing) and corresponding Strategies:
(i) Strategy HE-1.3.1: Land Use Policy and Zoning Provisions
(“Provide adequate capacity through the Land Use Element and Zoning
Ordinance to accommodate the RHNA while maintaining a balanced land use
plan that offers opportunities for, among other things, services, and amenities”).
The Housing Project will assist the City in implementing Strategy HE-1.3.1 by
furthering high-density housing that will help the City meet the Objective of “4,588
units (596 extremely low-, 597 very low-, 687 low-, 755 moderate-, and 1,953 above
moderate-income units) prioritized “in areas with high rates of housing cost
burden, such as the City’s north side ... and the Garden Gate neighborhood ….”
35
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
35 of 91
Resolution No. _____________
Page 3
01276.0036 2086072.1
(ii) Strategy HE-1-3.10: Innovative and Family-Friendly Housing
Options (“Explore innovative and alternative housing options that provide greater
flexibility and affordability in the housing stock that would address housing needs
including special-needs groups, and lower-income households”) by furthering a
housing project that provides 19 units for residents with intellectual or
developmental disabilities. The provision of these 19 units will assist the City in
meeting the Quantified Objective of “200 lower-income units to improve housing
mobility and reduce displacement risk.”
b. Policy HE-2.3: Development of Affordable Housing and Housing for
Persons with Special Needs and corresponding Strategies:
(i) Strategy HE-2.3.1: Support Affordable Housing Development
(“Work with housing developers to expand opportunities for affordable lower-
income housing for special-needs groups.”). The Housing Project is a 100 percent
affordable housing project which will provide 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities, and will thus assist the City in meeting
the Quantified Objective to “Create opportunity for 450 units for lower-income
households that will be within close proximity to services and other resources in
high-opportunity areas. Include development of 250 units affordable to special-
needs, lower-income households to reduce displacement risk for these
populations.”
(ii) Strategy HE-2.3.6: Surplus Properties for Housing and Faith-
Based Housing (“Compile and maintain an inventory of vacant properties owned
by the City or other public entities. The inventory will include land donated and
accepted by the City for donation, and land otherwise acquired by the city. The
City will then undertake steps leading to release of RFP to solicit developer
interest, which may include declaration of land as ‘surplus’.”). The Housing
Project is consistent with the overall policy strategy regarding disposition of
surplus properties because it reflects a successful solicitation of developer interest
and because it will allow a non-profit developer an opportunity to build a 100
percent affordable project on the surplus land.
(iii) Strategy HE-2.3.11: Assistance for Persons with Developmental
Disabilities (“Work with the nonprofit community to encourage the inclusion of
units for persons with developmental disabilities in future affordable housing
developments.”). The Housing Project provides 19 units for residents with
intellectual or developmental disabilities, which will assist the City in meeting the
36
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
36 of 91
Resolution No. _____________
Page 4
01276.0036 2086072.1
Objective of providing “housing units for persons with disabilities to reduce
displacement risk.”
c. Appendix B: Housing Element Technical Report, Table B4-8 Priority
Housing Sites in Residential Zones – Additional Site Details lists the Housing
Project as Site ID 10. It states that “Site 10 is located in the Garden Gate
neighborhood and is located east of Highway 85. Presently, the site is a new parcel
carved out from unused right-of-way, owned by the City of Cupertino, adjacent
to Highway 85 that includes some on-street parking. Neighboring uses include
multi-family residential uses, a dog park, condominiums and Highway 85.” The
City’s General Plan explicitly Housing Project in its Housing Element for the
purpose of developing a 40-unit, two-story affordable (100% Low and Very Low
Income) housing project including 19 units for residents with intellectual or
developmental disabilities.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Cupertino this 10th day of February, 2026, by the following vote:
Members of the Planning Commission
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
________
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________
Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
________________________
Date
37
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
37 of 91
Resolution No. _____________
Page 5
01276.0036 2086072.1
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
That certain real property in the City of Cupertino, County of Santa Clara, State of
California legally described as follows:
All of Parcel 1, as shown on that certain Parcel Map, in the City of Cupertino, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, filed for Record in the Office of the Recorder of the County
of Santa Clara, State of California, on May 2, 2023, in Book 953 of Maps, Pages 53 and
54.
APN: 326-27-053
38
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
38 of 91
39
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
39 of 91
40
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
40 of 91
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of
Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback on
the agenda packet attachments.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/6/2026Page 1 of 1
41
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
41 of 91
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 10, 2026
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary
of Phase 2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide
feedback on the agenda packet attachments.
Discussion
With substantial progress made on implementing the recommended projects from the
2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, a new,
comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is being developed that will build on
those successes and address evolving community needs. Additionally, this unified,
citywide plan will align bicycle and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs
of motorized vehicles. This coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies
and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses overlapping concerns.
The City Council approved the FY 24/25 City Work Program on April 3, 2024, with the
ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation
Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to wholly fund
the Plan's development. On December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City
Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design, Inc., for development of an
ATP.
Phase 1 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review,
community outreach, and technical analysis to develop data-driven project
recommendations. The first step of Phase 1 was to develop a Plan Review Memo to
ensure the ATP is consistent with and supports local and regional policies, including
Cupertino plans like the General Plan’s Mobility Element and Vision Zero Action Plan,
the Countywide Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant documents.
42
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
42 of 91
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured
the shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and
rolling are easy, safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and
objectives were developed by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from
existing Cupertino plans and refining them using input gathered during Phase 1
outreach to also reflect today's community needs and concerns. The community ranked
these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active
transportation network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes
involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero.
Enact measures to anticipate human error and minimize the impact of traffic
crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that
offers comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key
destinations for all residents and visitors in the City.
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated
in all City roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the
City by providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent
usage and improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a
reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(GHGs).
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects
to improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts
to all other transportation modes whenever possible, including transit and
personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed
across all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
During Phase 1, the project team also conducted a Needs Assessment and an Existing
Conditions Review. These documents examined the City’s transportation network in
detail, identifying where walkers and bikers feel stressed or disconnected. Analyses
such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress were applied to determine areas
in the City where existing short driving trips could realistically shift to walking or
biking. Together, these analysis methods established a clear picture of where gaps are
greatest and where investments could potentially yield the greatest community benefits.
In parallel with the analysis task, staff reached out to the community to learn which
destinations they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or
biking. Residents consistently expressed concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-
Injury Network (HIN), the need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and
43
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
43 of 91
schools, the need to consider potential project impacts on drivers, and the importance of
designing facilities for people of all ages and abilities. Feedback from the community
helped validate the technical analysis, and together, these two sources, along with state
and federal design guidance documents such as the Caltrans Design Information
Bulletin Number 94 and the Federal Highway Administration Bikeway Selection Guide,
were leveraged to develop draft network recommendations.
Draft project prioritization criteria that align with the Plan goals were established to
assist in ranking the draft network recommendations. The scoring metrics were selected
to be consistent with community goals and VTA Measure B funding requirements.
These criteria were presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (August 20, 2025),
Planning Commission (September 9, 2025), and City Council (November 4, 2025) for
review and public comment. These draft project prioritization criteria included the
following metrics to rank recommended projects:
• Collision History
• Stress Level
• School Proximity
• High Frequency Transit Proximity
• Parks & Other Destination Proximity
• Active Trip Potential
• Roadway Impact
• Public Input
Phase 2 Summary
Following Phase 1, the project transitioned to the Network Recommendations Phase
(Phase 2). All Phase 1 documents can be referenced on the project webpage at
www.cupertino.gov/atp. This information was included in the staff report (Attachment
1) for the September 09, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. During this phase, public
engagement continued, with the community encouraged to review and comment on the
draft network recommendations. Phase 2 ran from August 20 to November 30 and
consisted of eight pop-up events and three public hearings. The online input webmap
was also updated to allow community members to review and comment on the project
recommendations using the project webpage.
Phase 2 public outreach once again highlighted repeated concerns about intersection
conflicts, particularly with right-turning vehicles, limited visibility, red light running,
and speeding through major intersections. For pedestrian projects, respondents strongly
supported the proposed Class I shared-use facilities (Tamien Innu Trail, Union Pacific
corridor, and Lawrence Mitty Trail). For the Lawrence Mitty Trail, the community
specifically noted the value of extending the shared-use path northward and into Santa
Clara to improve school access. There was also broad support for the recommended
sidewalk projects. Participants noted that safety issues at intersections become more
pronounced during commuting hours due to the high volume of traffic. The
44
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
44 of 91
intersections most frequently mentioned were those along Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Bollinger Road, Prospect Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue.
The community’s preferred pedestrian projects were:
• Tamien Innu
• Lawrence Mitty Trail
• Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (Typology A, B, C Intersection)
• Union Pacific Trail
• Pacifica Dr and Torre Ave (Typology A Intersection)
For bicycling, popular projects included upgrading bike lanes on corridors such as
Homestead Road and Blaney Avenue, and addressing intersection safety issues along
Stevens Creek Boulevard, especially near Highway 85 and De Anza College. The
community’s preferred bicycle projects were:
• Stevens Creek Blvd (Separated Bike Lanes)
• Blaney Ave (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Homestead Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
• Bollinger Rd (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Stelling Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
Overall, participants expressed support for enhanced network connections to schools
and requested that some of the proposed buffered bike lanes be upgraded to separated
bikeways to improve safety due to high-speed traffic. The corridors that received the
most feedback included the recommended shared-use paths, as well as Homestead
Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Blaney Avenue, and Bollinger Road. Many participants
favored the suggested shared-use paths, expressing that they would provide safe
alternatives to major roadways and intersections. Concerns about speeding and unsafe
intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard were highlighted, particularly near
Highway 85 and De Anza College. Separated bikeways were supported on Foothill
Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Wolfe Road. Most unique comments were regarding the
recommended neighborhood bike routes, with overall support for the enhanced
neighborhood network serving schools.
Across both pedestrian and bicycle projects, recurring priorities were improving safety
for students travelling to schools (Lincoln Elementary, Monta Vista High, and Cupertino
High were referenced the most), implementing traffic calming and speed-reduction
measures on local streets (speed tables, RRFBs, and when legally permissible
implementing automated speed enforcement measures), strengthening connectivity
between parks, schools, and neighborhoods, and improving intersection safety.
Commission and Council Feedback
Following Phase 1, the ATP was taken to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning
Commission, and City Council to solicit feedback on the ATP and the draft project
45
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
45 of 91
prioritization criteria. Based on the Council's direction and the Commissions’ feedback,
staff revised both the draft prioritization criteria and draft policy and program
recommendations to address comments from the three bodies. Additionally, staff
prepared two new policy memos to accompany the ATP, which will be applied to new
ATP projects to better evaluate potential project impacts and project effectiveness.
A review of the Commission and Council feedback showed clear consensus among the
Commissions and the Council regarding each body’s comments on the ATP and the
draft project prioritization criteria. These areas of agreement were:
• Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN.
• Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures, and Fairness
should be removed as a criterion.
• Support for improving future decision-making with more robust data collection.
• Technology solutions need greater emphasis.
Specifically, on August 20, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission provided the
following comments to staff:
• The Commission emphasized considering road maintenance before approving
new projects.
• Concerns were raised about including public likes and dislikes in the evaluation
process, and it was suggested that they be treated cautiously.
• Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data, and to avoid penalizing
projects that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to
the City Council.
