HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 02-19-2026_Late Written CommunicationsCC 2-19-2026
#8
Parkland Ballot Measure
Written Communications
From:Peggy Griffin
To:Lauren Sapudar
Cc:City Clerk
Subject:Peggy"s Slides for ITEM 8-Parkland Measure
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 8:11:59 PM
Attachments:Peggys Slides-ITEM8 PARKLAND Measure.pdf
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.
Hi Lauren,
I plan to speak via Zoom tonight on ITEM 8-Parkland Measure (City Council 2-19-202. Could you
please display these slides for me when I speak?
Thank you for your help,
Peggy Griffin
CLEAN UP ZONING FOR 2 PARK PARCELS
CREEKSIDE PARK – has 2 parcels zoned inconsistently
1 is zoned PR
1 is zoned BA
REQUEST: Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to be er iden fy it and protect it as
parkland.
FRANCO PARK – has 2 parcels zoned inconsistently
1 is zoned PR
1 is zoned BA
REQUEST: Change the parcel that is zoned BA to PR to be er iden fy it and protect is as
parkland.
LIBRARY FIELD – is part of one BIG parcel that includes
City Hall
Community Hall
the Library
Library Field
REQUEST: Please
1)make Library Field a separate parcel and
2)rezone it as Parkland (PR)
CC 2-19-2026
#9
Active Transportation
Plan
Written Communications
From:Deepa Mahendraker
To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Please Reject All Bike Lane Projects in the ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:07:23 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written comments for the upcoming city council meeting.
Subject: Please Reject All Bike Lane Projects in the ATP
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Cupertino City Council,
I am a Cupertino resident and auto user who supports safe walking and commutes. I strongly oppose
every bike lane project shown in purple in the Active Transportation Plan and respectfully ask that you
cancel all proposed bike lane projects.
These include:
• Homestead Road buffered and separated bike lanes
• Stevens Creek Boulevard separated bike lanes
• Stelling Road buffered and separated bikeways
• Blaney Avenue buffered bikeways
• Bollinger Road buffered bikeways
• Foothill Boulevard separated bikeways
• Wolfe Road separated bikeways
• Bonny Avenue bike lanes
• Pepper Tree Lane bike lanes
• Related school‑access segments on Mary Avenue and McClellan Road
Please reject all of these purple row identified bike lane projects.
On‑street parking is essential for families. Many homes rely on curb space for elders, caregivers, visiting
relatives, and everyday guests. Removing parking on residential segments of Homestead, Blaney,
Bollinger, Stelling, Bonny, Pepper Tree, Mary, and McClellan will push cars into smaller side streets and
make daily life harder for residents.
Emergency response will suffer. Concrete‑separated and tightly buffered lanes on Stevens Creek,
Stelling, Foothill, Wolfe, and Homestead leave no room for drivers to move over. With a hard curb on one
side and a center line on the other, cars cannot clear a path. Fire trucks and ambulances will be forced to
inch through traffic instead of getting a clear lane in seconds.
This is especially risky because we are adding more high‑need destinations. Senior assisted‑living and
memory‑care units at Westport (Mary and Stevens Creek) and the proposed medical clinic at De Anza
College will increase emergency calls on Stevens Creek, Stelling, Pepper Tree, Mary, McClellan, and
nearby streets. At the same time, hard‑separated bike lanes would make yielding to those emergency
vehicles more difficult.
School access will be damaged. At Faria Elementary, more than 600 families use Bonny Avenue and
Pepper Tree Lane twice every day. Parents park on these streets and walk their children in. If you remove
street parking on Bonny and Pepper Tree for bike lanes, the current drop‑off system breaks. Queues will
back up onto arterials, and more children will be forced to cross busy streets from farther away.
Similar problems will appear near schools that depend on Stelling, Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger, Mary,
and McClellan for drop‑off and pick‑up.
The City’s own framework emphasizes data, cost‑effectiveness, and negative scoring when removing
many parking spaces or travel lanes. Yet the purple projects are exactly where those impacts will be
largest. Advancing them without clear block‑by‑block information on parking loss, congestion, and
emergency response would go against those principles.
I respectfully ask you to:
• Remove all purple‑listed bike lane projects on Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling
Road, Blaney Avenue, Bollinger Road, Foothill Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Bonny Avenue, Pepper Tree
Lane, Mary Avenue, McClellan Road, and other affected streets from the ATP; and
• Focus instead on technology‑based measures that do not remove on‑street parking or
emergency‑vehicle maneuvering room.
