The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBPC 02-18-2026 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION AGENDA 10185 North Stelling Road, Quinlan Conference Room and via Teleconference Wednesday, February 18, 2026 7:00 PM 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 Quinlan Community Center, Conference Room, 10185 N. Stelling Road. 2) Watch a live stream online at https://youtube.com/@cupertinocitycommission. 3) 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 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission may do so in the following ways: 1) Appear in person at Quinlan Community Center, Conference Room, 10185 N. Stelling Road: 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 and may begin speaking 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 Page 1 1 BPC 02-18-2026 1 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda February 18, 2026 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 to any City equipment. However, speakers that wish to share a document (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so by: a. E-mailing the document to bikepedcommission@cupertino.gov by 4:00 p.m. and staff will advance the slides/share the documents during your oral comment. 2) Written communications as follows: A. E-mail comments to bikepedcommission@cupertino.gov. B. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 C. Comments addressed to the Bicycle Pedestrian 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 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline, but through the end of the 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_h7xXMXrhTG-32Kthbzt7XA a. Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. b. Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized, speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak. c. 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: a. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 894 2974 1604 b. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6 Page 2 2 BPC 02-18-2026 2 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda February 18, 2026 c. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number. C. Via an H.323/SIP room system: H.323 Information: 144.195.19.161 (US West) 206.247.11.121 (US East) Meeting ID: 894 2974 1604 SIP: 89429741604@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 Gov. Code 54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda. a) 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. b) 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. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: January 29, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes Approve the January 29, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes A - 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. OLD BUSINESS 2.Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan Review and Provide Feedback on Prioritized Project List for Cupertino Active Transportation Plan Page 3 3 BPC 02-18-2026 3 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda February 18, 2026 Memorandum A - Revised Prioritization Criteria B - Revised Program and Policy Recommendations C - Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines D - Project Effectiveness Guidelines E - Project Prioritization List 3.Subject: Torre Ave/Town Center Lane Pedestrian Crossing (Dullu) Receive Presentation and Make Recommendations for Torre Ave/Town Center Lane Pedestrian Crossing NEW BUSINESS STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS 4.Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities FUTURE AGENDA SETTING ADJOURNMENT 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 members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours. 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 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. Page 4 4 BPC 02-18-2026 4 of 55 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: January 29, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes Approve the January 29, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1 5 BPC 02-18-2026 5 of 55 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION Wednesday, January 29, 2026 At 7:00 p.m. Chair Ilango Ganga called the Special Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meeting to order at the Quinlan Conference Room, 10185 North Stelling Road and via teleconference. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Ilango Ganga, Vice Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck, and Commissioners Joel Wolf, Munisekaran Madhdhipatla, and Hervé Marcy. Absent: None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: December 17, 2025 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes Recommended Action: Approve the December 17, 2025, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes MOTION: Eschelbeck moved and Marcy seconded to approve the December 17, 2025, Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Ganga, Eschelbeck, Madhdhipatla, Marcy. Noes: None. Abstain: Wolf. Absent: None. POSTPONEMENTS – None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None OLD BUSINESS 2. Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan Recommended Action: Review and Provide Feedback on Prioritized Project List for Cupertino Active Transportation Plan Transit and Transportation Planner Matt Schroder gave a presentation. Commissioners made the following initial recommendations: • Provide clearer, easy-to-understand project descriptions and representative visuals, with detailed renderings limited to major or priority projects. 6 BPC 02-18-2026 6 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes January 29, 2026 • Improve transparency by clearly showing cost ranges, cost scores, and planning-level cost estimates for each project. • Clarify project categories to accurately reflect multimodal benefits (pedestrian, bicycle, shared use). • Ensure all key safety corridors and intersections are clearly included or identified as projects in progress. • Emphasize the plan as a policy and vision document, not just a ranked project list. • Organize projects around strategic focus areas (e.g., school safety, high-injury corridors) while preserving flexibility in implementation. • Define project success metrics and evaluate outcomes after implementation to inform future decisions. • Clearly document and transmit commission feedback to City Council before plan adoption. • Commissioners recommended that the item be brought back for further discussion at the February meeting. NEW BUSINESS 3. Subject: 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meeting schedule Recommended Action: Review the meeting schedule for 2026 (see Attachment) and consider changes Commissioners asked questions which staff responded to. MOTION: Eschelbeck moved and Madhdhipatla seconded to accept the meeting schedule. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Ganga, Eschelbeck, Madhdhipatla, Marcy, Wolf. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. 4. Subject: Election of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Chair and Vice Chair 2026 Recommended Action: Elect the Chair and Vice Chair for the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for 2026 MOTION: Madhdhipatla moved and Ganga seconded to elect Vice Chair Eschelbeck as Chair. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Ganga, Eschelbeck, Madhdhipatla. Noes: None. Abstain: Marcy, Wolf. Absent: None. MOTION: Ganga moved and Eschelbeck seconded to elect Commissioner Madhdhipatla as Vice Chair. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Ganga, Eschelbeck, Madhdhipatla. Noes: None. Abstain: Marcy, Wolf. Absent: None. 7 BPC 02-18-2026 7 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes January 29, 2026 5. Subject: Review and Approve the Draft Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 2026 Work Plan for a List of Potential Topics for Discussion at the Commission Meetings Recommended Action: Approve the Draft Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 2026 Work Plan Transportation Manager David Stillman gave a presentation. Commissioners asked questions, which staff responded to. Chair Eschelbeck opened the public comment period, and seeing no one, closed the public comment period. MOTION: Ganga moved and Wolf seconded to approve the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 2026 Work Plan. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Ganga, Eschelbeck, Madhdhipatla, Marcy, Wolf. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS – 6. Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Recommended Action: Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities Transportation Manager David Stillman reported that the Stevens Creek project is moving forward, with crews working to locate and install foundations for new traffic signal poles at the De Anza and Wolfe Road intersections. While there have been some challenges and minor delays, the project remains on track for completion around April. He also noted that the Wolfe Road–I-280 interchange project has received favorable bids, the VTA Board is expected to award the construction contract next month, and construction should begin shortly thereafter, with VTA leading the project in coordination with the city and Caltrans. Commissioner Marcy reported on a proposed VTA project. Commissioners asked questions and made comments. Commissioner Ganga reported on the previous the bike rack discussion. He also mentioned that the city needs to update the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission website. 8 BPC 02-18-2026 8 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes January 29, 2026 FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – • Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (January 2026/February 2026) • Vision Zero next steps • CIP (February/March 2026) • Torre Ave (February 2026) Grants • Know/Understand Fed Grant Funding with Caltrans on updated bike-ped planning • Understand/Educate on what funding standards are (Fed/State) Studies / Plans • Kennewick Drive/Homestead Road Study o Stop Gap Measures/Temporary Solutions • Study on McClellan Ave bike lanes in front of Monte Vista High School • Examine Pedestrian Walkways for Safety • Install Bollards at existing buffered bike lanes (Public Request) • Path between Lincoln Elem and Monta Vista HS • Speed Limits Studies Projects • Staff update on CIP Project updates (6 mo.) • Tamien Innu • Signaling Improvements Education • Adult Bicycle Education • Impact of Semi-Rural Designation on Bike and Ped Projects/Priorities • Bicycle and pedestrian safety Miscellaneous • Review Progress toward BPC Objectives & Grant Applications (6 mo.) • Bike Rack Feedback and Safety • Sidewalk Robotic Vehicles • Inventory of Traffic Lights (triggering traffic light from a detector) – Staff update • Before and after data on separated bike lanes and major intersections for improvement – Use of data for future decisions o Combine this data with the data on safety (Muni/Marcy) o De Anza before and after traffic data collection. 9 BPC 02-18-2026 9 of 55 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes January 29, 2026 ADJOURNMENT At 8:54 p.m., Chair Ganga adjourned the special Bicycle Pedestrian Commission meeting. Minutes prepared by: Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant 10 BPC 02-18-2026 10 of 55 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan Review and Provide Feedback on Prioritized Project List for Cupertino Active Transportation Plan CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1 11 BPC 02-18-2026 11 of 55 PUBLIC WORKS CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3403 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 CUPERTINO.GOV BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM Date: January 29, 2026 To: Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission From: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner Re: 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. Discussion 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. 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 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 12 BPC 02-18-2026 12 of 55 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. 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. 