• There was strong support for prioritizing safety, with extra points suggested for
projects near schools and along high-injury corridors.
• 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.
On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission provided feedback to staff through the
following motion:
• Access Criteria: Award fifteen points if within one-half mile of a school and
include senior housing and senior facilities in the “Parks & Other Destinations
Proximity” definition.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Rename “Sustainability” to “Connectivity”
and award ten points for being within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress
facility, raising the section maximum to twenty points.
• Balance Criteria: Subtract five points if five or more regularly used parking
spaces are removed, and subtract fifteen points if a car lane is eliminated for ten
percent or more of the project length.
46
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
46 of 91
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is subjective, unmeasurable, and likely
to increase community divisiveness.
• Additional ATP Recommendations: Improve high-injury intersections with
cameras, evaluate adaptive right-turn-on-red technology, conduct baseline bike
counts, and partner with multiple providers for routine bike education.
On November 4, 2025, the City Council provided the following feedback to staff through
the following motion, during which Vice Mayor Moore made a friendly amendment to
add grant funding (Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang accepted the friendly
amendment).
• Drop “Public Input” from ranking criteria since it’s not objective and unreliable.
• Remove Fairness as a ranking criterion, as the CIP adoption process will address
that.
• Add “Cost-efficiency (user impact)” to ranking criteria - low cost, high impact
projects should have high priority; and grant funding.
• Add impact to vehicular traffic to arterial streets as a ranking criterion to subtract
points.
• Add and prioritize technology solutions such as sensor-driven pedestrian and
bicyclist detection
o Safe driving technology – speed feedback signs, red light cameras
• Need input from drivers on dangerous points.
• School crossing - needs traffic management too, in addition to bike and ped
infrastructure.
• Need data:
o Longer trip data from cell phone data, in addition to short trip data
o Project list generated
o Data for De Anza Buffered Bike Lane collected so far.
o Hopper data
o TDM data from Apple
Staff addressed the comments specifically related to the draft prioritization criteria by:
• Modifying the scoring for the HIN and High Injury Intersections (HII) to give
greater consideration to projects along the HIN/HII or locations in close
proximity.
• Modifying School Proximity scoring so that Suggested Routes to School is the
chosen metric, rather than a distance-based proximity score for schools. This is
more precise and appropriate, as it specifically addresses safety on known
walking and biking routes to school.
• Adding senior facilities to the Destinations proximity for scoring.
• Creating a new project category for transportation technology.
• Removing the Fairness criterion so that all metrics are based on objective data.
• Adding additional negative scoring for projects that impact Cupertino arterials.
• Adding cost effectiveness as a scoring criterion.
47
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
47 of 91
The revised criteria tables are included in Attachment 2, and the draft scored project list
is presented in Attachment 3. These prioritization results have not yet undergone
QA/QC with the City of Cupertino and are intended as draft results to inform discussion
with the Planning Commission.
Staff addressed general comments on the ATP by creating a new project category for
technology, developing two policies to apply to the new ATP network recommendations
during project delivery, and making minor revisions to the program and policy
recommendations (Attachment 4). These changes include:
• The creation of a new project category for transportation technology, so that
technology solutions are grouped into corridors and equally ranked against
traditional network recommendations, not just listed as policy and program
recommendations. This new project category is titled Transportation Technology
Corridors.
• A Project Impact Assessment Memo, which lays out the approach for
comprehensively assessing project impacts and a path for project delivery when
the full extent of parking or roadway impacts is discovered during design.
• A Project Effectiveness Memo, which describes how the City can better evaluate
long-term project effectiveness.
• Minor edits to the program and policy recommendations to better reflect the
character of Cupertino and address comments received during public hearings.
The first major revision to the ATP following the last Planning Commission review in
September was the addition of a new project category, Transportation Technology
Corridors. This new category addresses the community’s desire and the Council's
direction to prioritize technology.
To achieve this, transportation technologies were added to the ATP network
recommendations as standalone corridor projects rather than as programmatic elements
as previously identified. Staff began by reviewing Typology C intersection
recommendations (intersection signal and control changes) located at Cupertino-owned
signalized intersections and evaluated their overlap with the Vision Zero HIN.
Following this exercise, staff analyzed collision data to identify corridors with higher
collision rates where “unsafe speed” is listed as the primary collision factor, or where
collisions occurred due to traffic signal or sign violations. Lastly, corridors and the
intersections along them were screened for implementation feasibility to determine
appropriate Technology Corridors. This process helped staff select five corridors that
would benefit most from transportation technologies, based on collision history and the
City’s ability to control and implement different technologies. These corridors are:
• De Anza Blvd: From Homestead Rd to Prospect Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd: From Foothill Blvd to Wolfe Rd
48
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
48 of 91
• Homestead Rd: From De Anza Blvd to Tantau Ave
• Wolfe/ Miller Rd: From Homestead Rd to Calle de Barcelona
• Stelling Rd: From I-280 to Rainbow Dr
Technology solutions in this project category could include red-light cameras, speed-
enforcement cameras (when legally permissible), adaptive detection for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists, and audible pedestrian detection. Transportation Technology
Corridor projects will be treated the same as traditional network recommendations, and
their scores will be normalized against bicycle, pedestrian intersection, and sidewalk
projects. Technology Corridors will be ranked in the final project list alongside all other
project types.
The next notable change is the addition of two new policy documents to be presented to
Council for consideration. These documents aim to address two commonly heard
themes from the community, Commissions, and Council related to the need to better
consider project tradeoffs before construction and to collect more data on ridership
resulting from bicycle improvement projects. These two memos (Attachments 5 and 6)
describe the approach that staff will follow for new ATP network recommendations.
For evaluating project impacts, the Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment 5)
states that following the Council-approved initiation of any new ATP project, and when
parking or traffic impacts are identified during the preliminary engineering (30%
design) phase, staff will return to the City Council to present the 30% design, identified
impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that meeting, the Council will determine whether
the project should undergo a detailed impact analysis tailored to its specific impacts.
This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail that is available only once the
30% design phase has been completed.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical
accuracy because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-based
models, require defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking layouts,
and other project features to produce meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion
patterns, and parking utilization. Additionally, tying the analysis to the identification of
parking or traffic impacts at 30% ensures that funding is focused on projects that clearly
reveal meaningful operational or parking impacts, rather than expending significant
resources on every concept in the ATP, regardless of its risk profile. A description of the
potential scope and cost estimates for that work is included in Attachment 5.
The second policy memo (Attachment 6) describes the process by which the City will
use data to measure the success of new network recommendations in the ATP. This
approach exclusively applies to Class II (striped bicycle lane), Class IIB (buffered bicycle
lane), and Class IV (protected bicycle lane) bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is
to ensure that transportation projects identified in the ATP and completed through the
49
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
49 of 91
City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are successful in furthering the City’s stated
goals.
The ATP supports two City policy priorities. These are traffic safety (Vision Zero Action
Plan) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Plan). The City’s Vision
Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the
Climate Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part
by shifting short driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
To demonstrate progress toward these goals, staff must track the number of people
using new facilities and the safety of those facilities over time. This proposed evaluation
approach will allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such as whether
these projects encourage the use of active transportation modes, whether collision rates
are decreasing even as ridership increases, and, potentially, which types of
improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
Historically, due to the costly nature of this work, city staff has relied on occasional spot
counts or project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle
and pedestrian volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes
establishing an approach that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along
with project-specific before-and-after counts for certain bikeway projects. This effort will
require the purchase or lease of bike-ped counting equipment and, potentially, the
associated analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian activity can be measured in a
repeatable way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive
snapshot baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at ATP priority project locations. This
initial effort would record how many people are currently biking (and walking, where
feasible). Following completion of the baseline count, for individual bikeway projects
approved by the Council, staff proposes a before-and-after evaluation approach for
Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways.
Upon Council approval of project initiation, staff would begin a pre-construction data
collection period at the project site. This establishes a clear pre-project picture of both
ridership and safety. After the project is constructed, staff would then repeat this process
for post-construction. With these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average
daily and peak-period bicycle volumes, as well as changes in collision rates. The key
metric will not just be the number of collisions, but collisions relative to the number of
bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project would be one in which more people use
the facility while the collision rate per bicyclist or pedestrian remains the same or
decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which
aligns with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives.
50
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
50 of 91
These new policies are intended to improve transparency and accountability around
new active transportation projects. It also provides Council with a way to compare
projects and project types, allows designs to be refined based on what works best in
practice, and creates a feedback loop between adopted policy goals and real-world
outcomes. By committing to these approaches, the City can signal that success is defined
not only by miles of bikeway delivered, but by thoughtful design and quantifiable
improvements in safety and mode shift toward sustainable transportation.
Next steps for the ATP will include presenting this information to the City Council for
review in February, followed by preparing a draft report for public review in the spring.
After the public review period, staff will incorporate any needed revisions and bring the
Draft Plan to the City Council for adoption in late June or early July.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will
develop infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and
accessibility for all non-motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include
mode shift strategies to promote walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile
dependency, which will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier, more sustainable community. The
development and implementation of an Active Transportation Plan is a Transportation
Measure (TR-1) in the City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan (2022).
• Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve
15 percent of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The project is not subject to CEQA.
Fiscal Impact
The project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Attachments:
1 – September 09, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report
2 – Revised Project Prioritization Criteria
3 – Draft Prioritization Results
4 – Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
5 – Draft Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
6 – Draft Project Effectiveness Guidelines
51
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
51 of 91
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 9, 2025
Subject
An 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
Discussion
With substantial progress already made on the implementation of recommended
projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian
Transportation Plan, a new, comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) was
necessary to build on those improvements and address evolving community needs. Staff
also recognized the importance of creating a unified, citywide plan to align bicycle and
pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of motorized vehicles. This
coordinated approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoiding
duplication, aligning initiatives, and addressing overlapping concerns.
On April 4, 2023, the City Council approved the FY 23/24 City Work Program (CWP),
which identified the ATP as an item “to be considered” for inclusion in the following
year’s work program. The City Council approved the FY 24/25 CWP on April 3, 2024,
with the ATP included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation
Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to support the
development of the Plan. With funding secured, staff advertised a Request for Proposals
for consultant services to assist in developing the Plan. On December 3, 2024, the City
Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta Planning + Design,
Inc., for development of the Active Transportation Plan.
Phase 1 of the Plan occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review,
community outreach and input, and analysis to develop data-driven project
recommendations.
52
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
52 of 91
The first step of Phase 1 was developing a Plan Review Memo to ensure the ATP is
consistent with and supports local and regional policies, including Cupertino plans like
the General Plan’s Mobility Element and Vision Zero Action Plan, the Countywide
Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant documents.
Building on that policy context, the project team then conducted a Needs Assessment,
supported by an Existing Conditions Review. These documents examined the City’s
transportation network in detail, identifying where walkers and bikers feel stressed or
disconnected. Analyses such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress were
applied to estimate how many short driving trips could realistically shift to walking or
biking. Together, these data-driven methods established a clear picture of where gaps
are greatest and where investments could have a significant community impact.