We all want fewer crashes and safer streets. We should not achieve that by making it harder for families
to live, gather, and reach medical care, or for emergency responders to reach people in time.
Please do not approve the purple row or any other bike lane projects.
Thanks,
Deepa
From:Vidya Gurikar
To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject:ATP projects
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:56:27 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.
I am a longtime Cupertino homeowner and daily driver. I value safe streets for everyone. But
the purple-marked bike lane projects in the Active Transportation Plan will make our city less
safe.
The number of motorists that use the streets far outnumber the small number of bicyclists.
The ATP projects take away precious street space from motorists and make the streets unsafe
for everyone.
I urge you to remove them all.
Here are the projects to reject:
• Homestead Road buffered/separated bike lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated bike lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated bikeways
• Blaney Ave buffered bikeways
• Bollinger Rd buffered bikeways
• Foothill Blvd separated bikeways
• Wolfe Rd separated bikeways
• Bonny Ave bike lanes
• Pepper Tree Ln bike lanes
• Mary Ave and McClellan Rd school segments
Three reasons why these projects should be rejected:
1. Emergency vehicles get blocked. Hard concrete bike lanes trap cars between barriers and
center lines. No room to pull right. Fire engines and ambulances crawl through traffic. This
hits hardest where we need fastest response: new Westport senior/memory care at Mary-
Stevens Creek, De Anza College medical clinic, plus all our schools and neighborhoods.
2. School drop-off chaos. Faria Elementary serves 600+ kids. Parents park on Bonny and
Pepper Tree, walk kids in safely. Strip that parking for bike buffers? Lines spill onto arterials.
Kids dart across roads from distant spots. Same story for schools near Stelling, Homestead,
Blaney, Bollinger.
3. Families lose parking. Curb space isn’t optional. It’s for grandparents, guests, service vans,
family events. Residential stretches of Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger, Stelling, Bonny, Pepper
Tree, Mary, McClellan – all lose it. Cars flood narrower streets. Congestion worsens
everywhere.
Pleasr reject them now, before they lock in harm.
Please consider the following to improve the safety for everyone:
Speed cameras. Smart signals.
Crosswalk beacons.
Neighborhood slow streets.
School guards.
All of the above deliver safety without sacrificing parking or blocking emergency vehicles.
Action requested:
• Delete every purple bike lane from the ATP.
• Prioritize tech, intersections, and school fixes instead.
Cupertino works because streets serve cars, bikes, peds, and emergencies equally. These
projects break that balance.
Please Vote no. Reject all new bike lanes.
Sincerely,
Shrividya Gurikar
From:Mahesh Gurikar
To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Cancel all purple bike lane projects in ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 7:38:51 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Cupertino City Council,
I am a longtime Cupertino homeowner and daily driver. I value safe streets for everyone. But
the purple-marked bike lane projects in the Active Transportation Plan will make our city less
safe. I urge you to remove them all.
Here are the projects to reject:
• Homestead Road buffered/separated bike lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated bike lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated bikeways
• Blaney Ave buffered bikeways
• Bollinger Rd buffered bikeways
• Foothill Blvd separated bikeways
• Wolfe Rd separated bikeways
• Bonny Ave bike lanes
• Pepper Tree Ln bike lanes
• Mary Ave and McClellan Rd school segments
Three clear reasons why these projects should be rejected:
1. Emergency vehicles get blocked. Hard concrete bike lanes trap cars between barriers and
center lines. No room to pull right. Fire engines and ambulances crawl through traffic. This
hits hardest where we need fastest response: new Westport senior/memory care at Mary-
Stevens Creek, De Anza College medical clinic, plus all our schools and neighborhoods.
2. School drop-off chaos. Faria Elementary serves 600+ kids. Parents park on Bonny and
Pepper Tree, walk kids in safely. Strip that parking for bike buffers? Lines spill onto arterials.
Kids dart across roads from distant spots. Same story for schools near Stelling, Homestead,
Blaney, Bollinger.
3. Families lose parking. Curb space isn’t optional. It’s for grandparents, guests, service vans,
family events. Residential stretches of Homestead, Blaney, Bollinger, Stelling, Bonny, Pepper
Tree, Mary, McClellan – all lose it. Cars flood narrower streets. Congestion worsens
everywhere.
