HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 2-19-2026 Item No. 9 Active Transportation Plan_Written Communications_2CC 2-019-2026
#9
Parkland Ballot
Measure
Written Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:2026-02-19 City Council Meeting-ITEM 9 Study session ATP Update
Date:Wednesday, February 18, 2026 8:22:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
PLEASE INCLUDE THIS EMAIL AS PART OF WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE 2-19-2026
CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9-ATP.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, Councilmembers and Staff,
I am very concerned at the resulting project rankings for the ATP due to the scoring of the
Project Prioritization Matrix. When I looked at the highest priority work it emphases routes that
I would consider some of the safer routes compared to those that were ignored. BOTH the
Planning Commission and the Bike/Pedestrian Commission along with those who spoke in
public comments are all in agreement – the scoring of the project rankings needs to be
adjusted to prioritize the more dangerous intersections in Cupertino, where there has been
death, injuries and collisions.
REQUESTS: Please reassess the scoring matrix to
1.INCREASE the emphasis/scoring for areas where there are injuries, deaths and
collisions.
a.The priority should be where people have been killed, injured or there have been
accidents!
b.EXAMPLE OF UNDESIRED POINT RESULTS…the highest priority project is the
intersection of Lazaneo Dr (near the Donut Wheel) and De Anza Blvd
i.90 points = Intersection of De Anza Blvd and Lazaneo
ii.60 points = intersection of De Anza Blvd and Homestead Rd
1.This is by far a more dangerous intersection for everyone
(pedestrians, bikes and vehicles)! Vehicles running the red lights
don’t just run the light, they increase their speeds to run the light. I
have seen as many as 5 cars run the light AFTER it turns red. If
pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles don’t see them they risk
injury or death…and yet it’s #60 on this list!
1.REDUCE the priority on Safe Routes to School routes and give more priority to the
Vision Zero High Injury locations and areas.
a.In “Attachment A – Revised Prioritization Criteria”
i. Table 1, Safety gives the max of 20 points if it’s ANYWHERE ALONG
the SR2S route. Please note that these routes are selected because the
ARE the safer routes already!
ii. Table 2, Safety gives the max of 20 points if it’s ANYWHERE ALONG
the SR2S route.
iii. Table 3, Safety gives the max of 20 points if it’s ANYWHERE ALONG
the S42S route.
1. NOTE in this Table 3 that parks, the library, senior center/facilities,
rec centers, shopping get a max of 5 points!
iv. Table 4, Safety, again gives the max of 20 points if it is along 75% of
the SR2S route
1. NOTE under Safety that Collision History can only get a max of 10
points!
2. INCREASE POINTS for parks, the library, senior center/facitilites, rec centers,
shopping centers.
3. INCREASE the emphasis on the use of technology
a. Our Sheriff’s contract is increasing, we can’t afford to add deputies but
technology can help increase safety. Please use it!
REQUEST:
1. LOSS OF PARKING - There are quite a few projects on this list that anyone driving down
the specified road would know the impact without having to spend 30% of the design
cost for a consultant to tell you. Once a project is started, even 30%, it is not stopped.
It’s basically a done-deal.
a. With our city’s growing density and the state’s requirement to NO REQUIRE
parking for housing projects, the elimination of existing parking becomes more
significant.
b. ADD POINT DEDUCTIONS for loss of parking.
2. PUBLIC NOTICE – for potential projects, NO WHERE is there a mention that the
residents/businesses will be notified BEFORE a decision is made.
a. As the Planning Commissioner Rao pointed out, at the public events, no mention
of potential loss of parking was mentioned.
3. SEPARATED BIKE LANES – please use sparingly for high speed corridors (35-40 mph or
more) with multiple lanes, not 2-lane roads.
Sincerely,
Peggy Griffin