In parallel with the analysis work, staff reached out to the community to learn what
destinations they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or
biking. Between March and June 2025, the City held 12 outreach events, engaged with
more than 1,300 residents and gathered close to 3,000 individual comments. Residents
expressed consistent concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network, the
need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, the need to
consider the potential project impacts to drivers, and the importance of designing
facilities that are for people of all ages and abilities. Feedback from the community
helped validate the technical analysis, and together these two sources informed project
recommendations. All the outreach performed in Phase 1 is summarized in the Public
Participation Memo, which is available on the City’s webpage at
www.cupertino.gov/atp.
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured
the shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and
rolling are easy, safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and
objectives were developed by consolidating similar and overlapping statements from
existing Cupertino plans and then refined using the input gathered during Phase 1
outreach to also reflect today's community needs and concerns. The community ranked
these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active
transportation network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes
involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero.
Enact measures to anticipate human error and minimize the impact of traffic
crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that
offers comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key
destinations for all residents and visitors in the City.
53
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
53 of 91
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated
in all City roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the
City by providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent
usage and improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a
reduction in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(GHGs).
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects
to improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts
to all other modes whenever possible, including transit and personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed
across all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
In alignment with the Plan goals, draft project prioritization criteria were developed to
assist in ranking the projects identified in the Plan. This ranking will occur following
Phase 2 public outreach once the public has evaluated and commented on the
recommended projects. The criteria were selected to align with community goals
and VTA Measure B funding requirements. These criteria are being presented to the
Commissions and Council for review and public comment. The draft project
prioritization criteria include the following metrics to rank recommended projects:
Collision History
Stress Level
School Proximity
High Frequency Transit Proximity
Parks & Other Destination Proximity
Active Trip Potential
Roadway Impact
Public Input
As Cupertino transitions into Phase 2 of the project, public engagement will continue
throughout this stage, with opportunities for residents to review and comment on the
draft project recommendations. The outcome will be a comprehensive, actionable Active
Transportation Plan that the City Council can consider for adoption by spring 2026. All
Phase 1 deliverables and Phase 2 outreach information can be found on the City’s project
webpage.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will
develop infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and
accessibility for all non-motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include
mode shift strategies to promote walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile
54
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
54 of 91
dependency, which will reduce local greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality.
Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier, more sustainable community.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The project is not subject to CEQA.
Fiscal Impact
The project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosely, Director of Public Works
Attachments:
1 – Draft Prioritization Criteria
55
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
55 of 91
City of Cupertino | 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: December 10, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Project Prioritization Criteria
Introduction
Proposed improvements will prioritize the development of a complete active transportation network that imposes fair
outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for people of all ages and abilities. Draft criteria were originally proposed in the
Summer of 2025, with criteria screened with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City
Council in the Fall of 2025 for their input. Following input from these bodies, prioritization criteria were updated to
better reflect feedback.
Criteria for prioritization have been aligned with the Goals of the Active Transportation Plan:
-Safety
-Access
-Sustainability
-Multimodal Balance
-Cost Effectiveness
Projects will be scored according to their corresponding tables below, then scores will be normalized to create a unified
set of scores for a single project list.
100 1x
100
80 1.25x
80 1.25x
90 1.11x
56
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
56 of 91
City of Cupertino | 2
Table 1: Bicycle Network Project Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of
Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 10 pts if within 1000 ft 20
30
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of stress analysis 10 pts: BLTS 4
5 pts: BLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20
30
High Frequency
Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
5
Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping
centers along the roadway
destinations within 0.5 mile per
mile of project length. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle trip potential or high e-bike trip
potential ATP score 5
10
SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area 5
Balance
General Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon
aerial imagery reduction is needed to implement
project
0 pts if needed to implement
project
10
20
Arterial Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon
aerial imagery 10
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 5 pts if $500k - $2M 10 10
57
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
57 of 91
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Table 2: Pedestrian Intersection Project Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of
Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 10 pts if within 1000 ft 20
30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian level of stress analysis 10 pts: PLTS 4
5 pts: PLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20
30
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping
centers along the roadway
destinations within 0.5 mile 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active pedestrian trip potential 5
10
SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 5 pts if $500k - $2M 10 10
58
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
58 of 91
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Table 3: Pedestrian Sidewalk Projects Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino
Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 10 pts if within 1000 ft 20
30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian and bicycle level of stress analysis 5 pts: PLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20
30
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5
Parks & Other
Destination Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping
centers along the roadway destinations within 0.5 mile. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active trip potential 5
10
SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 5 pts if $500k - $2M 10 10
59
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
59 of 91
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Table 4: Transportation Technology Corridors Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal
Max
Score
Safety
Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a
VZAP High Injury Network Intersection 2 pts: if 7-24 10
40
Collision History # of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per mile
(according to Cupertino Vision Zero Dashboard Data) corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “unsafe 10
Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and signs"
per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “traffic
signals and signs”. 10
Level of Traffic
Stress Average PLTS for the corridor 5 pts: PLTS 3 10
Access
School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 10 pts: 25–75%
0 pts: <25% 20
30 Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities
and shopping centers along the corridor
per mile of project length.
10
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting
the corridor 10 20
SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas 10
60
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
60 of 91
Pedestrian Bicycle
Shared Use Technology
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
1 Pedestrian A Intersection De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 30 25 6 0 10 1.25 90
2 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 30 27 5 0 10 1.25 89
3 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 25 28 7 0 10 1.25 88
4 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 30 20 6 0 10 1.25 83
5 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 20 25 6 20 10 1 81
6 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 25 20 5 20 10 1 80
7 Shared Use Trail Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 30 25 5 20 0 1 80
Neighborhood Route Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr 25 26 8 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Bonny Dr Pepper Tree Ln McClellan Rd 20 27 7 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Terry Way Rodrigues Ave Shelly Dr 10 25 7 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way 10 24 7 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr 10 23 7 20 10 1
9 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 20 25 5 0 10 1.25 75
10 Pedestrian A Intersection Miller Ave Phil Ln 25 23 2 0 10 1.25 75
11 Pedestrian C Intersection Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 25 23 2 0 10 1.25 75
12 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 25 24 1 0 10 1.25 75
13 Shared Use Trail UPRR Prospect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 22 2 20 0 1 74
14 Pedestrian A, B Intersection McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 25 24 0 0 10 1.25 74
15 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave 25 24 5 0 5 1.25 74
16 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 20 26 3 0 10 1.25 74
17 Bicycle Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 25 23 6 10 10 1 73
18 Shared Use Crossing McClellan Rd Undercrossing Linda Vista Trail Stevens Creek Trail 20 23 0 20 10 1 73
19 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 30 20 7 10 5 1 72
20 Shared Use Trail Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct 20 21 1 20 10 1 72
21 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 20 24 3 0 10 1.25 71
22 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Miller Ave/Wolfe Rd 32 20 12 0 0 1.11 71
23 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 25 21 1 0 10 1.25 71
24 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 10 23 8 20 10 1 71
25 Pedestrian A Intersection September Dr McClellan Rd 20 21 4 0 10 1.25 70
26 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave 25 23 2 0 5 1.25 69
27 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd 15 28 7 0 5 1.25 69
28 Pedestrian A Intersection Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr 20 22 3 0 10 1.25 69
29 Shared Use Trail Lawrence Mitty Trail Stevens Creek Blvd Barnhart Ave 30 10 8 20 0 1 68
30 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 25 21 4 0 5 1.25 68
31 Shared Use Crossing Carmen Rd Bridge Carmen Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 25 22 1 20 0 1 68
32 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Tantau Ave Judy Ave 25 21 4 0 5 1.25 68
33 Pedestrian A Intersection Torre Ave Pacifica Dr 15 25 5 0 10 1.25 68
34 Pedestrian A Intersection Portal Ave Merritt Dr 20 22 3 0 10 1.25 68
Neighborhood Route Phil Ln Finch Ave Stendhal Ln 15 25 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Hyde Ave Shadygrove Dr Bollinger Rd 15 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Stendhal Ln Shadygrove Dr Phil Ln 15 20 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln 10 20 3 20 10 1
77
Bicycle
Bicycle
68
8
35
DRAFT PRIORITIZATION RESULTS - PROJECT LIST
These prioritization results have not yet undergone complete QA/QC with the City of Cupertino and are intended as draft results
to inform discussion with the Planning Commission.
For Bicycle projects with multiple segments, scores were averaged. Each segment score was scaled to its length within the
overall project (e.g., a segment 33% of the length of a project makes up 33% of its total score). They are bracketed top and
bottom in the spreadsheet for easier viewing.
Because each project type (bicycle network recommendations, pedestrian sidewalk recommendations, pedestrian intersection
recommendations, and transportation technology corridor recommendations) used different criteria, all projects were
normalized to a 1-100 scale.
Projects are grouped by type to show which scoring criteria were applied. Shared-use paths were scored using the bicycle
criteria in response to repeated community requests to provide an all-ages-and-abilities design and strengthen off-street route
options.
Scores have been rounded to the nearest whole number and, as such, may not add up to the final score.