Pleasr reject them now, before they lock in harm.
Better fixes exist. Speed cameras. Smart signals. Crosswalk beacons. Neighborhood slow
streets. School guards. All deliver safety without killing parking or blocking fire trucks.
Action requested:
• Prioritize tech, intersections, and school fixes instead.
Cupertino works because streets serve cars, bikes, peds, and emergencies equally. These
projects break that balance.
Please Vote no. Reject all new bike lanes.
Sincerely,
Mahesh Gurikar
From:Chirali Bhandari
To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:20:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
I respectfully oppose the purple-marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. They harm
parking, safety, and school access. Please remove them all.
Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
•
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets.
• Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior
housing and De Anza clinic.
• Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.
Your scoring system penalizes parking removal. These projects fail that test.
Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.
Request: Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.
Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.
Sincerely,
Chirali Bhandari
From:Seema Lindskog
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office; City Attorney"s Office
Subject:Serious Ethics Concerns Regarding Planning Commission Chair Communications on the ATP agenda item
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:09:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor, Council members, and City Attorney,
I am a commissioner with the Cupertino Planning Commission but I am writing today as a resident. City
Clerk, please include this email as public communication for the ATP agenda item at tonight's Council
meeting.
Tracy Kosolcharoen, Chair of the Planning Commission, sent an email to the City Council on Wednesday
Feb 18 2026 regarding emergency response times and protected bike lanes. The email– and how it came
to be – raises serious governance and ethics concerns.
The issue raised in the email was discussed during the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, at
which time Chair Kosolcharoen introduced adding a criteria to the ATP to consider emergency response
times and therefore deprioritize projects for protected bike lanes on some city streets as a potential
recommendation of the Planning Commission. That recommendation did not proceed, receiving two votes
in favor and three votes against. As a result, the Planning Commission explicitly decided not to
recommend the position expressed.
Yesterday, Chair Kosolcharoen sent an email to the City Council expressing opposition to protected bike
lanes due to her concern about emergency response times. The email was sent from her official
@cupertino.gov email address and included her official title as Chair of the Planning Commission.
Although the message states that she was “writing on behalf of myself,” the context and manner of the
communication raise several significant concerns related to governance, ethics, and the appropriate role
of appointed officials. As a member of the Planning Commission myself, I am very mindful to ensure that
if I write to council or outside agencies on my own behalf on any matter within the jurisdiction of
Cupertino, to do so from my private, personal communication and to acknowledge that the
communication is personal and does not reflect the position of the Commission. Council has previously
and recently discussed this standard.
More concerningly, Chair Kosolcharoen also used her official email and title to reach out to a sergeant in
the Sheriff’s Office. Nowhere in the email did she disclaim that she was acting in her official capacity. City
staff were not aware that Chair Kosolcharoen sent the email. Because the email came from her official
email and with her official letterhead and title, the sheriff’s office mistakenly assumed it was an official
request from the City of Cupertino. In fact, the city staff knew nothing about it and it was not an official
staff request. This has resulted in quite a bit of confusion and public resources being used in support of a
personal question by Chair Kosolcharoen as a resident.
Specifically, these two communications appear to implicate the following principles:
1. Use of public resources for personal advocacy
Under California Government Code § 8314, public resources may not be used for personal or political
purposes. Chair Kosolcharoen’s use of an official city email account and signature block associated with
a city-appointed role to advocate a personal policy position may constitute misuse of public resources,
regardless of disclaimers included in the message.
2. Improper invocation of official title following contrary commission action
Ethics guidance from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) emphasizes that public officials may
not leverage the prestige or authority of their office to influence governmental decisions when acting in a
personal capacity. This concern is heightened where the official’s communication follows a recorded vote
of the body rejecting the same position, creating a reasonable risk that the communication could be
interpreted as conveying an institutional or insider view that does not, in fact, exist.
3. Circumvention of the commission’s collective, noticed process
The Planning Commission acts only through noticed meetings and majority votes. After the Commission
voted on Feb 10, 2026 not to advance the recommendation, a unilateral communication by Chair
Kosolcharoen to the City Council on the same issue – using her official email address and title –
undermines the integrity of the advisory process and the public’s understanding of how recommendations
are formed.