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 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 C 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) 13 BPC 02-18-2026 13 of 55 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 Addressed 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 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 draft project prioritization criteria and the ATP more broadly. These areas of agreement were: • Project prioritization criteria should emphasize safety, especially for schools and 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. Staff addressed the comments related to the draft prioritization criteria by revising scoring and metrics (Attachment A). Specifically, staff: • Modiﬁed 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. 14 BPC 02-18-2026 14 of 55 • Modiﬁed 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. • Added senior facilities to the Destinations proximity for scoring. • Removed the Fairness criterion so that all metrics are based on objective data. • Added additional negative scoring for projects that impact Cupertino arterials. • Added cost eﬀectiveness as a scoring criterion. 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 B). 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. Discussing these four changes in further detail, the first major revision to the ATP 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 • Homestead Rd: From De Anza Blvd to Tantau Ave 15 BPC 02-18-2026 15 of 55 • 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 3 and 4) describe the approach that staff will follow for new ATP network recommendations. For evaluating project impacts, the Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment C) 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 description of the potential scope and cost estimates for that work is included in Attachment C. The second policy memo (Attachment D) 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 City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are successful in furthering the City’s stated goals. 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. 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 16 BPC 02-18-2026 16 of 55 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. 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 Planning Commission and 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. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works Attachments: A – Revised Project Prioritization Criteria B – Revised Program and Policy Recommendations C – Draft Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines D – Draft Project Effectiveness Guidelines 17 BPC 02-18-2026 17 of 55 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 18 BPC 02-18-2026 18 of 55 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 19 BPC 02-18-2026 19 of 55 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 20 BPC 02-18-2026 20 of 55 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 21 BPC 02-18-2026 21 of 55 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 22 BPC 02-18-2026 22 of 55 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. 23 BPC 02-18-2026 23 of 55 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. 24 BPC 02-18-2026 24 of 55 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. 25 BPC 02-18-2026 25 of 55 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 26 BPC 02-18-2026 26 of 55 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 27 BPC 02-18-2026 27 of 55 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 28 BPC 02-18-2026 28 of 55 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 29 BPC 02-18-2026 29 of 55 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 30 BPC 02-18-2026 30 of 55 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 31 BPC 02-18-2026 31 of 55 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 32 BPC 02-18-2026 32 of 55 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 33 BPC 02-18-2026 33 of 55 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 34 BPC 02-18-2026 34 of 55 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 35 BPC 02-18-2026 35 of 55 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 36 BPC 02-18-2026 36 of 55 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 37 BPC 02-18-2026 37 of 55 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. 38 BPC 02-18-2026 38 of 55 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. 39 BPC 02-18-2026 39 of 55 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). 40 BPC 02-18-2026 40 of 55 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 41 BPC 02-18-2026 41 of 55 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 42 BPC 02-18-2026 42 of 55 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. 43 BPC 02-18-2026 43 of 55 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. 44 BPC 02-18-2026 44 of 55 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 45 BPC 02-18-2026 45 of 55 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. 46 BPC 02-18-2026 46 of 55 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 all ATP 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 all project locations within the ATP, providing the City with a clearer picture of existing conditions. 47 BPC 02-18-2026 47 of 55 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 citywide baseline. 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 citywide baseline count at ATP priority project locations. As ATP individual projects advance, staﬀ will complete the one-year 48 BPC 02-18-2026 48 of 55 before-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. 49 BPC 02-18-2026 49 of 55 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 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 discussions. 