Project Type Legend
Criteria ScoringProject LocationDraf
t
61
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
61 of 91
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
Criteria ScoringProject Location
36 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 20 23 6 0 5 1.25 68
37 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Calvert Dr Loree Ave 20 20 3 0 10 1.25 67
38 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct 20 25 3 0 5 1.25 67
39 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr 20 24 3 0 5 1.25 66
40 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr 360' East of Stelling Rd 520' West of Beardon Dr 20 24 3 0 5 1.25 66
41 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Bandley Dr Valley Green Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 25 5 6 20 10 1 66
Buffered Bike Lane N Stelling Rd Garden Gate Dr Gardena Dr 25 25 6 10 5 1
Separated Bikeway N Stelling Rd Homestead Rd Gardena Dr 25 5 5 10 10 1
Neighborhood Route September Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr 20 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Orograde Pl Stelling Rd Festival Dr 15 22 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Festival Dr Stelling Rd Festival Dr Dead End 10 21 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr Dead End 0 20 3 20 10 1
44 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave 20 25 2 0 5 1.25 65
Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Denza Blvd Hwy 85 30 28 9 0 0 1
Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd Hwy 85 Foothill Blvd 30 28 4 0 0 1
46 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Bubb Rd Edward Way Vai Ave 25 21 1 0 5 1.25 64
Neighborhood Route Portal Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Wintergreen Dr 15 21 5 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave 20 1 5 20 10 1
Buffered Bike Lane N Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Beekman Pl 25 20 4 10 5 1
Separated Bikeway N Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Beekman Pl 25 20 4 10 10 1
49 Pedestrian A Intersection Terry Way Rodrigues Ave 10 26 5 0 10 1.25 63
50 Pedestrian A Intersection Bonny Dr Sola St 10 26 5 0 10 1.25 63
51 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Scofield Dr Western Dr De Anza Blvd 30 9 7 0 5 1.25 63
52 Pedestrian A Intersection Stendhal Ln Phil Ln 15 23 3 0 10 1.25 63
Neighborhood Route Janice Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Carmen Rd 15 21 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route San Fernando Ave Orange Ave Blackberry Farm 10 21 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Carmen Rd - Scenic Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Scenic Cir Pathway 10 20 1 20 10 1
54 Pedestrian A Intersection Forest Ave Randy Ln 10 24 6 0 10 1.25 63
Neighborhood Route Fort Baker Dr Hyannisport Dr Presidio Dr 10 21 2 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr 10 21 2 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd 10 20 2 20 10 1
56 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd 30 9 6 0 5 1.25 62
Trail Memorial Park Path Memorial Park Alves St 20 7 10 20 5 1
Trail Memorial Park Path Christensen Dr Mary Ave 20 6 6 20 5 1
58 Pedestrian A Intersection Bixby Dr Portal Ave 10 24 5 0 10 1.25 61
59 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Santa Lucia Rd 20 20 1 10 10 1 61
60 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Portal Ave 15 23 5 0 5 1.25 61
61 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Merritt Dr Larry Way 15 21 2 0 10 1.25 60
62 Pedestrian B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Phar Lap Dr 15 23 1 0 10 1.25 60
63 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Torre Ave 10 27 6 0 5 1.25 60
64 Pedestrian C Intersection Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr 10 25 3 0 10 1.25 60
65 Pedestrian C Intersection Bubb Rd McClellan Rd 15 21 2 0 10 1.25 60
66 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 30 3 10 0 5 1.25 60
Neighborhood Route Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End 10 23 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr 10 20 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd 10 22 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd 10 21 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Crescent Rd - Hillcrest Rd Amelia Ct Cupertino rd 10 21 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr 0 20 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park 0 22 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way 0 20 2 20 10 1
68 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 15 6 8 20 10 1 59
69 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Bubb Rd 230' South of Stevens
Creek Blvd 1,200' North of Results Way 30 5 6 0 5 1.25 58
70 Pedestrian B Intersection Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr 10 25 1 0 10 1.25 57
71 Bicycle Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Calle De Barcelona 30 0 7 10 10 1 57
72 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr 0 28 7 0 10 1.25 57
73 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 30 3 2 0 10 1.25 57
74 Pedestrian A Intersection Wheaton Dr Portal Ave 10 23 3 0 10 1.25 57
Neighborhood Route Rose Blossom Dr McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln 10 22 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom Dr Stelling Rd 5 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits (South) 10 0 5 20 10 1
76 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 6 4 0 5 1.25 56
77 Pedestrian A Intersection Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 10 24 1 0 10 1.25 56
Neighborhood Route Palm Ave Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 10 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek Blvd 5 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Voss Ave Lockwood Dr Foothill Blvd 0 20 1 20 10 1
79 Pedestrian A Intersection Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 10 23 2 0 10 1.25 56
80 Pedestrian A Intersection Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 10 23 1 0 10 1.25 56
Neighborhood Route Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr 10 23 2 20 5 1
Neighborhood Route Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr 15 5 9 20 5 1
Neighborhood Route Ann Arbor Ct Christensen Dr Ann Arbor Ave 0 4 2 20 5 1
82 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Forest Ave Blaney Ave 10 22 3 0 10 1.25 55
Neighborhood Route Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave 10 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr Bollinger Rd 15 0 4 20 10 1
84 Pedestrian C Intersection Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 5 23 6 0 10 1.25 55
85 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 25 3 6 0 10 1.25 55
86 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stern Ave Tilson Ave 10 21 3 0 10 1.25 54
87 Pedestrian A Intersection Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 54
88 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr 10 25 3 0 5 1.25 54
89 Pedestrian A Intersection Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 10 21 2 0 10 1.25 54
90 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr 20 1 3 20 10 1 54
91 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 30 2 1 0 10 1.25 54
92 Pedestrian A Intersection Randy Ln Merritt Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54
93 Pedestrian B Intersection Merritt Dr Vista Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54
Bicycle 65
63
62
56
56
56
59
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle 55
Bicycle
64
63
62
Bicycle
Bicycle
Shared Use
Bicycle 65
Bicycle 65
Bicycle
42
43
45
47
48
53
55
57
Bicycle67
75
78
81
83
Draf
t
62
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
62 of 91
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
Criteria ScoringProject Location
94 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1 54
95 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave John Dr 5 24 4 0 10 1.25 53
96 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr 10 24 3 0 5 1.25 53
97 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 53
Neighborhood Route Linda Vista Dr Hyannisport Dr Santa Teresa Dr 10 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Santa Teresa Dr Rae Ln Terrace Dr 0 20 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd 10 0 1 20 10 1
99 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Homestead Rd 10 20 2 10 10 1 52
100 Pedestrian A, C Intersection Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd 10 25 2 0 5 1.25 52
101 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 52
Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 300 ft South of Perimeter Rd 25 20 6 0 5 1
Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Homestead Rd Pruneridge Ave 25 0 6 0 5 1
Separated Bikeway N Wolfe Rd Pruneridge Ave 300 ft. South of Perimeter Rd 25 20 3 0 10 1
103 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 15 23 1 0 2 1.25 51
104 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 10 20 5 0 5 1.25 50
105 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Orion Ln 25 1 3 0 10 1.25 50
106 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 25 1 4 10 10 1 50
107 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr 10 24 1 0 5 1.25 49
108 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Forest Ave 260' East of Randy Ln 110' West of Toni Ct 10 21 3 0 5 1.25 49
109 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Richwood Dr Miller Ave 20 3 6 0 10 1.25 49
110 Pedestrian B Intersection Mary ave Lubec St 5 23 1 0 10 1.25 49
111 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd 10 23 1 0 5 1.25 49
112 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd Lawrence Expy Westlynn Way 30 0 3 10 5 1 49
113 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 25 2 2 0 10 1.25 48
114 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48
115 Pedestrian A Intersection Pacifica Dr Whitney Way 0 25 4 0 10 1.25 48
116 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 5 20 3 0 10 1.25 48
117 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 15 0 2 20 10 1 48
118 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48
119 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Mary Ave 500' South of Lubec St 160' North of Point Reyes Ter 5 25 3 0 5 1.25 48
120 Pedestrian A Intersection San Fernando Ave Orange Ave 0 24 4 0 10 1.25 48
121 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Stelling Rd I-280 Rainbow Dr 12 26 5 0 0 1.11 47
122 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl 25 0 2 10 10 1 47
123 Pedestrian A Intersection Granada Ave Orange Ave 0 23 4 0 10 1.25 47
124 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47
125 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Stevens Creek Blvd 200' East of Lockwood
Dr Prado Vista Dr 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47
126 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Permanente Rd 15 20 1 0 10 1 46
127 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of Echo Hill Ct 30 1 1 0 5 1.25 46
128 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Homestead Rd Calle de Barcelona 15 16 10 0 0 1.11 46
129 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Lockwood Dr 160' East of Lockwood Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46
130 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Lebanon Dr 170' East of Lebanon Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46
131 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Stevens Creek Blvd 170' East of Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr 10 20 2 0 5 1.25 46
132 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd California Oak Way 5 20 2 0 10 1.25 46
Neighborhood Route Erin Way Stelling Rd Kirwin Ln 15 1 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kerwin Ln Erin Way Kim St 10 0 4 20 10 1
134 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor De Anza Blvd Homestead Rd Prospect Rd 16 5 20 0 0 1.11 45
135 Pedestrian A Intersection Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr 0 24 2 0 10 1.25 45
136 Pedestrian B Intersection Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr 0 24 2 0 10 1.25 45
137 Pedestrian A Intersection 100' East of Scenic Ct Cir Pathway 0 25 1 0 10 1.25 44
138 Pedestrian B Intersection Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln 0 21 4 0 10 1.25 44
139 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave 5 21 4 0 5 1.25 44
140 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Catalano Ct Orion Ct 25 1 4 0 5 1.25 44
141 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Saich Way Alves Dr 10 8 7 0 10 1.25 44
142 Pedestrian A Intersection Scenic Blvd Palm Ave 0 24 1 0 10 1.25 43
143 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 20 5 4 0 5 1.25 43
144 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 20 5 4 0 5 1.25 43
Buffered Bike Lane Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd 15 0 4 10 10 1
Neighborhood Route Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd 15 0 1 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Squirewood Way Scotland Dr Stelling Rd 25 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Scotland Dr Squirewood Way Kingsbury Pl 10 0 3 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Jamestown Dr Plum Blossom Dr Prospect Rd 5 0 6 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Gardenside Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr 5 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Bloom Dr 5 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Plum Blossom Dr Primrose Way Jamestown Dr 0 1 6 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln 0 1 4 20 10 1
146 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln 0 21 3 0 10 1.25 42
Neighborhood Route De Foe Dr Kim St Dumas Dr 0 20 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kim St Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr 5 1 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln 0 3 5 20 10 1
148 Pedestrian A Intersection Merriman Rd Voss Ave 0 22 1 0 10 1.25 42
149 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Voss Ave Palm Ave 5 22 1 0 5 1.25 42
150 Pedestrian A Intersection Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 20 0 3 0 10 1.25 42
151 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 15 6 7 0 5 1.25 42
152 Pedestrian B Intersection Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 0 22 2 0 10 1.25 42
153 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 25 1 2 0 5 1.25 42
154 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 20 1 2 0 10 1.25 42
155 Pedestrian A Intersection Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 10 7 6 0 10 1.25 41
156 Pedestrian A Intersection Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 2 0 10 1.25 41
157 Pedestrian A Intersection Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 0 21 1 0 10 1.25 41
158 Pedestrian A Intersection Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave 0 22 0 0 10 1.25 41
159 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct 20 4 7 0 2 1.25 41
43
45
42
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
Bicycle
52
51
Bicycle
98
102
133
145
147
Draf
t
63
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
63 of 91
# Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total
Criteria ScoringProject Location
160 Pedestrian C Intersection Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr 20 1 1 0 10 1.25 40
161 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of Stelling Rd 10 7 10 0 5 1.25 40
162 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr 0 20 2 0 10 1.25 40
163 Technology Transportation
Technology Corridor Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd Tantau Ave 26 10 0 0 0 1.11 40
Neighborhood Route Waterford Dr Stelling Rd Primrose Way 5 0 4 20 10 1
Neighborhood Route Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom Dr 0 1 6 20 10 1
165 Pedestrian A Intersection Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave 15 1 4 0 10 1.25 38
166 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct 20 2 1 0 5 1.25 36
167 Pedestrian A Intersection Lance Dr Bollinger Rd 15 1 2 0 10 1.25 35
168 Pedestrian A Intersection Imperial Ave Olive Ave 10 3 4 0 10 1.25 34
169 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Squirehill Ct Rainbow Dr 20 1 1 0 5 1.25 33
170 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Regnart Rd 15 0 1 0 10 1.25 33
171 Pedestrian A Intersection Kirwin Ln Erin Way 10 1 4 0 10 1.25 32
Buffered Bike Lane Grant Rd Crist Dr Homestead Rd 15 5 4 0 10 1
Buffered Bike Lane Homestead Rd Bernardo Ave Stelling Rd 5 0 1 0 10 1
Separated Bikeway Homestead Rd Grant Rd Bernardo Ave 5 2 1 0 10 1
173 Pedestrian B Intersection Bollinger Rd Miller Ave 10 1 4 0 10 1.25 31
174 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave 10 3 1 0 10 1.25 31
175 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Kim St Kirwin Ln Bollinger Rd 5 1 4 10 10 1 30
176 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd 15 2 2 0 5 1.25 30
177 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 10 4 4 0 5 1.25 29
178 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Canyon Rd Riverside Dr 10 2 0 0 10 1.25 28
179 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Waterford Dr 10 1 1 0 10 1.25 27
180 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Seven Springs Pkwy 10 1 1 0 10 1.25 27
181 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr 10 0 6 0 10 1 26
182 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Kirwin Ln Lonna Ln De Anza Blvd 10 3 5 0 2 1.25 25
183 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Kim St Bollinger Rd 5 1 3 0 10 1.25 25
184 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Stevens
Creek Blvd Rancho Ventura St 10 3 2 0 5 1.25 24
185 Pedestrian A, C Intersection De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd 10 0 3 0 5 1.25 23
186 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir 314' South of Rancho Ventura
St 10 2 1 0 5 1.25 23
187 Pedestrian A Intersection Kirwin Ln Felton Way 0 4 5 0 10 1.25 23
188 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Martinwood Way Bollinger Rd 0 4 4 0 10 1.25 22
189 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) McClellan Rd 250' East of Stevens
Canyon Rd 90' West of San Leandro Ave 10 2 0 0 5 1.25 21
190 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl 10 1 1 0 5 1.25 21
191 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Prospect Rd Stelling Rd 10 0 0 0 5 1.25 20
192 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Kim St Kirwin Ln 0 2 3 0 10 1.25 19
193 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr 5 0 0 0 10 1.25 19
194 Pedestrian A Intersection Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave 0 4 1 0 10 1.25 18
195 Pedestrian A Intersection Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd 0 1 3 0 10 1.25 18
196 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd 5 2 1 0 5 1.25 17
197 Pedestrian A Intersection Dempster Ave Stokes Ave 0 2 1 0 10 1.25 16
198 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln 5 1 1 0 5 1.25 15
199 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr 0 3 4 0 5 1.25 15
200 Pedestrian A Intersection Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr 0 1 1 0 10 1.25 15
201 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way 0 1 5 0 5 1.25 14
202 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd 0 1 5 0 5 1.25 14
203 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Via Roncole Prospect Rd 0 0 3 0 5 1.25 11
204 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct 0 1 1 0 5 1.25 9
205 Pedestrian A, C Intersection Canyon Oak Way Cristo Rey Dr 0 0 0 0 5 1.25 6
32
39Bicycle164
172 Bicycle
Draf
t
64
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
64 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd and George Foster, Alta Planning + Design
Date: January 1, 2026
Re: Cupertino ATP: Policy and Program Recommendations
This memo provides a summary of new legislation that may impact policy and program recommendations, as
well as a consolidated, updated set of recommended policies and support programs to enhance the existing
walking and rolling networks in the City of Cupertino. Several plans are referenced throughout this
document, but the Active Transportation Plan will be referred to in capital letters as the Plan.