4. Undue influence
Chair Kosolcharoen’s clear use of her title and official city email address, and failure to disclaim to obtain
preferential responses from the Sheriff’s Office created an undue influence on the Sheriff’s Office (the
impression that the communication was an official request of the City of Cupertino) that induced the
Sheriff’s Office to produce a prospectively favorable memo in response. It would be inappropriate for a
Councilmember to breach the Council-Manager relationship in this fashion. It cannot be acceptable for
Council’s commission appointees to circumvent it either. It is for this reason that the Commissioner’s
Handbook and the city’s Ethics Policy admonish against misuse of official titles.
5. Inconsistency with local ethics and commission conduct standards
While I defer to the City Attorney on specific municipal code citations, most municipal ethics codes and
commission handbooks require appointed officials to:
Clearly distinguish personal views from official positions
Avoid use of city resources for private advocacy
Refrain from representing themselves as speaking for the body absent formal authorization
This communication is clearly inconsistent with those standards.
I raise these concerns not to question intent, but to safeguard the integrity of the City’s governance
processes and ensure clear boundaries for appointed officials, particularly where the Planning
Commission has already taken formal action on the issue. I respectfully request that the City Attorney
review this matter and provide guidance to Chair Kosolcharoen regarding appropriate communication
practices following commission votes, including the use of official email accounts, titles, and disclaimers.
Thanks,
Seema Lindskog
___________________________________________________________________
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a
From:David Yan
To:City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Request to remove purpole bike lane projects from ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:59:14 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.
Councilmembers,
I am writing to oppose the purple marked bike lane projects. They harm parking, safety, and
school access.
Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
*
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets.
• Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior
housing and De Anza clinic.
Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.
Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.
From:Ram Sripathi
To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:55:02 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
I am a Cupertino senior resident. I respectfully oppose the purple-marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. They
harm parking, safety, and school access. Please remove them all.
Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets.
• Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior housing and De Anza
clinic.
• Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.
Your scoring system penalizes parking removal. These projects fail that test.
Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.
Request: Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.
Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.
Sincerely,
Ram Sripathi
Cupertino resident forever
Sent from my iPhone
From:Deepak Balasubramaniam
To:Public Comments; City Council; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Request to Remove All Purple Bike Lane Projects from ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 5:46:44 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and City Council,
As a Cupertino resident who will be affected by the bike lane project proposal, I respectfully
oppose the purple-marked bike lane projects in Attachment D. They harm parking, safety, and
school access. Please remove them all.
The current bike lanes and safety blockades have created more distractions, dangerous
situations and overall frustration for residents. Instead of solving issues through education,
enforcement, upgrading pavements, and monitoring we are spending money unnecessarily on
these projects that don't help the majority of residents. We will continue spending money on
maintaining these projects in the future too which wastes taxpayer money.
Projects to remove:
• Homestead Rd buffered/separated lanes
• Stevens Creek Blvd separated lanes
• Stelling Rd buffered/separated
• Blaney Ave buffered
• Bollinger Rd buffered
• Foothill/Wolfe separated
• Bonny/Pepper Tree lanes
• Mary/McClellan school routes
Key concerns:
• Curb parking lost for elders, guests, deliveries on residential streets.
• Emergency vehicles blocked by concrete barriers, especially with new Westport senior
housing and De Anza clinic.
• Faria Elementary drop-off disrupted for 600+ kids on Bonny/Pepper Tree.
Your scoring system penalizes parking removal. These projects fail that test.
Better options: Technology corridors, crosswalks, school safety measures.
Request: Please delete all purple bike lanes from the ATP.
Thank you for prioritizing families and safety.
Sincerely,
Deepak
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; Public Comments; Tina Kapoor; City Attorney"s Office; Kirsten Squarcia; City Clerk
Subject:Opposition to Bike Lane projects in ATP
Date:Thursday, February 19, 2026 4:14:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the upcoming city council meeting.
[Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident]
Subject: Opposition to Purple-Lined Bike Lane Proposals in ATP
Dear Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Cupertino City Council,
I am writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident.
I oppose the bike lane projects shown in purple in Attachment D of the Active Transportation
Plan (ATP) agenda materials. While I support safer walking and biking, these particular
bike lane proposals would create serious, localized impacts on residents’ ability to live and
function on affected streets, especially around on‑street parking, school access, and emergency
response.