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 50 BPC 02-18-2026 50 of 55 # Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total Criteria ScoringProject Location Neighborhood Route Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln 10 20 3 20 10 1 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 75 Pedestrian C Intersection Bandley Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 20 9 6 0 10 1.25 56 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 77 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 30 6 4 0 5 1.25 56 78 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 80 Pedestrian A Intersection Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 10 23 2 0 10 1.25 56 81 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 83 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 85 Pedestrian C Intersection Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 5 23 6 0 10 1.25 55 86 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 25 3 6 0 10 1.25 55 87 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stern Ave Tilson Ave 10 21 3 0 10 1.25 54 88 Pedestrian A Intersection Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave 10 20 3 0 10 1.25 54 89 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr 10 25 3 0 5 1.25 54 90 Pedestrian A Intersection Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 10 21 2 0 10 1.25 54 91 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr 20 1 3 20 10 1 54 Bicycle 65 63 62 56 56 56 59 Bicycle 55 Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle 63 62 Bicycle Bicycle Shared Use Bicycle 65 Bicycle 65 Bicycle 64 42 43 45 79 82 84 47 48 53 55 57 67 76 Draf t 51 BPC 02-18-2026 51 of 55 # Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total Criteria ScoringProject Location 92 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 30 2 1 0 10 1.25 54 93 Pedestrian A Intersection Randy Ln Merritt Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54 94 Pedestrian B Intersection Merritt Dr Vista Dr 10 20 2 0 10 1.25 54 95 Shared Use Two-way, off-street Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr 0 21 3 20 10 1 54 96 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave John Dr 5 24 4 0 10 1.25 53 97 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr 10 24 3 0 5 1.25 53 98 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 1 100 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Homestead Rd 10 20 2 10 10 1 52 101 Pedestrian A, C Intersection Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd 10 25 2 0 5 1.25 52 102 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 1 104 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 15 23 1 0 2 1.25 51 105 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 10 20 5 0 5 1.25 50 106 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stelling Rd Orion Ln 25 1 3 0 10 1.25 50 107 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 25 1 4 10 10 1 50 108 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Torre Ave Town Center Ln 0 23 6 0 10 1.25 49 109 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr 10 24 1 0 5 1.25 49 110 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Forest Ave 260' East of Randy Ln 110' West of Toni Ct 10 21 3 0 5 1.25 49 111 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Richwood Dr Miller Ave 20 3 6 0 10 1.25 49 112 Pedestrian B Intersection Mary ave Lubec St 5 23 1 0 10 1.25 49 113 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd 10 23 1 0 5 1.25 49 114 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd Lawrence Expy Westlynn Way 30 0 3 10 5 1 49 115 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 25 2 2 0 10 1.25 48 116 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48 117 Pedestrian A Intersection Pacifica Dr Whitney Way 0 25 4 0 10 1.25 48 118 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 5 20 3 0 10 1.25 48 119 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 15 0 2 20 10 1 48 120 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side) Stevens Creek Blvd Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr 10 22 2 0 5 1.25 48 121 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 side)Mary Ave 500' South of Lubec St 160' North of Point Reyes Ter 5 25 3 0 5 1.25 48 122 Pedestrian A Intersection San Fernando Ave Orange Ave 0 24 4 0 10 1.25 48 123 Technology Transportation Technology Corridor Stelling Rd I-280 Rainbow Dr 12 26 5 0 0 1.11 47 124 Bicycle Buffered Bike Lane S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl 25 0 2 10 10 1 47 125 Pedestrian A Intersection Granada Ave Orange Ave 0 23 4 0 10 1.25 47 126 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd 10 21 2 0 5 1.25 47 127 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 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 1 145 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 1 147 Pedestrian A Intersection Merriman Rd Voss Ave 0 22 1 0 10 1.25 42 148 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides) Foothill Blvd 170' South of Voss Ave Palm Ave 5 22 1 0 5 1.25 42 149 Pedestrian A Intersection Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 20 0 3 0 10 1.25 42 150 Pedestrian A, B, C Intersection Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 15 6 7 0 5 1.25 42 151 Pedestrian B Intersection Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 0 22 2 0 10 1.25 42 152 Pedestrian Sidewalk (2 sides)Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 25 1 2 0 5 1.25 42 153 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd I 280 20 1 2 0 10 1.25 42 154 Pedestrian A Intersection Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 10 7 6 0 10 1.25 41 155 Pedestrian A Intersection Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 0 21 2 0 10 1.25 41 43 45 42 Bicycle Bicycle 52 51 Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle 99 103 133 144 146 Draf t 52 BPC 02-18-2026 52 of 55 # Type/ Mode Description Area/ Street Cross Street A Cross Street B Safety Access Sustainability Balance Cost Modifier Total Criteria ScoringProject Location 156 Pedestrian A Intersection Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 0 21 1 0 10 1.25 41 157 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 41 160 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 39Bicycle Bicycle 164 172 Draf t 53 BPC 02-18-2026 53 of 55 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: Torre Ave/Town Center Lane Pedestrian Crossing (Dullu) Receive Presentation and Make Recommendations for Torre Ave/Town Center Lane Pedestrian Crossing CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1 54 BPC 02-18-2026 54 of 55 CITY OF CUPERTINO Agenda Item Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All) Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/12/2026Page 1 of 1 55 BPC 02-18-2026 55 of 55