The memo first summarizes Recent Regional, State, and Federal Policies, then presents detailed tables of
Policy and Program Recommendations. Although regional Equity informs all recommendations, these tables
focus on the following key areas of potential policy and programmatic investment: Engineering,
Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation. As an appendix, there is also an overview of
relevant Existing Cupertino Policy Recommendations.
Recent Regional, State, and Federal Policies
The following State-level legislation has been passed in the last five years and will affect the implementation
of this Active Transportation Plan and its accompanying policies and programs.
Roadway Safety Enhancements
Daylighting (AB 413): This law, which took effect in 2024, aims to improve visibility at crosswalks by
prohibiting vehicles from stopping or parking within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or
marked crosswalk or 15 feet of crosswalks with curb extensions.
Speed Safety System Pilot Program (AB 645): This program, established by a bill signed in October 2023,
permits select cities to install speed cameras to deter reckless driving. Cities like San Francisco have already
implemented the program, deploying cameras in high-risk areas. There is potential for Cupertino to
implement speed cameras if this pilot is successful.
Reckless Driving Crackdown (SB 1509): This legislation aims to deter reckless driving, particularly speeding, by
strengthening enforcement and considering the use of technology like speed cameras.
Safer, More Inclusive Street Design (SB 960): This bill enhances the California State Highway System by
requiring Caltrans to incorporate features such as bike lanes, sidewalks, and transit facilities into its planning
and projects.
Speed Limit Setting (AB 43): Legislation was passed to authorize Caltrans and local authorities to set, retain,
or restore speed limits on highways, including the possibility of a reduction of five mph in some
circumstances.
65
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
65 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 2
Infrastructure Funding and Regulation
Federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Though not state-specific legislation, California was
expected to receive over $40 billion in federal funds from this bipartisan act, to be invested in various
transportation projects, including roads, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure. However, many
federally funded active transportation projects are currently facing political obstruction, and their future is
unclear.
CEQA Exemptions for Bicycle and Mass-Transit Projects (SB 288): This bill added statutory California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions for bicycle projects. SB 922 extended and enhanced the CEQA
exemptions for sustainable transportation projects—including bike lanes, pedestrian infrastructure, bus rapid
transit, and light rail—through 2030. This expedites the approval and construction of these climate-friendly
projects by reducing administrative delays and costs, thereby promoting cleaner, safer, and more equitable
transportation options statewide.
66
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
66 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 3
Policy and Program Recommendations
This section includes descriptions of existing and proposed policies and programs, organized by
programmatic/policy category: Equity, Engineering, Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and
Evaluation. These policy and program recommendations align with the goals of the Active Transportation
Plan: Safety, Accessibility, Maintenance, Sustainability, Multimodal Balance, and Fairness. Examples are
provided for many to illustrate implementation.
Equity
The proposed programmatic and policy recommendations outlined in this memo should be prioritized
through a regional equity lens to support efforts to improve the City’s active transportation network. This
should be incorporated into all future policies and programs through early community involvement, targeted
outreach, attending existing community events, hosting events in affected communities, and providing
translation services.
67
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
67 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 4
Engineering
Pedestrian and bicycle support facilities provide increased comfort and convenience for individuals who use
active modes to get around. Table 1 summarizes existing and proposed engineering policies and programs in
the City that work in conjunction with existing infrastructure to improve the user experience. Infrastructure
improvements should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit stops, medical centers, senior centers, City
services, commercial areas, and HIN/HII.
Note: Several of the recommended policies and programs in this section are already in place in Cupertino but
have significant potential for codification and expansion.
Table 1 Existing and Recommended Engineering Policies and Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Vision Zero Policy The City adopted a local Vision Zero Action Plan to
better understand local collisions and collaborate
across City Departments to improve safety for walking
and rolling in Cupertino.
Safety Cupertino Vision Zero
Action Plan
Complete Streets
Policy
The City adopted a local Complete Streets policy to
ensure streets are designed to enable safe,
convenient, and comfortable travel for users of all ages
and abilities, regardless of their mode of
transportation.
Accessibility and
Multimodal
Balance
Cupertino Complete Streets
Policy
Online Information
and Service Requests
The City currently operates a telephone, app, and
online service request system (Cupertino311), which
allows residents to submit an issue or request for a
specific service for traffic signals, roadway issues, or
sidewalk obstructions.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Cupertino Maintenance
Services
Wayfinding Wayfinding signage provides important destination,
distance, and navigation information to roadway
users. Specific wayfinding signs designed for people
walking and bicycling can be expanded and improved
at key locations across the City to further support
active transportation.
Accessibility Cupertino Wayfinding
Project
Recommended
Pedestrian-Scale
Lighting
Pedestrian-scale streetlights are designed at a lower
height and intensity to enhance visibility, safety, and
comfort for people walking in urban or public
spaces. By increasing visibility, it improves safety and
crime outcomes. It also enhances the walkability and
aesthetic appeal of public spaces, encouraging more
foot traffic and fostering a sense of community. LED
lights can be used to reduce energy costs, and
shields can be used to minimize night sky pollution
or limit light pollution on adjacent private property.
Safety
Alameda, CA
68
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
68 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 5
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Crossing Facility
Improvements
City may improve crossing facilities by implementing
high-visibility crosswalks, advance stop or yield
markings, pedestrian refuge islands, and raised
crosswalks or intersections. These enhancements
would make people walking and rolling more visible
to drivers.
Safety Sacramento, CA
Evaluate Right
Turn on Red
Restrictions
Evaluate intersections to limit vehicles from turning
right at a red-light signal on a case-by-case basis, when
traffic operations analysis indicates that the restriction
can be implemented without creating unacceptable
vehicle delay.
Safety Ann Arbor, Michigan
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
The City may consider LPIs at signalized
intersections, with a plan moving forward to update
key intersections.
Safety CA AB 2264 (2022)
Active Detection at
Intersections for
People Walking and
Rolling
Develop an inventory of signalized intersections
without active detection for people walking and
rolling and create a way forward for standardization
and inclusion at signal heads. Establish a
standardized approach for integrating reliable
detection technologies—such as passive infrared,
video, or radar sensors—ensuring they are
accurately placed along built and desired routes.
Define clear specifications for detector performance,
placement, and integration with signal systems, and
incorporate upgrades into signal maintenance,
capital projects, and retiming efforts. Include staff
training, contractor guidance, and periodic
evaluation to ensure effective and consistent
deployment citywide.
Safety and
Accessibility
Santa Clara County, CA
Active Detection White
Paper
Curb Extensions at
Intersections
Consider additional curb extensions at school-zone
intersections and mid-block crossings to reduce
vehicle speeds and improve overall transportation
safety.
Safety San Francisco, CA
Sidewalk and Curb
Cut Improvement
Program
The City may develop a sidewalk and curb cut
improvement program with a dedicated funding
stream to close sidewalk gaps and add curb ramps at
key locations. This program would allow the City to
be more responsive to local citizen complaints for
sidewalk and curb cut enhancements.
Safety, Fairness,
and
Maintenance
Palo Alto, CA
69
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
69 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 6
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
End-of-Trip Facilities End-of-trip facilities such as bike parking, water
stations, kiosks, and fix-it stations help encourage
people to bike more by providing the amenities they
need at the end of their trip. These facilities are
typically most suitable in City right-of-way areas
with high concentrations of walking and rolling, such
as the Cupertino Library.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
Los Angeles, CA
Lower Speed Limits Create a program to analyze and reduce speeds
where appropriate along arterial and collector
roadways based on the CA Manual for Setting Speed
Limits. Lowering the speed limits on streets may
lessen the severity and frequency of crashes.
Safety Santa Monica, CA
Lower School Zone
Speed Limits
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358.8, the City
may consider reducing speed limits around School
Zones, which may be lowered to 15 mph on all two-
way residential streets within 500 feet of schools,
and 25 mph up to 1,000 feet from schools.
Safety and
Accessibility
Oakland, CA
Quick Build Project
Implementation
Quick Build projects typically include less expensive
materials such as paint, thermoplastic, and
bollards/delineators (or other sturdy but removable
materials). These improvements share many of the
same safety benefits as their permanent
counterparts, but can be implemented more quickly
and cost-effectively, allowing the City to be
responsive to safety concerns while still planning for
long-term funding and implementation. The City
should consider implementing Quick Build projects
identified in completed school walk audits, in
addition to other priority areas.
Safety and
Maintenance
CalBike Design Guide
Quick Build White Paper
Expand the City Tree
Canopy
Consider planting shade trees and other greening
elements along corridors where people may be
walking and rolling, and within school zones.
Caltrans considers street trees to be traffic-calming
elements as they are often attributed to a perceived
narrowing of the roadway, a sense of rhythm and
human scale created by framing the street, and the
perception that the driver is in a place where they
are more likely to encounter people walking or
rolling and cross-traffic.
Sustainability
and Fairness
San José, CA
70
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
70 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 7
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Update Street Design
Standards
Review and update all relevant policy and design
standards regarding bikeway facilities, path and
sidewalk design, materials, and supporting amenities
to be consistent with the most recent best practices
and state and federal standards for bicycle and
pedestrian facilities and in compliance with the latest
ADA Standards for Accessible Design and Public
Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
Accessibility,
Maintenance,
and Multimodal
Balance
Sacramento, CA
Maintenance
Program
Maintenance is deeply tied to the usability and
lifespan of these engineering recommendations.
Cupertino can develop more detailed protocols for
regular street sweeping and debris removal on
bikeways—particularly Class IV protected lanes and
Class I multi-use paths—to maintain comfort and
reduce risks. Expanded, detailed vegetation
management can address overgrowth that obstructs
visibility at intersections, encroaches onto sidewalks
and paths, and blocks signage. The 311 reporting
system for issues like potholes, flooding, or
obstructions should be widely promoted and
integrated into existing municipal apps and customer
service portals. Maintenance guidelines should
specifically account for newer infrastructure types,
such as roundabouts, green paint treatments, and
modular curbs or delineators, to ensure that
materials are durable and repairable. Coordination
between construction, maintenance, and repaving
schedules is a proven strategy to reduce disruptions
and extend pavement life, and Cupertino can adopt a
“dig-once” approach to align upgrades with
resurfacing or utility work. Regular inspections,
performance audits, and a publicly accessible
maintenance log can help ensure transparency,
accountability, and timely repairs.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Sacramento, CA
71
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
71 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 8
Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting active transportation culture and can encourage overall
mode share shifts. Table 2 provides an overview of existing and recommended walking and rolling
encouragement programs.
Table 2 Existing and Recommended Encouragement Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
The City should continue the existing Safe Routes to
School Program and place greater emphasis on
working with school districts to address on-site
circulation and spillover traffic.
Safety,
Accessibility, and
Fairness
Cupertino SR2S Program
Bike to Work/
Wherever Days
The City can continue to sponsor Bike to Work/
Wherever Day events in support of regional efforts.
Accessibility Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition BTWD
Adopt-a-Trail
Program
The existing Santa Clara County program provides
individuals, groups, businesses, and clubs the
opportunity to adopt a section of trail on an annual
basis. Each sponsor supports their Adopted Trail with
financial contributions and volunteer trail work.
Maintenance Santa Clara County
Adopt-a-Trail
Recommended
Open Streets Open Street events promote and celebrate bicycling
and walking and encourage participation from
neighborhoods.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
CicLAvia
Social Walks/Rides Support City departments and local organizations in
hosting social rides or walks, like Bike for Boba.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
San José, CA
Walking School
Buses and Bike
Trains [SR2S]
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains are organized
groups of students walking/biking to school under the
supervision of a guardian, teacher, or adult volunteer.
These groups follow predetermined routes and can
operate on an occasional or daily basis, depending on
the interest from families.
Accessibility and
Fairness
Alameda County, CA
Portland, OR
72
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
72 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 9
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Bike Parking
Inventory
Map existing racks in the City and upload them to the
open data portal. Develop and publish a public-facing
guide that outlines various types of secure
micromobility parking infrastructure, such as bike
corrals, covered racks, and lockers (like Oonee Pods).
The guide should explain the ideal use cases for each
option, based on factors such as location (e.g., transit
hubs, business districts), user needs (e.g., long-term
vs. short-term parking), and security levels. Including
photos, technical specifications, and maintenance
considerations will help the City, businesses, and
community organizations make informed decisions
about selecting and installing the right facilities.
Accessibility,
Maintenance,
and Fairness
APBP Essentials of Bike
Parking
Bike Rack
Program
Consider establishing a Bike Rack Installation Program
to provide secure, convenient bicycle parking that
supports everyday bicycling and reduces parking
barriers.
Accessibility
Petaluma, CA
Bicycle Parking
at Large Events
Revise Cupertino Municipal Code regarding event
permits to include “Conditions for Issuance” to
require events expected to draw more than 5,000
attendees must provide secure, attended bicycle
parking for attendees at no charge.
Accessibility Oakland, CA
Electric
Micromobility
Expansion
Cupertino has an opportunity to lead in sustainable
transportation by developing a forward-thinking
policy that actively encourages the use of electric
micromobility devices—such as personal e-bikes, e-
scooters, and other small electric vehicles—in line
with state and regional standards. These devices
make active transportation more accessible by
extending travel distances, reducing trip times, and
performing well in various weather conditions. This
policy can define appropriate use on bike lanes,
multi-use trails, and low-speed streets, with safe
speed limits that prioritize both comfort and safety.
The City can encourage electric micromobility use
and discourage illegal devices and modifications
through public education, safe riding guidance, and
improved infrastructure, such as secure parking with
charging options.
Accessibility and
Fairness
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
73
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
73 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 10
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Trail Steward
Volunteers
Engage with volunteer organizations to regularly
maintain and address community safety concerns
around vegetation and debris on shared-use paths.
Events can be opportunities for volunteers to help
their community.
Maintenance Richmond, CA
Rails-to-Trails Maintenance
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
Implementation
Plan
Develop a Transportation Demand Management
Implementation Plan or Report to increase support
for commuters bicycling or walking to work. This may
include identifying additional metrics for businesses
to count active transportation-supportive policies
towards their own TDM plans and goals.
Sustainability
and Multimodal
Balance
Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Walk and Roll
Ambassadors
Walk and Roll Ambassadors are trained community
volunteers who promote safe walking and rolling,
especially among students and families. They
engage in outreach, education, and encouragement
activities to foster active transportation and build a
culture of mobility and safety. These roles are
particularly important in communities where English
is not the first language.
Safety and
Accessibility
Bike East Bay
Partner with
Bicycle
Organizations
The formation of strong relationships with local
bicycle advocates and bicycle clubs will encourage
mutually beneficial collaboration and help the City
reach its plan goals. The City is encouraged to
partner with organizations in the area.
Accessibility CalBike List of Local Partners
Partner and
Coordinate
with County
Agencies
Coordinate with representatives from various County
agencies, including County Public Health and VTA, for
project and program implementation.
Accessibility and
Maintenance
Santa Clara County, CA
Bicycle Friendly
Business
Program
Similar to the Bicycle Friendly Community
designation, the Bicycle Friendly Business program
recognizes businesses for their efforts to encourage a
more bicycle-friendly atmosphere. This requires
businesses to implement various strategies to cater
to the diverse needs of customers and employees.
The City of Cupertino Civic Center Plaza has Gold
award status.
Accessibility and
Sustainability
League of American
Bicyclists
74
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
74 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 11
Education
Walking and rolling education programs help individuals interested in active transportation feel more
comfortable, safe, and confident navigating streets and shared-use paths. Table 3 outlines existing
educational programs in the City as well as potential program expansion.
Table 3 Existing and Recommended Education Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
The existing SR2S Program provides education and
resources for school site administrators, parents, and
children on bicycle safety, pedestrian awareness, and
traffic concerns.
Safety,
Accessibility, and
Fairness
Cupertino SR2S
Walking and
Rolling Safety
Campaign
Create a City-sponsored outreach campaign to
encourage all road users to abide by local laws and be
courteous to other users. This campaign may be
targeted at a single user type (e.g., cyclists) or at
multiple users. Local stakeholders may assist in
developing goals that are rooted in community
concerns and issues. Campaigns should be deployed
at regular intervals throughout the year to promote
an attitude of safety awareness. Safety campaigns
should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit
stops, commercial areas, and at high collision
corridors.
Safety and
Accessibility
Cupertino Vision Zero PSA
Campaign
Bicycle Rodeos
[SR2S]
The City of Cupertino SR2S Program offers bicycle
rodeo programming at Cupertino Unified schools,
providing a blacktop training course on bicycle safety.
Safety Cupertino SR2S
Recommended
“New
Infrastructure”
Education
Campaign
Often, when infrastructure changes occur, there is a
missing education component to the community
about how to interact with the new design or feature.
Education materials and messaging can be developed
during the installation of infrastructure, which the
general public may be unfamiliar with, such as unique
interchanges/roundabouts, two-stage turn boxes, or
advisory shoulders.
Safety and
Multimodal
Balance
UC Davis
75
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
75 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 12
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Driver Education
Program
Establish a citywide driver education program that
focuses on improving awareness and promoting safe
interactions with people walking, biking, and rolling,
incorporating best practices from Vision Zero and Safe
Systems approaches. The program could include
modules on recognizing vulnerable road users,
crosswalk laws, yielding at intersections, safely passing
cyclists, and navigating areas with high activity or
limited visibility. The curriculum can be conducted in
partnership with local school districts and SR2S
coordinators. For older adults or existing drivers,
collaborate with the DMV and community centers to
offer targeted refresher workshops. The City can
promote the program through strategic outreach
campaigns—such as during Bike to Everywhere Month
in May—using social media, public service
announcements, and partnerships with local
employers, transit agencies, and neighborhood
associations. Additional outreach tools could include
short educational videos,
translated materials, and interactive online modules.
Safety League of American
Bicyclists
Bicycle Safety
Education for
Adults
Partner with local organizations to provide classes for
adults to learn bicycle safety. Support growth by
advertising and providing meeting space in Cupertino.
Safety and
Accessibility
Sonoma County, CA
Huntington Beach, CA
Electric
Micromobility
Education
With the proliferation of e-bikes and other electric
micromobility devices, people may not understand or
be misinformed about how to use these modes safely
and legally. An education campaign can be targeted at
e-mobility, especially among students who may be
excited about the increased travel opportunities
offered by such devices.
Safety and
Accessibility
California Highway Patrol
76
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
76 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 13
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Waste Bin
Placement
Provide clear instructions on the City website and in
utility bills about the proper placement of waste bins.
Where on-street parking exists, bins should be placed
near the curb, within the parking aisle. Residents
should be instructed to place bins against the curb
where no on-street parking exists to minimize
intrusion into the bicycle lane. Collaborate with waste
management companies to add reflective markings to
waste bins to increase their visibility at night and
reduce the risk of bicycle collisions with misplaced
bins. The City could also work with management
companies to stencil “Do Not Place In Bicycle Lane”
on the waste bins to remind residents of proper
placement.
Maintenance
and Multimodal
Balance
Pomona, CA
Mini Main Street
Education Events
[SR2S]
Host Mini Main Street safety education events and
install permanent traffic gardens at select schools. Mini
Main Streets and traffic gardens provide safe
environments for children to practice roadway safety.
Safety Mountain View, CA
77
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
77 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 14
Enforcement
Enforcement programs help to institutionalize safe walking and rolling transportation systems. By prioritizing
relationships between law enforcement and individuals who walk and roll, these programs help create a safe
environment for all users. Table 4 below lists the proposed enforcement programs for the City.
Table 4 Recommended Enforcement Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Recommended
Traffic Ticket
Reduction
Help develop a partnership program with the Santa
Clara County Sheriff and a bicycle education provider
to offer bicycle education as a traffic court option.
People who receive a citation/infraction on a bicycle
for California Vehicle Code violations would be
permitted to attend a Basic Street Skills
class to reduce or waive fines.
Safety and Fairness Marin County, CA
Bike Patrol
Program
Partner with the County Sheriff to develop a program
that provides routine patrolling on bicycles. The
program would enable increased community
engagement and promote bicycle safety.
Safety and Fairness El Cerrito, CA
Targeted
Enforcement
Target enforcement of vehicular violations at
locations with a high incidence of red-light running
and HIN/HII.
Safety and Fairness San José, CA
78
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
78 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 15
Evaluation
Programs to help evaluate and track progress toward reaching the Plan’s goals are essential for long-term
success and effective project implementation. Table 5 lists proposed programs that help identify what’s
working, what’s not working, and where additional efforts are needed following the completion of the plan.
Table 5 Recommended Evaluation Programs
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
Existing
Active
Transportation
Online Portal
Update and maintain the GIS portal to display recent
and ongoing active transportation project planning
and status, as well as annual statistics on pedestrian
and bicycle-involved collisions. This portal may also
include links to other active transportation
resources throughout the City.
Safety and
Accessibility
Cupertino Open Data
Portal
Recommended
School Walk Audit
Reports [SR2S]
Update reports with new safety assessments at each
school to identify specific barriers and challenges
faced by students who walk or roll to school and
develop countermeasures to address the identified
deficiencies.
Safety Cupertino SR2S
Annual Walking
and Rolling
Collision Reports
Annual reviews of collisions involving vulnerable
roadway users with the County Sheriff will help the
City assess traffic safety issues and track progress
towards a safer community for people walking and
rolling.
Safety San Francisco, CA
Walking and
Rolling Count
Program
(Manual and
Automated)
Conducting regular walking and rolling counts can
help the City understand how travel behavior is
changing over time. This would include manual and
automated data collection. Manual counts are useful
for capturing nuanced data (age, gender, helmet use,
group sizes) and validating automated counters. This
can be done in collaboration with universities,
advocacy groups, or volunteers to expand manual
count capacity. Automated counters (infrared,
pneumatic tubes, LiDAR, video AI) provide long-term,
high-frequency data and reduce staff time. The use of
automated counting technology, such as in-ground
sensors, infrared counters, or video analytics, can be
integrated into ongoing signal maintenance and street
Maintenance
and Multimodal
Balance
Oakland, CA
NCHRP Report 797
79
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
79 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 16
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
improvement projects to minimize installation costs.1
When combined with models that predict where
walking and bicycling would be expected, count data
can also identify locations where people are expected
to travel by these modes but do not, often due to a
lack of infrastructure. Coordinate with regional
planning and transit agencies and adjacent
municipalities to ensure consistency in methodologies
(e.g., same time periods, equipment calibration, and
data formats) and include metadata on count
conditions (e.g., weather, construction, events) for
context.
Walking and
Rolling Count
Program
(Aggregated
Data)
To complement physical counters and enhance
citywide data coverage, the City could purchase or
subscribe to aggregate mobility datasets from
companies like StreetLight Data and Replica, which
provide insights derived from anonymized GPS,
cellular, and location-based services data. These
datasets can provide a broader understanding of
walking and biking patterns, helping to identify
underserved neighborhoods or emerging trends in
travel behavior. Conduct regular validation of
aggregated data against manually collected data.
Safety,
Maintenance,
and Multimodal
Balance
San Francisco, CA
1 For example, the GridSmart SMARTMOUNT Bell Camera may be configured on existing poles at intersections to count people
walking and rolling as they cross, with subscription to an additional software module.
80
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
80 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 17
Appendix: Existing Cupertino Policy Recommendations
General Plan Mobility Element
The City of Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element, adopted in 2015 and updated in 2024, outlines goals,
policies, and strategies for transportation network improvements necessary to accommodate Cupertino's
anticipated growth. The Element aims to make alternative modes of transportation attractive choices,
helping to reduce strain on the automobile network and improve the health and quality of life for residents
and businesses.
Regional Coordination
• Regional Transportation Planning: Participate in regional transportation planning processes to develop
programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino’s General Plan and to minimize adverse
impacts on the City’s circulation system. Work with neighboring cities to address regional transportation
and land use issues of mutual interest.
• Citywide VMT Reduction: Framework for reducing VMT citywide includes limiting parking supply and
implementing a citywide bikeshare program.
• Regional Trail Development: Continue to plan and provide for a comprehensive system of trails and
pathways consistent with regional systems, including the Bay Trail, Stevens Creek Corridor, and Ridge
Trail.
Complete Streets
• Street Design: Adopt and maintain street design standards to optimize mobility for all transportation
modes, including automobiles, walking, bicycling, and transit.
• Adjacent Land Use: Design roadway alignments, lane widths, medians, parking and bicycle lanes,
crosswalks, and sidewalks to complement adjacent land uses in keeping with the vision of the Planning
Area. Strive to minimize adverse impacts and expand alternative transportation options for all Planning
Areas (Special Areas and Neighborhoods). Improvement standards shall also consider the urban,
suburban, and rural environments found within the City.
• Connectivity: Promote pedestrian and bicycle improvements that improve connectivity between planning
areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster a sense of community.
• Community Impacts: Reduce traffic impacts and support alternative modes of transportation rather than
constructing barriers to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a demonstrated safety or
overwhelming through-traffic problem and there are no acceptable alternatives, since street closures
move the problem from one street to another.
• Traffic Calming: Consider the implementation of best practices on streets to reduce speeds and make
them user-friendly for alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
Walkability and Bikeability
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan: Adopt and maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that
outlines policies and improvements to streets, the extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way
for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Crossings: Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at key
• locations across physical barriers such as creeks, highways, and road barriers.
• Development: Require new development and redevelopment to increase connectivity through direct and
safe pedestrian connections to public amenities, neighborhoods, and shopping and employment
destinations throughout the city.
• Street Widths: Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike connectivity by limiting street
widening purely for automobiles as a means of improving traffic flow.
• Curb Cuts: Minimize the number and width of driveway openings.
81
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
81 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 18
• Capital Improvement Program: Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and eliminate
gaps along the pedestrian and bicycle network as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
• Bicycle Parking: Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle
parking.
• Outreach: Actively engage the community in promoting walking and bicycling through education,
encouragement, and outreach on improvement projects and programs.
• Spaces for Pedestrians: Require parking lots to include clearly defined paths for pedestrians, providing a
safe route to building entrances.
• Proactive Enforcement: Prioritize enforcement of traffic speeds and regulations on all streets with bike
lanes, bike routes, and around schools.
Transit
• Access to Transit Services: Support right-of-way design and amenities consistent with local transit goals to
improve transit as a viable alternative to driving.
• Transit Facilities with new development: Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all new
development projects include amenities to support public transit, including bus stop shelters, space for
transit vehicles as appropriate, and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating, and
lighting.
• Vallco Shopping District Transfer Station: Work with VTA and/or other transportation service
organizations to study and develop a transit transfer station that incorporates a hub for alternative
transportation services such as car sharing, bike sharing, and/ or other services.
Safe Routes to School
• Safe Routes to School: Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all schools serving the city.
• Prioritize Projects: Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements include projects to enhance
safe accessibility to schools.
• Connections to Trails: Connect schools to the citywide trail system.
• Education: Support education programs that promote safe walking and bicycling to schools.
Transportation Impact Analysis
• Protected Intersections: Consider adopting a Protected Intersection Policy, which would identify
intersections where improvements would not be considered, which would degrade levels of service for
non-vehicular modes of transportation. Potential locations include intersections in Priority Development
Areas (PDAs) and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is a key consideration, such as near
shopping districts, schools, parks, and senior citizen developments.
Roadway System Efficiency
• Street Width: Except as required by environmental review for new developments, limit widening of
streets as a means of improving traffic efficiency and focus instead on operational improvements to
preserve community character.
Transportation Infrastructure
• Transportation Improvement Plan: Develop and implement an updated citywide transportation
improvement plan necessary to accommodate vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle transportation
improvements to meet the City’s needs.
• Multimodal Improvements: Integrate the financing, design, and construction of pedestrian and bicycle
facilities with street projects. Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the same time as
improvements for vehicular circulation to enable travelers to transition from one mode of transportation
to another (e.g., bicycle to bus).
82
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
82 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 19
Bicycle Transportation Plan
The 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan provided a vision and specific steps to create safer and more
comfortable conditions for people to bike in Cupertino. The Plan included the following relevant
recommended policies:
• Policy 1.A.1: Support and expand the City of Cupertino Safe Routes to School program.
• Policy 1.A.2: Partner with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to offer routine adult and family bicycle
education classes in Cupertino.
• Policy 1.B.1: Incorporate messaging in all City media that promotes the benefits of active lifestyles and
raises awareness of walking and bicycling facilities in the community.
• Policy 1.C.1: Partner with tourism and economic development agencies to promote Cupertino as a
destination for active recreation and active lifestyles.
• Policy 1.C.2: Create a Bicycle Friendly Business program to recognize and promote bicycle-friendly
businesses in Cupertino.
• Policy 1.C.3: Collaborate with county and regional partners to create bikeway connections to the local
tourism generators and to promote active recreation in the region.
• Policy 1.D.1: Work with Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office to review collision locations and ‘close call’
reports and identify locations for increased enforcement of motorist and bicyclist behavior.
• Policy 1.E.1: Review the Bicycle Transportation Plan performance measures at regular intervals to review
progress and update priorities as necessary.
• Policy 1.E.2: Conduct bicycle counts citywide at regular intervals to better understand the profile of
residents bicycling in Cupertino as well as measure the impacts of newly implemented infrastructure and
programs.
• Policy 2.A.1: Annually review the number, locations, and contributing factors of bicycle-related collisions
to identify and implement ongoing improvements at collision locations throughout the transportation
network.
• Policy 2.A.2: Identify opportunities to reduce bicyclist exposure by reducing locations or lengths of conflict
areas with vehicles or by providing dedicated and separated facilities where feasible.
• Policy 2.A.3: Adopt a Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2026.
• Policy 2.A.4: Study the need for 15 mph School Zone speed limits and adopt in appropriate locations by
2020.
• Policy 2.A.5: Develop a City policy for the regular documentation of bike facility quality and maintenance
of bicycle facilities throughout the City.
• Policy 3.A.1: Implement the recommendations from this Bicycle Transportation Plan Update.
• Policy 3.A.2: Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and construction of upgrades or resurfacing of
all existing roadways.
• Policy 3.B.1: Create a low-stress network in parallel to the arterial bikeway network, providing an
alternative that is appealing to residents of all ages and abilities.
• Policy 3.B.2: Upgrade and improve the existing arterial bikeway network to increase bicyclist comfort and
lower barriers for more risk-averse users.
• Policy 3.B.3: Develop a citywide wayfinding system, providing access to appropriate locations such as
employment centers, schools, and commercial centers.
• Policy 3.B.4: Prioritize the installation of bicycle parking in the public right-of-way at key commercial and
retail destinations.
Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The ensuing 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan provides a vision and specific steps for creating an inviting,
safe, and connected pedestrian network. The plan establishes a framework for developing and maintaining
pedestrian facilities and recommends policies, programs, and messaging to promote walking. That includes
the following relevant recommended policies:
Infrastructure and Operations
83
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
83 of 91
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino | 20
• Develop/adopt a Complete Streets Design Manual
• Design standard speeds in pedestrian areas do not require a routine need for traffic calming
• Adopt a Complete Streets internal checklist
• Formalize traffic calming practices
• Reconsider speed limit criteria
• 15 mph zones near schools, parks, community facilities, or senior housing
• Establish an accessible design checklist
Evaluation and Planning
• Include pedestrian and bicycle counts as a routine element of motor vehicle counts
• Conduct pedestrian and bicycle counts for the planning/evaluation of the City's trail system
Education and Enforcement
• Continue promoting walking and biking through the SR2S program
• Develop/implement targeted safety campaigns for other groups (adults, seniors, drivers)
Project Implementation
• Secure funding for broader education efforts
• Continue to collaborate with related and adjacent agencies
• Explore opportunities for improving coordination with major employers
• Develop a line item in the CIP for implementation of the PTP
Vision Zero Action Plan
Finally, the 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan focused on broad strategies and actions aimed at eliminating severe
injuries and fatalities on the City’s transportation network. Of particular note, it identified a High Injury
Network (HIN) and a set of High Injury Intersections (HII) based on collision history. This set of HIN and HII
areas should be priorities for targeted investment of many of the recommendations in this memo. Robust
community engagement on this plan resulted in the following relevant recommended policies:
• A.1 - Establish a Vision Zero Task Force
• A.2 - Identify sustainable funding sources for a Vision Zero program
• A.6 - Integrate Vision Zero safety principles into forthcoming City plans and design documents
• A.8 - Continue monitoring existing speed limits on City streets in accordance with the changes made by AB
43 to further lower speeds
• A.12 - Set up periodic pedestrian and cyclist counts at standardized locations
• B.2 - Create a carefully ranked roster of extra safety projects
• B.3 - Install quick, light, and adaptable projects proven to achieve real, tangible benefits (Quick-Build
projects)
• B.6 - Update signal timing plans to enhance safety for all modes of transportation, which may include
adjustments to all-red intervals and pedestrian crossing times.
• B.8 - Create an internal procedure for evaluating and implementing Vision Zero countermeasures on
projects located within the HIN
• B.9 - When identifying safety enhancements, ensure countermeasures align with the City's Complete
Streets policy
• D.1 - Implement the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
• D.2 - Prioritize pedestrian crossing improvements on the High Injury Network
• D.3 - Complete projects that enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety at intersections with turning vehicles
• D.4 - Develop and maintain an Active Transportation Plan
• D.5 - Install high-visibility crosswalks in proximity to schools.
• D.6 - Develop a comprehensive Safe Routes to Schools Plan
84
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
84 of 91
Active Transportation Plan Impact Evaluation Guidelines
Following the Council-approved initiation of any new Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
project, and when parking or traffic impacts are identified during the preliminary
engineering phase (30% design), staff will return to the City Council to present the final
30% design, identified impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that meeting, the Council
will determine whether the project should undergo a detailed impact analysis tailored
to its specific impacts. This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail that is
available only once the 30% design phase has been completed.
The detailed impact analysis described in these guidelines is intentionally scheduled for
this phase of a project because at this phase, the City is advancing a concept from the
ATP into preliminary design. It does not approve final plans or commit to construction.
The purpose of this early design effort is to translate a plan-level concept into a specific
layout that defines lane configurations, parking, intersection control, and other
geometric and operational details.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical
accuracy because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-
based models, require defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking
layouts, and other project features not known prior to 30% design in order to produce
meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion patterns, and parking utilization.
By conducting a detailed analysis at the 30% phase, the City balances accuracy with
flexibility. A complete set of 30% design plans is sufficient for accurate modeling and is
early enough in the design process to allow the Council to call for modifications or
discontinue the project if the identified impacts are unacceptable. In addition, tying the
analysis to the identification of parking or traffic impacts at 30% ensures that funding is
focused on projects where the preliminary design reveals meaningful operational or
parking impacts, rather than expending significant resources on every concept in the
ATP, regardless of its risk profile.
Accordingly, if the Council requests an impact analysis following the 30% phase, then
additional budget must be approved for the project’s Engineering Services Consultant
to manage data collection and to evaluate the 30% design within the context of the
City’s transportation network through traffic or parking analysis.
85
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
85 of 91
The tasks below summarize the scope of what could potentially be required for project
impact analysis. Following the completion of 30% design for impacted projects, the
Consultant will prepare a cost estimate for transportation analysis, which will also be
presented to the Council for consideration when the Council reviews the 30% plans.
If Council supports this approach, staff will incorporate this impact evaluation
framework into the final Active Transportation Plan as an internal policy that then
applies to new ATP projects.
The tasks below may not apply to all projects, but it is assumed that impact analysis
would roughly equate to 10% of project construction costs.
Task 1. Data Collection and Analysis Memorandum
Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
Prepare a memorandum describing the proposed approach to data collection and
analysis. The memo will list all relevant data to be collected based on the project’s
determined impacts and document sources, formats, and methods. This could include
signal phasing, vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle counts, an inventory of existing traffic
control devices, or an inventory of parking supply. It will specify which transportation
network or traffic operation elements, such as intersection delay, roadway segment
operations, or parking, each dataset will support. The draft memorandum will be
submitted to City staff for review before initiating data collection.
Task 2. Initial Data Collection
Cost: $15,000 - $30,000
• Obtain commercially available origin–destination data, through providers such as
StreetLight, Inrix, or Replica for the project area, including both peak periods.
Collect turning-movement counts at project area intersections for both peak periods,
including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle volumes, right-turn-on-red movements,
and initial queues at signalized intersections.
• Conduct a field visit of the project site and broader study area to verify existing and
planned facilities identified in the data collection tasks, confirm any facilities
constructed since prior programming documents, and investigate unusual trends in
traffic patterns.
86
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
86 of 91
Task 3. Traffic Operations Analysis
Cost: $20,000 - $40,000
• Document existing conditions based on collected counts and field observations.
Results will be summarized in narrative text, Level of Service (LOS) tables, figures
visualizing lane configurations, traffic controls, and volumes, and supporting
calculation outputs. If appropriate for evaluating the impacts of interest, speeds
along the project area will be estimated and validated based on the City’s latest
Engineering Traffic Survey, and queue lengths in dedicated turn lanes and through
lanes between intersections under gridlock conditions will be evaluated.
• Develop and refine Synchro traffic models to represent Existing and Existing-Plus-
Project conditions. The models will be used to identify any adverse or significant
impacts associated with the proposed project improvements.
• Assess proposed intersection and corridor layouts for accessibility, including lane
widths and turning radii, and identify opportunities for new or modified traffic
control devices to support operations and safety.
• Develop recommendations to address identified potential operational impacts.
Task 4: Parking Impact Analysis (If needed)
Cost: $5,000 - $15,000
• Prior to conducting a parking survey, develop a geodatabase of on-street parking
supply along the project area. The database will count, by block face, the number of
spaces, as well as all applicable parking regulations, such as permits. The initial
inventory will rely on the City’s GIS database, aerial imagery, and street-level
photography, then verified in the field, and summarized in an exhibit that depicts
curb conditions and the total existing parking supply.
• Perform parking occupancy counts at 30-minute intervals by block face during
typical weekday midday (noon–2:00 p.m.) and evening (8:00–10:00 p.m.) periods,
and on a Saturday to represent weekend conditions.
• Compare parking supply changes associated with the project design to observed
parking demand to quantify the number of on-street spaces affected. The analysis
will include spaces in front of nearby properties within a 500-foot buffer of the
87
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
87 of 91
affected spaces to determine potential redistribution and broader neighborhood
impacts.
Task 5: Impact Report
Cost: $5,000 - $10,000
The combined work will result in a set of findings and recommendations on specific
traffic operations and parking impacts resulting from the project. The report will be
used to inform potential further project development and frame public
communications. The report will be evaluated by the City Council to assess the extent of
the impacts and consider whether the project’s preliminary design should be modified
to minimize the learned impacts or discontinued entirely.
88
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
88 of 91
Project Effectiveness Guidelines
This memo describes the process for using data to measure the success of new projects
recommended in the Active Transportation Plan (ATP), specifically for Class II, Class
IIB, and Class IV bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is to ensure that
transportation projects developed by the ATP and completed through the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) successfully advance the City’s goals and priorities.
The ATP supports two City policy priorities. These are traffic safety (Vision Zero Action
Plan) and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (Climate Action Plan). The City’s Vision
Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the
Climate Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part
by shifting short driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
To demonstrate progress toward these goals, staff must track the number of people
using new facilities and the safety of those facilities. This proposed data-driven
evaluation approach will allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such
as whether these projects encourage the use of active transportation modes, whether
collision rates are decreasing even as ridership increases, and, potentially, which types
of improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
The City does not currently own the counting technology needed to answer these
questions on a citywide scale. Historically, staff has relied on occasional spot counts or
project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle and
pedestrian volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes
establishing an approach that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along
with project-specific before-and-after counts for key bikeway projects. This will require
the purchase or lease of bike-ped counting equipment and, potentially, the associated
analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian activity can be measured in a repeatable
way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive
baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at several top ATP bicycle project locations across
the City. This initial effort would record how many people are currently biking (and
walking, where feasible). The equipment could be repositioned over several weeks or
months to cover a variety of ATP project locations, providing the City with a clearer
picture of existing conditions.
89
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
89 of 91
For future Council-approved and initiated bikeway projects, staff proposes a before-
and-after evaluation for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways. As a project moves
into design, staff will begin a data collection period at the project location to determine
existing volumes. Counters would be deployed at a set of locations along the project
limits to record bicycle activity on typical weekdays and weekends. At the same time,
staff would track reported collisions using Sheriff reports and SWITRS. This establishes
a clear pre-project picture of both ridership and safety.
After the project is constructed and open to the public, and a suitable amount of time
has passed to account for possible changes in transportation behavior, staff will repeat
this process during the post-project period, using the same locations and equipment to
ensure comparable data. With these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average
daily and peak-period bicycle volumes, as well as changes in collision rates. The key
metric will not just be the number of collisions, but collisions relative to the number of
bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project will be one in which more people use the
facility while the collision rate per rider remains the same or decreases. This will be
referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns with Vision Zero and
Climate Action Plan objectives.
To proceed with this approach, the City will need to either purchase equipment or
contract for services. One option is to purchase a set of movable counters. This would
involve an upfront capital cost but would give the City full control over how and when
the equipment is deployed. This approach would also build internal expertise over
time. Another option is to lease equipment or work with a contractor that provides
turnkey services, including counter deployment, data processing, and reporting. This
method would reduce the upfront cost and technical burden, but could be more
expensive if used intensively over many years. A hybrid approach is also possible, in
which the City purchases a small number of cameras for ongoing monitoring and
supplements them with leased equipment or contractor services for larger, one-time
efforts such as the initial baseline count.
Staff envisions this work rolling out in phases. In the near term, following Council
direction, staff would refine this evaluation approach, identify preferred equipment and
procurement approaches, and bring forward a funding request. Once counters or
services are secured, staff will conduct the baseline count at ATP priority project
locations. As ATP individual projects advance, staff will complete the one-year before-
90
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
90 of 91
and-after evaluations and prepare project summaries for Council and the community
that describe changes in volumes and safety. Ultimately, this data can be incorporated
into public-facing tools such as dashboards or annual reports for residents to review
projects.
This approach is intended to improve transparency and accountability around active
transportation projects. It gives Council a simple way to compare projects and project
types, it allows designs to be refined based on what works best in practice, and it creates
a feedback loop between adopted policy goals and actual outcomes. By committing to
this measurement approach, the City can signal that success is defined not only by miles
of bikeway delivered, but by quantifiable improvements in safety and mode shift
toward sustainable transportation.
If Council supports this approach, staff will incorporate these guidelines into the final
ATP as an internal policy that then applies to new ATP projects.
91
PC 02-10-2026 Amended Searchable Packet
91 of 91