Because the purple projects are not simply paint on wide arterials but often require removal of
existing curbside parking and/or conversion to concrete‑separated Class IV facilities, they
directly conflict with the ATP goal of “Multimodal Balance” and with the “Community
Impacts” language in the General Plan Mobility Element, which calls for minimizing adverse
impacts and avoiding simply moving problems from one street to another.
Below I outline overarching concerns, then request that you remove each purple‑identified
bike lane project from the list, before adopting the ATP.
Overarching concerns
• Loss of on‑street parking and guest parking: The revised prioritization criteria explicitly
recognize parking and lane removal as negative impacts, with point deductions when “five or
more regularly used parking spaces are removed” or when a travel lane is eliminated over
more than 10% of a project’s length. The purple projects by definition are the ones most likely
to require these trade‑offs, and yet the plan does not provide project‑by‑project parking loss
numbers that residents can evaluate today. Approving these facilities in concept, and deferring
the true parking analysis to a later 30% design phase, pushes a large, real impact onto
individual households without giving them clear information now.
• Emergency vehicle access and lane width: Many of the purple projects contemplate either
buffered or concrete‑separated Class IV bikeways on constrained corridors. Once a hard
‑separated bikeway is built adjacent to a narrower general‑purpose lane, cars
can no longer pull right into a wide shoulder or curb lane to yield to fire trucks or ambulances.
This is especially problematic on corridors that will see more emergency responder trips in the
near future, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and connecting streets serving medical and
senior facilities. The ATP is asking you to pre‑approve these corridors before that impact is
fully analyzed.
• One‑size‑fits‑all separated design: Some community members asked to “upgrade buffered
bike lanes to separated bikeways” on high‑speed corridors. That preference on wide arterials
should not automatically drive the choice of concrete separation on constrained residential
segments, where loss of curb access, driveway conflicts, school drop‑off operations, and
emergency operations are far more acute. The ATP should explicitly distinguish where full
separation is essential (e.g., high‑speed, multi‑lane arterials) versus where lower‑speed
neighborhood streets can safely be served with shared or advisory treatments that preserve
parking and curb flexibility.
• Data‑first policy conflicts: The revised prioritization framework emphasizes objective
metrics, removal of “Fairness” as a subjective criterion, and additional negative scoring for
projects that impact arterials or remove parking and lanes. Yet the purple corridors are being
advanced as network “must‑haves” without the same level of quantitative balancing for
neighborhood and school impacts, especially emergency response and daily school circulation.
New development and emergency response impacts
Several near‑term projects will significantly increase emergency responder activity along
Stevens Creek Boulevard and adjacent streets:
• The planned Westport development at Mary Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard, which
includes more than 130 assisted‑living units and 36 memory‑care units, will generate frequent
ambulance and fire responses due to the frailty of its residents.
• The proposed 25,000‑square‑foot medical clinic facility at DeAnza College Parking Lot B
will add another high‑intensity medical destination, increasing emergency calls and patient
transport along Stevens Creek, Stelling, Mary, Pepper Tree Lane, McClellan Road, and the
surrounding network.
These facilities will rely on rapid access along exactly the streets where concrete‑separated
bike lanes are being proposed in purple. When general‑purpose lanes are narrowed and a rigid
curb or median separates traffic from the bikeway, drivers can no longer swing into an
extra‑wide curb lane or shoulder to create space for emergency vehicles. Instead, traffic often
becomes “trapped” between the separation and the centerline, forcing fire trucks and
ambulances to thread slowly through the middle of the lane, adding seconds or minutes to
response times when every second matters.
Designing these corridors with unforgiving concrete separation, at the same time we are
adding high‑need medical and senior uses, is an avoidable conflict. The ATP should explicitly
recognize these planned uses and direct that on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, Mary
Avenue, Pepper Tree Lane, McClellan Road, and nearby connections, emergency access and
yield‑space remain a hard constraint on bikeway design.
School access and Faria Elementary (Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane)
Two of the purple‑proposed bike facilities are on Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane, which
directly serve Faria Elementary. Over 600 families drive on these roads twice a day for school
drop‑off and pick‑up.
Parents rely on exactly this curb space to:
• Queue vehicles safely in an organized fashion.
• Park on Bonny and Pepper Tree and then walk the last segment with their children into
campus.
Removing street parking on Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane to meet buffer or separation
width requirements would fundamentally disrupt this daily operation for roughly 600
students.
It would:
• Force parents into longer, more chaotic queues on already‑congested arterials.
• Push parking and loading activity deeper into adjacent residential side streets that are not
designed for this intensity.
• Increase the number of children crossing uncontrolled or mid‑block locations as families
hunt for replacement parking further away from school.
A plan that claims to prioritize Safe Routes to School cannot simultaneously remove the very
curb space parents use to stage and walk the “last stretch” to Faria. Any purple bikeway
concept on Bonny and Pepper Tree should be removed from the ATP and replaced with a
school‑specific circulation and safety plan that preserves on‑street parking and focuses on
speed management, crosswalk upgrades, and crossing‑guard support rather than lane and
parking removal.
Other school drop‑off and pick‑up impacts
The same pattern of conflict appears along several other purple corridors:
• Homestead Road: Serves multiple school communities; parking and wide lanes along some
segments are used informally for staging and drop‑off. Converting these segments to
concrete‑separated bikeways will constrain both school circulation and emergency yield space.
• Stelling Road: Carries heavy school‑hour traffic and walking/biking to nearby schools.
Removing curbside parking and hard‑separating the bikeway would reduce safe, legal
short‑term parking near schools and limit options for parents to pull over when children need
assistance.
• Blaney Avenue: Used by families accessing nearby schools and the Blaney/Stevens Creek
intersection. Wider buffered lanes at the expense of residential curb parking would make it
harder for parents to find safe, proximate parking and walk children to school.
• Bollinger Road, Mary Avenue, McClellan Road, and connecting residential streets: All
function as part of the practical school access network, even if not directly fronting school
property. Removing parking on these streets as part of purple bike lane projects will displace
school‑hour parking and loading into other blocks and complicate traffic patterns around
schools.
The ATP already emphasizes the importance of Suggested Routes to School, Safe Routes to
School programming, and intersection‑level safety measures. It would be far more consistent
with those goals to prioritize intersection improvements, traffic calming, and crossing safety,
rather than corridor‑wide parking and lane removals on the very streets that families depend
on for daily school access.
Corridor‑by‑corridor opposition (summary)
For the reasons above, I oppose the purple‑designated bike lane projects that would remove
parking or narrow emergency‑critical lanes on:
• Homestead Road (buffered and separated bike lanes)
• Stevens Creek Boulevard (separated bike lanes, especially near Westport and De Anza
College)
• Stelling Road (buffered and separated bikeways)
• Blaney Avenue (buffered bikeways on residential segments)
• Bollinger Road (buffered bikeways)
• Foothill Boulevard and Wolfe Road (separated bikeways on constrained sections)
• Bonny Avenue and Pepper Tree Lane (bike lanes affecting Faria Elementary access)
On each of these corridors, I ask that Council explicitly remove the purple row identified bike
lane projects from the ATP.
Requests to Council
In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Cupertino City Council:
1. Direct staff to remove all purple‑designated bike lane segments from the ATP including
but not limited to the segments of Stevens Creek Boulevard, Homestead Road, Stelling Road,
Blaney Avenue, Bollinger Road, Foothill Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Bonny Avenue, Pepper
Tree Lane, Mary Avenue, McClellan Road, and nearby school‑access streets.
2. Explicitly account for the upcoming Westport senior assisted‑living and memory‑care
project and the planned De Anza College medical clinic in any design decisions for Stevens
Creek Boulevard and its feeder streets, treating emergency response and yield‑space as
non‑negotiable design constraints.
3. Protect school access by prohibiting ATP projects that remove curbside parking or
materially disrupt drop‑off/pick‑up operations around Faria Elementary and other schools,
unless and until a replacement circulation and parking plan is designed with parents, school
staff, and public safety and is approved in a separate, transparent process.
4. Where safety concerns are real, prioritize technology‑based safety improvements only
rather than corridor‑wide parking and lane removals.
This approach would allow Cupertino to pursue genuine safety improvements in line with its
Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan goals, while still honoring the daily realities of residents
who need curbside access for their families, caregivers, and guests and who depend on clear,
unobstructed paths for emergency response, particularly as the City adds new senior and
medical facilities that will increase the volume and urgency of emergency medical calls.
Thank you for considering this perspective as you refine the ATP.
Sincerely,
San Rao (writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident)