HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 07-14-2026 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference
Tuesday, July 14, 2026
6:45 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 Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue.
2) Tune to Comcast Channel 24 or Channel 26 and U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV.
3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.gov/youtube and
www.Cupertino.gov/webcast
4) Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT:
Members of the public wishing to address the Planning Commission may do so in the
following ways:
1) Appear in person at Cupertino Community Hall:
a. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda,
and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for
each agendized item.
b. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards
is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for
the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.
c. Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the
microphone when recognized by the Chair.
d. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A
speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up to 2
minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum.
e. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any
personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document
Page 1
1
PC 07-14-2026
1 of 422
Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 2026
(e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in
one of the following ways:
i. At the overhead projector at the podium or
ii. E-mail the document to planningcommission@cupertino.gov by 3:00 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 planningcommission@cupertino.gov
b. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino Planning Commission, City
Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
c. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the
meeting will be included in written communications published and distributed before the
beginning of the meeting.
d. Comments addressed to the Planning Commission received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline,
but through the end of the Planning Commission meeting, will be posted to the City’s
website by the end of the following business day.
3) Teleconference in one of the following ways:
a. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in
advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Ncaw6lRAR4S9lzFHvI-Erg
i. Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
webinar.
ii. Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized,
speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
iii. Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can
directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their
internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser,
such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
b. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join
the meeting as follows:
i. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 814 7355 8770
ii. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
iii. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number.
c. 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
Page 2
2
PC 07-14-2026
2 of 422
Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 2026
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
i. Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior
to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from
the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment.
ii. If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to the meeting from the
remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the other options for remote
participation provided above.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approval of the June 23, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the June 23, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes.
1 - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS - None
STUDY SESSION
2.Subject: Study session on Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small Home
Upgrades City Work Program item.
Recommended Action: Review the outreach survey findings, discuss ongoing permit
streamlining efforts, and provide input on priorities and potential next steps.
Staff Report
1 - Local Permitting Outreach Survey
NEW BUSINESS
3.Subject: Review of the Draft Active Transportation Plan and Provide a
Recommendation to the City Council.
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt the Active Transportation Plan.
Page 3
3
PC 07-14-2026
3 of 422
Planning Commission Agenda July 14, 2026
Staff Report
1 - Draft Resolution
2 - Final Draft Active Transportation Plan
3 - April 7, 2026 City Council Staff Report
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
4.Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
1 - Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
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
PC 07-14-2026
4 of 422
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Approval of the June 23, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes.
Approve the June 23, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/10/2026Page 1 of 1
5
PC 07-14-2026
5 of 422
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, June 23, 2026
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order
and led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350
Torre Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, Vice Chair Steven Scharf and Commissioners David Fung, Seema
Lindskog and Santosh Rao. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: Approval of the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommended Action: Approve the May 26, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes.
MOTION: Rao moved and Lindskog seconded to approve the May 26, 2026, Planning
Commission Minutes. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Kosolcharoen,
Scharf, Lindskog, Rao. Noes: None. Abstain: Fung. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS –
Jennifer Griffin discussed Highway 17.
OLD BUSINESS – None
NEW BUSINESS – None
STUDY SESSION
2. Subject: Study Session on Housing Element update to add capacity at all income levels.
Recommended Action: Receive staff’s presentation and provide direction on housing
site selection strategies to add capacity to accommodate the City’s moderate- and
6
PC 07-14-2026
6 of 422
Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2026
lower-income Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), as required by state law.
Written communications for the item included a staff presentation.
Assistant Director of Community Development Luke Connolly gave a presentation.
Chair Kosolcharoen opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
• Greg Endom
• Ken Bell
• Muni Madhdhipatla
• Vicky T.
• Esther Wong
• Jonathan Cheng
• Jennifer Griffin
Chair Kosolcharoen closed the public comment period.
Commissioners asked questions which Assistant Director of Community Development Luke
Connolly and Planning Manager Piu Ghosh responded to.
Commissioners made the following recommendations:
• Explore whether zoning or General Plan amendments could maximize
opportunities for conversion ADUs on R3 parcels, up to the 25% limit allowed
for non-habitable space.
• Develop an objective scoring system to evaluate housing sites based on
neighborhood compatibility, including adjacency to single-family
neighborhoods, proximity to industrial uses, and fire and evacuation
considerations, to improve transparency and public understanding.
• Evaluate retail potential when considering housing sites and encouraging site
designs that better support successful commercial and mixed-use development.
• Prioritize Class B and Class C office properties over retail properties when
identifying potential Housing Element sites to help preserve retail uses.
• Contact local hotels to inquire whether they’re interested in being potential
Housing Element sites, while keeping TOT impacts in mind.
• Look at gas stations, hotels, North De Anza Boulevard, and De Anza College as
potential Housing Element sites.
• Evaluate additional office properties along the west side of De Anza Boulevard
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard as potential Housing Element sites, regardless
of current occupancy, to provide greater flexibility in meeting Housing Element
7
PC 07-14-2026
7 of 422
Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2026
requirements.
• Consider the single-story banks near the Marina Plaza site and the Wells Fargo
and Chase Bank sites at Torre and Rodriguez.
• Consider whether grocery stores can be integrated into vertical mixed-use
projects
• Consider whether Pho Ha Noi (former Armadillo Willy’s) can be a potential site
• Consider creating retail clusters, establishing zoning standards and policies to
support them, and focusing density around them along the main corridors.
At 8:46 p.m., Chair Kosolcharoen recessed the meeting. The meeting reconvened at 8:54
p.m. with all Commissioners present.
• Engage with landowners regarding potential Housing Element sites.
• Instead of focusing on all available sites, strategically consider the overall
appearance of the City, using a top-down approach.
• Prioritize higher-density housing on sites with fewer compatibility constraints,
including sites not adjacent to single-family neighborhoods and located along
major corridors.
• Consider the value of existing community-serving uses, including medical
offices, retail centers, and entertainment uses, when evaluating potential
Housing Element sites, and preserve those uses where feasible.
• Consider an approach which proposes retail clusters with consideration for
proximity to single-family homes, and other relevant factors, like Downtown
Campbell or Santana Row.
• Rank sites or use a point system showing high redevelopment potential and low
neighborhood impacts, even if it is a qualitative ranking.
• Focus on creating retail cluster strategy which will result in supporting
successful businesses and better accommodate the relocation of displaced small
restaurants and retail uses.
• Focus on low-density sites along De Anza Boulevard, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Homestead Road, and other gateway corridors, prioritizing non-retail sites,
Class C office properties, gas stations, and other low-density commercial uses.
• Avoid forcing retail where developers don’t want it.
• Save potential Housing Element sites for the next cycle.
• Protect affordable housing and older multifamily residences. Retain residential
amenities.
• Focus on economic development initiatives that help businesses succeed.
• Consider outreach options such as mass mailings to communicate potential
impacts to the public, particularly those who would be most affected.
• Make it clear to the McClellan applicant that there is the option and desire to
downzone the property (A straw poll was conducted on this matter and all
8
PC 07-14-2026
8 of 422
Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 2026
Commissioner’s agreed).
• Be very cognizant of the fire evacuation bottlenecks in high fire severity zones.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
Planning Manager Piu Ghosh reported on the progress of objective design standards.
Vice Chair Scharf reported on the May 28, 2026 Housing Commission meeting.
Commissioner Rao reported on pickleball.
Commissioner Fung reported on the groundbreaking for the SummerHill project.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
Commissioners added the following future agenda items.
• Subcommittee to consider whether data centers should be considered as it’s own category
and make recommendations to allow/disallow such a use in Cupertino (Rao, Lindskog)
• Bring pickleball back to the body for a balanced set of recommendations from the
Commission. (Rao, Kosolcharoen)
ADJOURNMENT
At 9:49 p.m. Chair Kosolcharoen adjourned the regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
9
PC 07-14-2026
9 of 422
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject:Study session on Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small Home Upgrades City Work
Program item.
Review the outreach survey findings, discuss ongoing permit streamlining efforts, and provide input on
priorities and potential next steps.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/10/2026Page 1 of 1
10
PC 07-14-2026
10 of 422
1
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Date: July 14, 2026
Subject
Study session on Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small Home Upgrades City
Work Program item.
Recommended Action
Review the outreach survey findings, discuss ongoing permit streamlining efforts, and
provide input on priorities and potential next steps.
Discussion
Background
On March 18, 2025, the City Council approved the FY 2025–2027 City Work Program
(CWP) priority items. At that meeting, Permit Streamlining and Simplification for Small
Home Upgrades was identified as a Council priority goal. The CWP goal is identified as
follows: “Develop a suite of improvements to (1) improve access to, and (2) speed the
processing of permits for small home upgrades to; enhance compliance and improve
overall efficiency. Improve turnaround times. Set SLAs for staff and outsourced
reviewers, customer service KPI’s, templates to reduce back and forth, and internal staff
expertise to reduce consulting expenses.”
In FY 2025-26, Community Development Department (CDD) staff began work on this
CWP goal by evaluating opportunities for permit streamlining. In February 2026, staff
conducted a benchmarking survey—a tool used to collect and compare data on processes,
performance metrics, and practices across peer jurisdictions—related to residential
permits to twelve Chief Building Officials (CBOs) throughout Santa Clara County. The
resulting benchmarking survey data is to help inform decision-making and assess how
Cupertino compares with surrounding jurisdictions and is discussed later.
Analysis
Understanding the Current Building Permit Process
CDD utilizes Accela as its permit management system and ProjectDox for electronic plan
review to facilitate coordinated, multi-departmental review of building permit
11
PC 07-14-2026
11 of 422
2
applications. Upon submittal, applications are logged into Accela and routed through
ProjectDox, where plans and supporting documents are distributed concurrently to the
appropriate reviewing departments and agencies, including Building, Planning, Fire,
Public Works, and the Cupertino Sanitary District.
Each reviewing agency conducts its review within ProjectDox, providing comments and
correction notices directly within the system. Applicants respond to and upload revised
materials through ProjectDox, enabling iterative review cycles until all agency approvals
are obtained. Accela serves as the central tracking system for application status,
conditions of approval, collection of permit fees, and permit issuance, ensuring
transparency and coordination throughout the review process.
Typical review timelines for initial and subsequent building permit submittals are
available on the City’s website. The ProjectDox system includes features that support the
tracking of performance metrics for both plan reviewers and applicants, allowing for
internal management of the review process. Staff has the ability to generate reports on
plan review statistics, including workload, overdue tasks, and average turnaround times.
Permit review key performance indicators (KPI) targets for initial submittals and
resubmittals are also published on the City’s website.1 KPIs measure how actual review
times compare to adopted target timelines, typically evaluated through metrics such as
average turnaround time and the percentage of reviews completed within established
timeframes. While the Building Division uses these KPI tracking tools for internal
management purposes.
Cupertino’s Building Permit Metrics Current Conditions
Reports from ProjectDox show that residential building permit applications increased by
48% between 2021 and 2025, reflecting sustained demand for home improvement
projects. The chart below illustrates recent trends in residential permit volume and
departmental review activity.
Year 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 (Jan-May)
Res. Permits Received 1908 1941 2302 2324 2828 988
Average turnaround times, measured in days, are also provided for all (residential and
commercial) building permit reviews below. Building permit review requires
coordinated input from Building, Planning, Fire, Sanitary, and Public Works. These
figures should be understood in context, as Cupertino Sanitary District and Santa Clara
County Fire Department are contracted service providers. The Building Division also
1 Permit Timeline KPI Targets, available under the “Permit Timelines” dropdown:
https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/Departments/Community-Development/Building/Permits
12
PC 07-14-2026
12 of 422
3
relies on two contract plan review consultants to maintain turnaround times during peak
times of the year. The figure below combines average turnaround times by division,
measured in days, reflecting the increase in residential building permits received.
Current Available Service Features
CDD currently provides a range of permit support services to assist applicants
throughout the process. These include over-the-counter same-day plan review for eligible
projects, as well as the option to schedule pre-submittal meetings to help identify issues
early and reduce review cycles. Applicants can access detailed checklists and handouts
for certain permit types on our website, along with permitting system guides to help
navigate application submission. The department also offers electronic plan submittal
and review, replacing traditional paper-based processes, and provides email notifications
and online permit status tracking.
Additional support is available through walk-in counter services, and staff are responsive
and accessible to answer questions and provide assistance. The department utilizes
Zendesk, which is a customer service platform to manage the intake of plan submittals
and inquiries. When an inquiry comes in, a ticket is automatically generated, assigned,
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Building 7.78 11.72 11.66 10.96 16.9
Planning 11.07 16.85 23.03 24 27.2
Fire 8.27 13.64 14.76 15.56 22.07
Cupertino Sanitary 10.74 16.95 15.015 18.18 19.56
Public Works 9.72 16.25 12.95 15.64 24.23
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Cupertino’s Average Building Permit Turnaround Time (Days) by
Division
Building Planning Fire Cupertino Sanitary Public Works
13
PC 07-14-2026
13 of 422
4
and monitored by staff, ensuring consistent follow-up, accountability, and records of
interactions across the department.
Current Streamlining Efforts Underway
The City is actively advancing permitting streamlining efforts through technology and
process improvements. These efforts include:
a. Exploring AI-supported application prescreening and plan review in coordination
with IT to help identify potential issues earlier in the process,
b. Expanding staff training and the use of Microsoft Copilot to improve internal
efficiency and consistency, and
c. Developing clear, standardized plan review checklists for small residential
remodel permits to simplify submittal requirements with the goal of reducing
review cycles.
d. The Building Division currently offers residential instant online permits for
electrical panel upgrades, furnace replacements, reroofing, installation of electrical
vehicle charging equipment, solar permits with use of SolarApp+, temporary
power poles, siding replacements, water heater replacements, and whole house
re-piping.
e. Developing instant online permits for additional minor residential projects, such
as, kitchen remodels, bathroom remodels, HVAC changeout permits, and heat
pumps.
f. Collaborating with IT on the updating of the current online permit portal to
improve the use and functionality of the portal to expand the ability to submit all
types of building permit applications.
g. The IT Department is in the process of executing the capability to allow e-checks
as an option for payment of permit fees.
Staff also continue to monitor and adjust to changes in State law, as new housing and
permitting requirements directly impact local review timelines, application
requirements, and the City’s responsibility to streamline residential permit processing
across divisions.
Other Considerations
Timely permit processing is also significantly dependent on the applicant, particularly
the qualified design professionals retained for project development. The completeness,
accuracy, and code compliance of submitted plans are directly tied to the expertise of the
project design team. Retaining experienced and knowledgeable professionals is essential
to minimizing review cycles and facilitating efficient approvals. While the City endeavors
to provide clear guidance and coordinate effectively with applicants, it can only control
its portion of the review process. Delays most frequently occur during the applicant’s
submittal and resubmittal phases.
14
PC 07-14-2026
14 of 422
5
Common causes of repeat plan check cycles include:
a. Inadequate familiarity with applicable codes and local requirements
b. Incomplete or inconsistent application materials
c. Insufficient or non-responsive correction responses
d. Limitations or usability challenges associated with permitting software systems
Benchmarking Methodology
As mentioned previously, a benchmarking survey was conducted with local jurisdictions
focusing on the following information:
a. Permitting Programs Used and Metric Reporting
b. Turnaround Times - Expected vs. Actual
c. Permit and Staffing Volumes
d. Review Process and Business Support Features
e. Response Times - Applicant and Staff
f. Service Level Agreements (SLA) & Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
g. Efficiency Factors
Survey responses were received from six of twelve Santa Clara County City Building
Departments/Divisions, which have been included as Attachment 1. Cities were
encouraged to provide candid responses in this analysis and have, accordingly, been
assigned anonymous identifiers for presentation purposes. This benchmarking effort is
designed to identify trends, best practices, and opportunities for improvement rather
than to evaluate and rank specific cities.
Data Limitations Disclaimer
Some limitations may exist in the data. Definitions of a ‘small home remodel’ may vary
among jurisdictions, and not all cities track permit activity using the same classifications.
In some cases, jurisdictions were unable to separate permit volumes by specific permit
types, while others maintain more detailed tracking systems. As a result, this data should
be interpreted with caution. However, the survey data remains useful for identifying
general trends and providing reasonable comparisons related to permit volumes,
staffing, and turnaround times, which support the overall findings presented in this
report.
Benchmarking Findings
A review of peer city survey responses indicates that:
• All jurisdictions, including Cupertino, provide detailed checklists and handouts
for small home remodel permits.
• Only one city publicly reports KPIs.
• Permitting platforms vary across jurisdictions, though three cities use Accela.
• The average response times are generally consistent among all agencies.
15
PC 07-14-2026
15 of 422
6
• Notably, Cupertino is processing a higher volume of permits with fewer staff
compared to peer cities.
• Across jurisdictions, the most common causes of repeat plan submittals include
applicants’ unfamiliarity with code requirements and incomplete applications.
• Five of seven cities (including Cupertino) have implemented transparency
measures by making permitting turnaround metrics publicly available.
• While most cities experienced a decline in small home remodel (SHR) permit
activity between FY23-24, Cupertino saw an increase in such activity.
Benchmarking with Peer Cities: Volume, Staffing & Review Times (FY24-25)
City Total SHR
Permits
Total Full-Time
Reviewers
Consultant
Support
Avg. First Round
Review (Days)
Cupertino 2144 2 Yes 19
City 2 60 2 No 21
City 3 3115 7 Yes 40
City 4 419 9 Yes 21
City 5 152 5 Yes 30
City 6 179 5 No 20
City 7 737 11 No 20
Ideas and Potential Next Steps
To further streamline permits for small residential projects, staff recommend targeted
measures focused on improving submittal quality and refining internal processes.
Because these projects are often prepared by homeowners and less experienced design
teams, clear, standardized guidance—such as checklists and templates—should be
prioritized to reduce incomplete applications. Staff should continue internal process
improvements to streamline routine reviews, eliminate redundancies, and expand
ministerial or over-the-counter approvals where feasible. Additionally, targeted
clarification of commonly misunderstood residential requirements will improve
consistency and reduce repeat corrections. Focused outreach, including homeowner and
small contractor resources, can further improve applicant preparedness. Collectively,
these actions address the primary sources of delay by improving initial submittals and
reducing unnecessary review cycles without adding new administrative layers.
______________________
Prepared by: Julia Garofalo, Assistant Planner
Phuong Devries, Deputy Building Official
Sean Hatch, Chief Building Official
Reviewed by: Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager
Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Acting Director of Community
Development
16
PC 07-14-2026
16 of 422
7
Attachments:
1 – Local Permitting Outreach Survey
17
PC 07-14-2026
17 of 422
PURPOSE: Identify improvements that increase access to and speed the processing of permits for small home upgrades.
IDENTIFICATION PERMITTING SYSTEM & TRANSPARANCY EXPECTED TURNAROUND TIMES (DAYS) ACTUAL TURNAROUND TIMES (DAYS) PERMIT VOLUME STAFFING VOLUME REVIEW PROCESS FEATURES & BUSINESS SUPPORT RESPONSE TIMES SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS & KPI'S EFFICIENCY FACTORS
City Name
Permitting system used
for application and
review
Permitting
turnaround
metrics publicly
available? (select
one)
Expected
turnaround -
Kitchen/Bath
(in-place
replacement)
Expected
turnaround -
Kitchen/bath
(new or
relocated
appliances)
Expected
turnaround -
Small addition
< 250 sf
(single-story)
Expected
turnaround -
Kitchen/Bath
(in-place
replacement)
Expected
turnaround -
Kitchen/bath
(new or
relocated
appliances)
Expected
turnaround -
Small addition
< 250 sf
(single-story)
Number of small
home remodel
permits FY 23-24
Number of small
home remodel
permits FY 24-25
Number of Building
staff involved in
permit review. Note if
they are consultants
Number of
Planning staff
involved in
review. Note if
they are
consultants
Number of other
reviewers (Fire,
Public Works,
etc.)
Is over-the-
counter or
same-day
plan review
offered?
(select one)
Are detailed
checklists or
handouts
available for
small home
remodels?
(select one)
Are there options to
schedule a pre-
submittal meeting to
help reduce review
cycles for building
permit applications
related to small
businesses or
commercial
businesses?
Are expedited
review options or
special services
available for
building permit
applications
related to small
businesses or
commerical
businesses?
Average applicant
response times
between submittals
(days)
Average staff
response time
for first round of
review
comments (days)
Are service
level
agreements
(SLAs) in
place? (select
one)
Are there
consequences for
missing SLAs (staff,
reviewers, applicants
- provide brief
description)
Are building
permit KPIs
tracked? (select
one)
Are KPI's
linked and
publicly
available?
(select one)
Are standardized
templates used
for permit review
comments?
(select one)
Most common
cause of repeat
plan submittals
(select one)
Cupertino Accela and ProjectDox YES
2-5 business
days
2-5 business
days
15 bus days -
1st review;
10 bus days -
subreview
2-5 business
days
2-5 business
days
15 bus days -
1st review;
10 bus days -
subreview 1854 2144 2 staff + 2 consultants
3 senior, 2
assoc., 3
assistant. Total 8
PW - 2 staff
Fire - unknown
Sanitary -
unknown
Env Serv - 2 staff YES YES YES NO Varies 19 YES NO YES NO SOME REVIEWS
applicant
unfamiliar with
code
requirements
City 2 MGO NO 2 DAYS 2 DAYS 2 MONTHS 2 DAYS 2 DAYS 2 MONTHS 50 60 2 1 2 YES YES YES YES 3 WEEKS 5 WEEKS NO NO NO NO ALL REVIEWS
applicant
unfamiliar with
code
requirements
City 3
ProjectDox and a custom
system for calculating
permit fees and tracks all
inspections for issued
permits. System is very
old 26+ and we are the
last jurisdication to use
this system.YES 3 days 5 days 15 days 5-7 days 7-10 days 20-25 days
We don't track data in
that manner. We track
by issued building or
fire permits. FY23-24
= Total permits issued
5664
We don't track data in
that manner. We track
by issued building or
fire permits. FY23-24
= Total permits issued
3115
1 Plan Check
Engineer, 1 Plan
Checker both
permenante staff. 2
Senior PT posistions
filled, 3 PT possitions
filled. We have 1
Senior PT vacancy.
We are using 1
consultant PT through
Apple One.
12 planners
permanently filled,
1 vacancy. 1
consultant
planner.
3 fire protection
engineers with
the building
division,
permanent
positions. 2 fire
consultants.
Public Works is
huge, they have
from 28-32
permenante staff.
And
approximately 5-7
consultants. NO YES YES YES
60+ DAYS FOR NEW
OR ADDITIONS -
SMALLER SCOPES
OF WORK 10+ DAYS
20-25 DAYS FOR
NEW OR
ADDITIONS .
SMALLER
SCOPE OF
WORK 10-15
DAYS NO
NO, BUT WE MUST
TRY TO OFFER A
MEETING REQUEST
TO HELP WITH
PERMIT
NAVIGATING. ALSO
AFFECTS OUR
ANNUAL
REPORTING
NUMBERS AND
PERFORMANCE
MATRIX TO COUNCIL YES YES SOME REVIEWS
incomplete
application /
missing
requirements
THE KPI IS
MANAGEMED BY
THE
SUSTAINABILITY
DEPARTMENT IN
THE CITY
MANAGERS
OFFICE
City 4 Accela YES 1-3 days 5-10 days 10-20 days 1-3 day 10 days 20 days
357 (Assume
alteration/remodel for
1200 sqft or less)
419 (Assume
alteration/remodel for
1200 sqft or less)
9 Full time; 4-5
consultants as needed 8-10 Planners
1-2 reviewers
each departments YES YES YES YES Varies 4-6 weeks NO N/A YES NO SOME REVIEWS
applicant
unfamiliar with
code
requirements
City 5 Trakit NO 2-5 days 2-5 days 21 days 2-5 days 2-5 days 14-21 days 246 152
2 - Permit Techs
3 - Inspectors
2 - Outside plan check
firms 5 Planners
SCCFPD
5 Engineering NO NO NO NO 15-30 days 21-30 days YES NA YES NO SOME REVIEWS
incomplete
application /
missing
requirements
Missing
information on
plans
and applicant
unfamiliar with
Code. Architectural
and structural do
not match
City 6
Trakit for permitting
system and ProjectDox
for online submittal
system YES
OTC if applied
in person;
3 business
days if applied
online
OTC if applied
in person;
3 business
days if applied
online
OTC if applied
in person;
20 business
days if applied
online
Meet target
turnaround time
on average
Meet target
turnaround time
on average
Meet target
turnaround time
on average
We do not track small
or large remodel. We
only track
"remodel/additions" of
any scope and
separate tracking for
"Bathroom/Kitchen
Remodel".
Total Remodel/Addition
= 103
Total
Bathroom/Kitchen
Remodel = 66
We do not track small
or large remodel. We
only track
"remodel/additions" of
any scope and
separate tracking for
"Bathroom/Kitchen
Remodel".
Total
Remodel/Addition =
105
Total
Bathroom/Kitchen
Remodel = 74 5 5 6 YES YES YES YES 20 (expected) 15 (expected) NO N/A YES NO NONE
applicant
unfamiliar with
code
requirements
City 7 Accela YES Same Day Same Day
15 business
days for first
cycle of review,
10 business
days for every
cycle after Same Day Same Day
15 business
days for first
cycle of review,
10 business
days for every
cycle after 800 737 11 9 YES YES NO NO 20 (expected) 15 (expected)NO NO YES NO SOME REVIEWS
Repeat
comments due to
applicant not
addressing them
in the previous
review cycle
Attachment
Local Permitting Outreach Survey
18
PC 07-14-2026
18 of 422
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Review of the Draft Active Transportation Plan and Provide a Recommendation to the City
Council.
That the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the
Active Transportation Plan.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/10/2026Page 1 of 1
19
PC 07-14-2026
19 of 422
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting: July 14, 2026
Subject
Review of the Draft Active Transportation Plan and Provide a Recommendation to the City
Council.
Recommended Action
That the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution recommending that the City Council
adopt the Active Transportation Plan.
Discussion
With many of the recommendations from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018
Pedestrian Transportation Plan having been completed or advanced, the City is developing a
new, comprehensive Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to address current needs and guide
future transportation improvements. This unified plan will better coordinate bicycle and
pedestrian investments while considering the safety, mobility, and operational needs of all
roadway users, including motorists. This coordinated approach ensures consistency across
policies and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses overlapping concerns. The ATP was
included in the Fiscal Year 2024–25 City Work Program, and the City Council later authorized a
contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. to prepare the Plan.
Phase 1 & Phase 2 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP, conducted between March and June 2025, focused on policy review,
technical analysis, and initial community outreach. The project team reviewed relevant local
and regional plans to ensure consistency with the City's existing goals, including the General
Plan Mobility Element and the Vision Zero Action Plan. Community input during Phase 1
identified safety, accessibility, maintenance, sustainability, multimodal balance, and fairness as
key priorities, with safety ranked as the top goal.
Phase 1 also included a needs assessment and existing conditions review to identify gaps,
barriers, and opportunities within the active transportation network. Technical analyses,
including Level of Traffic Stress and Active Trip Potential, helped identify locations where
existing short driving trips could reasonably shift to walking or biking if safer and more
comfortable facilities were provided. These analyses were paired with community feedback
about desired destinations, barriers to walking and biking, and general safety concerns.
20
PC 07-14-2026
20 of 422
Residents consistently emphasized the need to improve safety along the Vision Zero High-
Injury Network, strengthen connections between neighborhoods and schools, address stressful
intersections, and consider potential impacts to drivers when implementing bicycle
improvement projects. Together, the technical analysis and community feedback informed the
development of draft network recommendations and draft project prioritization criteria.
Phase 2, the Network Recommendations Phase, occurred between August 20 and November 30,
2025. During this phase, the City continued public engagement through eight pop-up events,
three public hearings, and an updated online webmap that allowed community members to
review and comment on draft project recommendations. Public feedback continued to highlight
concerns about intersection conflicts, right-turning vehicles, limited visibility, red-light running,
vehicle speeding, and bike-ped safety during commute periods. The intersections and corridors
most frequently identified included Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, Bollinger Road, De
Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue.
For pedestrian projects, the community expressed strong support for shared-use path
recommendations, including the Tamien Innu, Union Pacific corridor, and Lawrence-Mitty
Trail, as well as intersection improvements. For bicycle projects, popular recommendations
included separated bike lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard, buffered bike lanes on Blaney
Avenue and Bollinger Road, and a combination of buffered and separated bike lanes on
Homestead Road and Stelling Road. Across both pedestrian and bicycle recommendations,
recurring priorities included improving school access, addressing High Injury Network
corridors, strengthening neighborhood connections, supporting traffic calming, and improving
intersection safety.
In fall 2026, all Phase 1 materials, along with the draft project prioritization criteria, were
presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council. Both the Planning and Bicycle Pedestrian Commissions agreed that the ATP project
scoring should prioritize safety near schools and along the Vision Zero High Injury Network.
Additionally, both Commissions recommended that the criteria should rely on data-based
metrics, and that subjective metrics, such as “Fairness,” should be removed from the scoring
criteria. Lastly, the two bodies emphasized the need to improve future decision-making through
better data collection and that the ATP should place greater emphasis on transportation
technology.
Commission recommendations were presented to the City Council on November 4, 2026, and
based on Council direction, staff then revised the draft prioritization criteria by refining the
Safety metric, refining and increasing the max score for the School Proximity metric, adding
senior facilities to Destination scoring, creating a new transportation technology project
category, removing the Fairness metric, adding Cost Effectiveness as a metric, and
incorporating additional negative scoring for projects which could impact traffic operations on
Cupertino arterials.
21
PC 07-14-2026
21 of 422
Staff also developed additional guidelines to support future project delivery, including a Project
Impact Assessment Memo and a Project Effectiveness Memo. These documents are intended to
improve transparency, evaluate potential tradeoffs during project design, and establish a more
consistent approach to measuring the effectiveness of future ATP projects. Together, the work
completed in Phases 1 and 2 makes up the Draft Active Transportation Plan (Attachment 2),
which was developed in Phase 3.
Phase 3 Commission Feedback & Council Direction on Project Scoring
Phase 3 was the Plan Development and Public Review Phase of the Active Transportation Plan.
This phase focused on consolidating the work completed during Phases 1 and 2 into a single
comprehensive document for public review. The Draft Active Transportation Plan incorporates
all materials previously reviewed by the City Council, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and
the Planning Commission, and its content reflects the direction provided by the City Council to
staff throughout the project.
Before preparing the Draft Active Transportation Plan, staff returned to the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission and Planning Commission to receive feedback on the Draft Project List. At the
February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the challenge of
making incremental adjustments to individual scoring criteria, noting that changes to one
metric could unintentionally affect project rankings elsewhere. However, there was general
agreement that the Safety and School Proximity scoring should be refined to better elevate
Vision Zero-related projects.
The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission also reviewed the Draft Project List on February 18, 2026.
Similar to the Planning Commission, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission expressed interest in
modifying the criteria to better support Vision Zero-related projects. Commissioners also
suggested that the School Proximity metric may be weighted too heavily.
Based on feedback from both Commissions, staff prepared an adjusted scoring approach for the
City Council's consideration. The proposed adjustment increased the maximum score for
projects located on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network from 20 points to 30 points and
reduced the maximum score for School Proximity from 20 points to 10 points. Because the
proposed two changes move in opposite directions, projects that scored well under both criteria
generally remained comparatively stable, while projects that relied heavily on only one of the
two criteria experienced the largest change in their ranking. The strongest positive movement
occurred among projects that benefited from the increased Vision Zero scoring but did not rely
heavily on the School Proximity score.
This proposed adjustment was presented to the City Council on April 7, 2026 (staff report
included as Attachment 3), where the Council conducted a straw poll directing staff to rescore
the network recommendations using the adjusted scoring approach. The project rankings
shown in Chapter 7 of the Draft Active Transportation Plan reflect the City Council’s direction
from the April 7, 2026, meeting. These project rankings are not intended to establish the order in
22
PC 07-14-2026
22 of 422
which projects should be completed. Rather, they are intended to inform future project selection
and initiation through the City’s Capital Improvement Program process. Future implementation
will depend on multiple factors, including funding availability, staff capacity, Council priorities,
project readiness, grant opportunities, community concerns, and opportunities to coordinate
with other planned or ongoing City projects.
Phase 3 Draft Plan Public Comments and Responses
Following the April 7, 2026, City Council meeting, staff rescored the network recommendations
using the Council-directed adjusted scoring criteria. Staff then began preparing the Draft Active
Transportation Plan by organizing the materials developed over the past year into a single
document. The Draft Plan was circulated for public review from June 1 through June 30, 2026,
via an interactive PDF that allowed readers to submit comments, which were publicly viewable.
During this review period, staff received 19 comments on the Draft Plan, which are still
viewable at CupertinoATP.org. Most comments were either minor clarifications, project-specific
suggestions, unrelated concerns outside the scope of the ATP, or issues that had already been
heard and considered during earlier phases of community engagement. Additionally, the
comments largely reaffirmed themes from Phases 1 and 2, including general interest in safer
walking and biking conditions, improved school access, low-stress bikeway connectivity, and
careful consideration of potential neighborhood impacts. Other minor comments involved map
symbology, photo selection, or other document presentation issues. These were generally minor
and did not affect the substance of the Plan. Lastly, some comments pertained to matters such
as SV Hopper operations, railroad property acquisition, and other issues not immediately
related to the ATP. The primary substantive comment was regarding the importance of e-bike
safety, which led to some additional language in Chapter 1 emphasizing the importance of e-
bike and electric micromobility safety beyond what was already stated in Chapter 6.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Adoption of the Active Transportation Plan is not a project subject to CEQA because it is a
planning and policy document that does not commit the City to any specific physical
improvements or activity that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Luke Connolly, Acting Director of Community Development
Attachments:
1 – Draft Resolution
2 – Final Draft Active Transportation Plan
3 – April 7, 2026, City Council Staff Report
23
PC 07-14-2026
23 of 422
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-18
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO RECOMMENDING THAT
THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to
adopt the proposed Active Transportation Plan, in substantially similar form to the
Draft Resolution attached hereto as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the
City of Cupertino, the 14th day of July 2026, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___ _____
Piu Ghosh Tracy Kosolcharoen
Planning Manager Chair, Planning Commission
24
PC 07-14-2026
24 of 422
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-18
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING AN ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino has prepared the Cupertino Active Transportation
Plan (“ATP”), a planning document intended to inform future improvements for
walking and bicycling; and
WHEREAS, the ATP was developed through a multi-phase public process that
included technical analysis, public outreach, review by Commissions, and direction
from the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 19, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received a project
kick-off presentation for the ATP, including an overview of the project schedule,
outreach approach, proposed technical analysis, and plan development process; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received a
presentation on the Phase 1 summary and Phase 2 kick-off, including an overview of
community outreach, existing conditions, technical analysis, the draft project
prioritization criteria, and the next phase of plan development; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission received a presentation
on the Phase 1 summary and Phase 2 kick-off, including information regarding
community outreach, existing conditions, technical analysis, the draft project
prioritization criteria, and the next phase of plan development; and
WHEREAS, on November 4, 2025, the City Council received a presentation on the
Phase 1 summary, including information regarding community outreach, existing
conditions, technical analysis, the draft project prioritization criteria, the next phase
of plan development, and provided direction regarding the continued development
of the ATP; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Planning Commission received a presentation
on the Phase 2 summary, project scoring criteria, including a draft project list,
prioritization considerations, and next steps for preparing the Draft ATP; and
WHEREAS, on February 18, 2026, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received a
presentation on the Phase 2 summary, project scoring criteria, including a draft project
list, prioritization considerations, and next steps for preparing the Draft ATP; and
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2026, the City Council received a presentation on the Phase 2
summary, project scoring criteria, including a draft project list, prioritization
considerations, and next steps for preparing the Draft ATP; and
25
PC 07-14-2026
25 of 422
WHEREAS, staff incorporated feedback received from the City Council in preparing
the Draft ATP; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Active Transportation Plan was made available for public
review and comment from June 1, 2026, through June 30, 2026, during which the
public were provided an opportunity to review the Draft Plan and submit written
comments; and
WHEREAS, the ATP is intended to serve as a planning document and does not, by
itself, approve construction of any individual capital project, commit funding to any
individual project, or preclude any future environmental review, public review,
design approval, funding action, or City Council action that is required for
implementation of future projects; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the Active Transportation Plan may enhance the City’s
eligibility and competitiveness for state, regional, and federal grant funding
opportunities that support bicycle, pedestrian, and other active transportation
improvements identified through the planning process; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for
adoption of the Active Transportation Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby adopt the
Active Transportation Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is not a project under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State
CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change in the environment. In the event that this Resolution is found to be a
project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA
Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no
possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment.
CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility
that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the
activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed adoption would
have no or only a de minimis effect on the environment because adoption of the Active
Transportation Plan does not approve, authorize, fund, or commit the City to any
specific construction project, physical improvement, or change to the existing
environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its
independent judgment.
26
PC 07-14-2026
26 of 422
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 15th day of September, 2026, by the following vote:
Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
27
PC 07-14-2026
27 of 422
City of Cupertino
Active Transportation Plan
FINAL DRAFT · JULY 6, 2026
28
PC 07-14-2026
28 of 422
Acknowledgments
2025-2026 City Council
Kitty Moore
Mayor
Liang-Fang “Liang” Chao
Vice Mayor
J.R. Fruen
Councilmember
Sheila Mohan
Councilmember
R “Ray” Wang
Councilmember
2025-2026 Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission
Gerhard Eschelbeck
Chair
Munisekaran Madhipatla
Vice Chair
Ilango Ganga
Commissioner
Herve Marcy
Commissioner
Joel Wolf
Commissioner
2025-2026 Planning
Commission
Tracy Kosolcharoen
Chair
Steven Scharf
Vice Chair
David Fung
Commissioner
Seema Lindskog
Commissioner
Santosh Rao
Commissioner
City of Cupertino, Public
Works
David Stillman
Transportation Manager
Matthew Schroeder
Senior Transportation Planner
Consultant
Alta Planning + Design
HMH Engineers
2CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29
PC 07-14-2026
29 of 422
Contents
CHAPTER 1—PLAN OVERVIEW 7
• Why an Active Transportation Plan? � � � � � � �8
• What’s in the Plan? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11
CHAPTER 2—
VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 12
• Goals � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 14
• Objectives � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15
CHAPTER 3—CUPERTINO TODAY 18
• Building on the Past � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19
• Community Profile � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 20
• Transportation Profile � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21
• Walking and Rolling � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 22
CHAPTER 4—NEEDS ANALYSIS 31
• Components of the Needs Analysis� � � � � � � 32
• Safety � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 33
• Level of Traffic Stress Analysis � � � � � � � � � 35
• Active Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 39
• Stress-Adjusted Short Trips:
Gap Potential Analysis � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 45
CHAPTER 5—PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 49
• Phase 1 Outreach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 51
• Phase 2 Outreach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 52
CHAPTER 6—PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS 53
• Recommendation Selection Methodology � � � 54
• Pedestrian Network Recommendations � � � � 55
• Transportation Technology
Corridor Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � 58
• Bicycle Network Recommendations � � � � � � 60
• Recommended Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � 63
CHAPTER 7—
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 72
• Methodology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 73
• Project Ranking and Cost Estimates � � � � � � 78
• Implementation Strategy� � � � � � � � � � � � � 90
• Project Delivery and Evaluation Commitments � 91
• Funding Sources � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 92
APPENDICES 94
3CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 30
PC 07-14-2026
30 of 422
List of Figures
Figure 1—Bicyclists and e-scooter on McClellan Road
at Rose Blossom Drive � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8
Figure 2—Woman riding an e-scooter on
Torre Avenue � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
Figure 3—Adult riding an e-mountain bike on Stevens
Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
Figure 4—Older adult riding a tricycle on Stevens
Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �10
Figure 5—ATP signage at Creekside Park � � � � � � �20
Figure 6—Cyclists waiting to cross De Anza
Boulevard at Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � � � �20
Figure 7—Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in
Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 five-year estimates) � 20
Figure 8—Commuter Mode Share
(Source: 2023 ACS 5-Year estimates) � � � � � � � �21
Figure 9—Three cyclists riding westbound on
Bollinger Road � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �22
Figure 10—Existing Pedestrian Network (2025) � � �22
Figure 11—Existing Sidewalk Network � � � � � � � �23
Figure 12—Cyclist approaching Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon on McClellan Road � � � � � � � �24
Figure 13—Permanent crossing improvements on
Byrne Avenue � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �24
Figure 14—Existing Crosswalks � � � � � � � � � � � �25
Figure 15—VTA Route 23 on Stevens
Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �26
Figure 16—SV Hopper � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �26
Figure 17—Average Daily Transit Boardings
and Alightings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �27
Figure 18—Person rolling on De Anza Boulevard at
Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �28
Figure 19—Existing Bike Infrastructure � � � � � � � �29
Figure 20—Pedestrians at the intersection of De Anza
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � �33
Figure 21—Older adult in crosswalk blocked by a car
on Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � �33
Figure 22—Cyclists on Bollinger Road at
Clifden Way � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33
Figure 23—High-Injury Network � � � � � � � � � � �34
Figure 24—Pedestrian Level of Traffic
Stress Categories � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �35
Figure 25—Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress � � � � �36
Figure 26—Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Categories �37
Figure 27—Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis �38
Figure 28—Woman riding a folding electric bike
on Homestead Road at De Anza Boulevard � � � �39
Figure 29—Active Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � �40
Figure 30—A screenshot of the Flowmap
showing short driving trips within Cupertino � �40
Figure 31—Active Trip Potential: All Trips Under
5 Miles� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �41
Figure 32—Walk Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � � �42
Figure 33—Bike Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � � �43
Figure 34—E-Bike Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � �44
Figure 35—Man crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard at
Finch Avenue to access Main Street Cupertino � �45
Figure 36—Woman cycling on Rodrigues Avenue
turning onto De Anza Boulevard � � � � � � � � � �45
Figure 37—Walk Gap Scores � � � � � � � � � � � � � �47
Figure 38—Bike Gap Scores � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �48
Figure 39—Presentation at Community
Workshop #1 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �50
Figure 40—Silicon Valley Fall Festival � � � � � � � � �50
Figure 41—Cupertino Block Leader Meeting � � � � �50
Figure 42—Students and parents at Collins
Elementary School Walk and Roll Day � � � � � � �51
Figure 43—Cupertino Senior Center � � � � � � � � � �52
Figure 44—Recommended Pedestrian Network � � �57
Figure 45—Recommended Transportation
Technology Corridors � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �59
Figure 46—Recommended Bikeway
Facilities (miles) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �60
Figure 47—Rider on McClellan Road � � � � � � � � �60
Figure 48—Recommended Bike Network � � � � � �62
Figure 49—Pedestrian Network Recommendations
with Project Rankings� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �75
Figure 50—Transportation Technology Network
Recommendations with Project Rankings � � � � �76
Figure 51—Bicycle Network Recommendations
with Project Rankings� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �77
Figure 52—Rodrigues Avenue buffered bike
lanes installed as part of the City’s pavement
maintenance program � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �90
Figure 53—Sharrow installation on Pacifica Drive� �91
4CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31
PC 07-14-2026
31 of 422
List of Tables
Table 1—
Student mode share in Cupertino (2024)� � � �21
Table 2—
Engineering Program Recommendations � � � 63
Table 3—
Encouragement Program Recommendations � 66
Table 4—
Education Program Recommendations � � � � 68
Table 5—
Enforcement Program Recommendations � � � 70
Table 6—
Evaluation Program Recommendations � � � � 71
Table 7—
Pedestrian Facility Improvements
Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �73
Table 8—
Transportation Technology Corridors
Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �74
Table 9—
Bicycle Facility Improvements
Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �74
Table 10—
Consolidated Project Ranking � � � � � � � � � �78
5CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 32
PC 07-14-2026
32 of 422
CHAPTER 1
Plan Overview
33
PC 07-14-2026
33 of 422
Plan Overview
The Cupertino Active Transportation
Plan will guide future multimodal
transportation investments that
improve safety, connectivity, and
access throughout Cupertino.
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is a
comprehensive plan that identifies infrastructure
improvements, policies, and programs to make it easier
for people to walk, bike, and roll in Cupertino� The ATP
builds on Cupertino’s previous initiatives to improve
mobility, including the 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan,
the 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), the 2018
Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan� The ATP integrates insights
and achievements from these earlier efforts and
reaffirms the City’s commitment to its long-term active
transportation goals� The project team collaborated
with residents, community groups, City departments,
and other stakeholders to identify local needs and
develop recommendations to make active travel
more accessible, comfortable, and convenient for all
Cupertino residents and visitors�
The plan is rooted in safety needs, funding
opportunities, state policy, and the City’s Council-
adopted environmental and community goals�
Together, these factors underscore the importance of
planning for a transportation system that is accessible,
balanced, and safe for all roadway users�
PHASE 1
Needs Assessment and
Existing Conditions
• Review of local, regional,
and state policies and plans
• Analysis of Cupertino
demographics, land
use, existing/planned
infrastructure, safety, and
other relevant inputs
• Community input on
network barriers and
needs, as well as plan
vision and goals
PHASE 2
Project
Recommendations
• Development of draft
recommendations
• Community input on draft
recommendations
• Prioritization of
infrastructure
improvements
and programmatic
recommendations
• Financial analysis and
implementation strategy
PHASE 3
Draft Plan Review and
Final Adoption
• Preparation and public
review of draft ATP
• Public input on draft ATP
• Adoption of final ATP
based on community input
and official approvals
Active transportation is the movement of people or
goods using nonmotorized methods powered by human
activity� Forms of active transportation include walking,
biking, or rolling (e�g�, skateboarding, riding a scooter, or
using a mobility device).
7CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 34
PC 07-14-2026
34 of 422
Why an Active Transportation Plan?
State Requirements and
Policy Context
Active transportation planning in California is strongly
supported by state legislation and policy� Cities
in California are required to update their citywide
bicycle, pedestrian, or active transportation plans
every five years to remain eligible for certain funding
sources� The California Active Transportation Program,
established through Senate Bill 99 and Assembly Bill
101, encourages the increased use of walking and
biking as a means to improve safety, public health, and
environmental outcomes�
Having an adopted active transportation plan is
considered best practice and is often necessary to align
with state and regional goals, including greenhouse
gas reduction targets established under Senate Bill
375� State and regional guidance emphasizes that
local agencies should develop comprehensive bicycle
and pedestrian plans to identify needs, prioritize
improvements, and demonstrate project readiness
for implementation� This planning process ensures
that projects are data-driven, community-shaped,
and consistent with statewide transportation and
climate policies�
Grant Funding Eligibility
One of the primary reasons cities develop active
transportation plans is to remain competitive for
federal, state, and regional funding� Programs such
as Safe Streets and Roads for All (federal), the Active
Transportation Program (state), or One Bay Area
Grant (regional) are significant sources of funding for
building and maintaining transportation infrastructure
in Cupertino� Most competitive grant programs are
heavily oversubscribed, making an adopted active
transportation plan essential for cities wanting to
successfully compete for grant funding� Active
transportation funding can support a wide range of
improvements such as sidewalks, bikeways, safe routes
to school programs, and traffic safety enhancements.
By developing an active transportation plan, the
City of Cupertino can leverage local funds as a
multiplier for external funding to implement
Council-approved projects�
Figure 1: Bicyclists and e-scooter on McClellan Road at Rose Blossom Drive
8CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 35
PC 07-14-2026
35 of 422
Improving Safety
Safety is a central motivation for active transportation
planning� Statewide goals for active transportation plans
include increasing the safety and mobility of nonmotorized
users� The 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan
identified safety improvements for people walking and
biking as a critical implementation action because they are
the most vulnerable roadway users� This ATP provides
the framework to turn the High Injury Network locations
identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan into possible
projects for future implementation�
By proactively addressing safety, Cupertino can reduce
traffic-related injuries and fatalities, improve comfort for all
users, and support a Safe Systems Approach: eliminating
fatal and serious injuries for all road users by designing
a forgiving transportation system that accommodates
inevitable human mistakes� It moves beyond traditional
safety by accepting that humans are vulnerable, and that
proactive, shared responsibility is required�
Since adoption of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and
2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, new micromobility
trends have emerged, including e-scooters, e-bikes,
and emotos� While these technologies have expanded
transportation options and increased the convenience of
micromobility, they also present unique safety challenges
that require proactive attention.
The ATP recommends e-bike and micromobility
education, with a particular focus on school-age riders,
as a shared community-wide responsibility is required to
ensure these new options can be used safely while also
supporting City active transportation goals�
Figure 2: Woman riding an e-scooter on Torre Avenue
Figure 3: Adult riding an e-mountain bike on
Stevens Creek Boulevard
9CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 36
PC 07-14-2026
36 of 422
Figure 4: Older adult riding a tricycle on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Benefits of Walking, Biking,
and Rolling
In addition to safety and environmental benefits, active
transportation also provides public health, economic,
and community advantages� These include:
• Public Health: Walking, biking, and rolling increase
physical activity, helping reduce chronic diseases
such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes�
• Equity and Accessibility: Active transportation
networks provide affordable mobility options for
people of all incomes, including those who cannot or
choose not to drive�
• Economic Vitality: Improved pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure can support local businesses
by increasing foot traffic and improving access to
commercial areas�
• Quality of Life: Walkable and bikeable communities
promote social interaction, reduce noise, and create
more vibrant public spaces�
• Connectivity: Active transportation infrastructure
improves access to schools, parks, jobs, and transit,
strengthening the overall transportation network�
These benefits support Cupertino’s vision for a livable,
healthy, and sustainable community�
Climate Action
Plan Alignment
Active transportation is a key strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and advancing local,
regional, and state climate goals� Cupertino’s largest
source of emissions comes from private vehicle travel;
the ATP advances the City’s Climate Action Plan
(CAP) by encouraging mode shift and reducing vehicle
miles traveled� Investments in walking and biking
infrastructure make it easier for residents to choose
sustainable transportation options for short trips,
school trips, commutes, and connections to transit�
The ATP directly supports Chapter 9 of the Climate
Action Plan, “Connecting Communities,” which
identifies transportation as a key component of
Cupertino’s climate strategy. The CAP specifically calls
for the development and implementation of an Active
Transportation Plan to help achieve a 15 percent active
transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by
2040� By identifying projects that close network gaps,
improve safety, and create more comfortable facilities
for people walking and biking, the ATP provides an
implementation mechanism for these CAP goals�
10CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 37
PC 07-14-2026
37 of 422
What’s in the Plan?
The ATP is organized in the following chapters:
CHAPTER 2
VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Presents the ATP’s guiding vision statement with
associated goals and policies�
CHAPTER 3
CUPERTINO TODAY
Offers an overview of Cupertino’s current demographic
context, travel modes, transit systems, active
transportation infrastructure, and progress made on
past plans�
CHAPTER 4
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Provides analysis of safety on Cupertino’s streets;
which streets are most comfortable for walking, biking,
and rolling; where there’s the most potential for new
walking, biking, and rolling trips; and where future
ATP investments might yield the largest benefits.
CHAPTER 5
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Shares the public participation process from 2025
to 2026 and summarizes what we heard from
the community�
CHAPTER 6
PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Presents recommendations for investments to the active
transportation network, along with recommended
policies and programs to achieve Cupertino’s long-
range vision for active transportation�
CHAPTER 7
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Presents the results of prioritization scoring for
recommended projects, cost estimates for project
implementation, an overview of available funding
sources, and guidelines for measuring project
effectiveness and proactively assessing potential
impacts to traffic operations.
11CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 38
PC 07-14-2026
38 of 422
CHAPTER 2
Vision, Goals,
and Objectives
39
PC 07-14-2026
39 of 422
Vision, Goals and Objectives
The vision, goals, and objectives were developed to reflect and reinforce the City of
Cupertino’s adopted plans and policies� They were developed by consolidating similar and
overlapping statements from existing Cupertino plans and then refined using input gathered
during Phase 1 outreach to also reflect today’s community needs and concerns.
The City of Cupertino will be a place where people of all ages
and abilities can easily, comfortably, and safely walk, bike, and
roll to get where they want to go. A robust active transportation
network will enhance mobility options for all, creating a safe
and connected multimodal City.
Vision Statement
Vision is a broad aspirational statement for the desired
future state of walking, biking, and rolling in Cupertino.
Goals are general statements of what the City hopes to
achieve for active transportation over time.
Objectives further define how and what actions are part
of meeting these goals.
13CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 40
PC 07-14-2026
40 of 422
Goals
Each goal provides a guiding framework that was applied throughout
the development of this plan.
SAFETY
Consistent with the Vision Zero Action
Plan, pursue an active transportation
network that reduces the number of
serious and fatal crashes involving
people walking, biking, or rolling to zero�
Enact measures to anticipate human
error and minimize the impact of traffic
crashes for all roadway users�
ACCESSIBILITY
Provide a well-connected multimodal
transportation network that offers
comfortable and convenient walking and
biking options to key destinations for all
residents and visitors in Cupertino�
MAINTENANCE
Active transportation needs should be
considered and integrated in all City
roadway maintenance activities�
SUSTAINABILITY
Advance environmental quality and
economic prosperity for the City by
providing inviting active transportation
facilities that encourage frequent use
and improve adoption of all non-vehicle
modes of travel, resulting in a reduction
in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gas emissions�
MULTIMODAL BALANCE
Consider multimodal priorities and
project impacts to improve sustainable
transportation options throughout the
City� Limit impacts to all other modes
whenever possible, including transit and
personal vehicles�
FAIRNESS
Provide a multimodal transportation
system that is equally distributed across
all neighborhoods in Cupertino�
14CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 41
PC 07-14-2026
41 of 422
Objectives
Objectives represent concrete actions that the City can take to achieve each goal
and transform the vision into a reality.
Safety
1.A Prioritize improvement projects in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program that are along the Vision
Zero High-Injury Network (HIN).
1.B Design the transportation system to accommodate
vulnerable road users, especially youth� Integrate
Vision Zero principles into all City projects and
departments, with a focus on eliminating all traffic
fatalities and severe injuries on City roadways�
1.C Provide separation between users. Reduce conflicts
between people walking and biking by separating
active transportation users in space (such as separated
bikeways) or in time (such as separate signal phases).
1.D Prioritize school safety improvements, working
with Cupertino Union School District and Fremont
Union High School District, focused on roadway safety
improvements and safety education efforts.
1.E Conduct education with vulnerable road users to
improve safety awareness, especially among youth,
seniors, and residents with a disability�
1.F Work with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office
to identify and prioritize “hot spot” enforcement for
traffic infractions most likely to lead to serious or
fatal injuries�
Accessibility
2.A Increase access and comfort by designing the
network for all ages and abilities in line with the
best available research and design standards� Ensure
the active transportation network complies with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2.B Prioritize regional connectivity by implementing
active transportation projects that connect to
surrounding cities or are identified as countywide
corridors in the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Countywide Bicycle Plan�
2.C Address gaps to establish an active transportation
network that is more complete, connected, sustainable,
and better integrated with public transportation.
2.D Expand short-term and secure long-term bicycle
parking capacity in public spaces and through new
housing and commercial development requirements�
2.E Improve access to transit stops and stations for
people biking and walking�
2.F Expand and improve wayfinding signage for people
walking and biking�
2.G Expand and connect the trail network throughout
Cupertino, to act as an alternative to the street network
for people walking and biking�
15CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 42
PC 07-14-2026
42 of 422
Sustainability
3.A Reflect sustainable priorities in the City’s Capital
Improvements budget and other operating programs�
3.B Support a culture of active and transit mode choice
through incentives, programs, and initiatives that focus
on reaching families, women, and seniors�
3.C Support and expand education and encouragement
through the Safe Routes to School program�
3.D Reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gases through investments in the active transportation
network that support a shift in behavior from driving a
car to walking, biking, rolling, and transit�
3.E Facilitate multi-jurisdictional commute trips
by prioritizing implementation of trail/shared-use
path projects and VTA Cross County Bicycle
Corridor projects�
3.F Accommodate and plan for a wider range of
mobility devices, such as electric scooters and bicycles�
Maintenance
4.A Continue and expand the use of the Cupertino 311
online portal for community reporting of damaged or
malfunctioning active transportation infrastructure�
4.B Prioritize street sweeping and maintenance
activities on streets with separated bikeways�
4.C Adopt design standards for new infrastructure that
prioritize lower maintenance costs�
4.D Work with private property owners to ensure
sidewalks are maintained and repaired, especially
around schools and other major destinations�
4.E Continue to maintain a citywide database on active
transportation infrastructure�
16CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 43
PC 07-14-2026
43 of 422
Multimodal Balance
5.A Develop a Complete Streets Study Guideline for
evaluating the potential impacts of separated on-street
bikeways, including parking loss, congestion impacts,
or transit efficiency.
5.B Consider bicycle and pedestrian safety and comfort
for all City traffic studies and impact analysis.
5.B Prioritize projects that generate multimodal
benefits, such as transit enhancements or roadway
safety improvements�
5.C Prioritize the implementation of projects with a
high degree of project readiness and known impacts on
traffic operations.
5.D Prioritize the needs of vulnerable road users, such
as seniors, youth, and residents with a disability, when
approaching design for new projects�
5.E Track and report to the public the utilization of
active transportation facilities through regular bicycle
and pedestrian counts�
5.F Pursue innovative solutions and traffic technology
as appropriate to advance multimodal priorities�
Fairness
6.A Prioritize improvements in areas of the City
that are lacking active transportation infrastructure,
particularly sidewalks and crosswalks�
6.B Conduct robust community engagement and
establish collaborative stakeholder partnerships
when designing and implementing active
transportation infrastructure�
6.C Prioritize projects in proximity to schools or along
designated school travel routes�
6.D Provide regular updates to the public on ATP
implementation progress�
6.E Sponsor and support community events
that use active transportation in neighborhoods
across Cupertino�
17CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 44
PC 07-14-2026
44 of 422
CHAPTER 3
Cupertino Today
45
PC 07-14-2026
45 of 422
Cupertino Today
To develop the ATP, the project team considered previously identified needs and issues and
evaluated the present state of the transportation system to improve safety and comfort for
people walking, biking, and rolling. Staff reviewed the transportation system from different
perspectives including demographics, safety data, and user comfort. This approach helped the
team better understand what motivates or deters people in the travel choices that they make.
CITY OF CUPERTINO TIMELINE OF PLANS
Building on the Past
The project team reviewed 10 local plans and 4 regional
plans related to active transportation and mobility
from the past 20 years to ensure the ATP advances the
transportation goals and actions identified by prior
efforts. The insights and lessons learned from the
previous planning efforts provided the context for the
ATP vision and goals�
2016 2018 2022 2023 2024 2024
Bicycle Transportation
Plan
Pedestrian
Transportation
Plan
Climate Action
Plan
Local Roadway
Safety Plan
Vision Zero
Plan
General Plan
Mobility
Element
In 2015, the City first adopted the General Plan –
Mobility Element, which established the City’s goal
to make alternative modes of transportation attractive
options� This goal aims to reduce the strain on the
transportation network and improve health and quality
of life for residents and businesses� The element was
updated in 2024�
In 2024, the City adopted the Vision Zero Action Plan –
affirming the City’s long-term commitment
to safety by recommending both infrastructure and
non-infrastructure programs that advance the goal
of eliminating multimodal traffic fatalities and
serious injuries�
The City adopted its most recent Bicycle Transportation
Plan in 2016 and its Pedestrian Transportation Plan
in 2018� Also in 2018, Cupertino adopted a Complete
Streets Policy to create an integrated transportation
network that promotes safe and convenient travel
for all� The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018), VTA Bicycle
Superhighway Implementation Plan (2025), and Santa
Clara County Active Transportation Plan (2025) also
informed regional connectivity between Cupertino and
the surrounding communities in Santa Clara County�
These documents lay the foundation of Cupertino’s
active transportation network�
See Appendices for the complete Plan Review�
19CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 46
PC 07-14-2026
46 of 422
Community Profile
The City of Cupertino is in western Santa
Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area,
with a population of 58,886 residents� It is
the ancestral home of the Muwekma Ohlone
tribe and the Tamien Nation indigenous
peoples� Throughout the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, Cupertino was home
to a robust agricultural industry� The City
formally incorporated in 1955, with much of
the City subsequently developing in a post-
war suburban layout� The City has a history
of innovation in Silicon Valley, serving as the
headquarters for Apple Inc�
Nearly 72% of Cupertino residents identify
as Asian, with 30% of the total population
identifying as Chinese and another 30%
identifying as Asian Indian or South Asian�
About 20% of Cupertino residents identify
as White, and 3% identify as Latino� Among
the 63% of Cupertino households that speak
a language other than English at home, 43%
speak Asian and Pacific Islander languages,
17% speak other Indo-European Languages,
and less than 2% speak Spanish�
Approximately 40% of Cupertino residents
are either under 18 (26%) or over 65 (14%).
Youth and seniors have a varied profile of
trip patterns and access to vehicles, with
far more of their trips being local compared
to working age adults who often commute
longer distances to work� Cupertino has a
large potential pool of demand for local,
non-commuting trips within the community
that may require options beyond driving�
Figure 5: ATP signage at Creekside Park
Figure 6: Cyclists waiting to cross De Anza Boulevard
at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 7: Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in
Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 five-year estimates)
59.9%
25.7%
14.3%Youth
Senior
Other
20CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 47
PC 07-14-2026
47 of 422
Transportation Profile
Commute to Work
Commute to work is measured by the American
Community Survey (ACS), which provides five-year
rolling estimates of mode choices for travel� It should
be noted that ACS mode share data only captures the
primary mode of travel used during work-related trips�
Across the City, 3�5% of residents travel to work
either by walking or biking, while another 28% work
from home� Transitioning more local trips to active
modes has the potential to reduce congestion for those
residents who must drive to work�
School Trips/
Safe Routes to School
One-third of youth in Cupertino today travel to
school by walking, biking, or rolling.
Since 2015, Cupertino has collected school travel data
as part of its Safe Routes to School (SR2S) initiative,
using an in-class survey method developed by the
National Safe Routes to School Partnership� Capturing
school travel mode is particularly important as one-
quarter of the Cupertino population is under 18� The
data collected also informs program planning and
supports grant applications by tracking mode share
trends across all grade levels�
See Appendix B for the complete Existing
Conditions Memo�
Figure 8:
Commuter Mode
Share (Source:
2023 ACS 5-Year
estimates)
Drove alone
62.1%
Taxi
1.0%
Carpooled
4.0%
Public
transportation
1.1%
Bicycle
0.7%
Walked
2.8%
Worked from
home
28.3%
Table 1: Student mode share in Cupertino (2024)
MODE OF TRAVEL ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS MIDDLE SCHOOLS HIGH SCHOOLS CITYWIDE
Family Vehicle - Alone 56%54%54%55%
Family Vehicle - Carpool 12%14%6%11%
Public Transit 0%0%3%1%
School Bus 1%1%0%1%
Bike/E-Bike/Other 6%12%18%11%
Walk 26%19%19%22%
Across the City,
3.5% of residents
travel to work by either walking or biking
21CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 48
PC 07-14-2026
48 of 422
Walking and Rolling
Cupertino, with its mild weather, flat terrain, and compact size, is a suitable
location for all forms of walking and rolling—including biking, scooting, or other
personal mobility devices.
Figure 9: Three cyclists riding westbound on Bollinger Road
Pedestrian Network
SIDEWALKS
Cupertino has a relatively well-developed sidewalk
network, particularly in the areas around its denser
centers and southern residential neighborhoods� In
areas near the Cupertino Village Shopping Center,
Main Street, and schools, such as Cupertino High
School, sidewalks are common and well-maintained�
In the more central parts of Cupertino, especially
near major intersections and public facilities like the
Cupertino Library and Community Center, there is also
a higher density of sidewalks�
A substantial portion of local streets, particularly
in western Cupertino, have incomplete sidewalk
networks or sidewalks on only one side of the street�
In many cases, this is due to voluntary neighborhood
classification as “semi-rural,” which exempts these
areas from sidewalk construction requirements�
Figure 10: Existing Pedestrian Network (2025)
10314
30
6
Shared Use Path
Sidewalk (one side)
Sidewalk (both sides)
Missing/incomplete sidewalk
MILEAGE
22CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 49
PC 07-14-2026
49 of 422
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
EXISTING SIDEWALKS
OTHER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Shared-Use Path
EXISTING SIDEWALK NETWORK
Complete (both sides)
Incomplete (one side)
No sidewalk
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 11: Existing Sidewalk Network
23CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 50
PC 07-14-2026
50 of 422
CROSSINGS
The quality and frequency of roadway crossings
for pedestrians in Cupertino vary, with a mix
of well-designed crossings in higher-density
areas and gaps in infrastructure in lower-
density, residential areas� In denser commercial
zones, such as along major roads like De Anza
Boulevard and Homestead Road, crosswalks are
generally well-marked� Areas with higher foot
traffic, such as near Cupertino High School, the
Cupertino Library, and the Cupertino Village
Shopping Center also have enhanced crosswalks,
including use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) at uncontrolled intersections
(shown in Figure 12).
Cupertino has implemented many crosswalk
improvements near schools� Figure 13 shows
an example of a concrete curb extension project
that shortens the pedestrian crossing distance,
improves visibility, and encourages slower
turning movements�
Crosswalks can be sparse in some residential
or less-developed areas, especially in western
Cupertino, requiring pedestrians to walk further
to find a safe crossing point. In these areas, the
lack of consistent crosswalk infrastructure can
create challenges for pedestrians�
Figure 14 shows the City’s existing pedestrian
crossings and locations of RRFB crossings�
Figure 12: Cyclist
approaching Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon
on McClellan Road
Figure 13: Permanent
crossing improvements
on Byrne Avenue
24CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 51
PC 07-14-2026
51 of 422
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
EXISTING CROSSWALKS
EXISTING CROSSWALKS NETWORK
Crosswalk
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 14: Existing Crosswalks
25CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 52
PC 07-14-2026
52 of 422
Transit Network
Cupertino’s transit network provides vital connections
to neighboring cities and regional hubs in the broader
Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area� The City
is served by 13 VTA bus routes, which provide local
transit options and also connect to VTA Light Rail
and regional transit such as Caltrain� Most bus routes
connect to central Cupertino along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and buses are equipped with bike racks
that can accommodate up to three bicycles� VTA bus
ridership is highest in central Cupertino, near De Anza
College� Figure 17 shows the City’s average daily
boardings and alightings at VTA bus stops�
In addition to VTA transit service, Cupertino
(in partnership with City of Santa Clara) offers
microtransit service through the Silicon Valley (SV)
Hopper program� The City of Cupertino manages the
program, offering rideshare service to designated stops
through a dedicated app for Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and a few specific destinations beyond Cupertino City
limits� These stops are typically the closest street corner
to trip origins or destinations, though individuals with
disabilities can receive door-to-door service� Youth
aged 13 and older are permitted to use SV Hopper
independently with parental consent�
Figure 15: VTA Route 23 on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 16: SV Hopper
26CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 53
PC 07-14-2026
53 of 422
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FOOTHILL
BLVD
MILLER
AVE S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
AVERAGE DAILY BOARDINGS
AND ALIGHTINGS (2024)
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
AVERAGE DAILY BOARDINGS +
ALIGHTINGS (2024)
Fewer than 50
50 to 100
100 to 200
More than 200
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
a
n
d
V
T
A
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 17: Average Daily Transit Boardings and Alightings
27CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 54
PC 07-14-2026
54 of 422
Biking and Rolling
Network
Cupertino has an existing network of 51�2
miles of bikeways� The bicycle facility types
are defined in the Bicycle Facility Toolbox�
Much of the recent growth of the bikeway
network has been informed by the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan, which envisioned
three separate but complementary networks
for transportation:
• The Loop: a series of shared-use paths
(Class I), connected by low-stress separated
bikeways (Class IV)
• A backbone network of separated bikeways
(Class IV) and buffered bike lanes (Class IIB)
on major streets
• A network of calm neighborhood bike routes
(Class III), which travel through residential
areas where traffic is less dense and provide
students with direct access to schools
Figure 19 shows the City’s existing bicycle
network�
6.5
Shared-Use Path
CLASS I
7.1
Buffered Bike Lane
CLASS IIB
6.5
Bike Boulevard
CLASS IIIB
18.5
Bike Lane
CLASS II
8.2
Bike Route
CLASS III
4.4
Separated
Bikeways
CLASS IV
51.2 MILES OF
EXISTING BIKEWAY FACILITIES
Figure 18: Person rolling on De Anza Boulevard at
Stevens Creek Boulevard
28CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 55
PC 07-14-2026
55 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
STELLING
RD
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
ORANGE
AVE
FINCH
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MARYAVE
WO
L
F
E
R
D
EXISTING BIKE NETWORK
EXISTING BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Neighborhood Bike Route
Separated Bikeway
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 19: Existing Bike Infrastructure
29CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 56
PC 07-14-2026
56 of 422
Recent Progress
As of 2025, the City has completed 34 active
transportation projects since the adoption of the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the 2016
Cupertino Bicycle Plan� Recent projects include:
• The Regnart Creek Trail, a shared-use path that runs
between Pacifica Drive and East Estates Drive. This
trail was awarded “Project of the Year” in 2022 by
the American Public Works Association (APWA)
Silicon Valley Chapter�
• Separated bikeways on Stevens Creek Boulevard,
from Tantau Avenue in the east to De Anza
Boulevard in the west� These bikeways incorporate
protected bicycle traffic signal phasing at Wolfe
Road and De Anza Blvd�
• Separated bikeways on McClellan Road and Pacifica
Drive, from Torre Avenue in the east to Imperial
Avenue in the west� This project also includes a
reconfigured intersection at De Anza Boulevard.
• Separated bikeways on Bubb Road from Stevens
Creek Blvd to McClellan Road, and parking-
separated bikeways on Mary Avenue north of
Stevens Creek Blvd�
• Many “quick-build” crosswalk improvements
adjacent to schools across Cupertino, shortening
crossing distances and increasing visibility of
pedestrians�
Regnart
Creek Trail
McClellan Rd Class IV
Stevens Creek Blvd
Class IV
Quick-Build Improvement at Cupertino City Hall
30CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 57
PC 07-14-2026
57 of 422
CHAPTER 4
Needs Analysis
58
PC 07-14-2026
58 of 422
Needs Analysis
Cupertino has a long and proud history as a leader and innovator for data-driven analysis
and decision making� Needs analysis assesses what the underlying conditions of the
transportation system are, where safety improvements should be prioritized, what the
demand for active transportation is within Cupertino, and where future investments in the
active transportation network might result in the largest benefits. This analysis helped to
directly inform the recommendations developed for the ATP�
Further detail on the needs analysis can be found in Appendix C�
Components of the Needs Analysis
1 This analysis relied on reported collisions; not all collisions involving people biking, walking, and rolling are reported to authorities�
Furthermore, near-miss crashes were not included as they are typically not reported�
2 Based on trip distances from the 2022 National Household Travel Survey�
Safety
Adopted July 9, 2024, the 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero
Action Plan identifies key trends among traffic crashes
resulting in people being killed or seriously injured
between 2012 and 2021� Bicycle- and pedestrian-
involved collision data provides further insight into
specific locations and roadways that tend to have
higher rates of collisions in Cupertino�1 This plan
developed a High-Injury Network (HIN) network
which identifies streets with high rates of traffic injuries
or fatalities�
Active Trip Potential
Active trip potential measures the proportion of all
driving trips that may reasonably be made by active
modes, such as walking, biking, rolling, or e-bikes and
e-scooters� For this analysis, the reasonable distances
for vehicle trips that could be replaced by walking,
biking, rolling, and e-micromobility are:2
• Less than 1 mile: walking
• 1 to 3 miles: biking
• 3 to 5 miles: e-bikes or scooters
Level of Traffic Stress
Level of traffic stress (LTS) scores for the pedestrian
and bicycle networks were determined by roadway
characteristics that affect a user’s perception of safety
and comfort� These analyses helped identify segments
that represent the highest barriers to walking, biking,
and rolling based on users’ ability and comfort level�
Stress-Adjusted Short Trips
The stress-adjusted short trips analysis identifies the
locations where the most new trips could be generated
by closing existing high-stress gaps in the pedestrian
and bicycle network� This is accomplished by
overlaying active trip potential and LTS analysis, then
accounting for how high-stress gaps in the network
affect perceived travel time and willingness to walk
or bike�
32CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 59
PC 07-14-2026
59 of 422
Safety
Vision Zero is an international effort to eliminate
all fatal and serious injury traffic crashes. The 2024
Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan guides policies and
planning for the City of Cupertino with the goal of
eliminating fatalities and severe injuries on Cupertino
roadways by 2040�
The Vision Zero Action Plan developed a High-Injury
Network (HIN) map both for street corridors and for
intersections, identifying the seven City streets where
more than 72% of serious and fatal crashes take place
within Cupertino� While most collisions take place on
the arterial roadways in Cupertino, there are a few
smaller residential streets that account for part of the
HIN� By focusing on these high-risk areas, the City can
more effectively prioritize safety improvements and
allocate resources where they will have the greatest
impact�
Figure 20: Older adult in crosswalk blocked by a car on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 21: Pedestrians at the intersection of De Anza
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 22: Cyclists on Bollinger Road at Clifden Way
33CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 60
PC 07-14-2026
60 of 422
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
HIGH-INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
HIN Intersections
Highest Priority Intersection
Other Intersection
HIN Corridors
Highest Priority Corridor
Other Corridor
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 23: High-Injury Network
34CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 61
PC 07-14-2026
61 of 422
Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
The level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis evaluated
how comfortable Cupertino’s transportation network
is for the average person walking, biking, or rolling�
The more comfortable a walking, biking, or rolling
facility is, the more accessible it becomes for a larger
segment of the population, regardless of age or ability�
Pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) and bicycle level
of traffic stress (BLTS) analyses help identify the streets
that are least comfortable for people walking, biking,
and rolling� The PLTS and BLTS scores are based on
specific characteristics (detailed in Appendix C); they
are not meant to reflect subjective experiences of road
users, and are just one of many factors used to inform
ATP recommendations�
Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
PLTS analysis showed that many major roadways
represent high-stress environments for people walking�
Some specific examples of higher-stress roadways
include Wolfe Road, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead
Road, and where Stevens Creek Boulevard crosses State
Route (SR) 85.
A substantial portion of local streets, particularly
in western Cupertino, have incomplete sidewalk
networks or sidewalks on only one side of the street�
In many cases, this is due to voluntary neighborhood
classification as “semi-rural,” which exempts these
areas from sidewalk construction requirements�
The Regnart Creek Trail and the Stevens Creek Trail
provide essential low-stress routes for pedestrians,
connecting to community destinations like the
Cupertino Library� Areas which have received new
development, such as Homestead Road or Stevens
Creek Boulevard (both between Wolfe Road and Tantau
Avenue), have a low level of pedestrian traffic stress
(PLTS 2) due to the broad setback from the roadway,
landscaped buffers, and wide sidewalks.
PLTS measures the perception of safety and comfort
for a person walking, using data including sidewalk
presence and width, sidewalk buffer width and
type, posted speed limit, and number of travel
lanes� PLTS scores classify road segments into one
of four levels of traffic stress, with lower scores
corresponding to high comfort, as shown below�
Figure 24: Pedestrian
Level of Traffic
Stress Categories
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
INCREASING LEVEL OF COMFORT, SAFETY, AND INTEREST FOR PEDESTRIANS IN TRANSPORTATION
PLTS 3
Moderately uncomfortable
roadways, where most
able-bodied adults would feel
uncomfortable but safe.
PLTS 4
High trac stress experienced
and would be used only by
able-bodied adults with limited
route choices.
PLTS 1
Roadways where people of all
ages and abilities would feel
comfortable walking and
require little attention to trac.
PLTS 2
Slightly less comfortable
roadways that require more
attention to trac and are
suitable for children over 10,
teens and adults.
LOW COMFORT HIGH COMFORT HIGH COMFORTLOW COMFORT
35CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 62
PC 07-14-2026
62 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC
STRESS
PLTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
PLTS 2
PLTS 3
PLTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 25: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
36CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 63
PC 07-14-2026
63 of 422
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bikeways are considered low-stress when they involve
minimal traffic interactions, either due to low vehicle
speeds and volumes—such as a shared neighborhood
street—or because there is a greater degree of physical
separation between the bikeway and the traffic lane,
like a separated bikeway on a major roadway� The BLTS
analysis results showed that most major roadways in
Cupertino, shown in orange and red (BLTS 3 and 4,
respectively), represent high-stress environments for
people biking, despite the presence of Class II bike
lanes on many roadways� For example, Homestead
Road, De Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Stevens
Creek Boulevard, all arterial streets with existing Class
II bike lanes, include a posted speed of 35 miles per
hour (mph) or higher, which negates the presence of
the bicycle facility and contributes to higher-stress for
most people biking� Similarly, major collector roadways
such as Bollinger Road, Miller Avenue, or Foothill
Boulevard also display a high level of traffic stress.
Another high-stress area is freeway interchanges� De
Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
and Foothill Boulevard all show BLTS 4 conditions
where they cross freeway on- and off-ramps.
Local roads provide more comfortable travel within
neighborhoods (BLTS 1 and 2), shown in blue and
teal, while shared-use paths such as the Regnart
Creek Trail provide separation and low-stress east-
west alternatives to higher-stress roadways� The lack
of connected low-stress corridors in parts of the City
means that many trips require traveling on high-stress
streets or stitching together indirect routes on low-
stress streets� This increases travel times and may
inhibit biking�
BLTS is an estimate of the level of comfort for
people biking on a given roadway segment� BLTS
was determined by roadway factors including
posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, presence
and width of parking lanes, as well as the presence
and type of bicycle facility� The combination of
these criteria classifies a road segment into one of
four levels of traffic stress.
Figure 26: Bicycle
Level of Traffic
Stress Categories
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
INCREASING LEVEL OF COMFORT, SAFETY, AND INTEREST IN BICYCLING FOR TRANSPORTATION
LTS 4
No bike lane on a busy street
LTS 3
Narrow bike lane or shoulder
on a busy street
LTS 2
Buffered bike lane on a calm street
LTS 1
Separated bike lane
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
37CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 64
PC 07-14-2026
64 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
EXISTING BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
BLTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
BLTS 2
BLTS 3
BLTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 27: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
38CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 65
PC 07-14-2026
65 of 422
Active Trip Potential
When considering the potential for new trips by
active modes, trip length is one of the most crucial
factors� Active trip potential measures the proportion
of all driving trips that may reasonably be made by
active modes:
Walking active trip potential:
Driving trips under 1 mile
Biking active trip potential:
Driving trips under 3 miles
E-bike active trip potential:
Driving trips of 3 to 5 miles
The active trip potential analysis uses data from
Replica Places, visualizing motor vehicle trips under
5 miles that either started or ended within Cupertino�
The project team developed an interactive Flowmap
webtool (shown in Figure 30 on the next page)
of potential active-trip flows between origin and
destinations� A graphic explainer of active trip potential
is shown on the next page in Figure 29�
As shown in Figure 31, areas of high active-trip
potential are concentrated in central Cupertino, and
active-trip potential steadily declines west of SR 85�
Analysis revealed particularly high numbers of short
trips in and around the Stevens Creek Boulevard
corridor, spanning from Tantau Avenue in the east
to SR 85 in the west� The area around Apple Park
headquarters in northeast Cupertino also shows the
lowest potential for active trips, likely due to the high
number of commuters traveling to and from work from
outside the City�
Active-trip potential for walking, biking, rolling,
and e-bike/micromobility trips is shown in Figure
32 through Figure 34� These areas of high active-trip
potential indicate a potential need for more connected
walking, biking, and rolling facilities�
Across Cupertino, 30% of all vehicle trips that start or stop
within the City limits are considered short enough to easily
shift to active trips.
Figure 28: Woman riding a folding electric bike on Homestead Road at De Anza Boulevard
39CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 66
PC 07-14-2026
66 of 422
Active Trip Potential
Alta Civic Analytics Explainer
Fewer ATP Trips
More ATP Trips
Percent of trips by zone that are of
appropriate length for a given active
tranportation mode
ATP TRIPS
% of Trips less than or equal to 3mi
Park/Open Space
LEGEND
Walk Trip Potential
(0-1mi)
Bike Trip Potential
(1-3mi)
E-Bike Trip Potential
(3-5mi)
Drive and Transit Trip
Potential (>6mi)
Fewer ATP Trips
More ATP Trips
TRIP POTENTIAL
Percent of trips by zone that are of
appropriate length for a given active
tranportation mode
ATP TRIPS
% of Trips less than or equal to 3mi
Park/Open Space
LEGEND
Walk Trip Potential
(0-1mi)
Bike Trip Potential
(1-3mi)
E-Bike Trip Potential
(3-5mi)
Drive and Transit Trip
Potential (>6mi)
0 1 2
0 1 2
STARTLOCATION
Transit/Driving Route
1 Mi 3 Mi 6 Mi
>6 Mi
ATP Zonal Summary
When we look all the activity
occurring within a zone, we
scrutinize both the estimated
number of trips in the zone and their
lengths. Locations with high
percentages of short trips relative to
all trips are good candidates for
active transportation investments.
Active Trip Potential (ATP)
Identifies trips whose distances are
short enough to be accommodated
by walking or biking.
Our evaluation of ATP includes
looking at the number of trips less
than five miles.
Different modes are suitable for
different trips based on the
transportation options that
support them.
Figure 30: A screenshot of the Flowmap showing short driving trips within Cupertino
Figure 29: Active Trip Potential
40CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 67
PC 07-14-2026
67 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
SHARE OF VEHICLE TRIPS <5 MILES
41-50%
36-40%
31-35%
26-30%
21-25%
20% or under
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
ACTIVE TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 31: Active Trip Potential: All Trips Under 5 Miles
41CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 68
PC 07-14-2026
68 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS 0-1 MILE
High Trip Count
Low Trip Count
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
WALK TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 32: Walk Trip Potential
42CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 69
PC 07-14-2026
69 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS 0-3 MILES
High Trip Count
Low Trip Count
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
BIKE TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 33: Bike Trip Potential
43CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 70
PC 07-14-2026
70 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS 3-5 MILES
High Trip Count
Low Trip Count
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
E-BIKE TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 34: E-Bike Trip Potential
44CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 71
PC 07-14-2026
71 of 422
Figure 35: Man crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard at
Finch Avenue to access Main Street Cupertino
Figure 36: Woman cycling on Rodrigues Avenue
turning onto De Anza Boulevard
Stress-Adjusted Short Trips: Gap Potential Analysis
Through the combination of BLTS/PLTS scores and
active trip potential analysis, the stress-adjusted short
trip analysis identifies where there is strong latent
demand for walking and biking trips that is currently
uncomfortable, stressful, or indirect�
Stressful street segments have been shown to be
perceived as longer than they are, increasing the
perceived travel time of a walking or biking trip�
This analysis demonstrates where people walking
and biking would choose alternative routes to avoid
particularly stressful street segments or crossings, and
how much it deters their willingness or walk or bike for
that trip�
WALKING GAP SCORES
For walking distances (under 1 mile), shown in Figure
37, high gap scores were clustered along Stevens
Creek Boulevard and along Homestead Road, both in
proximity to Stelling Road� The presence of De Anza
College and Homestead High School may contribute to
the high demand for shorter walking trips in each area�
BIKING GAP SCORES
For biking distances, shown in Figure 38, high gap
scores were clustered along Stevens Creek Boulevard
in the west near SR 85 and in the east near Wolfe
Road� The eastern border of Cupertino, adjacent to the
Lawrence Expressway, also has a high gap score for
biking trips�
The “Gap Scores” on the following maps
show where the closing of gaps in the
active transportation network would
generate the largest potential for new
walking and biking trips.
45CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 72
PC 07-14-2026
72 of 422
Feels like
more than
one mile
Higher-Stress Roads Feel Longer to Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Feels like
one mile
1 MILE = ACTUAL DISTANCE
High Tra c Stress
Low Tra c Stress
LTS 4
LTS 3
LTS 2
LTS 1
BLTS Score
BLTS 4: All ages and abilities
BLTS 3: Average adult
BLTS 2: Confident adult
BLTS 1: Fearless adult
More trips Less Trips Closer Farther
Evaluating Gap Potential
Identify Short Trips OD Pairs
Using mobile trace or an activity-based model, short trips
are identified across the regions between origins and
destinations. These trips encompass a vast array of
potential activities such as traveling to home, schools, jobs,
restaurants, or recreational activities.
Route Trips Between Short Trip Pairs
Trips are routed along the network along routes that balance
providing the direct shortest path and avoiding high-stress
facilities. The routing analysis adjusts for traffic stress based
on the travel costs assigned to each street or path.
Compute Gap Scores
The stress-adjusted shortest paths are compared to
crow-fly distances between pairs. This is used to create
a gap score based on the following formula:
Alta Civic Analytics Explainer
Gap Potential is a measure of the magnitude of
potential demand measured by short trips that is
likely suppressed due to the tra c stress
encountered between an origin and destination.
Identify Travel Costs of Network
Level of Traffic Stress is used to assign travel costs to the
network. More stress is more perceived travel time.
These gap scores represent the degree latent demand are likely suppressed
given the lack of direct and comfortable paths to destinations.
Gap Score = ST – (ST * )Straight Line Travel Time
Stress Adjusted Travel Time
ST = Short trip count
1
2
3
4
46CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 73
PC 07-14-2026
73 of 422
Figure 37: Walk Gap Scores
47CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 74
PC 07-14-2026
74 of 422
Figure 38: Bike Gap Scores
48CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 75
PC 07-14-2026
75 of 422
CHAPTER 5
Public Engagement
76
PC 07-14-2026
76 of 422
Public
Engagement
Throughout the development of the City of
Cupertino ATP, staff gathered a broad range of
input from residents and community members to
better identify and understand needs, challenges,
and priorities regarding the active transportation
network� Feedback focused on key challenges,
safety concerns, areas needing focus, and
appropriate facilities to connect people to local
destinations by walking or biking�
This chapter summarizes the overall engagement
approach, identifies who was engaged, and
highlights the insights gained during each phase�
Outreach activities were structured to reduce
barriers to participation, with multiple ways to
share input� In-person outreach was supported
by online workshops, a project website, online
survey, and two rounds of an interactive webmap�
For a more comprehensive breakdown of the
public participation activities, please refer to
Appendix D�
Public Engagement
by the numbers
• 4 Community Workshops
• 17 Pop-Up Events
• 4 Public Hearings
• 2,000 People Engaged With
• 240 Online Surveys Completed
• 3,939 Webmap Interactions
Figure 39: Presentation at Community
Workshop #1
Figure 40: Silicon Valley Fall Festival
Figure 41: Cupertino Block Leader Meeting
50CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Engagement 77
PC 07-14-2026
77 of 422
Phase 1 Outreach
Phase 1 of the Cupertino ATP took place during the spring of 2025� Outreach activities included nine pop-ups at
existing community events and a workshop at the Cupertino Community Hall� In-person outreach was supported
by an online community meeting, a project website, an interactive webmap, and an online survey� The project team
promoted outreach with lawn signs, banners, and signs on A-frames distributed throughout Cupertino, as well as
messaging through Nextdoor, Facebook, and City channels�
What We Heard
Safety and Accessibility First:
Traffic safety and improving access to local destinations
were the highest community priorities among proposed
ATP goals�
Focus on Major Corridors:
Beyond bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
participants want speed management and safety
solutions for major corridors that cross Cupertino, such
as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard�
Dynamic signal technology and automated camera
enforcement were two ideas brought up to help manage
speeding on major streets�
Focus on Pedestrians:
Participants felt past projects had been heavily focused
on bikes, and that projects prioritizing pedestrians
should be elevated�
Balance Benefits and Tradeoffs:
Future projects should be evaluated for potential
operational tradeoffs such as parking and lane
removals; projects should strive to balance those needs
while advancing safety, accessibility, and connectivity
benefits.
Close Gaps and Reduce Barriers:
Projects should focus on closing high-stress gaps in
the network that interrupt otherwise low-stress routes
across Cupertino�
Safe Routes to Schools:
Projects should improve access and safety for school
walking and biking trips�
What We Asked
During Phase 1 outreach, staff asked participants
to provide input on:
• Routes they most often use for walking
and biking
• Destinations they would like to reach by
walking or biking
• Locations that are challenging for walking and
biking, or areas where they have safety concerns
• Areas where they are concerned about future
impacts to parking or congestion
• Feedback on ATP goals – and which were most
important them
Participants provided input through outreach
poster boards, an online webmap, and a survey�
The map on the following page shows comment
locations, as well as participant sentiment on each
location� Phase 1 public input by location is shown
in Appendix D�
Figure 42: Students and parents at Collins
Elementary School Walk and Roll Day
51CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Engagement 78
PC 07-14-2026
78 of 422
Phase 2 Outreach
Phase 2 of the Cupertino ATP took place in the fall of 2025 to gather feedback on bicycle and pedestrian
network recommendations� Outreach activities included an interactive webmap and 13 events, engaging
over 600 residents and soliciting over 2,000 comments from the public� Materials shared results of Phase
1 outreach, results of past analysis, and recommendations for the active transportation network�
What We Heard
Support for Shared Use Paths:
Participants expressed the strongest support for shared
use paths, like the Tamien Innu Trail and the Union
Pacific Trail. There is strong support for creating safe off-
street spaces for walking and biking trips�
Make the Network More Connected:
Participants focused their comments on improvements
for both the bicycle and pedestrian networks on major
streets, seeking to close the gaps that exist today for
making low-stress trips�
School Connections:
The most-supported recommendations off major
corridors were near schools or along existing school
walking and biking routes�
Concern about Impacts:
Many participants expressed concerns about the impacts
bike projects may have on street parking or congestion,
and a desire for the City to measure potential impacts as
part of the decision-making process�
Safety Innovation for Major Corridors:
The full range of safety solutions need to be considered
for major corridors like Stevens Creek Boulevard or De
Anza Boulevard� Participants expressed interest in red-
light cameras, speed-responsive signal technology, and
other speed-management solutions�
Understanding Success:
Participants wanted to better understand what success
would mean for implemented bicycle and pedestrian
projects� This would include an assessment of safety
impact, as well as utilization of facilities by future
walking and biking trips�
What We Asked
During Phase 2 outreach, we asked participants to
provide input on:
• Recommendations for the pedestrian network,
including new sidewalks, shared-use paths,
and intersection crossing improvements
• Recommendations for bicycle network,
including bike facilities and intersection
improvements for bicycle crossings
Phase 2 public input by location is shown in
Appendix D�
Figure 43: Cupertino Senior Center
52CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Engagement 79
PC 07-14-2026
79 of 422
CHAPTER 6
Plan Recommendations
80
PC 07-14-2026
80 of 422
Recommendation Selection Methodology
Recommendations were developed in a multi-stage
process that incorporated review and input from City
staff, the public, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission,
the Planning Commission, and the City Council� The
recommendations development process (detailed in
Appendix E), was driven by four primary criteria:
• State and Federal Guidance: Documents including
Caltrans DIB-94, the CA MUTCD, City of Cupertino
Streets Standards, and the NACTO Urban Bikeways
Design Guide were applied when considering
interventions for specific locations.
• Past Plans: All projects identified in previously
adopted City, county, and regional plans were
assembled and reconsidered for inclusion in
network recommendations�
• Data Analysis: Key areas of focus were identified,
through analysis outlined in Chapter 3�
Recommended projects were considered against
Gap Scores and Level of Traffic Stress to assess
their suitability�
• Public Input: Public input from Phase 1 and Phase
2 of outreach was leveraged to understand areas
of focus and where projects should be modified to
better reflect public sentiment.
Plan Recommendations
Data Analysis Public Input
Past Plans
State & Federal Guidance
Projects
Network Recommendations
The recommendations included in this chapter
focus on enhancing and expanding the existing
active transportation network� These network
recommendations were informed by public feedback
and best practices for the development of bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure (see Appendix E
for more details). This chapter presents network
recommendations for walking, biking and rolling,
safety technology corridors, as well as programmatic
recommendations supporting active travel choices�
Recommendations are considered planning-level,
meaning they should be used as a guide when
implementing projects. In some cases, traffic impact
analysis and more detailed design analysis will be
required to evaluate specific site conditions and
develop designs that reflect conditions and
constraints� This is further addressed in Chapter 7:
Project Prioritization�
54CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 81
PC 07-14-2026
81 of 422
Pedestrian Network Recommendations
Recommendations for people walking include new and
upgraded shared-use paths, sidewalks, and crossing
improvements� Together, these recommendations
aim to create a safer, more comfortable, and better-
connected network for those who walk or use mobility
devices in Cupertino�
This plan recommends 3�6 miles of new sidewalks,
primarily focused on closing existing gaps in the
network near key destinations like schools and parks�
The plans also recommend 6�3 miles of new shared-
use paths, which will provide pedestrians with off-
street alternatives when making trips and create more
convenient connections for people making walking trips�
This plan also recommends 115 intersection
improvements across Cupertino� Crossing locations
were prioritized along the High-Injury Network
(HIN), near schools and transit stops, and at other
key destinations� This plan provides a range of
potential infrastructure recommendations for City
staff to consider based on general design guidance and
best practices� The locations of pedestrian crossing
improvements may be subject to change based on
corridor-level study and will require additional design
and engineering judgment� The Pedestrian Facility
Toolbox (see next page) provides a list of potential
infrastructure recommendations, divided into three
categories, that will be considered for each
crossing location�
6.3 miles
9.9 MILES OF
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
SHARED-USE PATH
1.3
SIDEWALK ON 2-SIDES
2.3 miles
SIDEWALK ON 1-SIDE
55CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 82
PC 07-14-2026
82 of 422
Pedestrian Facility Toolbox
Advanced Stop/Yield Bar
Advanced stop or yield
bar markings are placed
in advance of a crosswalk
to discourage drivers from
encroaching on the crosswalk�
In-Street Crossing Sign
In-street crossing signs
reinforce the driver
requirement to yield the
right of way to pedestrians
at designated pedestrian
crossing locations�
High-Visibility Crosswalk
High-visibility crosswalks
are marked with thick bars,
drawing additional attention
and awareness to the crossing�
In school zones, these crossings
are yellow instead of the
standard white color�
Visibility Improvements
Effective street lighting at
pedestrian crossing locations
increases vehicle operators’
ability to see crosswalk and
pedestrian users�
Median Refuge Islands
Median refuge islands help improve
access for people walking by
increasing visibility and allowing
pedestrians to cross one direction
of traffic at a time. Improve ease of
crossing at mid-block locations�
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions minimize exposure
for people crossing the street by
shortening crossing distance and
giving them a better chance to see
and be seen before committing
to crossing�
Curb Ramp
Curb ramps provide access between
the sidewalk and roadway for
people using wheelchairs, strollers,
walkers, hand carts, bicycles,
and for people who have trouble
stepping up and down high curbs�
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
(LPIs) give a walk signal to
pedestrian before the traffic
signal turns green for vehicles�
This allows pedestrians to enter
the crosswalk before drivers start
moving, increasing pedestrian
visibility to turning drivers�
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) are a type of
active warning beacon used at
unsignalized crossings� They are
designed to increase motor vehicle
yielding compliance on multi-
lane or high-volume roadways�
Activated with a push-button.
GROUP A—CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
GROUP B—GEOMETRIC CHANGES
GROUP C—TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
56CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 83
PC 07-14-2026
83 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVE
CLIFFO
R
D
D
R
RAINBOW DR
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
GREENLEAF DR
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
VALLCOPKWY
MARY
A
VE
WO
L
F
E
R
D
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.5 1 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
OTHER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing/Recommended
Shared-Use Path
SIDEWALK RECOMMEDATIONS
New Sidewalk on One Side of the Street
New Sidewalk on Both Sides of the Street
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools Parks City
Boundary
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Group A - Crossing Improvements
Group B - Geometric Changes
Group C - Traffic Control Improvements
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 44: Recommended Pedestrian Network
57CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 84
PC 07-14-2026
84 of 422
Transportation Technology
Corridor Recommendations
Recommended transportation technology corridors
consist of technology improvements along major
roadways to better manage vehicular traffic and active
transportation while improving safety for all modes�
The tools utilized for Transportation Technology
Corridors include, but are not limited to, dynamic
signal technology to manage travel speeds, red-light
camera enforcement, speed camera enforcement (if the
current pilot program is legalized for use statewide),
passive detection of people walking and biking or
signal priority, leading pedestrian intervals, audible
pedestrian detection, and other measures�
Corridors were selected by reviewing signalized
intersection recommendations which overlap with
the Vision Zero High-Injury Network� 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 were
screened for implementation feasibility to determine
appropriate Technology Corridors� This process helped
staff select five corridors that would benefit most from
transportation technologies�
There are 11�2 miles of recommended transportation
technology corridors shown in Figure 45�
Speed
camera
Red light
camera
Leading Pedestrian Interval signal at Stelling Rd
58CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 85
PC 07-14-2026
85 of 422
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
RECOMMENDED
TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGY NETWORK
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY CORRIDORS
Transportation Technology Corridor
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools Parks City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 45: Recommended Transportation Technology Corridors
59CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 86
PC 07-14-2026
86 of 422
Bicycle Network Recommendations
The recommended bike network emphasizes the
following:
• Improving the safety and comfort of local,
neighborhood routes for biking (especially along
routes to schools)
• Expanding the network of shared-use paths across
Cupertino
• Providing greater separation (whether through
paint buffers or physical separation) along major
roadways
• Managing potential project tradeoffs to minimize
potential impacts to other modes
This plan recommends 36�5 miles of new or upgraded
bike facilities� Recommendations also include eight
bike intersection improvements to facilitate crossings
at major roadways and two new grade-separated
crossings (the Carmen Road Bridge and McClellan
Road Undercrossing Feasibility Study). The Bicycle
Facility Toolbox (on the following page) defines the
recommended bicycle facilities, which include shared
use paths, neighborhood bike routes, bike lanes,
separated bikeways, and upgraded bike lanes�
Figure 47: Recommended Bikeway Facilities (miles)
Shared Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class II)
Neighborhood Bike Route (Class III & IIIB)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
5.6 6.3
0.5
915.1
36.5 miles
of new or upgraded
bike facilities
Figure 46: Rider on McClellan Road
60CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 87
PC 07-14-2026
87 of 422
Bicycle Facility Toolbox
Shared-Use Path
Paved paths shared by people walking and rolling completely
separated from motor vehicle traffic. Comfortable for people of all
ages and abilities
Example: Regnart Creek Trail
Buffered Bike Lane
A conventional bike lane paired with a buffer space that separates
the bike lane from adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or
parking lane
Example: De Anza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
An on-street bike lane that is separated from motor vehicle traffic
by a vertical barrier such as bollards, raised medians, planters, or
parked cars
Example: Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road
Bike Lane
Dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to traffic. Separated
from motor vehicle traffic or parking by painted line.
Example: McClellan Road west of De Anza Boulevard
Neighborhood Bike Route
Signed bike route, sharing the roadway with motor vehicles on
quiet neighborhood streets Includes signs, street markings, and
substantial traffic calming.
Example: Price Avenue at Portal Avenue
Most
Separation
Least
Separation
61CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 88
PC 07-14-2026
88 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
STELLING
RD
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
ORANGE
AVE
FINCH
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MARYAVE
WO
L
F
E
R
D
RECOMMENDED BIKE NETWORK
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools Parks City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
EXISTING/RECOMMENDED BIKE NETWORK
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Neighborhood Bike Routes
Separated Bikeway
0 0.5 1 MILES
Bike Intersection Improvement
New Bridge
New Undercrossing (Feasibility Study)
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 48: Recommended Bike Network
62CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 89
PC 07-14-2026
89 of 422
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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
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
Multimodal
Balance
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
Maintenance
Wayfinding Wayfinding signage provides important destination, distance, and
navigation information to roadway users. Specific wayfinding signs
designed for people walking, biking, and rolling can be expanded
and improved at key locations across the City to further support
active transportation�
Accessibility
Table 2: Engineering Program Recommendations
Recommended Programs
Making Cupertino more walkable and bikeable requires not only new infrastructure investments,
but also ongoing programs that support and encourage those who rely on active travel and
those who choose it for convenience� Developing new initiatives and enhancing existing ones is
crucial for Cupertino to effectively invest in success for active transportation. This section outlines
recommended policies and programs meant to achieve the Plan’s vision and goals� Additional
details can be found in Appendix F�
Engineering
Pedestrian and bicycle support facilities provide increased comfort and convenience for individuals
who use active modes to get around� Table 2 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 the High-Injury Network�
63CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 90
PC 07-14-2026
90 of 422
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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 reduces
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
Crossing Facility
Improvements
The 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
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
Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
The City may consider LPIs at signalized intersections, with a plan
moving forward to update key intersections� Safety
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�
Safety
Accessibility
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
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
Maintenance
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
Sustainability
Lower Speed Limits 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
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
Accessibility
64CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 91
PC 07-14-2026
91 of 422
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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
Maintenance
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
Fairness
Update Street Design
Standards
Review and update all relevant policy and design standards regarding
bikeway facilities, path and sidewalk design and 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
Multimodal
Balance
Maintenance Program Maintenance is deeply tied to the usability and lifespan of these
engineering recommendations� The City may consider developing
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�
Accessibility
Maintenance
65CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 92
PC 07-14-2026
92 of 422
Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting active transportation culture and can encourage
overall mode share shifts� Table 3 provides an overview of existing and recommended walking
and rolling encouragement programs�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Existing
Safe Routes to School (SR2S)The City should continue the existing Safe Routes to School Program and
continue to place emphasis on working with school districts to address
on-site circulation and spillover traffic.
Safety
Accessibility
Fairness
Bike to Work/ Wherever Days The City can continue to sponsor Bike to Work/ Wherever Day events in
support of regional efforts. Accessibility
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
Recommended
Open Streets Open Street events promote and celebrate walking, biking, and rolling
and encourage participation from neighborhoods� Accessibility
Sustainability
Social Walks/Rides Support City departments and local organizations in hosting social rides
or walks, like Bike for Boba� Accessibility
Sustainability
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
Fairness
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).
Accessibility
Maintenance
Fairness
Bike Rack Program Consider establishing a Bike Rack Installation Program to provide secure,
convenient bicycle parking that supports everyday biking and reduces
parking barriers�
Accessibility
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
Table 3: Encouragement Program Recommendations
66CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 93
PC 07-14-2026
93 of 422
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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�
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
Fairness
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
TDM Implementation Plan Develop a Transportation Demand Management Implementation Plan or
Ordinance to increase support for commuters walking, biking, or rolling
to work� This may include identifying additional metrics for businesses to
count active transportation-supportive policies towards their own TDM
plans and goals�
Sustainability
Multimodal
Balance
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. This role can be integrated with the
City’s own SR2S parent champion program�
Safety
Accessibility
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
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
Maintenance
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
Sustainability
67CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 94
PC 07-14-2026
94 of 422
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 4 outlines
existing educational programs in the City as well as potential program expansion�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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
Fairness
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.
Safety campaigns should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit stops,
commercial areas, and at high collision corridors�
Safety
Accessibility
Bicycle Rodeos [SR2S]The City of Cupertino SR2S Program offers bicycle rodeo programming at
Cupertino schools, providing a blacktop training course on bicycle safety� Safety
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
Multimodal
Balance
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�
Safety
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
Accessibility
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
Accessibility
Table 4: Education Program Recommendations
68CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 95
PC 07-14-2026
95 of 422
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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
Multimodal
Balance
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
69CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 96
PC 07-14-2026
96 of 422
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 5 below lists the proposed
enforcement programs for the City�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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
Fairness
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
Fairness
Targeted Enforcement Target enforcement of vehicular violations at locations with a high
incidence of red-light running and HIN/high-injury intersections� Safety
Fairness
Table 5: Enforcement Program Recommendations
70CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 97
PC 07-14-2026
97 of 422
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 6 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�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
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
Accessibility
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
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
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� When combined
with models that predict where walking, biking, and rolling 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�
Maintenance
Multimodal
Balance
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
Multimodal
Balance
Table 6: Evaluation Program Recommendations
71CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 98
PC 07-14-2026
98 of 422
CHAPTER 7
Project Prioritization
99
PC 07-14-2026
99 of 422
Project Prioritization
GOAL CRITERIA METRIC MAX SCORE GOAL MAX SCORE
Safety Collision History Roadway segment is near an HIN
corridor
30 40
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian level
of stress analysis
10
Access School Proximity Project is located along a
suggested route to school
10 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity
Presence of major transit stops
along the roadway
5
Parks & Other
Destination Proximity
Parks or other key destinations
located nearby
5
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active
pedestrian trip potential
5 10
Stress-Adjusted Short
Trip Walk Gap Score
Project is within a high walk gap
score area
5
Cost
Effectiveness
Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 10
Table 7: Pedestrian Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics
Methodology
Focusing public investment into the areas of greatest
need helps to leverage the greatest benefits from
scarce public dollars for improvements to traffic
safety, connectivity, and accessibility for active modes�
Prioritization criteria were developed to align with
the vision and goals of the ATP; criteria were vetted
publicly through the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council before final
scores were developed. Staff worked with these bodies
to adjust both criteria and scoring weighting to best
reflect prioritization in order to reflect the values of the
Cupertino community (see Table 7, Table 8, and Table
9). A full description of prioritization methodology can
be found in Appendix G�
Figures 43-45 present prioritized ATP projects with
associated rankings� Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to complete projects, but
rather a guide for future project selection a guide for
future project selection to be considered in the context
of other factors, including but not limited to funding
availability, availability of staffing resources, and
opportunities for economies of scale resulting from
integration with other ongoing projects�
Prioritizing the implementation of recommended
improvements included in this ATP must consider what
is realistic given anticipated funding levels and staffing
capacity, while still providing Cupertino with the
flexibility to respond to changing conditions and new
opportunities as they arise� Prioritization results are
flexible and intended to serve as guidelines to assist in
project selection and initiation�
73CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 100
PC 07-14-2026
100 of 422
GOAL CRITERIA METRIC MAX SCORE GOAL MAX
SCORE
Safety Collision History Includes an intersection identified as
an HIN intersection
20 40
Collisions per mile with a cause of
"unsafe speed"
5
Collisions per mile with a cause of
"traffic signals and signs"
5
Level of Traffic Stress Average Pedestrian LTS for the
corridor
10
Access School Proximity % of corridor length on a Suggested
Route to School
20 30
Parks & Other
Destinations
Parks or other key destinations
located nearby
10
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike trip potential
along the corridor
10 20
Gap Score % of corridor length within high gap-
score areas
10
GOAL CRITERIA METRIC MAX SCORE GOAL MAX
SCORE
Safety Collision History Roadway segment is near an HIN
corridor
30 40
Stress Level Max score from bicycle LTS analysis 10
Access Schools Project is located along a suggested
route to school
10 20
High Frequency Transit Presence of major transit stops along
the roadway
5
Parks & Other
Destinations
Parks or other key destinations
located nearby
5
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle trip
potential or high e-bike trip potential
5 10
Bike Gap Score Project is within a high bike gap score
area
5
Balance General Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or
parking removal
10 20
Arterial Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or
parking removal
10
Cost
Effectiveness
Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 10
Table 8: Transportation Technology Corridors Prioritization Metrics
Table 9: Bicycle Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics
74CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 101
PC 07-14-2026
101 of 422
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFORD D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
VALLCO PKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
82
101
108
96
12
19
8
76
189
186
158
151
149
190
130
203
133
5657
160
44
13
127
200
123
157
150
64
135
175
36
105
147
32
145
95
46
198
517
18 23
31
4
1
3
6
39
43
60
35
90
15 87
51
169
178
164
11 166
20
136
107 49 50
41
141
37
29
33
55
58
38
2 1499
188
181
182
199193
165
179
63
119
30170
168
124
128
172177
144
174
176 197
194
152 120 22
67
27
167 192
184 155
125
112
159
10
7
21
53
59
75 66
9
47
52
25
121
70
86
73
126
102
201
195
191
180139
131
109 137
138
103
28
85 153
48
16
156
132
40
122
106
100
26
202
204
42
115
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.5 1 MILES
PEDESTRIAN NETWORKPRIORITIZATION
OTHER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing/Recommended
Shared-Use Path
SIDEWALK RECOMMEDATIONS
New Sidewalk on One Side of the Street
New Sidewalk on Both Sides of the Street
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools Parks City
Boundary
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Group A - Crossing Improvements
Group B - Geometric Changes
Group C - Traffic Control Improvements
Prioritization Rank#
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 49: Pedestrian Network Recommendations with Project Rankings
Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to
complete projects, but rather a
guide for future project selection
based on a variety of factors.
75CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 102
PC 07-14-2026
102 of 422
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
113
142
111
117
34
TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGY NETWORK
PRIORITIZATION
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY CORRIDORS
Transportation Technology Corridor
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools Parks City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
Prioritization Rank#
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 50: Transportation Technology Network Recommendations with Project Rankings
Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to
complete projects, but rather a
guide for future project selection
based on a variety of factors.
76CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 103
PC 07-14-2026
103 of 422
82
104
45
116
134
146
108
187
77
79
24
143 97
183
88
65
101
89
83
72
114
68
118
110
54
62
92
71
129
93
96
12
91
140
84
98
74
69
94
80
78
19
8
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
ORANGE
AVE
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
MILLER
AVE
GREENLEAF DR
FOOTHILL
BLVD
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MARYAVE
WOLFE
RD
25232818641107
55
BIKE NETWORKPRIORITIZATION
EXISTING/RECOMMENDED BIKE NETWORK
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Neighborhood Bike Routes
Separated Bikeway
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.5 1 MILES
Bike Intersection Improvement
Prioritization Rank#
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 51: Bicycle Network Recommendations with Project Rankings
Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to
complete projects, but rather a
guide for future project selection
based on a variety of factors.
77CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 104
PC 07-14-2026
104 of 422
Project Ranking and Cost Estimates
The Cupertino ATP recommends $43,518,000 in linear
projects for people walking, biking, and rolling� This
cost estimate does not include pedestrian intersection
improvements or Transportation Technology
Corridor improvements� It does include construction
of new and upgraded facilities, including bicycle
intersection improvements� For further detail on project
descriptions, refer to the Pedestrian Facility Toolbox
and Bicycle Facility Toolbox in Chapter 6�
Cost estimates were calculated using 2026 dollars and
are likely to rise over time� Detail on cost estimates and
costing methodology can be found in Appendix G�
The consolidated list of ranked projects is presented
below in Table 10�
Table 10: Consolidated Project Ranking
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
1 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 89�57 $
2 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 89�31 $
3 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 87�95 $
4 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83�32 $
5 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Stelling Rd Alves Dr 81�7 $
6 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Stelling Rd 81�14 $$$
7 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 79�72 $
8 Bike Network Shared-Use Path Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett
Bridge 79�63 $$$
9 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave John Dr 78�49 $
10 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 78�21 $
11 Bike Network Crossing
Stevens Creek
Undercrossing
(Feasibility
Study)
McClellan Rd Stevens Creek
Trail 78�09 $
12 Bike Network Shared-Use Path
San Thomas
Aquino/
Saratoga Creek
Trail Extension
(Lawrence Mitty)
Stevens Creek
Blvd Barnhart Ave 77�83 $$
13 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 75�4 $
14 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 75�29 $
$ = Project cost under $500,000
$$ = Project cost $500,000 to $2,000,000
$$$ = Project cost over $2,000,000
78CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 105
PC 07-14-2026
105 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
15 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Miller Ave Phil Ln 75�21 $
16 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Miller Ave Calle De
Barcelona 75�21 $
17 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Creek
Blvd Cupertino Rd 75�01 $
18 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd De Anza Blvd 74�81 $$$
19 Bike Network Shared-Use Path Union Pacific
Railroad Trail Prospect Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 74�45 $$$
20 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 74�42 $
21 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Richwood Dr Miller Ave 74�04 $
22 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 73�59 $
23 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Blaney Ave 73�59 $$$
24 Bike Network Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 73�09 $
25 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Portal Ave 73�01 $$$
26 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Stevens Creek
Blvd Phar Lap Dr 72�85 $
27 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 72�82 $
28 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Torre Ave 72�76 $$$
29 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr 72�45 $
30 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Bubb Rd McClellan Rd 72�41 $
31 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 72�39 $$
32 Sidewalks 1 side of street Bubb Rd
230' South of
Stevens Creek
Blvd
1,200' North of
Results Way 71�35 $
33 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 71�31 $
34
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Miller Ave/
Wolfe Rd Foothill Blvd 71�06 $$
35 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 70�99 $
36 Sidewalks 1 side of street McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave 70�64 $
37 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A September Dr McClellan Rd 69�5 $
79CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 106
PC 07-14-2026
106 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
38 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd I-280 69�12 $
39 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Bollinger Rd Miller Ave 68�9 $
40 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave 68�9 $$
41 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Bubb Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 68�84 $$$
42 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Stevens Creek
Blvd Bandley Dr 68�56 $
43 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr 68�53 $
44 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Tantau Ave Judy Ave 68�35 $
45
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Bonny Dr Pepper Tree Ln McClellan Rd
68�05
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Terry Way Rodrigues Ave Shelly Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr $
46 Bike Network Crossing Carmen Rd
Bridge Carmen Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 67�98 $$
47 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Forest Ave Blaney Ave 67�96 $
48 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A N Portal Ave Merritt Dr 67�96 $$
49 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C SR 85 Stevens Creek
Blvd 67�7 $$
50 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C SR 85 Stevens Creek
Blvd 67�7 $$
51 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Calvert Dr Loree Ave 67�42 $
52 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln 67�39 $
53 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 67�22 $
54 Bike Network Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Calle De
Barcelona 66�99 $
55 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 66�78 $$$
56 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr 360' East of
Stelling Rd
520' West of
Beardon Dr 66�74 $
80CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 107
PC 07-14-2026
107 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
57 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr 66�74 $
58 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd I-280 66�62 $
59 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 66�55 $$
60 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 66�05 $
61 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave 66�03 $
62
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway N Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Beekman Pl
65�34
$
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Beekman Pl $
63 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, C Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd 64�46 $$
64 Sidewalks 1 side of street Bubb Rd Edward Way Vai Ave 64�32 $
65 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr 63�56 $
66 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave 62�58 $
67 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Orion Ln 62�03 $
68
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Stelling Rd Garden Gate Dr Gardena Dr
61�32
$
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway N Stelling Rd Homestead Rd Gardena Dr $
69
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway
Stevens Creek
Blvd SR 85 Foothill Blvd
61�11
$$$
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway
Stevens Creek
Blvd De Anza Blvd SR 85 $$
70 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 60�99 $
71 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 60�78 $
72 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd Forest Ave 60�76 $
73 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Lance Dr Bollinger Rd 60�44 $
74 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 59�9 $
75 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Martinwood
Way Bollinger Rd 59�74 $
76 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of
Echo Hill Ct 59�39 $
77 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 58�72 $
81CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 108
PC 07-14-2026
108 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
78 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Bollinger Rd Harland Dr Westlynn Way 58�49 $
79
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln
57�92
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Phil Ln Finch Ave Stendhal Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Stendhal Ln Shadygrove Dr Phil Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Hyde Ave Shadygrove Dr Bollinger Rd $
80 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl 57�12 $
81 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Catalano Ct Orion Ct 56�78 $
82
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr Dead
End
56�6
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Orogrande Pl Stelling Rd Festival Dr $
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr Dead
End $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route September Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Festival Dr Stelling Rd Festival Dr Dead
End $
83
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway N Wolfe Rd Pruneridge Ave 300 ft� South of
Perimeter Rd
56�41
$
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Wolfe Rd Homestead Rd Pruneridge Ave $
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
300 ft� South of
Perimeter Rd $
84 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Bandley Dr Valley Green Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd 55�75 $
85 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Torre Ave Pacifica Dr 55�56 $
86 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd 54�76 $$
87 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 54�36 $
88 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave 54�01 $
89 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Portal Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Wintergreen Dr 54�01 $
90 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr 52�91 $$
82CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 109
PC 07-14-2026
109 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
91
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route
San Fernando
Ave Orange Ave Blackberry Farm
52�79
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route
Carmen Rd -
Scenic Blvd
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Scenic Cir
Pathway $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Janice Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Carmen Rd $
92 Bike Network Separated
Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek
Blvd 52�44 $$
93
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Fort Baker Dr Hyannisport Dr Presidio Dr
52�36
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd $
94 Bike Network Separated
Bikeway Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd Homestead Rd 52�18 $
95 Sidewalks 1 side of street Scofield Dr Western Dr De Anza Blvd 52�01 $
96
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr
51�59
$
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Memorial Park
Bike Path Memorial Park Alves St $$
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Memorial Park
Bike Path Christensen Dr Mary Ave $$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Ann Arbor Ct Christensen Dr Ann Arbor Ave $
97
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr Bollinger Rd
50�93
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave $
98 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd Santa Lucia Rd 50�85 $
99 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Terry Way Rodrigues Ave 50�68 $
100 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Bonny Dr Sola St 50�68 $
101
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kim St Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr
50�48
$
Bike Network Bike Path Kim St Kirwin Ln Bollinger Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Westacres Dr McClellan Rd Shelly Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route De Foe Dr Kim St Dumas Dr $
83CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 110
PC 07-14-2026
110 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
102 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stendhal Ln Phil Ln 50�42 $
103 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Forest Ave Randy Ln 50�04 $
104
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits
(South)
49�8
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Tuscany Pl Heatherwood
Dr Jollyman Park $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Colony Hills Ln Heatherwood
Dr Fallenleaf Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom
Dr Stelling Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Tiptoe Ln Kentwood Ave Colony Hills Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Rose Blossom Dr McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Heatherwood Dr Tuscany Pl Colony Hills Ln $
105 Sidewalks 1 side of street Mary Ave 500' South of
Lubec St
160' North of
Point Reyes Ter 48�81 $
106 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Bixby Dr Portal Ave 48�59 $
107 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd 48�46 $$$
108
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd
48�3
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route
Crescent Rd -
Hillcrest Rd Amelia Ct Cupertino Rd $
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End $
109 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Merritt Dr Larry Way 47�88 $
84CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 111
PC 07-14-2026
111 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
110 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 47�66 $
111
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Stelling Rd Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr I-280 47�33 $$
112 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Granada Ave Orange Ave 47�01 $
113
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Wolfe Rd/Miller
Ave
Wolfe Rd/Miller
Ave
Calle de
Barcelona Homestead Rd 46�35 $$
114
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
46�05
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Voss Ave Lockwood Dr Foothill Blvd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Palm Ave Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd $
115 Pedestrian
Intersections A, B, C Torre Ave Town Center Ln 45�56 $$
116
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Erin Way Stelling Rd Kirwin Ln
45�22
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kirwin Ln Erin Way Kim St $
117
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
De Anza Blvd De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd Homestead Rd 45�21 $$
118
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Linda Vista Dr Hyannisport Dr Santa Teresa Dr
45�14
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Santa Teresa Dr Rae Ln Terrace Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd $
119 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr 45�14 $
120 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr 44�55 $
121 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Wheaton Dr Portal Ave 44�1 $
122 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln 43�9 $
123 Sidewalks 1 side of street S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek
Blvd 43�88 $
124 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 43�76 $
125 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Saich Way Alves Dr 43�64 $
126 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 43�4 $
85CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 112
PC 07-14-2026
112 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
127 Sidewalks 1 side of street Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct 43�3 $
128 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Foothill Blvd Voss Ave 43�28 $
129
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd
42�62
$
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd $
130 Sidewalks 1 side of street Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr 42�25
131 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stern Ave Tilson Ave 41�9 $
132 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave 41�86 $
133 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr 41�74 $
134
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Plum Blossom Dr Primrose Way Jamestown Dr
41�4
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Scotland Dr Squirewood
Way Kingsbury Pl $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Jamestown Dr Plum Blossom
Dr Prospect Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Squirewood Way Scotland Dr Stelling Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Blossom
Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Gardenside Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr $
135 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of
Stelling Rd 41�15 $
136 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 41�15 $
137 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Randy Ln Merritt Dr 41�05 $
138 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Merritt Dr Vista Dr 41�05 $
139 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr 40�76 $
140 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane
Stevens Creek
Blvd Foothill Blvd Permanente Rd 40�68 $
141 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr 40�48 $
142
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Homestead Rd Homestead Rd Tantau Ave De Anza Blvd 39�96 $$
86CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 113
PC 07-14-2026
113 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
143 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 39�72 $
144 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd 39�38 $
145 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 39�26 $$
146
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom
Dr 38�98
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Waterford Dr Stelling Rd Primrose Way $
147 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Kirwin Ln Lonna Ln De Anza Blvd 38�92 $
148 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr 37�72 $
149 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd 37�33 $
150 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd
170' South of
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Rancho Ventura
St 37�31 $
151 Sidewalks 1 side of street Forest Ave 260' East of
Randy Ln
110' West of
Toni Ct 37�24 $
152 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Mary Ave Lubec St 36�36 $
153 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Pacifica Dr Whitney Way 35�88 $
154 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr 35�8 $
155 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Kirwin Ln Felton Way 35�67 $
156 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A San Fernando
Ave Orange Ave 35�09 $
157 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd 34�88 $
158 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Stevens Creek
Blvd
200' East of
Lockwood Dr Prado Vista Dr 34�76 $
159 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Imperial Ave Olive Ave 33�95 $
160 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Squirehill Ct Rainbow Dr 33�86 $
161 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Lockwood Dr 160' East of
Lockwood Dr 33�2 $
162 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Lebanon Dr 170' East of
Lebanon Dr 33�2 $
163 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Stevens Creek
Blvd
170' East of
Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr 33�2 $
164 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Creek
Blvd
California Oak
Way 33�12 $
165 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Regnart Rd 32�91 $
87CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 114
PC 07-14-2026
114 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
166 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr 32�08 $
167 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Kirwin Ln Erin Way 32 $
168 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A 100' East of
Scenic Ct Cir Pathway 31�84 $
169 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave 30�78 $
170 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Scenic Blvd Palm Ave 30�7 $
171 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Foothill Blvd 170' South of
Voss Ave Palm Ave 30�49 $
172 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Merriman Rd Voss Ave 29�64 $
173 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 29�56 $
174 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 29�22 $
175 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct 28�94 $
176 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 28�65 $
177 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 28�5 $
178 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Canyon
Rd Riverside Dr 28�4 $
179 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave 28�29 $
180 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr 27�7 $
181 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Seven Springs
Pkwy 27�41 $
182 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Waterford Dr 27�41 $
183 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr 26�33
184 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Kim St Bollinger Rd 24�52 $
185 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct 24�24 $
186 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir
314' South of
Rancho Ventura
St
24�24 $
187
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Homestead Rd S Bernardo Ave Stelling Rd
23�6
$
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway Homestead Rd El Sereno Ave S Bernardo Ave $
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Homestead Rd Crist Dr El Sereno Ave $
88CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 115
PC 07-14-2026
115 of 422
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
188 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, C De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd 23�35 $$
189 Sidewalks 2 side of street McClellan Rd
250' East of
Stevens Canyon
Rd
90' West of San
Leandro Ave 22�4 $
190 Sidewalks 1 side of street Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl 21�1 $
191 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Prospect Rd Stelling Rd 19�56 $$
192 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Kim St Kirwin Ln 19�41 $
193 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr 19�36 $
194 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave 18�3 $
195 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd 18�24 $
196 Sidewalks 1 side of street Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd 17�99 $
197 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Dempster Ave Stokes Ave 16�02 $
198 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln 15�47 $$
199 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr 14�91 $
200 Sidewalks 2 sides of street De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way 14�6 $
201 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd 14�18 $$
202 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Via Roncole Prospect Rd 10�85 $$
203 Sidewalks 1 side of street Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct 9�65 $
204 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, C Canyon Oak
Way Cristo Rey Dr 6�25 $$
89CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 116
PC 07-14-2026
116 of 422
Implementation Strategy
Capital Projects
Include the projects of this Plan in the annual
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Identify additional
opportunities for coordination among projects in the
CIP that advance the Plan and the City’s goals�
Identify Quick-Build Projects
Quick-build projects are implemented using relatively
low-cost materials compared to long-term capital
projects� Quick-build projects not only are faster
and less costly to implement, but they also create an
opportunity to pilot a project design or treatment for
community feedback and observation� Quick-build
projects can also more quickly respond to safety
concerns, compared to long-term capital improvements�
Where feasible, the City should identify specific
network improvements or packaged improvements
that can advance on an accelerated timeline through
quick-build implementation�
Flexible Project Delivery
The City will need to work internally and across City
departments to find flexibility within any existing
processes and how projects are implemented�
Remaining flexible will help reduce hurdles typically
faced in project delivery and streamline decision-
making� Recommended projects could require ongoing
evaluation and pivoting within an annual work plan
and project development�
As conditions change, the City should review projects
periodically, considering new needs, the impact of
implemented projects, and available funding� The City
should evaluate this Plan’s project list every five years
and update as needed�
Cross-Departmental
Opportunities
Interdepartmental City staff coordination is key to the
success of the Plan project implementation� Aligning
with existing or future projects across City departments
will promote a shared understanding that Plan project
delivery is a priority across the City� Aligning across
City departments is also an opportunity to share the
need for the proposed improvements and how all the
City’s networks interact�
Project implementation requires a thoughtful
strategy and exploration of innovative approaches�
The strategies explored below are opportunities that
the City can leverage to support the implementation
of this Plan’s programs, network recommendations,
and goals and objectives over time�
Figure 52: Rodrigues Avenue buffered bike lanes installed as part of the City’s pavement maintenance program
90CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 117
PC 07-14-2026
117 of 422
Project Delivery and Evaluation Commitments
Project Impact Evaluation
Guidelines
Some of the proposed projects for the bicycle network
may generate impacts to parking or congestion,
by requiring either the removal of a vehicle lane or
removal of on-street parking� Because projects for
the ATP were developed at a conceptual level, they
have only identified the potential for impacts, but
not the scale—as further design detail is required to
understand the extent of impacts�
Under the Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines,
City staff will assess the potential for impacts across
a range of criteria at the 30% design stage and report
those findings to City Council. The City Council will
determine whether a project should then undergo a
detailed impacts analysis or can move forward with
approval for detailed design and construction� This will
ensure thorough public vetting of all potential impacts
and trade-offs before a project is fully committed to,
allowing for as-needed design modifications to limit
impacts when determined to be too severe�
Impact evaluation will include traffic data collection
for all modes, traffic operations analysis, and parking
impact analysis� For further details, see Appendix I.
Project Effectiveness
Guidelines
For new Class II and Class IV bike network projects
from the ATP, the City will conduct before- and after-
evaluation counts to more clearly understand the effect
of new projects on generating new walking and biking
trips� Before-evaluation data will be collected during
the project design process, while after-evaluation data
counts will be conducted a suitable amount of time
after the new facility opens to account for changes in
travel patterns and behaviors. Evaluation will also
consider changes in collision rates� The City will report
the results, ensuring transparency and accountability
around active transportation projects�
For further details, see Appendix J�
Projects recommended in the ATP are at the
conceptual level and will require further design
and analysis to determine their feasibility for
implementation� In the interests of providing a
higher level of certainty to the public and decision-
makers around how projects will be developed and
implemented, this ATP outlines City commitments
for the project development and delivery process,
as well as how active transportation projects will be
evaluated for effectiveness in the future.
Figure 53: Sharrow installation on Pacifica Drive
91CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 118
PC 07-14-2026
118 of 422
Funding Sources
Potential Funding Sources
While the City does not currently have a dedicated
funding source for the implementation of all the
activities recommended in this ATP, there are a variety
of funding sources available to support planning,
design, and construction of all recommended projects�
The following represents a list of potential funding
sources available�
FEDERAL
• Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) Grants
• Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with
Disabilities
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
• Recreation Trails Program
• Surface Transportation Program
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
• Surface Transportation Block Grants
STATE
• Active Transportation Program
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC)
• California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank
• California Office of Traffic Safety
• California Transportation Commission Local
Partnership Program (LPP)
• Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
• Clean Mobility Options
• State Highway Operation and Protection Program
(SHOPP)
• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
• Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
• Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA)
• Urban Greening Grant Program
LOCAL
• Transportation Development Act Article 3
• Transportation Fund for Clean Air
• Measure B
• Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of
1982
• One Bay Area Grant
• Regional Measure 3
• Transit-Oriented Communities & Climate Program
Implementation Grants
It is crucial for the City to identify and secure
funding for programs and infrastructure projects to
advance the goals established in this Plan� A variety
of sources exist to fund bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure programs, projects, and studies�
These sources include local, regional, state, and
federal funding opportunities�
92CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 119
PC 07-14-2026
119 of 422
120
PC 07-14-2026
120 of 422
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Plan Review
Appendix B: Existing Conditions Memo
Appendix C: Needs Assessment Memo
Appendix D: Public Participation Summary Report
Appendix E: Development of Recommendations
Memo
Appendix F: Recommended Policies and Programs
Memo
Appendix G: Prioritization Methodology Memo
Appendix H: Complete Streets Policy Review Memo
Appendix I: Active Transportation Plan Impact
Evaluation Guidelines
Appendix J: Project Effectiveness Guidelines
Appendix K: Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Technology
White Paper
121
PC 07-14-2026
121 of 422
APPENDIX A
Plan Review
122
PC 07-14-2026
122 of 422
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd and Jesús Contreras, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 13, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Plan Review
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City
of Cupertino. These studies and reports were reviewed to understand Cupertino’s existing conditions, previously identified
active transportation needs, policy priorities (in light of changing legislative environments), and recent transportation
initiatives. This document provides a foundation for the development of the City of Cupertino Active Transportation Plan
(ATP). This review will help:
• Ensure Goals, Objectives, and Performance Metrics for Cupertino ATP are consistent with City policies and plans.
• Identify and integrate priority projects from previous plans.
• Identify policy and programmatic recommendations to carry into the ATP.
The review memo is divided into four sections:
Section 1 – Introduction: provides an overview of the memo and the information included.
Section 2 – Key Takeaways: includes a high-level summary of common themes identified within the plans reviewed.
Section 3 – Full Document Review: contains a complete summary of the 12 documents reviewed. Information is
presented in individual tables for easy readability.
Section 4 – Active Transportation Network Progress: details the progress Cupertino has made since the adoption of the
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan in 2018 and the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2016.
Plans Reviewed
The following 14 documents were reviewed to prepare this memo. They are listed in order of relevance to the plan process:
1. City Plans
a. 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan
b. 2023 Cupertino Local Road Safety Plan
c. 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
d. 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan
e. 2021 Cupertino Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study
f. 2015 Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element
g. 2018 Cupertino Complete Streets Policy
h. 2025 Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines
i. 2022 Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0
j. 2020 Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan
123
PC 07-14-2026
123 of 422
2. Countywide Plans
a. 2025 Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan (in-progress)
b. 2018 VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan
c. VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan
d. 2025 VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2050 (in-progress)
Key Takeaways
• The City has been making progress towards the completion of the priority projects by advancing the Tamien Trail1
and critical on-street facilities.
• While safety has long been a priority for the City, the adoption of the Vision Zero Plan highlights a fundamental shift
toward enhancing safety through non-infrastructure programs and the build-out of facilities that offer greater
protection from vehicle traffic for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Since the adoption of the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan in 2018 and the Cupertino Bicycle
Transportation Plan in 2016, the City has built five sidewalk segments, nine intersection improvements, four shared-
use paths, two bike lanes, four buffered bike lanes, three bike boulevards, and one bike route.
• Policy and design alignment with regional Active Transportation Plans (Santa Clara County ATP, VTA Countywide
Bicycle Plan, VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan, and VTA 2050) will be critical to securing future
implementation funding.
1 The Tamien Trail was previously known by the name “Junipero Serra Trail” in previous plans. In this document, this facility
will be referred to exclusively as the “Tamien Trail”.
124
PC 07-14-2026
124 of 422
Full Document Review
The following section includes a summary of the plans reviewed. Information for each plan is organized into individual tables
for easy readability.
Plan 1
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Vision Zero Action Plan City of Cupertino 2024
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) was a high-level document that focused on broad strategies and actions aimed at eliminating
severe injuries and fatalities on the City’s transportation network. Pedestrian and bicycle safety was emphasized, as these users
account for 60% of all fatal and serious injury crashes. A citywide High Injury Network (HIN) and a set of High Injury
Intersections (HII) were identified based on the collision history. The VZAP included a robust community engagement effort and
identified seven partnership strategies, including advocacy for safer delivery vehicles, partnerships with transit agencies, and
private sector engagement.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Guiding Principles
1. Safety is our highest priority
2. Traffic deaths and severe injuries are a preventable public health issue
3. People make mistakes
4. Slower streets are safer streets
5. We will create safer transportation options for people to travel
6. Street safety must be achieved equitably
7. Vision Zero will be both reactive to crash data and proactive to crash risk
8. Vision Zero requires a holistic approach to land use and transportation
9. Cupertino’s response will utilize proven safety countermeasures coupled with innovative strategies
Design
Standards
The Countermeasure Toolbox is organized into the following categories: Roadway Design, Pedestrian
Safety, Bicyclist Safety, Speed Management, Operations, and Signal
Policies and
Programs
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
125
PC 07-14-2026
125 of 422
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 & 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
Projects
The Vision Zero Action Plan prioritizes the following eight corridors along the High Injury Network (HIN):
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• Homestead Rd
• McClellan Rd
• De Anza Blvd
• Stelling Rd
• Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave
• Bollinger Rd
• Blaney Ave
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The Vision Zero approach marks a notable shift in how transportation safety should be addressed, focusing on
eliminating all traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries through infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects.
• Safety improvements should be prioritized along the HIN, including speed reduction measures.
• Enforcement efforts should focus on key priorities and include training to enhance data reporting.
126
PC 07-14-2026
126 of 422
Plan 2
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Local Road Safety Plan City of Cupertino 2023
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
Cupertino’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies transportation safety capital projects throughout the City for all modes
of transportation with the goal of reducing fatal and severe injury collisions. The LRSP, funded by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans, was achieved through a decision-making process that relied on a data-driven collision
analysis of local roadways, partnership with stakeholders, and public outreach.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
The City of Cupertino’s Local Road Safety Plan outlines six safety projects specifically designed for the most
hazardous intersections and roadway segments.
Project 1: Safety at Signalized Intersections - Unsafe Speed and Rear End
Project 2: Safety at Signalized Intersections - Improper Turning, Auto Right-of-Way Violations, and Broadside
Project 3: Safety at Signalized Intersections - Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
Project 4: Safety on Roadway Segments - Unsafe Speed Violations and Rear End
Project 5: Safety on Roadway Segments - Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
Project 6: Safety on Roadway Segments - Reduce Nighttime Collisions
Design
Standards
The Plan includes a countermeasure toolbox in Appendix C that corresponds with the six safety projects.
Policies and
Programs N/A
Projects
Project 1: Safety at Signalized Intersections - Unsafe Speed and Rear End
• 10 projects
Project 2: Safety at Signalized Intersections - Improper Turning, Auto ROW Violations, and Broadside
• 9 projects
Project 3: Safety at Signalized Intersections - Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
• 9 projects
Project 4: Safety on Roadway Segments - Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety
• 20 projects
KEY TAKEWAYS
• A total of 48 improvements within six safety project types were developed for high-risk intersections and
roadway segments in Cupertino.
127
PC 07-14-2026
127 of 422
Plan 3
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Bicycle Transportation Plan City of Cupertino 2016
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Bicycle Transportation Plan provided a vision and specific steps to create safer and more comfortable conditions for
people to bike in Cupertino. The Plan was built on an assessment of existing conditions that included an analysis of land
use and community demographics, transportation and recreation facilities and programs, activity generators, and
commuter travel. The plan also includes an outreach component, and its purpose was to aid the City in constructing a
comprehensive, low-stress citywide bike network.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Increase awareness and value of bicycling through encouragement, education, enforcement, and evaluation
programs.
Improve bicyclist safety through the design and maintenance of roadway improvements.
Increase and improve bicycle access to community destinations across the City of Cupertino for all ages and
abilities.
Design
Standards The Bicycle Transportation Plan included guidelines for bicycle facility selection, application, and design.
Policies and
Programs
• 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.
128
PC 07-14-2026
128 of 422
• 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.
Projects
Tier 1:
• Class I - 2 projects
• Class III - 4 projects
• Class IV - 3 projects
• Spot improvement - 4 projects
Tier 2:
• Class I - 2 projects
• Class II - 1 projects
• Class IIB - 6 projects
• Class III - 1 project
• Class IIIB - 3 projects
• Class IV - 5 projects
• Spot improvement - 10 projects
Tier 3:
• Class I - 7 projects
• Class II - 4 projects
• Class IIB - 15 projects
• Class III - 10 projects
129
PC 07-14-2026
129 of 422
• Class IIIB - 2 projects
• Spot Improvement - 12 projects
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The Bicycle Transportation Plan represents a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of bicyclists,
including infrastructure, policy changes, educational and promotional campaigns, enforcement efforts, and an
evaluation component to track progress in achieving the City's goals.
• Stevens Creek Blvd Class IV (Under Development) – tier 1
• Tamien Trail (Under Development) – tier 1
• Homestead Road Safe Routes to School Project (Under Development) – tier 2
• Carmen Road Bridge (Planning) – tier 2
• McCleallan Road Class IV (Completed) – tier 1
Priority Projects Progress:
Tier 1:
• Class I – 2 initiated
• Class IIIB – 2 completed, 2 initiated
• Class IV – 2 initiated, 1 not funded
• Intersection/Spot/Bridge – 2 complete, 1 initiated, 1 not funded
Tier 2:
• Class I – 1 completed, 1 not funded
• Class II – 1 not funded
• Class IIB – 3 completed, 1 initiated, 2 not funded
• Class III – 1 not funded
• Class IIIB – 1 completed, 2 initiated
• Class IV – 5 not funded
• Intersection/Spot/Bridge – 4 complete, 3 initiated, 3 not funded
Tier 3:
• Class I – 2 complete, 5 not funded
• Class II – 2 complete, 2 not funded
• Class IIB – 2 completed, 13 not funded
• Class III – 1 complete, 9 not funded
• Class IIIB – 2 not funded
• Intersection/Spot/Bridge – 1 initiated, 11 not funded
130
PC 07-14-2026
130 of 422
Plan 4
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Pedestrian Transportation Plan City of Cupertino 2018
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Pedestrian Transportation Plan (PTP) provides a vision and specific steps for creating an inviting, safe, and connected
pedestrian network. The Plan was based on an assessment of existing conditions, which included analysis of land use,
demographics, travel patterns, destinations, travel demand, and collision history. The Plan also includes an outreach
component with engagement efforts at each stage of the planning process: existing conditions & needs analysis (Phase 1),
preliminary recommendations (Phase 2), and implementation strategy & final draft plan (Phase 3). The PTP establishes a
framework for developing and maintaining pedestrian facilities and recommends policies, programs, and messaging to
promote walking.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Safety: Improve pedestrian safety and reduce the number and severity of pedestrian-related collisions,
injuries, and fatalities.
Access: Increase and improve pedestrian access to community destinations across the City of Cupertino for
people of all ages and abilities.
Connectivity: Continue to develop a connected pedestrian network that fosters an enjoyable
walking experience.
Design
Standards
Pedestrian Facility Toolbox, which provides guidelines regarding the facility purpose, selection, appropriate
application, and design of facilities.
Policies and
Programs
Infrastructure and Operations
• 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 ped/bike counts as a routine element of motor vehicle counts
• Conduct ped/bike 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
131
PC 07-14-2026
131 of 422
Projects
Priority Projects are concentrated in the western and northern parts of the City.
Tier 1:
• Sidewalk - 9 projects
• Intersection - 4 projects
• Bridge - 3 projects
• Shared-Use Path - 4 projects
Tier 2:
• Sidewalk - 3 projects
• Intersection - 4 projects
• Bridge - 2 projects
• Shared-Use Path - 4 projects
Tier 3:
• Sidewalk - 2 projects
• Intersection - 7 projects
• Shared-Use Path - 2 projects
KEY TAKEWAYS
Priority Projects Progress:
Tier 1:
• Sidewalk - 5 completed, 4 not funded
• Intersection - 1 completed, 2 in progress, 1 not funded
• Bridge - 2 in progress, 1 not funded
• Shared-Use Path - 3 completed, 1 in progress
Tier 2:
• Sidewalk - 1 in progress, 2 not funded
• Intersection - 1 completed, 1 in progress, 2 not funded
• Bridge - 2 not funded
• Shared-Use Path - 1 completed, 3 not funded
Tier 3:
• Sidewalk - 2 not funded
• Intersection - 1 completed, 2 in progress, 4 not funded
• Shared-Use Path - 1 in progress, 1 not funded
132
PC 07-14-2026
132 of 422
Plan 5
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study City of Cupertino 2021
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Cities of Cupertino and San Jose conducted a safety and operational study of the Bollinger Road Corridor in 2021. This
project examined Bollinger Road to identify improvements to enhance pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle, and transit safety and
operations. The Study proposed two alternatives that reflect different priorities and strategies for improving the corridor.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
To create a safer and more accessible corridor for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and motorists.
Design
Standards
N/A
Policies and
Programs
N/A
Projects
Alternative A: Class IV; Speed feedback signage; High-Viz Crosswalk; Bike boxes; Two-stage turn queue boxes;
and RRFB
Alternative B: Class IV Cycle Tract; Speed feedback signage; High-Viz Crosswalk; Bike boxes; Two-stage turn
queue boxes; RRFB; and PHB
KEY TAKEWAYS
• Alternative A involves a road diet, where the road would be reduced to one travel lane in each direction, along
with providing a center two-way left turn lane.
• Alternative B maintains the existing lane configuration while implementing spot improvements, primarily at
intersections.
• Further traffic analysis is required to evaluate the feasibility and potential effectiveness of each alternative.
133
PC 07-14-2026
133 of 422
Plan 6
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
General Plan Mobility Element City of Cupertino 2015
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The General Plan Mobility Element 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 to help reduce strain on the automobile network and improve health and quality of life for residents and businesses.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Enhance alternative modes of transportation with walking/biking facilities, transit service, and connections to
key transit nodes.
Goals:
• Regional Coordination
• Complete Streets
• Walkability and Bikeability
• Transit
• Safe Routes to Schools
• Vehicle Parking
• Transportation Impact Analysis
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality
• Roadway System Efficiency
• Transportation Infrastructure
Design
Standards
N/A
Policies and
Programs
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.
134
PC 07-14-2026
134 of 422
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, which
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.
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.
135
PC 07-14-2026
135 of 422
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).
Projects
• The project recommendations from the Bicycle Transportation Plan were identified.
• Recommends bikeshare stations
• Recommends Protected Intersections Policy
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The Mobility Element aims to enhance alternative transportation modes by prioritizing safety improvements near
schools, implementing a micromobility share system, implementing complete streets projects, and enhancing the
active transportation network.
136
PC 07-14-2026
136 of 422
Plan 7
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Complete Streets Policy City of Cupertino 2018
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The City of Cupertino’s Complete Street Policy advances the City’s goal of meeting the safety, access, and mobility needs
of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, public transportation users, and people with disabilities. This policy
aims to create an integrated transportation network that promotes safe and convenient travel for all. The policy
acknowledges the public health and welfare benefits of reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by
walking, bicycling, and public transit. It aligns with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and related
directives, which mandate that cities incorporate the mobility needs of all roadway users into their general planning
processes. Furthermore, the policy supports the goals of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) and
the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), which require significant increases in public
transit, bicycling, and walking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Complete Streets Principles
• Serving all users
• Context sensitivity
• Complete Streets routinely addressed by all Departments
• Consistent with the City's Mobility Element update
Design
Standards
N/A
Policies and
Programs
Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the
transportation system shall be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other
relevant plans, except that where such consistency cannot be achieved without negative consequences,
consistency shall not be required if the head of the relevant department provides written approval explaining
the basis of such deviation.
Street Network/Connectivity. Consistent with the City’s Mobility Element update, the City of Cupertino shall
incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of
users, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of facilities accommodating each category of
users, and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and between existing and anticipated
future areas of travel origination or destination.
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Consultation. Transportation projects shall be reviewed by the Cupertino
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission early in the planning and design phase to provide the Cupertino Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete
Streets features to be incorporated into the project.
Projects Includes recommendations in the Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The policy ensures eligibility for regional funding programs like the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) and 2016
Measure B, supporting community health, safety, economic vitality, and environmental sustainability.
137
PC 07-14-2026
137 of 422
Plan 8
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Transportation Study Guidelines City of Cupertino 2025
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Transportation Study (TS) Guidelines outline the process for evaluating the transportation effects of projects on the
City’s transportation system and services for all travel modes. The Guidelines support the General Plan's Mobility Element
goal of implementing strategies to make alternative modes of transportation an attractive choice.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
1. To evaluate a project's consistency with the City's General Plan, including compliance with the
transportation standards in the Mobility Element.
2. To evaluate a project’s consistency with the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program
(CMP).
3. To evaluate significant impacts and mitigation measures per the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Design
Standards
Americans with Disability Act standards
Caltrans DIB-94 bicycle lane width standards
Policies and
Programs
• Projects shall provide convenient short-term bike parking such as bike racks (Class 2) and secure
longer-term bike parking such as bike lockers (Class 1) with clear wayfinding signage visible from
public pathways to the parking locations.
• Bicycle access routes and bicycle site access points shall be identified and conflicts between vehicles
and bicyclists along these routes should be minimized.
• Projects shall accommodate pedestrian desire lines to nearby destinations.
• Projects shall provide adequate sidewalks and crosswalks.
• Projects shall consider pedestrian-scale lighting and benches along the project frontage for areas
with higher pedestrian demand.
Projects
Example Improvements
• Provide for access to, from, and through the development for pedestrians and bicyclists
• Construct Class I bicycle paths, Class II bicycle lanes, and other facilities
• Provide secure bicycle parking and shower amenities
• Reduce travel lanes on a street to install a two-way left-turn lane and Class II bicycle lanes
• Add corner bulbouts, reduce curb radii, add pedestrian refuges or implement other walking-related
improvements
• Dedicate right-of-way to provide bicycle or pedestrian facilities
KEY TAKEWAYS
138
PC 07-14-2026
138 of 422
• The Transportation Study Guidelines provide a clear and consistent technical approach for evaluating the
transportation effects of projects on the City’s transportation system and services.
• Outcomes include mitigation measures under CEQA and/or other conditions of approval that result in changes
to the project site plan or program or the implementation of off-site transportation system improvements.
139
PC 07-14-2026
139 of 422
Plan 9
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Cupertino Climate Action Plan City of Cupertino 2022
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Climate Action Plan (CAP) provides meaningful actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate
change impacts to improve quality of life in Cupertino. In Cupertino, on-road transportation accounts for 60% of
emissions. The CAP has set a target of communitywide carbon neutrality by 2040, which is more ambitious than the state's
goals.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
The Cupertino Climate Action Plan 2.0 contains recommendations to achieve the following
transportation-based goals:
1. Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of active transportation mode
share by 2030 and 23% by 2040
2. Implement public and shared transit programs to achieve 29% of public transit mode share by 2030
and maintain it through 2040
3. Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 35% for passenger vehicles and 20% for commercial
vehicles by 2030 and 100% for all vehicles by 2040
4. Refocus transportation infrastructure away from single-occupancy gasoline vehicles to support the
active transportation, public transit, and ZEV goals stated above.
Design
Standards
N/A
Policies and
Programs
• Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15% of active transportation mode share
by 2030 and 23% by 2040.
• As part of the City’s active transportation planning, identify priority projects to connect neighborhoods with
commercial areas via bike/ped paths, repainted roadways, and e-bikeshare.
• Collaborate with the County, VTA, and SVCE to connect Cupertino's bicycle network to cross-jurisdiction
bicycle superhighways and other e-bike networks as feasible.
• Engage the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Safe Routes to School network, and community groups to
identify additional short-term and long-term bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure improvement projects to
implement.
• Ensure equitable access to safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in all city areas. Prioritize new bicycle
and pedestrian facilities (e.g., bike paths, bike parking, sidewalks) in areas with underdeveloped facilities and
lower-income populations.
• Re-stripe arterial, minor collector, and major collector roads (as mapped in the 2016 Bicycle Transportation
Plan) without existing designated bike lanes to include bike lanes and reduce the width of existing car
lanes/travel determined by the bicycle and pedestrian plans.
• Conduct a pilot program, including a plan for pilot implementation, that designates the road space on select
streets specifically for bikes and is closed to through-traffic motor vehicles. As part of the plan, consider the
location and extent of a pilot program based on transportation data analysis and develop success tracking
metrics to inform potential pilot expansion.
140
PC 07-14-2026
140 of 422
• Improve the bike/e-bike parking network to reduce theft and increase rider attraction. This would include
surveying existing bike parking facilities throughout the City and developing and implementing a plan to
improve these with preference given to improving bike/e-bike parking facilities near public transit stops to
improve and expand access to transit (i.e., first/last mile access).
• Design a micromobility program that explores the expansion of the use of e-bikes and scooters and shared
micromobility options.
• Bring an e-bike share or e-scooter share to Cupertino, focusing on placing hubs near neighborhood entry
points and commercial areas. Adopt an ordinance to allow and manage the mobility sharing program.
Projects
References infrastructure recommendations from the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian
Transportation Plan.
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The Cupertino Climate Action Plan provides a set of measures to reduce transportation-related emissions by
making alternative travel modes a more attractive choice.
• Key metrics include achieving 15% of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23% by 2040.
141
PC 07-14-2026
141 of 422
Plan 10
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Parks and Recreation Master Plan City of Cupertino 2020
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Cupertino Parks and Recreation Master Plan aims to improve the quality of life by connecting residents to parks,
nature, and each other. The plan's driving goals are conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity,
quality, and sustainability. The plan's recommendations aim to advance these goals by transforming existing parks and
recreation, expanding current joint use opportunities and partnerships, adding new parks and facilities, expanding services
for teens and seniors, and protecting natural resources.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Conservation, connection, equitable access, enhancement, activity, quality, and sustainability.
Design
Standards
N/A
Policies and
Programs
Strategic actions to advance goal - Connection
• Implement opportunities for the proposed trails and paths noted in the Bicycle Transportation
Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Cupertino General Plan, Countywide Trails Master Plan,
and other local and regional plans to improve access to parks and expand walking and biking
opportunities in Cupertino.
• Prioritize completing a comprehensive network of off-street facilities and protected bikeways
to provide safe, inviting walking and biking opportunities.
• Encourage biking and walking to parks and recreation destinations and the use of non-single-
driver-vehicle options through physical and programmatic enhancements.
Projects
Enhancement to existing trails
• Don Burnett Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge & Trail
• Creekside Park and Connection to Regnart Creek Trail
• Saratoga Creek Trail
• Stevens Creek Trail
Potential Joint Use Opportunities
• Facilitate connections between schools and any proposed nearby bikeways and trails.
• Encourage connections between Kennedy Middle School, the the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-
way, and nearby parks. Pursue partnerships with Cupertino Unified School District to improve public
access or to add or enhance recreation facilities.
• Encourage connections and shared uses between Stevens Creek Elementary School and Varian Park.
Trail Opportunities
• New corridors as identified in the City pedestrian and bicycle plans and transportation plans,
including acquisition of the Lawrence-Mitty parcels on the west side of the Lawrence Expressway.
142
PC 07-14-2026
142 of 422
• Other potential trails, such as Tamien Trail or UPRR Trail. (Complete feasibility analysis and develop
multi-use trails if feasible.)
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The Plan prioritizes the implementation of the Cupertino Loop by advancing the Regnart Creek and Tamien Trails.
• The Plan reinforces the recommendations of the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan.
143
PC 07-14-2026
143 of 422
Plan 11
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan Santa Clara County 2025
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Santa Clara County Active Transportation Plan provides a vision and steps to create a safer, more comfortable, and more
connected active transportation network. The plan was built on an assessment of existing conditions analysis and robust
community engagement. The plan builds on previous efforts to enhance walking, biking, and rolling conditions on county-
maintained roadways.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
• Equity and social justice
• Health, well-being, and sustainability
• Access, connectivity, and multimodal consistency
• Public safety and comfort
• Collaboration and community partnerships
Design
Standards
Caltrans Guidance
• Caltrans 7th Edition Highway Design Manual - Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design
• Design Information Bulletin Number 89-02 - Class IV Bikeway Guidance
• Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan (currently under update)
• Design Information Bulletin Number 94 - Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance
FHWA
• Bikeway Selection Guide, 2019
• Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks, 2016
• Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
• Proven Safety Countermeasures
Policies and
Programs
• Curb extensions at intersections
• Crossing Facilities
• Sidewalk and Curb Cut Improvement Program
• Slip Lane Retrofitting Program
• Quick-Build Project Implementation
• Open Streets
• Wayfinding
• Bike Trains to School and Walking School Buses
• Adult Bike Education
• “New Infrastructure” Education Campaign
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Campaign
• Tactical Urbanism and Slow Streets/School Streets
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Program
• School Safety Assessment
144
PC 07-14-2026
144 of 422
Projects
Recommendations on Expressways
• Class I - 56.5 mi
Recommendations on non-expressways
• Class I - 40 mi
• Class IIB - 1.1 mi
• Class III - 39.3 mi
• Class IIIB - 13.9 mi
• Class IV - 3.8
• Paved shoulder with intermittent Rumble Strips - 33.4
Recommendations near Cupertino
• Class I - Foothill Expwy (Highest Priority)
• Sidewalk gap closures on northwest local roads
KEY TAKEWAYS
• The Plan represents a comprehensive approach to addressing the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, including
infrastructure, educational and promotional campaigns, and programs. The recommendations aim to provide
greater separation between active travel modes and motorized vehicles along county-maintained roads.
• Recommendations near Cupertino include a proposed Class I on Foothill Expwy (Highest Priority) and sidewalk
gap closures on northwest local roads outside Cupertino city limits.
145
PC 07-14-2026
145 of 422
Plan 12
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
Countywide Bicycle Plan Valley Transportation Authority 2018
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The 2018 Countywide Bicycle Plan describes a vision for a countywide network of connected, high-quality bikeways. While
the plan focuses on bicycle planning, it should be viewed within the context of VTA as a multimodal transportation
solutions provider. Therefore, the plan addresses congestion by encouraging alternative modes of transportation. It
supports transit by accommodating bikes on transit and promotes first/last mile access. The plan provides a planning and
policy framework for developing and delivering future bicycle projects to reduce congestion and enhance transit access.
The plan is built on an existing conditions analysis that identifies existing bike infrastructure, barriers, and programs based
on input from local jurisdictions, elected officials, and the community. The plan also serves as guidance for jurisdictions
applying for Measure B funding.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
1. Develop a Comprehensive and Continuous Countywide Bicycle Network
2. Ensure that Bicycling is Safe and Convenient for All
3. Pursue Innovative Solutions
4. Improve Transit Connectivity
5. Improve Bicycle Access to Transit
Design
Standards
VTA expects high-quality, low-stress bicycle design along Cross County Bicycle Corridors (CCBCs).
However, implementation will be context-sensitive. Addresses elements like appropriate bikeway type,
separation of bicyclists from motorized vehicles and pedestrians, bikeway width, recommended roadway
markings, intersection amenities, and crossing amenities. Draws from VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines,
local design standards, and state and national manuals and guidelines. This includes design principles for
CCBCs, bicycle superhighways, and expressway considerations for bikeways along waterways, and design
features for CCBC by facility type.
Policies and
Programs
• Policy 1A: Expand the Network
• Policy 1B: Leverage Development to Build Bicycle Infrastructure
• Policy 1C: Seek Adequate Funding
• Policy 2A: Improve the Quality of Bicycle Infrastructure
• Policy 2B: Ensure the Network is Easy to Find and Use
• Policy 2C: Support Bicyclist Safety and Traffic Laws
• Policy 2D: Promote Bicycle Education
• Policy 2E: Encourage Bicycling
• Policy 3C: Plan for the Future of Bicycling
• Policy 4A: Improve Bicycle Access to Transit
• Policy 4B: Provide Consistent Bicycle Parking at Transit Stations
• Policy 4C: Support Safe and Convenient Bicycle/Transit Interactions
• Support violator diversion programs
• Support bicycle safety and education classes for youth and adults
Projects
Priority Cross-County Bicycle Corridors in Cupertino
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• Mary Ave
• Homestead Rd
146
PC 07-14-2026
146 of 422
• Tantau Ave
• Bollinger Rd – Erin Way – Kirwin Ln
• Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd - Prospect Rd – Blaney Ave
All Other Cross-County Bicycle Corridors in Cupertino
• Miller Ave
• Barhart Ave – Phil Ln
• Tantau Ave
• Along south side of I-280
• Stelling Rd
Across Barrier Connections in Cupertino
• Prospect Rd at Stelling Rd (Planned)
• Stelling Rd at Waterford (Unplanned)
• Miller Ave at I-280 ( Planned)
• Homestead Rd at Mary Ave (Planned)
• Foothill Blvd at I-280 (Planned)
• Stevens Creek Blvd at Carmen Rd (Planned)
• Union Pacific Railroad at Snyder-Hammond House (Planned)
KEY TAKEWAYS
• VTA provides funds to Member Agencies to deliver programs and takes an active role in delivering programs to
the public.
• The Plan provides guidelines for Measure B funding for programs and infrastructure.
• The plan supports bicycle access to transit.
Priority Cross County Bicycle Corridors in Cupertino
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• Mary Ave
• Homestead Rd
• Tantau Ave
• Bollinger Rd – Erin Way – Kirwin Ln
• Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd - Prospect Rd – Blaney Ave
Planned Across Barrier Connections in Cupertino
• Prospect Rd at Stelling Rd
• Miller Ave at I-280
• Moestead Rd at Mary Ave
• Foothill Blvd at I-280
• Stevens Creek Blvd at Carmen Rd
• Union Pacific Railroad at Snyder-Hammond House
147
PC 07-14-2026
147 of 422
Plan 13
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
VTA Bicycle Suerhighway Implementation Plan VTA 2021
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
This VTA Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan proposes specific alignments for a countywide network of 17 bicycle
superhighways for Santa Clara County. It also describes the implementation status of each bicycle superhighway,
summarizes active implementation efforts, and provides planning-level cost estimates for building out remaining
segments. To move from the list of conceptual bicycle superhighway corridors identified in the Countywide Bicycle Plan to
a map of specific alignments, VTA worked closely with Member Agency staff and the VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee. The Plan will assist local agencies and VTA in funding, planning, designing, and building the superhighway
network.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
• Build public and political awareness and support for the network and inspire community members
to shift from driving to riding bicycles.
• Better position Member Agencies (local agencies in Santa Clara County) that intend to pursue grant
funding by identifying high-priority projects and showing VTA’s support.
Design
Standards
Provides design expectations to create a consistent riding experience through off-street trails and on-
street facilities. The overall design should support low-stress riding, minimize conflicts with other users,
prioritize bicyclists at intersections, provide highly legible wayfinding and high connectivity, and reduce or
eliminate conflicts and wait time at major barriers. The plan provides design principles and
recommended features by facility type, which includes wayfinding.
Policies and
Programs N/A
Projects
Identifies 17 potential bicycle superhighway alignments
Planning Work Done, Corridor Alignment Fairly Certain:
• Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail (VTA will lead, support or fund)
o Rainbow Dr – Saratoga Ave (built)
o Cristo Rey Dr – Rainbow Dr (Feasibility study)
Requires Further Study to Determine Feasibility & Specific Alignments:
• East Channel Trail/Blaney Avenue (VTA will lead, support or fund)
o Bay Trail – Prospect Rd (Feasibility Study)
• Stevens Creek Trail/ Homestead Road/Mary Avenue (VTA will support)
o Homestead Rd/Mary Ave – Tamien Trail (Under Construction)
o Tamien Trail – Stevens Creek Blvd (Environmental & Design)
o Stevens Creek Blvd – Historic De Anza Trail (Concept)
• Tamien Trail/Pruneridge Avenue/Hedding Street/Berryessa Road (VTA will support or fund)
o Mary Ave – De Anza Blvd (Feasibility Study)
De Anza Blvd – Vallco Pkwy (Environmental & Design)
KEY TAKEWAYS
• Implementation of the bicycle superhighway network will continue to be led by Member Agencies and other agencies
with land use authority. However, VTA will play a role in organizing the vision, coordinating the effort across
jurisdictional lines, and seeking funding sources.
148
PC 07-14-2026
148 of 422
Bike Superhighway projects in Cupertino and VTA Involvement
Planning done
Historic De Anza Trail/Union Pacific Railroad Trail (VTA will lead, support, or fund)
Requires further study
149
PC 07-14-2026
149 of 422
Plan 14
PLAN NAME AGENCY YEAR
VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2025 Valley Transportation Authority In-Progress
HIGH LEVEL INTRODUCTION/ SUMMARY
The Valley Transportation Plan 2050 is the countywide long-range transportation plan for Santa Clara County. The plan
provides a planning and policy framework for developing and delivering future transportation projects considering all
travel modes. The plan is based on an existing conditions analysis that identifies existing and future transportation needs
informed by input from local jurisdictions, elected officials, and the community.
RELEVANT PLAN/ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Goals,
Objectives,
and Metrics
Implement faster, more frequent, safe, and convenient transit:
▪ Increase frequency for bus and light rail routes
▪ Improve the rider experience and safety for all users
▪ Explore partnerships and other service models to reach new transit markets
▪ Assist cities in adopting transit priority policies
Prioritize Active Transportation to encourage healthier multimodal options
▪ Fund, plan, design, and build complete streets and active transportation projects
▪ Complete the Bicycle Superhighway network
▪ Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and severe injuries
▪ Improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to transit
▪ Plan for new and emerging mobility opportunities
Encourage land uses that create complete and convenient places
▪ Support local Priority Development Areas/Transit Rich Areas
▪ Encourage Development Opportunities in proximity to transit
▪ Explore additional funding support for Local Plans
▪ Enhance Transit-Oriented Communities Policy actions at VTA property
▪ Build effective partnerships with stakeholders (jurisdictions, developers, and community)
Address the climate emergency by reducing transportation emissions
▪ Adapt to emerging innovation
▪ Explore new mechanisms to mitigate increases in Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) from land development
projects and transportation projects
▪ Support Transportation Demand Management strategies and the monitoring of their effectiveness
▪ Support equity in transportation
▪ Support improvements within Equity Priority Communities and other disadvantaged communities
▪ Continue efforts to implement Community Based Transportation Plans
▪ Build partnerships in Equity Priority Communities and with Community Based Organizations
Pursue safe and reliable travel on highways and expressways
▪ Plan, design, and build Complete Streets improvements at interchanges
▪ Invest Express Lane revenue back into existing transportation system
▪ Support completion of the Countywide Expressway Plan to incorporate Complete Streets
Design
Standards
N/A
Policies and
Programs
Across Barrier Connections: Pedestrian or bicycle safety and access improvements through interchanges
or across major barriers (freeways, highways, expressways, waterways, rail lines). Includes
pedestrian/bicycle bridges or tunnels, freeway interchange and ramp modifications, and improvements
to at-grade crossings of expressways and highways.
150
PC 07-14-2026
150 of 422
Safe Routes to School Infrastructure Programs: Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements,
supporting facilities (e.g., bike parking), and education and encouragement programs to enhance safety
for students in grades K-12 who walk, bike, or take transit to school. Projects and programs that
encourage students/parents to walk, bike, transit, or carpool to school.
Vision Zero Infrastructure and Programs: Improvements to mitigate or eliminate safety issues along
priority safety corridors. Safety education and behavior change campaigns.
Local Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans: Implementation of projects in locally adopted bicycle, pedestrian, safe
routes to school, vision zero, and trail plans.
First and Last Mile Connections: Establish innovative public/private pilot projects to reduce the distance
between a traveler’s origin/destination and a transit station/stop. Inclusion of micromobility and
microtransit opportunities.
Minor Local Roadway Improvements: Completion of minor spot roadway improvements, local
intersection improvements, traffic calming projects, and local complete streets projects.
Projects
Homestead Rd SR2S improvements
• Will construct bike and ped safety improvements on Homestead Rd between Foothill Expwy
and Hollenbeck Ave.
• Improvements include: Class IV, Class I, sidewalk gap closure, widen sidewalks, intersection
improvements, and improve the NB SR 85/Homestead ramp for bicyclists and pedestrians.
KEY TAKEWAYS
• 2016 Measure B Bicycle and Pedestrian Program will give priority to those projects that connect to schools,
transit, and employment centers, fill gaps in the existing bike and pedestrian network, safely cross barriers to
mobility, and make walking and biking a safer and more convenient means of transportation.
• Educational programs will also be eligible for funding.
• A key draft project is the Homestead SR2S improvements from Foothill Expy to Hollenbeck Ave.
151
PC 07-14-2026
151 of 422
Active Transportation Network Progress
This section outlines the progress Cupertino has made since adopting the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan in 2018
and the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan in 2016. Each of these Plans divided identified projects into three tiers. While
all projects are important, this prioritization informed project delivery for the City in the following years. Prioritization
criteria included a history of collisions, proximity to schools, proximity to destinations (including parks, transit, and
employment centers), and network connectivity. Pedestrian network improvements also considered opportunities to
reduce traffic speeds, and bicycle network improvements considered the reduction of user stress and implementation
feasibility.
One of the most notable Tier 1 projects to achieve implementation is the Regnart Creek Trail, a shared-use path between
Pacifica Drive and East Estates Drive. This 0.8-mile-long trail connects local neighborhoods with Creekside Park, Wilson Park,
Cupertino City Hall, and the Cupertino Library. The Regnart Creek Trail serves as a partial off-street connection for students
biking to school at Monta Vista High School and Cupertino High School. The American Public Works Association (APWA)
Silicon Valley Chapter awarded the trail “Project of the Year” in 2022 in the category of transportation projects between $2-
5 million.
Implementing projects is not without challenges, and funding has been the greatest barrier for the City in the construction
of projects. Many projects that involve bridge construction or relocating curbs and drainage require extensive engineering
and grant writing to progress beyond the planning phase. Other hurdles have included ROW issues, UPRR cooperation, and
the time and resources required to follow up on feasibility studies, outreach, and iterative design.
Below is a summary table of project implementation for both plans, divided by Tier. More than 40% of recommended
projects across both plans are either completed or in progress.
Table 1: Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan Implementation Summary
Project Status Recommended Complete In-Progress Not Funded
Pedestrian Plan
Tier 1 20 9 4 6
Tier 2 13 2 2 9
Tier 3 11 1 3 7
Bicycle Plan
Tier 1 13 4 7 2
Tier 2 28 9 6 13
Tier 3 50 7 1 42
Total
152
PC 07-14-2026
152 of 422
Pedestrian Plan Implementation
For the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Cupertino identified 44 projects for implementation. Most of these
projects are on high-crash corridors with a high density of pedestrian destinations. Projects in these locations will improve
pedestrian safety and access in areas where people are likely to walk to schools, retail, parks, and transit. Pedestrian project
progress is detailed in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. through Table 3.
Table 2. Priority Pedestrian Infrastructure Projects Progress
Project Status Recommended Complete In-Progress Not Funded
Sidewalk
Tier 1 9 5 - 4
Tier 2 3 - 1 2
Tier 3 2 - - 2
Intersection
Tier 1 4 1 2 1
Tier 2 4 1 1 2
Tier 3 7 1 2 4
Bike-Ped Bridge
Tier 1 3 - 2 1
Tier 2 2 - - 2
Tier 3 - - - -
Shared-Use Path
Tier 1 4 3 1 -
Tier 2 4 1 - 3
Tier 3 2 - 1 1
Total
153
PC 07-14-2026
153 of 422
Table 3. Walking Network – Completed Projects
Project Location Start End Notes
Tier 1
Sidewalk McClellan Rd San Leandro Ave Orange Ave Complete
Sidewalk McClellan Rd Bonny Dr McClellan Pl Complete
Sidewalk McClellan Rd SR 85 overcrossing Rose Blossom Dr Complete
Sidewalk Orange Ave Granada Ave Alcazar Ave Complete
Crosswalk Stelling Rd Alves Dr Complete
Sidewalk Byrne Ave McClellan Rd Granada Ave Complete
Class 1 Path
Mary Ave
Don Burnett Bridge
Stevens Creek Blvd
Separated bikeway complete in
lieu of Class 1 path, deemed
infeasible
Class 1 Path Regnart Creek Trail Pacifica Dr E. Estates Dr Complete
Class 1 Path Oaks Shopping
Center Mary Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Westport completed Class III in
lieu of Class I
Tier 2
Reconfigure
Intersection De Anza Blvd at McClellan Rd
Shared-use Path Stevens
McClellan Ranch County
Linda Vista Trail complete
Tier 3
Install Curb
Extensions and
High-Vis
Rainbow Dr
at Gardenside Ln
Completed with flexible posts
154
PC 07-14-2026
154 of 422
Bicycle Plan Implementation
For the purposes of this review and future Cupertino Active Transportation Plan documents, bicycle projects may be
referred to as rolling projects: the bike network serves a wide variety of micromobility users, including people using
adaptive tricycles, wheelchairs, strollers, skateboards, scooters, and other active transportation options. Rolling
infrastructure project progress is detailed in Table 4 through Table 5.
Table 4. Priority Rolling Infrastructure Projects Progress
Project Status Recommended Complete In-Progress Not Funded
Class I – Shared Use Path
Tier 1 2 - 2 -
Tier 2 2 1 - 1
Tier 3 7 2 - 5
Class II – Bike Lanes
Tier 1 - - - -
Tier 2 7 3 1 3
Tier 3 19 4 - 15
Class III – Bike Routes
Tier 1 4 2 2 -
Tier 2 4 1 2 1
Tier 3 12 1 - 11
Class IV – Separated Bikeways
Tier 1 3 - 2 1
Tier 2 5 - - 5
Tier 3 - - - -
Intersection/Spot/Bridge
Tier 1 4 2 1 1
Tier 2 10 4 3 3
Tier 3 12 - 1 11
Total
155
PC 07-14-2026
155 of 422
Table 5. Rolling Network – Completed Projects
Project Location Start End Notes
Tier 1
Configure
Intersection
Boulevard (#5) Portal Ave at
Merritt Dr
Merritt Dr Wintergreen Dr
Intersection
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Civic Center to Sterling
Barnhart Park Bike
Rodrigues Ave
Blaney Ave
Sterling Barnhart
Park
Bike Blvd Ph 2
Tier 2
Bike Lane
Crossing Study South Side Blvd - North Side funding was allocated for
design or construction.
Boulevard Bike Blvd (#4) Dr Merritt Dr
Configure
Intersection
De Anza Blvd McClellan Rd --
Bike Lane
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane
Prospect Rd De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd
Configure
Intersection
McClellan Rd Rose Blossom Dr -- --
Trail Crossing Homestead Rd Mary Ave -- Completed as part of VERBS
grant with City of Sunnyvale
Tier 3
Bike Lane Blvd
Bike Path
Class II Bike Lane Pacifica Dr De Anza Blvd Torre Ave Class IV constructed in lieu of
Class II as part of McClellan
Route Creekside Park Bike Rodrigues Ave Creekside Park
156
PC 07-14-2026
156 of 422
Class I Path Linda Vista Park/Deep
Cliff Golf Course
Linda Vista Park
Parking Lot off
Linda Vista Dr
McClellan Rd --
Class II Bike Lane Cristo Rey Dr 150 feet East of
Cristo Rey Pl
Roundabout
157
PC 07-14-2026
157 of 422
APPENDIX B
Existing Conditions Memo
158
PC 07-14-2026
158 of 422
To: David Stillman, City of Cupertino; Matt Schroeder, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd, George Foster, Jesús Contreras, and Petra Reyes, Alta Planning + Design, Inc.
Date: June 6, 2025
Re: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan: Existing Conditions Chapter
Introduction
Project Description
The Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) seeks to advance mobility for multimodal transportation in Cupertino. The
ATP builds from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the 2024 Vision Zero
Action Plan – among others. The ATP will, through a combination of analysis and public engagement, develop a unified set
of bicycle and pedestrian projects to guide the work program of City of Cupertino staff into the future. The ATP will also
develop a set of policy and programmatic recommendations to help the City better pursue and implement impactful
projects benefitting all of Cupertino. A map the project study area is shown in Figure 1.
Memo Overview
This memo seeks to establish the existing conditions for walking and biking in the City of Cupertino, which will serve as a
foundation for analysis and provide context to input given during the public outreach process. This memo covers the
following topics:
• Summary of Findings– overview of existing conditions and report
• Community Overview – summary of demographics, income, and land use
• Plan Review – summary of previously adopted plans directly impacting the ATP and the status of plan
implementation
• Travel Profiles – summary of how people in Cupertino move around
• Transportation Profile – summary of the transportation networks for all modes in Cupertino
• Biking, Walking, and Rolling Safety – summary of the 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan findings
159
PC 07-14-2026
159 of 422
Figure 1. Project Study Area
160
PC 07-14-2026
160 of 422
Summary of Findings
Cupertino has a well-developed and maintained sidewalk network, particularly in the denser commercial and residential
areas of the city. Along the arterial roadway network, there are crosswalks and Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
at major intersections which promote safe pedestrian crossings, albeit with dedicated crossing locations sometime being
spaced far enough apart to discourage some walking trips. In the residential or less-developed areas, crosswalks are sparse,
requiring pedestrians to cross without adequate infrastructure.
The bikeways in Cupertino create a connected network with multiple north/south, east/west access points for cross city
travel. The growing network has a variety of bikeway types, including bike lanes and shared use paths like the Regnart
Creek Trail. For more information on the existing pedestrian and bicycle network, see the Transportation Profile section.
The City made significant progress in implementing recommendations included in the 2016 Bicycle Plan and 2018
Pedestrian Plan. The greatest progress was made among high priority recommendations. For more information on the
prioritization criteria and progress made since past plans, see the Plan Review section.
The City is bound and bisected by interstates, highways, and expressways, which provide regional access for travel by car -
but presents connectivity barriers for people walking and biking in the City. The residential street network also has limited
access to the arterial roadway network, limiting route options and connections for cross city travel.
The analysis of bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collision data found that Cupertino saw the fewest overall collisions in the
beginning of the COVID pandemic (2020), and they steadily rose in 2021 and 2022. Pedestrian-involved collisions have
remained below pre-pandemic levels, but killed or seriously injured (KSI) numbers have remained at the same level. In
Cupertino, 72% of serious and fatal crashes take place on 7 city streets, which comprise the High-Injury-Network. Most of
these streets are arterial roadways, but some are smaller residential streets. For this list of streets, see the Biking, Walking,
and Rolling Safety section.
Next Steps
Findings from the analyses conducted as part of this memo will be used in conjunction with public feedback to inform the
development of recommendations in subsequent phases of the Active Transportation Plan.
161
PC 07-14-2026
161 of 422
Community Overview
The City of Cupertino is in western Santa Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area, with a population of 58,886 residents 1.
It is the ancestral home of the Muwekma Ohlone tribe 2 and the Tamien Nation 3 indigenous peoples. Throughout the late
19th and early 20th centuries, Cupertino was home to a robust agricultural industry. The City formally incorporated in 1955,
with much of the City subsequently developing in post-war suburban layout. The City of Cupertino is home to a history of
innovation in Silicon Valley, serving as the headquarters for Apple Inc.
The City of Cupertino is relatively flat, sloping upwards to the south and to the west where the City runs into the foothills of
the Santa Cruz Mountains. Cupertino experiences a mild climate, with winter temperatures in the upper-50s and summer
temperatures in the low-80s. The City is laid out on a modified grid system with the vast majority of land dedicated to single
family homes. Commercial districts are located along some of the City’s major thoroughfares, such as Stevens Creek Blvd.
The City of Cupertino is also a major regional destination. Apple’s headquarters, located in Cupertino, draws over 12,000
employees each day. DeAnza College, a junior college located in Cupertino, has a total enrollment of over 24,000 students.
1 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimate (2019-2023)
2 https://www.muwekma.org/
3 https://www.tamien.org/tribal-territories
162
PC 07-14-2026
162 of 422
Demographics
Age & Sex
Cupertino’s population is more heavily skewed towards males (53%) than Santa Clara County at large (51%). The median
age in Cupertino is 41 years; population bubbles for people ages 40-54 and 10-19 suggest many parents with teenage
children. Approximately 40% of Cupertino residents are either under 18 (26%) or over 65 (14%), suggesting a large demand
for local, non-commuting trips within the community that require options beyond driving. Age and sex breakdowns for the
City, County, and State are shown in Figure 2 through Figure 4 and Table 1. Population Age and Sex by Geography. Senior
and youth populations are further explored in Figure 5 through Figure 7 and Table 2. Youth and Seniors as Share of
Population by Geography.
5.0%4.0%3.0%2.0%1.0%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%
Under 5 years
6 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85+ years
Male Female
Figure 2. Population Share by Age Group in Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
163
PC 07-14-2026
163 of 422
5.0%4.0%3.0%2.0%1.0%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%
Under 5 years
6 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85+ years
Male Female
Figure 3. Population Share by Age Group in Santa Clara County (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
5.0%4.0%3.0%2.0%1.0%0.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%
Under 5 years
6 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85+ years
Male Female
Figure 4. Population Share by Age Group in California (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
164
PC 07-14-2026
164 of 422
Table 1. Population Age and Sex by Geography (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
Cupertino Santa Clara County California
Male Female Male Female Male Female
85+ years 1.10% 1.60% 0.80% 1.20% 0.70% 1.20%
80 to 84 years 0.60% 1.00% 0.70% 1.00% 0.70% 1.00%
75 to 79 years 1.00% 1.50% 1.10% 1.40% 1.20% 1.50%
70 to 74 years 1.50% 2.20% 1.60% 1.90% 1.90% 2.10%
65 to 69 years 2.10% 1.70% 2.20% 2.40% 2.40% 2.60%
60 to 64 years 3.30% 2.80% 2.90% 2.70% 2.90% 3.00%
6 to 9 years 3.10% 2.80% 2.90% 2.70% 3.10% 2.90%
55 to 59 years 3.40% 3.10% 3.20% 3.20% 3.10% 3.10%
50 to 54 years 4.50% 4.10% 3.40% 3.30% 3.20% 3.10%
45 to 49 years 4.10% 4.00% 3.40% 3.30% 3.10% 3.10%
40 to 44 years 4.40% 4.40% 3.50% 3.30% 3.40% 3.30%
35 to 39 years 3.20% 3.10% 4.00% 3.60% 3.70% 3.40%
30 to 34 years 3.00% 2.50% 4.50% 3.80% 3.90% 3.70%
25 to 29 years 2.60% 2.00% 4.10% 3.50% 3.70% 3.50%
20 to 24 years 3.00% 2.30% 3.20% 3.00% 3.30% 3.20%
15 to 19 years 4.20% 2.70% 3.30% 3.10% 3.40% 3.20%
10 to 14 years 4.60% 3.90% 3.20% 3.00% 3.40% 3.20%
Under 5 years 2.80% 1.60% 2.80% 2.60% 2.90% 2.80%
165
PC 07-14-2026
165 of 422
25.7%
59.9%
14.3%
Youth
Other
Senior
Figure 5. Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
23.5%
Youth
Other
Senior
Figure 6. Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in Santa Clara County (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
166
PC 07-14-2026
166 of 422
Table 2. Youth and Seniors as Share of Population by Geography (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
Cupertino Santa Clara County California
Youth 25.7% 23.5% 24.9%
Other 59.9% 62.1% 59.9%
Senior 14.3% 14.4% 15.3%
Race & Ethnicity
Nearly 75% of Cupertino residents identify as Asian, with 30% of the total population identifying as Chinese and another
30% identifying as Asian Indian or South Asian. About 20% of Cupertino residents identify as White, and 3% identify as
Latino, which is lower than the statewide California estimates of 35% White and 40% Latino. Breakdown of race and
ethnicities by geography are shown in Figure 8 through Figure 10 and in Table 3. Race and Ethnicity of Residents by
Geography.
24.9%
59.9%
15.3%
Youth
Other
Senior
Figure 7. Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in California (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
167
PC 07-14-2026
167 of 422
71.7%
21.0%
2.8%1.0%0.3%0.1%3.1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Asian White Latino Black Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
American Indian
and Alaska
Native
Other
Figure 8. Race and Ethnicity of Residents of Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
39.3%
28.2%25.1%
2.3%0.4%0.1%4.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Asian White Latino Black Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
American Indian
and Alaska
Native
Other
Figure 9. Race and Ethnicity of Residents of Santa Clara County (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
168
PC 07-14-2026
168 of 422
Table 3. Race and Ethnicity of Residents by Geography (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
Cupertino Santa Clara County California
White 21.0% 28.2% 34.6%
Black 1.0% 2.3% 5.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%
Asian 71.7% 39.3% 15.1%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 0.3% 0.4% 0.3%
Latino 2.8% 25.1% 39.8%
Other 3.1% 4.6% 4.6%
15.1%
34.6%
39.8%
5.3%
0.3%0.3%
4.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Asian White Latino Black Native Hawaiian
and Other Pacific
Islander
American Indian
and Alaska
Native
Other
Figure 10. Race and Ethnicity of Residents of California (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
169
PC 07-14-2026
169 of 422
Languages Spoken at Home
A little over one-third of Cupertino households speak only English at home, while 63% speak a language other than English.
43% of Cupertino households speak Asian and Pacific Islander languages, 16% speak other Indo-European Languages, and
less than 2% speak Spanish at home. Languages are further broken down in Table 4. Languages Spoken at Home by
Geography.
Table 4. Languages Spoken at Home by Geography (Source: ACS 2023 5-Year estimates)
Cupertino Santa Clara County California
Speak only English 36.8% 45.3% 55.9%
Asian and Pacific Islander languages 43.0% 26.2% 10.0%
Other Indo-European languages 16.7% 9.8% 4.8%
Spanish 1.8% 17.2% 28.2%
Other languages 1.6% 1.5% 1.1%
Income & Education
The median household income in Cupertino is $231,139. This median household income is substantially higher than Santa
Clara County ($159,674) and California generally ($96,334). There are no MTC Equity Priority Communities within the City
limits; income-driven equity concerns may largely focus on people commuting into or passing through Cupertino.
83.1% of Cupertino households have achieved a bachelor’s degree or higher. This is also much higher than Santa Clara
County (55.9%) and California generally (36.5%).
170
PC 07-14-2026
170 of 422
Land Use
Planning for land use and transportation together helps create safer, more walkable environments. Designating local land
uses with mobility in mind can create more access to destinations and resources, as well as support the local economy.
Diverse land uses with higher density encourage walking, biking, and rolling trips because destinations are closer together
and easier to access. Conversely, segregated land uses that are low density and further apart tend to promote driving trips.
Cupertino’s land uses are largely defined by its street grid, the paths of Interstate 280 and Highway 85, and the rising
topography of western Cupertino. Stevens Creek Boulevard, DeAnza Boulevard, and Homestead Road act as the primary
commercial corridors in the City.
Cupertino features a range of land uses, though most are designated for low-density residential uses, as show in Figure 11.
Higher density housing is largely grouped nearby to major roadways or adjacent to highways. Planned development areas
are a mix of uses: mixed-use commercial/residential at the former Vallco Mall site, retail development along the Stevens
Creek corridor, commercial and offices uses along DeAnza Boulevard, and residential elsewhere.
The Apple campus, in the northeast of the City, is designated as an industrial park. An additional small strip of light
industrial uses can be found on the west side of Highway 85 in Central Cupertino. DeAnza College is located in central
Cupertino. Significant open space areas are located on the western side of the City.
Future housing growth in Cupertino is largely concentrated on the eastern end of the City, focused on the former Vallco
Mall site on the corner of Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road. Investments in active transportation should account for
future growth to help minimize vehicle trips generated by new development. This will minimize congestion and parking
availability impacts for both existing and new residents.
171
PC 07-14-2026
171 of 422
Figure 11. City of Cupertino Existing Land Use Map
172
PC 07-14-2026
172 of 422
Plan Review
In February of 2025, Alta Planning completed a comprehensive Plan Review for the Cupertino ATP. This section summarizes
local and regional plans, policies, and standards that impact active transportation in the City of Cupertino. These planning
studies and reports were reviewed to gain a better understanding of existing conditions in Cupertino as they pertain to
transportation; how the City is moving forward in light of evolving policies at the federal, state, and regional levels; and the
direction being taken by the City through its most recent initiatives. The plans and studies reviewed are listed in Table 5.
Plans and Studies Reviewed. Key takeaways from these plans are described below and a full document review can be
found in the Plan Review memo.
Table 5. Plans and Studies Reviewed
Jurisdiction Year Plan
Local Plans
City of Cupertino 2025 Transportation Study Guidelines
City of Cupertino 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan
City of Cupertino 2024 General Plan Mobility Element
City of Cupertino 2023 Local Road Safety Plan
City of Cupertino 2022 Climate Action Plan 2.0
City of Cupertino 2021 Bollinger Road Corridor Safety Study
City of Cupertino 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan
City of Cupertino 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan
City of Cupertino 2018 Complete Streets Policy
City of Cupertino 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan
Regional Plans
Santa Clara County 2025 Active Transportation Plan
Valley Transportation Authority 2025 Valley Transportation Plan 2050
Valley Transportation Authority 2021 Bicycle Superhighway Implementation Plan
Valley Transportation Authority 2018 Countywide Bicycle Plan
173
PC 07-14-2026
173 of 422
Plan Review Findings
The City of Cupertino is currently prioritizing the completion of shared use paths, with significant progress being made on
the Regnart Creek and Tamien Trails. Safety has always been a key focus for Cupertino, but with the recent adoption of the
Vision Zero Action Plan, the City has made a fundamental shift in its approach. The Vision Zero Action Plan emphasizes the
creation of facilities that offer greater protection for people walking and biking, reducing the risk of accidents involving
vehicle traffic.
Additionally, since the adoption of the Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan in 2018 and the Cupertino Bicycle
Transportation Plan in 2016, the City has made substantial strides in improving its infrastructure. These improvements
include the construction of five sidewalk segments, seven intersection enhancements, two shared-use paths, one new bike
lane, five buffered bike lanes, one separated bikeway, four bike boulevards, and one designated bike route.
Looking ahead, aligning with regional Active Transportation Plans will be essential for securing future implementation
funding. This includes coordination with the Santa Clara County ATP, the VTA Countywide Bicycle Plan, the VTA Bicycle
Superhighway Implementation Plan, and VTA’s 2050 plan. These regional plans will play a crucial role in ensuring continued
progress and funding for Cupertino’s transportation goals.
Implementation from Past Plans
The City has an existing bikeway network 50.5 miles of bikeways, with plans to build 50.7 more. These include over 25 miles
of bike lanes (Class II) and buffed bike lanes (Class IIB), seen on major roads like De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road.
The 2016 bike plan had a strong emphasis on the construction of separated bikeways (Class IV) and shared-use paths (Class
I), with 3.1 miles and 6.3 miles in the network as of 2025. As part of the Plan Review, the 2016 Bicycle Plan and 2018
Pedestrian Plan were reviewed for progress in implementing recommended projects. Both plans developed prioritized
project lists, ranked into three different tiers. Prioritization criteria included history of collisions, proximity to schools,
proximity to destinations (including parks, transit, and employment centers), and network connectivity. Pedestrian network
improvements also considered opportunities to reduce traffic speeds, and bicycle network improvements considered
reduction of user stress and implementation feasibility. Table 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Planned Infrastructure Progress
shows projects for both plans, divided by tiers, and the status of implementation. Projects shown as “in-progress” are
currently in stages of funding or design. Some of these projects have been partially implemented. The map on the following
page shows the geographic distribution of completed and in-progress projects from both plans, in Figure 12. More detail
can be found in the Plan Review appendix.
Projects completed include 3.1 miles of Class IV separated bikeways and 1.3 miles of Class I shared-use paths.
174
PC 07-14-2026
174 of 422
Table 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Planned Infrastructure Progress
Project Status Recommended Complete In-Progress Not Funded
Pedestrian Plan (2018)
Tier 1 20 9 4 6
Tier 2 13 2 2 9
Tier 3 11 1 3 7
Bicycle Plan (2016)
Tier 1 13 4 7 2
Tier 2 28 9 6 13
Tier 3 50 7 1 42
Total 135 32 23 78
175
PC 07-14-2026
175 of 422
Figure 12. Projects completed and in-progress from the 2016 Bicycle Plan and 2018 Pedestrian Plan
176
PC 07-14-2026
176 of 422
Travel Profiles
Commute Mode Share
Commute to work is measured by the American Community Survey, which provides 5-year rolling estimates of mode
choices for travel. It should be noted that ACS mode share data only captures work-related trips taken during peak-hour
commute periods. ACS data also only captures the most predominant mode used: someone who walks or bikes to a bus
stop would only get counted as a transit-user. Lastly, 40% of Cupertino’s residents are too young or too old for the labor
pool, meaning their trips are not captured by the ACS.
Across the City, 3.5% of residents travel to work by either walking or biking, while another 28% worked from home. By
capturing more local trips through active modes, the City has the potential to reduce congestion for those residents who
must drive. These commuter travel patterns are shown in Figure 14.
School Trips/Safe Routes to School
Cupertino collects extensive school travel data as part of its Safe Routes to School (SRTS) initiative. This is particularly
important as one-quarter of the population of Cupertino are children. These children live close to neighborhood schools,
and most cannot drive themselves until later in high school, if ever, so a higher percentage of students walk, bike, and take
bus/transit. One third of Cupertino students currently walk or bike to school.
Since 2015, Cupertino SRTS has collected data on how students travel to and from school using an in-class survey method.
Teachers administer the Travel Tally Questionnaire, developed by the National Safe Routes to School Partnership, asking
students about their travel modes during a designated week. Initially piloted in a subset of schools in the fall of 2015, the
survey expanded citywide by the spring of 2016. In 2021, the survey shifted from biannual (spring and fall) to annual
administration each fall. The data collected informs program planning and supports grant applications by tracking mode
share trends across all grade levels. SRTS travel tally data from 2024 is shown in Table 7. Student Mode Share in Cupertino.
62.1%
1.0%4.0%1.1%0.7%2.8%
28.3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Drove alone Taxi Carpooled Public
transportation
Bicycle Walked Worked from
home
Figure 13. Commuter Mode Share (Source: ACS 2021 5-Year estimates)
177
PC 07-14-2026
177 of 422
Table 7. Student Mode Share in Cupertino (2024)
Mode of Travel Elementary Schools Middle Schools High Schools Citywide
Family Vehicle - Alone 56% 54% 54% 55%
Family Vehicle - Carpool 12% 14% 6% 11%
Public Transit 0% 0% 3% 1%
School Bus 1% 1% 0% 1%
Bike/Other 6% 12% 18% 11%
Walk 26% 19% 19% 22%
Transportation Profile
Located in western Santa Clara County, Cupertino is connected to the larger region via a network of interstates, highways,
and expressways. The City is bounded to the north by Interstate 280, which has a major interchange with Highway 85 in the
northwest corner of the City. Highway 85 travels in a diagonal north/south pattern, bisecting Cupertino in half. The
Lawrence Expressway bounds the eastern edge of the City. Each of these interstates, highways, and expressways present
substantial barriers to people walking and biking. Decommissioned UPRR railroad right-of-way also bisects the western half
of the City, providing a significant barrier to east/west travel.
Figure 14 shows the major streets and highways that form the street network in the City. The City’s Collector streets have a
wide range of street characteristics, from two-lane roadways to wide multilane roadways. The arterial network also
significantly divides the street network and acts as a barrier for walking and biking trips; the local street network was
designed to have minimal access points to, and crossings of, the arterial roadway network. This results in distances of over
1,000 feet between marked crosswalks on major arterial streets.
178
PC 07-14-2026
178 of 422
179
PC 07-14-2026
179 of 422
Pedestrian Infrastructure
The following are some of the proven safety countermeasures Cupertino has installed for people walking and using
mobility devices. Implemented and in-progress projects from the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan were previously
shown in Figure 12.
New/Improved Sidewalk
Sidewalks provide an area for people walking to travel
separated from motor vehicle traffic. Typically constructed
out of concrete and separated from the roadway by a curb
or gutter and sometimes a landscaped buffer.
High-Visibility Crosswalk
High-visibility crosswalks are marked with thick bars,
drawing additional attention and awareness to the
crossing. In school zones, these crossings are yellow
instead of the standard white color.
180
PC 07-14-2026
180 of 422
Raised Crosswalk
A high-visibility crosswalk built on top of a speed table.
This keeps the crosswalk at sidewalk-height, prioritizing
pedestrian crossings and slowing driver traffic near the
crosswalk.
Median Refuge Island
A median refuge island, or crossing island, is a median with
a refuge area intended to help protect pedestrians crossing
a multilane road. Crossing islands should be considered as
a supplement to the crosswalk. A pedestrian refuge island
allows pedestrians to focus on one direction of traffic at a
time as they cross and provides space to wait for an
adequate gap in oncoming traffic before finishing the
second phase of the crossing.
Curb Extension
Curb extensions—also known as bulb-outs or neckdowns—
extend the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane
and reduce the effective street width. These minimize
exposure for people crossing the street by shortening
crossing distance, giving them a better chance to see and
be seen before committing to crossing.
181
PC 07-14-2026
181 of 422
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
User-activated pedestrian signals that use flashing yellow
lights to alert motorists to the presence of people walking
in the crosswalk. They can be installed in midblock
locations or at intersections where a full traffic signal is not
warranted. Alternative flashing signs that illuminate the
sign’s perimeter may be considered in residential areas.
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
LPIs can be programmed into traffic signals to minimize
conflicts between pedestrians crossing a roadway and left-
or right-turning vehicles. LPIs give pedestrians the WALK
signal 3-7 seconds before motorists can proceed through
the intersection, making them more visible.
182
PC 07-14-2026
182 of 422
Existing Pedestrian Infrastructure Network
Sidewalks/Shared Use Paths
Cupertino has a relatively well-developed sidewalk network,
particularly in the areas around its denser centers and southern
residential neighborhoods. In areas near the Cupertino Village
Shopping Center, Main Street, and schools, like Cupertino High School,
sidewalks are common and well-maintained. In the more central parts
of Cupertino, especially near major intersections and public facilities
like the Cupertino Library and Community Center, there is also that
higher density of sidewalks. Cupertino also has a large number of
privately-owned roadways, often within planned unit development
areas. Sidewalks on these privately-owned roads are not owned or
maintained by the City of Cupertino. Figure 15 shows the City’s existing
pedestrian network, including sidewalks and shared-use paths.
While there is a large network of sidewalks, the roadway crossings for
pedestrians in Cupertino is variable, with a mix of well-designed
crossings in higher-density areas and gaps in infrastructure in lower-
density, residential areas. In denser commercial zones, such as along
major roads like De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road, crosswalks
are generally well-marked. Areas with higher foot traffic, such as near
Cupertino High School, the Cupertino Library, and the Cupertino
Village Shopping Center also, have enhanced crosswalks, including use
of Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at uncontrolled
intersections. Some residential or less-developed areas, especially in
the outskirts of the City, crosswalks are sparse, requiring pedestrians
to cross without adequate infrastructure or walk further to find a safe
crossing point. In these areas, the lack of consistent crosswalk
infrastructure can create challenges for pedestrians. Figure 16 shows
the City’s existing pedestrian crossings and locations of RRFB
crossings.
183
PC 07-14-2026
183 of 422
Figure 15. Existing and Proposed Sidewalks
184
PC 07-14-2026
184 of 422
Figure 16. Existing Crosswalks
185
PC 07-14-2026
185 of 422
Bike Infrastructure
The following are some of the proven safety countermeasures Cupertino has installed for people riding bicycles and
using other micromobility devices. Completed and in-progress projects from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan were
previously shown in Figure 12.
Shared-Use Path (Class I)
Bike and shared-use paths are typically paved bi-
directional pathways separate from the road right-of-way.
Ideally, shared-use paths will follow a distinct course in an
independent right-of-way, often along former railroad
beds, water courses, or other rights-of-way that usually
have few crossing roadways.
Example photo: Regnart Creek Trail shared-use path
Bike Lane (Class II)
Bike lanes designate an exclusive space for bicyclists
through pavement markings and signage. The bike lane is
next to motor vehicle travel lanes and flows in the same
direction as motor vehicle traffic.
Example photo: Stelling Road bike lane
186
PC 07-14-2026
186 of 422
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB)
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired
with a designated buffer space separating the bicycle lane
from the adjacent motor vehicle travel lane or parking
lane.
Example photo: Rodrigues Avenue buffered bike lane
Bike Route (Class III)
Signed bike route, sharing the roadway with motor
vehicles. Can include pavement markings.
Example photo: Terry Way bike route
Bike Boulevard (Class IIIB)
Bicycle boulevards are streets with low motorized traffic
volumes and speeds, designated and designed to prioritize
bicycle travel. Signs, pavement markings, and speed and
volume management measures are used to discourage
through trips by motor vehicles and create safe,
convenient bicycle crossings of busy arterial streets.
Example photo: Price Avenue bike boulevard
187
PC 07-14-2026
187 of 422
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
An on-street bike lane that is separated from motor vehicle
traffic by a vertical barrier such as bollards, raised medians,
planters, or parked cars.
Example photo: Stevens Creek Boulevard separated
bikeway
Existing Bicycle Infrastructure Network
Cupertino, with its mild weather, flat terrain, and compact size, is a prime location for all forms of rolling – including biking,
scooting, or other personal mobility devices. Cupertino’s bicycle network has seen significant growth in recent years,
offering a mix of bikeway types to meet the needs of a variety of users.
The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Chapter 1000) defines four types of bicycle facilities: Class I bike paths (shared use
paths), Class II bicycle lanes, Class III bicycle routes, and Class IV separated bikeways (separated bike lanes). In addition to
these four types, this plan recognizes two additional types of bicycle facilities: Class IIB buffered bike lanes (described below
as part of Class II) and Class IIIB bicycle boulevards.
The City has an existing bikeway network 50.5 miles of bikeways, with plans to build 50.7 more. These include over 25 miles
of bike lanes (Class II) and buffed bike lanes (Class IIB), seen on major roads like De Anza Boulevard and Homestead Road.
The 2016 bike plan had a strong emphasis on the construction of separated bikeways (Class IV) and shared-use paths (Class
I), with 3.1 miles and 6.3 miles in the network as of 2025.
Cupertino has also developed a series of bike boulevards (Class IIIB), which account for several miles of lower-traffic streets
that prioritize comfort for users of all ages and abilities. Cupertino’s bike boulevards are routed through residential areas
where traffic is less dense, often supplemented with speed tables, traffic circles, or traffic diverters.
The City has also invested in low-stress shared-use paths (Class I), including trails like the Regnart Creek Trail, which connect
key areas of Cupertino with off-road options for people of all ages and abilities. Figure 17 shows the City’s existing bicycle
network. Table 8. Existing Bikeway Facilities by Class shows existing and proposed facilities from the 2016 Bike Plan
Recommendations.
188
PC 07-14-2026
188 of 422
Table 8. Existing Bikeway Facilities by Class
Bikeway Classification Existing Facilities (mi.) 2016 Proposed Facilities (mi.)
Shared-Use Path (Class I) 6.3 7.7
Bike Lane (Class II) 19.3 1.6
Buffered Bike Lane (Class IIB) 7.0 13.7
Bike Route (Class III) 8.3 8.2
Bike Boulevard (Class IIIB) 6.5 8.6
Protected Bike Lane (Class IV) 3.1 10.9
TOTAL 50.5 50.7
189
PC 07-14-2026
189 of 422
Figure 17. Existing Bike Infrastructure
190
PC 07-14-2026
190 of 422
Existing Transit Network
Cupertino’s existing transit network is an essential component of the City’s transportation infrastructure, providing vital
connections to neighboring cities and regional hubs in the broader Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area. The City is
served by 13 VTA bus routes, which provide local and regional transit options, with key routes connecting Cupertino to
other parts of Santa Clara County. The City also benefits from its proximity to Caltrain stations in nearby cities such as
Sunnyvale and Mountain View, offering regional rail service along the Peninsula Corridor. While Cupertino itself does not
have a Caltrain station, the nearby stations are critical for residents seeking rail connections to San Francisco, San Jose, and
beyond. Most bus routes connect to central Cupertino along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and buses are equipped with bike
racks that can accommodate up to three bicycles.
Although the broader region has a very fragmented array of 27 transit operators, Cupertino’s transit network is relatively
well integrated with sub-regional VTA and Caltrain systems. It offers residents and employees various options for
commuting, though the lack of a local rail station forces residents to still rely heavily on bus service and private vehicles for
longer trips. Enhancing last-mile connectivity to and from bus and rail stations is a priority, aligning with City goals to reduce
car dependence and promote walking, biking, and other sustainable modes of transportation. This can be particularly
influential in central and eastern Cupertino, which are better served by VTA. Ridership is highest near De Anza College in
Cupertino.
Additionally, Cupertino has a microtransit operator similar to private rideshare providers in the area. The Silicon Valley (SV)
Hopper program is a multijurisdictional partnership between the City of Cupertino and the City of Santa Clara. The City of
Cupertino manages the program, offering rideshare service through a dedicated app for Cupertino, select areas in Santa
Clara, and a few specific destinations beyond the city limits. Similar to Uber and Lyft, instead of providing a door-to-door
service, SV Hopper takes users to a nearby designated stop. This stop is typically the closest street corner to trip origins or
destinations, though individuals with disabilities can receive door-to-door service. This program receives funding from the
Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP). Figure 18 through Figure 20 show the City’s existing transit network,
busiest stops, and the SV Hopper service area.
191
PC 07-14-2026
191 of 422
Figure 18. Transit Routes
192
PC 07-14-2026
192 of 422
Figure 19. Average Daily Boardings and Alightings
193
PC 07-14-2026
193 of 422
Figure 20. SV Hopper Service Area
194
PC 07-14-2026
194 of 422
Biking, Walking, and Rolling Safety
The 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan identifies nine trends among traffic crashes resulting in people being killed or
seriously injured between 2012 and 2021:
• Vulnerability of people walking and biking
• Unsafe speeds
• Collisions at intersections
• Pedestrian code violation
• broadside collisions (the majority of bicycle-related collisions)
• Teenagers biking and walking near schools and parks
• Driving under the influence
• Bicycle collisions and automobile Right of Way (ROW) violations
• Collisions near transit stops
Bicycle- and pedestrian-involved collision data provides further insight into specific locations and roadways that tend to
have higher rates of collisions in Cupertino. This analysis uses collision data assembled from police crash reports between
January 2018 and December 2022 taken from the 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan, and does not include collision
data since. It is important to note that this analysis relied on reported collisions; not all collisions involving people biking,
walking, and rolling are reported to authorities. Furthermore, near-miss crashes are not included as they are typically not
reported.
There were 203 bicycle-involved collisions and 191 pedestrian-involved collisions in Cupertino during the study period, as
shown in Figure 21 and Figure 22. Following national trends since the start of the pandemic, 2020 saw the fewest overall
collisions at the outset of the COVID pandemic, followed by steady rises in both 2021 and 2022 where bicycle-involved
collisions peaked for the study period. Pedestrian-involved collisions haver remained below pre-pandemic levels, but killed
or seriously injured (KSI) numbers have remained at the same level. For the figures below, “Other” refers to injuries that
were not life-threatening and “Property” refers to collisions where the people involved did not sustain reported injuries.
195
PC 07-14-2026
195 of 422
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
KSI Other Property
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
KSI Other Property
Figure 21. Bicycle-Involved Collisions 2018-2022 (Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System)
Figure 22. Pedestrian-Involved Collisions 2018-2022 (Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System)
196
PC 07-14-2026
196 of 422
Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Trends
As noted in the 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero report:
“On average, a crash occurs every three days in Cupertino. Although pedestrians and bicyclists are involved in
just over a third of all crashes, they make up 62 percent (50 collisions) of the crashes resulting in fatalities or
severe injuries. This underscores their susceptibility as road users; thus, they are referred to as vulnerable
roadway users. Intersections pose the greatest risk of a fatal or serious injury crash to vulnerable roadway
users, with the majority (88 percent/44 collisions) of fatal and severe injury collisions occurring at
intersections. The presence of a traffic signal does not guarantee safety, as more than half (55 percent/24
collisions) of the intersection collisions involving pedestrians and cyclists happen at signalized intersections. A
significant portion (58 percent) of those who suffer fatal or severe injuries in such collisions fall within the age
range of 24 to 64 years. Furthermore, the majority (56 percent/261 collisions) of pedestrian and bicycle
fatalities and severe injuries take place during the late afternoon or evening, specifically between 4 pm and 10
pm (pg. 23).”
The 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan developed a High-Injury-Network (HIN) map both for street corridors and for
intersections. The High-Injury-Network identified the 7 city streets where more than 72% of serious and fatal crashes take
place within Cupertino (pg. 106).
The highest priority HIN street corridors are:
1. Stevens Creek Boulevard
2. Homestead Road
3. McClellan Road
4. De Anza Boulevard
5. Stelling Road
6. Wolfe Road
7. Bollinger Road
The highest priority HIN intersections are:
1. De Anza Boulevard & Homestead Road
2. Bandley Drive & Stevens Creek Boulevard
3. Cupertino Road & Stevens Creek Boulevard
4. Stevens Creek Boulevard & De Anza Boulevard
5. Blaney Avenue & Stevens Creek Boulevard
6. De Anza Boulevard & Mariani Avenue
7. De Anza Boulevard & Rodrigues Avenue
While most collisions take place on the arterial roadways in Cupertino, there are a few smaller residential streets that
account for part of the HIN. Further study should be done for these streets to determine what factors contribute to these
collisions, and whether traffic calming measures would help to mitigate these risks. HIN corridors and intersections are
shown in Figure 23 and Figure 24.
197
PC 07-14-2026
197 of 422
Figure 23. HIN Corridors
198
PC 07-14-2026
198 of 422
Figure 24. HIN Intersections
199
PC 07-14-2026
199 of 422
Conclusion
The City of Cupertino is located at the heart of Silicon Valley between the much larger cities of San Francisco and San Jose.
Cupertino, as a major job center, experiences regional traffic congestion as employees commute between work and home.
While a low percentage of Cupertino residents commute by walking or biking, active transportation is a viable and
increasingly attractive option for other trips like travel to school, shopping, recreational trails, or to local community
centers.
The City has been actively working to enhance its infrastructure to promote active transportation and improve connections
to regional transit. This includes the development of connected pedestrian and bike networks that provide safe, convenient
access to transit stations, schools, parks, and other local destinations. With a high percentage of residents working from
home, the City is seeing fewer long commute trips, which supports the potential for more local trips to be made by walking
or cycling. Furthermore, with a high number of younger residents, there is ample opportunity to reduce traffic congestion
by promoting active transportation for school trips, making neighborhoods more accessible for children and families.
To make active transportation an even more attractive option, Cupertino must address its major corridors that serve as
obstacles for people walking, biking, or rolling. Streets such as Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and
Homestead Road are critical to connectivity, but their design and traffic volumes present significant challenges for safe
travel by walking or biking. Where facilities do exist, they may not feel comfortable for all ages and abilities to use. These
high-traffic corridors often isolate residential areas and make it difficult for residents to access local destinations or regional
transit stations safely. To address this, the City should focus on improving major corridors by creating safe and comfortable
options for people to walk, bike, or roll. Doing so will create safer and more accessible routes for both residents and
visitors, helping to improve overall connectivity and support the City’s goals for a more sustainable, walkable Cupertino.
200
PC 07-14-2026
200 of 422
APPENDIX C
Needs Assessment Memo
201
PC 07-14-2026
201 of 422
MEMORANDUM
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, George Foster, David Wasserman, Cyrus Chimento, Kim Voros, and Jesús Contreras, Alta
Planning + Design
Date: July 11, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Needs Assessment Chapter
Introduction
Project Description
The Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) seeks to advance mobility for people walking, rolling, and biking in
Cupertino. The ATP builds from the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan, the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the
2024 Vision Zero Action Plan – among others.
The Needs Assessment Chapter represents all the spatial analysis conducted by Alta as part of the Existing Conditions Phase
of the project. The Needs Assessment Chapter aims to understand the underlying conditions of the transportation system,
the demand for active transportation within Cupertino, and where future investments in the active transportation network
might result in the largest benefits to people traveling within Cupertino.
Memo Overview
This memo and the analysis contained within will directly inform, in tandem with public input, the development of project
recommendations and the prioritization of projects for implementation. This memo covers the following topics:
• Summary of Findings– overview of analysis and report
• Network Comfort – summary of analysis for the level of traffic stress for people walking and people biking
• Active Trip Potential – summary of analysis for trips under 5 miles taken by car that could potentially be made
using active transportation
• Stress-Adjusted Short Trips – summary of analysis for where the most pressing network gaps exist, quantifying the
number of potential active trips and the level to which those trips are deterred by uncomfortable roadway
conditions.
202
PC 07-14-2026
202 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 2
Summary of Findings
The City of Cupertino has a high potential for additional active trips within the City, as more than 30% of all trips startin g or
ending within the City are less than 5 miles in distance. These are trips that could potentially be converted to walking,
biking, or e-bike trips. However, to convert these trips to active modes, roadway users must first feel safe and comfortable
enough to try modes other than driving.
The quality of the walking and biking network is a substantial determinant when people decide whether to take trips by
walking or biking. The Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS) and Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress (PLTS) quantify the
experience of a typical roadway user based on the conditions of the roadway.
The BLTS analysis found that most of Cupertino’s major streets rank as LTS 3 or 4: streets with a high level of traffic stres s
that few residents would feel comfortable riding a bike on. Notable exceptions are locations where separated bikeways
have been installed by the City, such as McClellan Road, Bubb Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
The PLTS analysis found that major roadways have a high level of traffic stress for pedestrians across Cupertino, although
this has sometimes been mitigated by new development that has built wider sidewalks with greater setbacks from the
roadway. Many local neighborhood streets in western Cupertino lack sidewalks, which also increases the level of traffic
stress for people walking.
Analysis of trips under 5 miles taken by driving (Active Trip Potential – ATP) shows a high volume of trips along the Stevens
Creek Blvd corridor. The corridor is home to much of the City’s commercial spaces, and many community destinations (such
as Cupertino Library, De Anza College, and Quinlan Community Center) are located just to the north or south of the
corridor.
Combining the BLTS/PLTS analysis with ATP analysis, the Stress-Adjusted Short Trips (SAST) analysis identifies the largest
gaps in the network for people walking or biking, as well as the locations with the highest potential to generate walking and
biking trips if new infrastructure were constructed. This analysis identifies the S tevens Creek Boulevard corridor as the area
with the highest potential for new walking and biking trips, especially in proximity to De Anza College in the west and near
the Rise (Former Vallco Town Center) area in the east.
203
PC 07-14-2026
203 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Network Comfort
Level of comfort is an important consideration for where people walk, bike, or roll. Comfort can impact a user’s willingness
to travel, perceived distances, and perceived safety. To understand the level of comfort for different users and abilities, A lta
conducted level of traffic stress (LTS) assessments that separately measured the pedestrian and bicycle comfort of each
street and trail (Class I shared-use paths) in the City. For these analyses, Alta utilized City of Cupertino roadway data,
dividing street segments where facilities or roadway conditions changed mid-block. LTS scores were determined by
characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a user’s perception of safety and comfort. These analyses helped
identify segments that represent the highest barriers to walking, biking, and rolling based on users’ abil ity and comfort
level.
The following section provides a summary of the findings for each analysis. Additional details on the methodologies used to
calculate these analyses can be found in Appendix A: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology, Appendix B: Active-Trip Potential
Methodology, and Appendix C: Stress-Adjusted Short Trip Methodology.
204
PC 07-14-2026
204 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
The pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) methodology used for this analysis was adapted from the Oregon Department of
Transportation’s Analysis Procedures Manual1 and was intended as a companion for the BLTS analysis. PLTS was
determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect the perception of safety and comfort for a person
walking, including sidewalk presence and width, sidewalk buffer width and type, posted speed limit, and number of travel
lanes. Appendix A: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology includes a more detailed description of the PLTS methodology. PLTS
scores classify road segments into one of four levels of traffic stress, and like BLTS scores, PLTS considers the level of
attention required in addition to the user experience, as shown in Figure 1.
1 Oregon Department of Transportation. 2020. Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2. Transportation Development Division Planning
Section: Transportation Planning Analysis Unit. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/Pages/APM.aspx
Figure 1: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
205
PC 07-14-2026
205 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Findings
Similar to the results from the BLTS analysis, the PLTS analysis showed that many major roadways also represent high-stress
environments for people walking and rolling, as shown in Figure 2. While many of these roadways include six-foot sidewalks
on both sides, their lack of a buffer (space between people walking and motorists), faster speeds (i.e., posted speed limits
over 30 MPH), and wider roadway widths (up to 8 lanes in some segments) detract from their LTS score. Some specific
examples of higher-stress roadways include Wolfe Road, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead Road, and where Stevens Creek
Boulevard crosses Highway 85. A few streets, notably Foothill Boulevard, not only have high speed limits and multiple lanes,
but also an incomplete sidewalk network. Mary Avenue, an LTS 1 street for Bicycle LTS, is LTS 3 in its sou th-central portion
due to missing sidewalks on one side of the street. Similarly , Bubb Road is missing sidewalks on both sides of the street in
its northern portion, scoring an LTS 4 for pedestrians.
A substantial portion of local streets, especially in western Cupertino, have incomplete sidewalks or are missing sidewalks
on one side of the street. These otherwise LTS 1 streets are shown on this map as LTS 2.
The Regnart Creek Trail and the Stevens Creek Trail provide essential low -stress routes for pedestrians, connecting to
community destinations like the Cupertino Library. Areas which have received new development, such as Homestead Road
or Steven Creek Boulevard (both between Wolfe Road and Tantau Avenue), have a low level of pedestrian traffic stress (LTS
2) due to the broad setback from the roadway, landscaped buffers, and wide sidewalks.
It is important to note that throughout various parts of the City, major roads are often the only connection to destinations.
Stressful conditions experienced along these roads act as a barrier to walking and rolling, hindering connectivity within and
across neighborhoods of the City. Furthermore, the far spacing between traffic signals along many of these major roads
creates overly long walking paths for pedestrians to cross the street, furthering their exposure to high-stress conditions. Full
results of the PLTS analysis are shown in Figure 2.
206
PC 07-14-2026
206 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 6
Figure 2: City of Cupertino Pedestrian Level of Stress Analysis
207
PC 07-14-2026
207 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 7
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
The bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) methodology used for this project is adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation
Institute Report 11‐19: Low‐Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity 2 and from research by Peter Furth3. BLTS was
determined by roadway factors including posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, presence and width of parking lanes,
as well as the presence and type of bicycle facility. Appendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology includes a detailed
description of the BLTS methodology. The combination of these criteria classifies a road segment into one of four levels of
traffic stress, as shown in Figure 3. Interstate 280 and Highway 85, as limited-access roadways that do not allow for bicycle
or pedestrian travel, were not scored for this analysis.
As noted in Appendix B: Level of Traffic Stress Methodology, there are various factors that influence the BLTS scores of a
particular corridor. These include the presence (or lack thereof) of bicycle facilities, posted speed limits, the presence and
width of on-street parking adjacent to bicycle facilities, the number of travel lanes of the corridor, and the presence of
trails. For example, the BLTS score of a corridor that includes an existing Class II bike lane can be negatively influenced by
the higher number of travel lanes (8 lanes) and higher posted speed limit (40 MPH). This is the case with De Anza
Boulevard. Similarly, a corridor with no bicycle facilities and lower posted speed limits (25 MPH) may receive a higher (LTS 1
or 2) BLTS score. This is the case with Byrne Avenue between McClellan Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard .
2 Mineta Institute. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H. Low‐Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2012.
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low‐Stress‐Bicycling‐and‐Network‐Connectivity
3 Furth, P. Level of Traffic Stress. 2012. https://peterfurth.sites.northeastern.edu/level-of-traffic-stress/
208
PC 07-14-2026
208 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 8
Figure 3: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Findings
The BLTS analysis results showed that most major roadways in Cupertino, shown in orange and red (LTS 3 and 4,
respectively) in Figure 4, represent high-stress environments for people biking, despite the presence of Class II bike lanes on
many roadways. For example, Homestead Road, De Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard, all arterial
streets with existing Class II bike lanes, include a posted speed of 35 MPH or higher, which negates the presence of the
bicycle facility and contributes to higher-stress for most people biking. Similarly, major Collector roadways such as Bollinger
Road, Miller Avenue, or Foothill Boulevard also display a high level of traffic stress. Another area of high-stress is at freeway
interchanges: De Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Foothill Boulevard all show LTS 4 where they
cross a set of off-ramps and on-ramps.
Conversely, Arterials and Collector streets with separated bikeways, such as Stevens Creek Boulevard (Wolfe Rd to Tantau
Ave), McClellan Road, and Bubb Road, all show very low levels of traffic stress (LTS 1) for people riding bikes. Through the
implementation of the 2016 Bike Plan, the City has begun to stitch together lower-stress east/west and north/south routes
through Cupertino, aligning with the grid patterns of the City’s street network. The Mary Avenue Bridge and the Class II bike
lanes on Stelling Road provide low-stress connections over Interstate 280. McClellan Road provides an LTS 1 crossing of
Highway 85 and connects to the LTS 1 Regnart Creek Trail further to the east.
209
PC 07-14-2026
209 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 9
Local roads provide more comfortable travel within neighborhoods (LTS 1 and 2), shown in blue and teal, while shared -use
paths such as the Regnart Creek Trail provide separation and low-stress east-west alternatives to higher-stress roadways.
The lack of connected low-stress corridors in parts of the City means that many trips require traveling on high-stress streets
or stitching together indirect routes on low-stress streets. This increases travel times and may inhibit bicycling.
The development pattern of Cupertino is a typical superblock suburban pattern, with very few signalized cross streets of
major roadways. This limits the ability to develop a network of local roads as an alternative to improving LTS conditions on
major roadways.
Considerations
As previously noted, BLTS scores provide a data-driven assessment of existing roadway conditions for people bicycling. To
improve BLTS scores, a jurisdiction may consider implementing buffers or physical barriers to create more separation
between traffic lanes and bike lanes, reducing speed limits, or eliminating on-street parking, whenever feasible. For
example, the BLTS score for roadways like Foothill Boulevard (BLTS 4 corridor) may be improved by implementing buffer
areas with vertical delineators to create more separation between motorists and people biking. Similar ly, corridors with
Class II bike lanes with lower BLTS scores (BLTS 3 or 4) may improve their scores by ensuring that the bike lane is at least six
feet wide and reducing roadway speeds to no more than 25 MPH when a parking lane is present or 30 MPH when a parking
lane is not present. Finally, shared streets with no dedicated bicycle facilities can also achieve an LTS 1 when the speed li mit
does not exceed 25 MPH. Additional information on thresholds can be found in Appendix B: Level of Traffic Stress
Methodology.
210
PC 07-14-2026
210 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 10
Figure 4: City of Cupertino Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
211
PC 07-14-2026
211 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 11
Active-Trip Potential
Sustainable and active transportation is a key part of a climate strategy that involves reducing carbon emissions from
transportation. Active modes often fill first- and last-mile gaps for transit trips and, on their own, may provide more
flexibility for short trips that are not well-served by transit. Understanding demand for active transportation can help the
City of Cupertino guide growth and development to support sustainable transportation by identifying areas where latent
demand for active transportation may exist. Active-trip potential measures the proportion of all trips that may reasonably
be made by active modes—like walking, biking, rolling, or e-micromobility—in a particular area. As trip distance is an
important factor in mode choice, for this analysis, Alta made assumptions about reasonable distances for vehicle trips that
could be replaced by walking, biking, rolling, and e-micromobility, based on trip distances from the 2022 National
Household Travel Survey:
• Less than 1 mile – Walking
• 1 – 3 miles – Biking
• 3 – 5 miles – e-bikes or scooters
To this end, a neighborhood with high active-trip potential reflected a relatively larger percentage of trips beginning in that
area that were under five miles. A neighborhood with lower active-trip potential reflected a greater percentage of longer
trips beginning in that area. Areas of the City with a higher proportion of short trips are areas with the highest potential to
convert vehicle trips to active trips. This analysis assumes that supportive infrastructure may encourage more people to
convert short motor vehicle trips to active trips.
Alta completed this analysis using data from Replica Places 4 in spring 2024. Alta accessed data on motor vehicle trips under
five miles that either started or ended within Cupertino. Trips intersecting Cupertino were inclusive of driving trips on
freeways and were thus excluded from the study dataset. This data is summarized to hexagons laid over the map of
Cupertino, as low-density census block groups are irregularly shaped in western Cupertino and could skew the visualization
of data. Using a hexagon system allowed for uniform visualization of trip patterns . Additionally, Alta accessed origin-
destination data of vehicle trips under five miles to create the Flowmap (see below) of potential active -trip flows.
Findings
Alta created a Flowmap that visualizes potential active trips by origin-destination pair, represented as hexagons. Figure 5
shows a screenshot for reference. The Flowmap displays the volume of vehicle trips by origin and destination that are short
enough to be converted to active trips (under five miles). Thicker lines represent more trips between the origin and
destination pair.
The analysis revealed particularly high numbers of short trips in and around the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor, spanning
from Tantau Avenue in the east to Highway 85 in the west. Highway 85 appears to be a general dividing line for active trip
potential, as neighborhoods to the east of Highway 85 are denser and have more local destination s, while development
west of Highway 85 is more dispersed with fewer nearby destinations. The area around the Apple headquarters in
northeast Cupertino also shows the lowest potential for active trips, likely due to the high number of commuters traveling
to and from work from outside the City.
4 https://www.replicahq.com/
212
PC 07-14-2026
212 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 12
The analysis also shows a high proportion of short trips in and around Homestead High School in the north. This may be
partially attributed to the high rate of active modes used by students attending school, but could also be due to their open
campus policy for lunch, which allows students to drive to nearby fast-food restaurants.
Figure 5: A screenshot of the Flowmap developed for the City of Cupertino
Active-trip potential measures the proportion of all trips that are short enough (less than five miles) to be made by walking,
biking, rolling, or micromobility modes. Across Cupertino, 30% of vehicle trips that start or stop within the city limits are
considered short enough to easily shift to active trips. As shown in Figure 6, areas of high active-trip potential are
concentrated in central Cupertino, and active-trip potential steadily declines west of Highway 85. Active-trip potential for
walking, biking, rolling, and e-bike/micromobility trips is shown in Figure 7 through Figure 9. These areas of high active-trip
potential indicate a potential need for more connected walking, biking, and rolling facilities, which would elevate the
importance of any network gaps in these locations.
213
PC 07-14-2026
213 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 13
Figure 6: Active Trip Potential: All trips
214
PC 07-14-2026
214 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 14
Figure 7: Walk Trip Potential
215
PC 07-14-2026
215 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 15
Figure 8: Bike Trip Potential
216
PC 07-14-2026
216 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 16
Figure 9: E-Bike Trip Potential
217
PC 07-14-2026
217 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 17
Stress-Adjusted Short Trip Analysis
When considering the greatest benefit which can be derived from investments in walking and biking, both the
quality/comfort of the facility and the potential for more walking or biking trips must be considered. A facility must be high
comfort/quality for a wide range of residents to be willing to use it, and the facility itself must be positioned to facilit ate a
high number of short trips to local destinations. The corresponding BLTS, PLTS, and ATP analysis in this memo set out to
document those conditions.
But it is also well-established that small stretches of high-stress facilities (or high-stress barriers) among otherwise low-
stress routes can be a significant deterrent to the adoption of walking or biking for short trips that are otherwise ideal for
active transportation. The Stress-Adjusted Short Trips analysis utilizes a framework for assigning a perceived cost multiplier
to roadway segments – essentially that people walking or biking experience high-stress segments to be longer than they
actually are5 as illustrated in Figure 10. The actual multipliers to identify these stress adjusted travel times are documented
in Table 1.
Figure 10 Illustrates how higher stress segments can be perceived to have a longer travel time for the purpose of understanding network
quality's impact on behavior.
5 NCHRP 08-149 Benefits of Active Gap Closure Study
218
PC 07-14-2026
218 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 18
Table 1 Level of Traffic Stress & Perceived Costs Multipliers from NCHRP 08-149
LTS Score Pedestrian Impedance Multiplier Bicycle Impedance Multiplier
LTS 1 1 1
LTS 2 1.5 2
LTS 3 3 3
LTS 4 8 6
Through the combination of BLTS/PLTS scores and the outputs of Active Trip Potential, the Stress-Adjusted Short Trip
analysis identifies and quantifies underlying barriers to efficient and comfortable travel for short trips that are currently
marred by significant levels of indirectness and perceived barriers to travel. This analysis demonstrates where people
walking and biking will choose alternative routes to avoid particularly stressful street segments or crossings, and the
corresponding impact that has on their willingness to use active transportation fo r short trips.
This analysis also integrates public feedback on barriers by inflating travel costs by 50% in areas that are low-stress and
where the public has identified existing barriers to active travel. The zones identified for these inflated travel costs are
located where planners identified a significant cluster of agreement in the public survey results regarding barriers. These
barrier polygons are qualitatively determined based on the expert judgement of the active transportation planners
reviewing the barrier results.
Once these network results and public-identified barriers were developed, Alta analyzed traffic stress-adjusted travel times
between hexagon centroids within three miles for bicyclists and one mile for pedestrians, calculating straight -line distances,
network travel times, and stress-adjusted travel times for each origin-destination pair. The team computed a gap score
reflecting the likelihood that short trips would not shift to active modes due to large differences between straight line6 and
stress-adjusted travel times, estimating intrazonal travel times based on those of immediately adjacent hexagon neighbors
divided by two 7. The formula used to identify these Gap Scores is below, representing the degree to which barriers are
likely preventing short trips by active modes, given the routes available between zones.
𝐺𝑎𝑝 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒=𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠− (𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠∗𝑁𝑜𝑛−𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒 (𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑒)
𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑇𝑖𝑚𝑒)
These gap scores were spatially joined to hexagons, with higher scores assigned to hexagons intersecting with multiple
high-gap trip lines. Alta conducted cross-tabulations of trip lengths and modeled travel times, estimating average disparities
between raw and stress-adjusted times for key destinations. These findings, including key metrics on perceived versus
actual travel experience, were integrated into the needs assessment memo and visualized through a series of maps.
6 Straight line travel times assume a 3 MPH walking speed and 10 MPH biking speed.
7 As each hexagon is the same size, the time it takes to travel to the centroids of its six neighbors divided by two is a rough
approximation of the average travel time to travel from the center of a hexagon to its perimeter.
219
PC 07-14-2026
219 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 19
Key Findings
Highest Gaps
The areas with the top 10 highest gap scores for both walking and biking distances were found around Homestead High
School, De Anza College, Cupertino High School, and crossing the Lawrence Expressway near the eastern border with San
Jose. Around Homestead High School, barriers likely include I-280 and North Stelling Road. Near De Anza College, Highway
85, South Stelling Road, and Stevens Creek Boulevard present barriers to lower -stress travel. At Cupertino High School,
Finch Avenue presents a barrier, and near John Mise Park, I-280 and the Lawrence Expressway are the major barriers. Many
of these trips may be related to school access or the commercial areas along Stevens Creek Boulevard.
For walking distances, shown in Figure 11, high gap scores were also clustered in southern Cupertino in the area between
Jollyman Park, Eaton Elementary School, and Meyerholtz Elementary School in San Jose. In this case, South De Anza
Boulevard and Bollinger Road present major barriers to travel. These trips may be important for accessing nearby
commercial areas or schools.
For biking distances, shown in Figure 12, high gap scores were also clustered in eastern Cupertino in the area between the
Kaiser Medical Center, Cupertino High School, and John Mise Park. In this case, I-280, Pruneridge Avenue, Lawrence
Expressway, and Stevens Creek Boulevard all present major barriers to travel. These trips might be important for accessing
schools, medical care, or Main Street Cupertino.
220
PC 07-14-2026
220 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 20
Figure 11 Walk Gap Scores
221
PC 07-14-2026
221 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 21
Figure 12 Bike Gap Scores
222
PC 07-14-2026
222 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 22
Detailed destination analysis
Based on public input during Phase 1 outreach, five zones were selected for detailed analysis of stress -adjusted travel
impacts. This analysis combined all short trips from surrounding zones and developed a cumulative gap score for all trips
ending within that zone. This analysis is shown in Table 2 on the next page. These locations are:
- De Anza College & Cupertino Memorial Park, with the intersection of Stevens Creek Blvd at Stelling Rd near the
center of the zone.
- Civic Center & Cupertino Library, including the Regnart Creek Trail and Wilson Park within the zone.
- The Rise (Former Vallco Town Center) / Main Street & Cupertino Main Street, including Cupertino High School
south of Stevens Creek Boulevard.
- Blackberry Farm & Stevens Creek, with the zone centered between Stevens Creek Blvd in the north and McClellan
Rd in the south.
- West Cupertino “Tri-School” area, encompassing the area south of McClellan Rd and west of Bubb Rd.
The De Anza College area had the highest gap scores for both walking and biking, while the Rise (Former Vallco Town
Center)/Main Street area exhibited significantly higher gap scores for biking than for walking. Locations in western
Cupertino (including both Stevens Creek and the “tri-school” area around Monta Vista High, Lincoln Elementary, and
Kennedy Middle School) exhibited much higher gap scores for biking than for walking.
223
PC 07-14-2026
223 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 23
Table 2: Stress-adjusted travel times and gap scores for key locations in Cupertino
Priority Location Mode
Straight
Line Travel
Time (Min)
Network
Travel Time
(Min)
Stress
Adjusted
Travel Time
(Min)
Short Trips
by Mode8
Gap
Score9
De Anza College/
Memorial Park Walking 19 26 57 3056 2264
De Anza College/
Memorial Park Biking 12 16 28 14010 8926
City Center/ City
Library Walking 19 26 46 2534 1534
City Center/ City
Library Biking 12 16 27 11202 5852
The Rise (Former
Vallco Town
Center) / Main
Street Walking 19 26 57 2452 1778
The Rise (Former
Vallco Town
Center) / Main
Street Biking 12 16 33 12389 8279
Blackberry Farm/
Stevens Creek Walking 15 24 53 462 342
Blackberry Farm/
Stevens Creek Biking 10 15 25 2544 1454
West Cupertino/
Tri-School Area Walking 17 28 48 923 610
West Cupertino/
Tri-School Area Biking 11 15 21 4932 2165
8 For walking, this represents cumulative trips ending in this location that are less than 1 mile, and for biking it is cumulat ive
short trips less than 3 miles ending in this location.
9 This is the cumulative gap scores for all trips ending in this location using the respective short trips.
224
PC 07-14-2026
224 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 24
Active Trip Gaps
The Stress-Adjusted Short Trip analysis also quantified the Gap Scores for individual pairings of origins and destinations for
trips ending in Cupertino. This analysis visualizes both the number of short trips between locations and the Gap Score. This
analysis provides a more granular understanding of the demand for trips between different locations, as well as the
potential for new active transportation trips .
High Gap Scores for walking, in Figure 13, are concentrated on hexagons along Stevens Creek Boulevard, and destinations
to both the north and south. Homestead Road near the intersection with De Anza Boulevard also shows a high gap score, as
do trips crossing De Anza Boulevard near the City’s southern border. Many of the areas with high gap scores are home to
different schools (Homestead High School, De Anza College, and Cupertino High School) and parks (Jollyman Park, Wilson
Park, and Cupertino Memorial Park). I-280 also acts as a substantial barrier to trips going north/south for pedestrians.
High Gap Scores for biking, in Figure 14, are also concentrated on hexagons along Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead
Road. High gaps on Stevens Creek Boulevard cluster in the west, around De Anza College, and in the east, around The Rise
(Former Vallco Town Center)/Main Street and Cupertino High School. There is also a high-scoring north/south gap between
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road along De Anza Boulevard. Gap scores starting and ending west of Highway
85 are much lower, suggesting fewer barriers to biking trips. The lowest gap scores are observed on hexagons along
McClellan Road and the Regnart Creek Trail, exhibiting the benefit derived from the separated bike lanes and shared -use
paths.
225
PC 07-14-2026
225 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 25
Figure 13 Active Trip Gaps for Walking
226
PC 07-14-2026
226 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 26
Figure 14 Active Trip Gaps for Biking
227
PC 07-14-2026
227 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 27
Considerations
This analysis utilizes short trips as a proxy for latent demand for active transportation, employing a market analysis
approach to potential trips. This analysis took a simplified approach by picking easy-to-understand cut-offs for trips: < 1
mile for pedestrians, and < 3 miles for bicyclists. In theory, this could be more of a continuous cut-off based on the trip
distance distributions for each of these modes of transportation, where flows could be adjusted according to the typical trip
distances for walking and bicycling, respectively. Alta did not take this approach to avoid making the results less intuitive
and more difficult to understand.
Similarly, the network analysis approach employed for this analysis uses Level of Traffic Stress as an adjusted substitute for
more complex street layout variables derived from behavior change literature, as shown in NCHRP 08 -149. For example, the
original studies on which these impedance adjustment factors are based include more complex variables , such as the
degree and quality of tree canopy (green view factors). These factors are not directly evaluated by this analysis.
Next Steps
The results of this analysis will be combined with public input from Phase 1 outreach, conducted in the spring of 2025, to
develop network recommendations for walking and biking in Cupertino. These recommendations will focus on closing
critical gaps in the network, as well as areas of high potential for walking and biking trips, both of which were identified
through this analysis.
228
PC 07-14-2026
228 of 422
Level of Traffic Stress Methodology
City of Cupertino | 1
To: Matt Schroeder, City of Cupertino
David Stillman, City of Cupertino
From: Kim Voros and Chris Kidd; Alta Planning + Design
Date: April 16, 2025
Re: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan – Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Methodology (DRAFT)
Project Description
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update recommends projects and key corridors for active transportation
in Cupertino into the future. As part of the Active Transportation Plan, Alta will perform an analysis of the
perceived stress from traffic by bicyclists and pedestrians while traveling throughout the Cupertino.
Level of Traffic Stress Analysis Proposed Methodology
Background
Alta will complete a level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis for the bicycle (BLTS) and pedestrian (PLTS) network,
ranking streets and active transportation facilities from low stress (LTS 1, suitable for “all ages and abilities”) to
high stress (LTS 4, suitable only to “strong and fearless” bicyclists and uncomfortable for pedestrians).
The bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) analysis estimates the level of comfort for people biking on a given
roadway segment. The BLTS analysis helps identify where “gaps” or deficiencies in an active transportation
network exist and provides a measure of how likely different types of riders, based on ability and comfort level,
are to use the facility.
The pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) analysis identifies existing areas that are low-stress for pedestrians,
as well as the degree to which roadways must be improved in order to provide a comfortable experience for
pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
229
PC 07-14-2026
229 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 2
Methodology
Alta’s BLTS analysis methodology is adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19: Low-
Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity.1 BLTS is determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment
that affect a bicyclist’s perception of safety and comfort, including posted speed limit, number of travel lanes,
and the presence and character of bicycle lanes. The combination of this criteria classifies a road segment into
one of four levels of traffic stress:
BLTS 1 represents roadways where bicyclists of all ages and abilities would feel comfortable riding.
These roadways are generally characterized by low volumes, low speeds, no more than two travel lanes,
and traffic control measures at intersections. These roadways may have bicycle facilities; separated
shared-use paths for bicycles also fall into this category.
BLTS 2 represents slightly less comfortable roadways, where most adults would feel comfortable riding.
BLTS 3 represents moderately uncomfortable roadways, where most experienced bicyclists would feel
comfortable riding.
BLTS 4 represents high-stress roadways where only strong and fearless bicyclists would feel comfortable
riding. These roadways are generally characterized by high volumes, high speeds, several travel lanes,
and complex transitions approaching and crossing intersections.
The results of the BLTS analysis identify existing areas that are low stress for many bicyclists, as well as the
degree to which roadways must be improved to provide a comfortable experience for riders of all ages and
abilities.
Alta’s PLTS analysis methodology is adapted from the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Analysis
Procedures Manual2 and is intended as a companion for bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS). PLTS is determined
by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a pedestrian’s perception of safety and comfort
including sidewalk presence and width, sidewalk buffer width and type, posted speed limit, and number of
travel lanes. PLTS scores classify road segments into one of four levels of traffic stress and, while similar to BLTS
scores, PLTS considers the level of attention required in addition to the user experience:
PLTS 1 represents roadways where pedestrians of all ages and abilities would feel comfortable walking
and require little attention to traffic.
PLTS 2 represents slightly less comfortable roadways that require more attention to traffic and are
suitable for children over 10, teens, and adults.
PLTS 3 represents moderately uncomfortable roadways, where most able-bodied adults would feel
uncomfortable but safe.
PLTS 4 represents high traffic stress and would be used only by able-bodied adults with limited route
choices.
1 Mineta Institute. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2012.
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low-Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity.
2 Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Development Division Planning Section: Transportation Planning
Analysis Unit. 2020. Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/Pages/APM.aspx.
230
PC 07-14-2026
230 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
The results of the PLTS analysis identifies existing areas that are low-stress for pedestrians, as well as the degree
to which roadways must be improved in order to provide a comfortable experience for pedestrians of all ages
and abilities.
The BLTS and PLTS analysis is completed through an assessment of street segments using available spatial data.
Each segment of the roadway or sidewalk along the roadway is evaluated based on its characteristics; if multiple
scores are present within a segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as the overall segment score.
Particularly for PLTS, if two sidewalks are present on a street, the worst (highest scoring) result is mapped to the
centerline. See Appendix A for BLTS methodology details and data assumptions, while Appendix B contains PLTS
methodology details and data assumptions.
The LTS analyses will be based on available spatial data provided to Alta by the City of Cupertino, and at times
enhanced with through desktop review where appropriate. The analysis is intended to identify gaps between
low-stress areas as well as large facilities with high-speed traffic that could pose a barrier to bicycle or
pedestrian activity, stress-adjusted short trip analysis as well as help to refine and prioritize project
recommendations.
231
PC 07-14-2026
231 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Appendix A
232
PC 07-14-2026
232 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1
Appendix A: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
Overview
The bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS) analysis estimates the level of comfort for people biking on a given roadway
segment. The BLTS analysis identifies where “gaps” or deficiencies in a bike network exist and provides a measure of how
likely different types of riders, based on ability and comfort level, are to use the facility.
Alta’s BLTS analysis methodology is adapted from the 2012 Mineta Transportation Institute Report 11-19: Low-Stress
Bicycling and Network Connectivity.1 BLTS is determined by characteristics of a given roadway segment that affect a
bicyclist’s perception of safety and comfort, including posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, and the presence and
character of bicycle lanes. The combination of this criteria classifies a road segment into one of four levels of traffic stress:
BLTS 1 represents roadways where bicyclists of all ages and abilities would feel comfortable riding.
These roadways are generally characterized by low volumes, low speeds, no more than two travel lanes,
and traffic control measures at intersections. These roadways may have bicycle facilities; separated
shared-use paths for bicycles also fall into this category.
BLTS 2 represents slightly less comfortable roadways, where most adults would feel comfortable riding.
BLTS 3 represents moderately uncomfortable roadways, where most experienced bicyclists would feel
comfortable riding.
BLTS 4 represents high-stress roadways where only strong and fearless bicyclists would feel comfortable
riding. These roadways are generally characterized by high volumes, high speeds, several travel lanes,
and complex transitions approaching and crossing intersections.
The results of the BLTS analysis identify existing areas that are low stress for many bicyclists, as well as the degree to which
roadways must be improved to provide a comfortable experience for riders of all ages and abilities. Additionally, scenario
testing can be used to determine how a roadway or route’s level of stress may change with improvements.
Methodology
BLTS analysis is completed through an assessment of street segments using spatial data and aerial imagery. Each segment
of the roadway is evaluated based on its characteristics; if multiple scores are present within a segment, the highest (most
stressful) score is used as the overall segment score.
Figure 1 illustrates the overall BLTS scoring process. Notes on data inputs and assumptions are found in Table 1. Segment
scores are assigned as shown in Table 2 through Table 5.
1 Mineta Institute. Mekuria M., Furth P., Nixon H. Low-Stress Bicycling and Network Connectivity. 2012.
https://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/Low-Stress-Bicycling-and-Network-Connectivity.
233
PC 07-14-2026
233 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2
Figure 1: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Generalized Segment Scoring Process
234
PC 07-14-2026
234 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3
Table 1: Data Inputs and Assumptions
Table 2 through Table 4 specify the scoring criteria based on roadway configuration, speed, and bike lane/parking lane
presence and width. The criteria are adapted from the original 2012 Mineta Institute report. These tables are used in
combination to assign an overall BLTS score; if multiple scores are present within a segment, the highest (most stressful)
score is used as the overall segment score. These tables are used in combination to create the segment, approach, and
intersection scores described previously.
Inputs Notes Assumptions
Bicycle
Facilities
Bicycle lanes have a positive impact on BLTS
and are a primary input for developing a BLTS
model. The width of facilities can have an
impact on the associated comfort level. Wider
facilities provide greater comfort, especially on
high-speed roadways.
Bike lane widths for all facilities within the City
were verified through a desktop inventory. For
buffered bike lanes, the buffer was included in
the total facility width.
Speed Limit High-speed roadways are considered to be less
comfortable for bicyclists, particularly in mixed
traffic or with minimal separation from motor
vehicles. Low-speed roadways are considered
more comfortable.
Speed limit data was available for roadways
within the city limits.
Presence
and Width of
On-Street
Parking
Adjacent to
Bicycle Lanes
On-street parking is particularly important for
corridors on which bicycle lanes are present.
BLTS is greater on bicycle lanes adjacent to
parking than on bicycle lanes not adjacent to
parking, due to the potential for “dooring”
incidents.
The presence and width of on-street parking
adjacent to bike lanes and buffered bike lanes
was verified via desktop inventory.
Number of
Lanes
The number of travel lanes corresponds with an
increase in the roadway width, which has an
effect on bicyclists’ level of stress. Roadways
with fewer lanes are generally less stressful for
bicyclists.
The number of lanes was verified for all
roadways, except those classified as ‘Local,’
which were assumed to have two travel lanes.
Presence of
Trails
Class I facilities can be a vital component of a
municipality’s active transportation network.
Increased separation from motor vehicles can
improve comfort and safety.
Class I facilities are scored as a BLTS 1.
235
PC 07-14-2026
235 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4
Table 2: Criteria for Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress in Mixed Traffic
Prevailing Speed or Speed
Limit (mph)
Street Width
2–3 Lanes 4–5 Lanes 6+ Lanes
≤ 25 BLTS 1 or 2 BLTS 3 BLTS 4
30 BLTS 2 or 31 BLTS 4 BLTS 4
≥ 35 BLTS 4 BLTS 4 BLTS 4
1. Lower value is assigned to streets without marked centerlines or classified as local with fewer than three lanes.
Table 3: Criteria for Bike Lanes Not Alongside a Parking Lane
BLTS 1 BLTS 2 BLTS 3 BLTS 4
Street Width (through
lanes per direction)
1 2 More than 2 (no effect)
Bike Lane Width 6 feet or more 5.5 feet or less (no effect) (no effect)
Speed Limit (mph) 30 mph or less (no effect) 35 mph 40 mph or more
Bike lane blockage1 Rare (no effect) Frequent (no effect)
1. Bike lane blockage is part of Alta’s analysis methodology, but assumed to be rare by default.
Table 4: Criteria for Bike Lanes Alongside a Parking Lane
BLTS 1 BLTS 2 BLTS 3 BLTS 4
Street Width (through
lanes per direction)
1 (no effect) 2 or more (no effect)
Sum of Bike Lane
Width + Parking Lane
Width
15 feet or more 14 or 14.5 feet 13.5 feet or less (no effect)
Speed Limit (mph) 25 mph or less 30 mph 35 mph 40 mph or more
Bike lane blockage1 Rare (no effect) Frequent (no effect)
1. Bike lane blockage is part of Alta’s analysis methodology, but assumed to be rare by default.
The tables above account for on-street bike lanes not separated from traffic. Protected bike lanes are automatically scored
as an LTS 1.
236
PC 07-14-2026
236 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Appendix B
237
PC 07-14-2026
237 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1
Appendix B: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Methodology
Overview
The pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) analysis estimates the level of comfort for people walking on a given roadway
segment. The PLTS analysis identifies where “gaps” or deficiencies in a pedestrian network exist, and provides a measure of
how likely pedestrians are to use the facility, based on ability and comfort level.
Alta’s PLTS analysis methodology is adapted from the Oregon Department of Transportation’s Analysis Procedures Manual1
and is intended as a companion for bicycle level of traffic stress (BLTS). PLTS is determined by characteristics of a given
roadway segment that affect a pedestrian’s perception of safety and comfort including sidewalk presence and width,
sidewalk buffer width and type, posted speed limit, and number of travel lanes. PLTS scores classify road segments into one
of four levels of traffic stress and, while similar to BLTS scores, PLTS considers the level of attention required in addition to
the user experience:
PLTS 1 represents roadways where pedestrians of all ages and abilities would feel comfortable walking
and require little attention to traffic.
PLTS 2 represents slightly less comfortable roadways that require more attention to traffic and are
suitable for children over 10, teens, and adults.
PLTS 3 represents moderately uncomfortable roadways, where most able-bodied adults would feel
uncomfortable but safe.
PLTS 4 represents high traffic stress and would be used only by able-bodied adults with limited route
choices.
The results of the PLTS analysis identify existing areas that are low-stress for pedestrians, as well as the degree to which
roadways must be improved in order to provide a comfortable experience for pedestrians of all ages and abilities.
Additionally, scenario testing can be used to determine how a roadway or route’s level of stress may change with
improvements. The analysis is intended for use in urban areas specifically; while it can be used in rural conditions where
pedestrian facilities exist, the methodology will yield a high PLTS score (greatest discomfort) where high-speed traffic is
present.
Methodology
PLTS analysis is completed through an assessment of street segments using spatial data obtained from the client or from
aerial imagery. Each segment of the roadway is evaluated based on its characteristics; if multiple scores are present within a
segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as the overall segment score.
PLTS considers elements of the pedestrian environment both individually (e.g., buffer type), and in combinations that are
known to influence each other (e.g., sidewalk width and pavement quality). The analysis uses the following overall guiding
principles:
The presence of a complete sidewalk serves as the foundation of the pedestrian network.
As the sidewalk width increases and sidewalk condition improves, the level of stress of the pedestrian environment
decreases.
Buffering width is the total distance between the sidewalk and motor vehicle travel lanes, including parking lanes,
bike lanes, and landscaping. As width increases, the amount of separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles
increases, and the pedestrian environment becomes less stressful.
1 Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Development Division Planning Section: Transportation Planning
Analysis Unit. 2020. Analysis Procedures Manual Version 2. https://www.oregon.gov/odot/Planning/Pages/APM.aspx.
238
PC 07-14-2026
238 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2
Buffer type describes the quality of the buffer that separates the sidewalk from the travel lanes. The presence of a
buffer itself provides both actual and perceived safety benefits for the pedestrian, thus decreasing the stress of the
pedestrian environment. A buffer with vertical elements is especially effective at increasing the safety of the
pedestrian. Landscaping serves to enhance the pedestrian’s travel experience.
Scores for each element of the pedestrian environment are assigned to each segment of the sidewalk centerline, and the
worst (highest scoring) of the elements is used. If two sidewalks are present on a street, the worst (highest scoring) result is
mapped to the centerline.
Figure 1 illustrates the overall PLTS scoring process. Notes on data inputs and assumptions are found in Table 1. Segment
scores are assigned as shown in Table 2 through Table 5.
Figure 1: The Pedestrian LTS Scoring Process
239
PC 07-14-2026
239 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3
Table 1. Data Inputs and Assumptions
Pedestrian Element Rationale Data Inputs
Sidewalk Presence
and Completeness
(Table 2)
The presence and completeness of sidewalk facilities is the
baseline for measurement. At a minimum, sidewalks should
be present and complete on most roadways to facilitate
pedestrian travel.
Based on data from Cupertino
and supplemented by manual
review within study area.
Sidewalk Width and
Condition (Table 3)
The width of the sidewalk can have an impact on the
associated comfort level. Wider sidewalks provide greater
comfort, especially on high-speed roadways. The condition
of the sidewalk is primarily based on concrete quality.
Based on data from Cupertino
and supplemented by manual
review within study area.
Sidewalk Buffer Type
(Table 4)
The buffer type changes the pedestrian experience as it can
offer a range of perceived and actual levels of protection.
High-speed roadways are considered to be less comfortable,
and a more substantial buffer increases pedestrian comfort.
Based on data from Cupertino
and supplemented by manual
review within study area.
Sidewalk Buffer Width
(Table 5)
Total buffering width is the summation of the width of
buffer, width of parking, width of shoulder, width of curb
and gutter, and width of the bike lane on the same side of
the roadway as the pedestrian facility being evaluated.
Based on data from Cupertino
and supplemented by manual
review within study area.
Table 2 through Table 5 specify the scoring criteria based on sidewalk presence, sidewalk width and condition, buffer type,
and buffer width, in relation to the existing roadway condition (factors such as speed and number of lanes). The criteria are
adapted from the Oregon Department of Transportation Analysis Procedures Manual. These tables are used in combination
to assign an overall PLTS score; if multiple scores are present within a segment, the highest (most stressful) score is used as
the overall segment score.
240
PC 07-14-2026
240 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4
Table 2: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Sidewalk Presence and Completeness
Number of Travel Lanes
Posted or Prevailing Speed
≤ 25 mph 30–35 mph ≥ 40 mph
2 Lanes > 2 Lanes 2 Lanes > 2 Lanes 2 Lanes >2 Lanes
Complete Sidewalk on Both Sides1,2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
Complete Sidewalk on One Side LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
No Sidewalk3 LTS 2 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
1. This deviation from the ODOT Methodology enables more deference to buffer accommodations identified in Table 4 and Table 5 while
scoring network completeness.
2. Partial sidewalk coverage on a block is not considered complete.
3. Residential (OSM Highway class local) roadways without sidewalk default to LTS 2; roadways without sidewalk default to LTS 4.
Table 3: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Sidewalk Width and Condition
Sidewalk Condition3
Good Fair Poor Very Poor
Actual/Effective Width (feet)1,2
< 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4 LTS 4
≥ 4 to < 5 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
≥ 5 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 3 LTS 4
≥ 6 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 3
1. Effective width is the available/usable area for the pedestrian clear of obstructions. Effective width does not include areas occupied by
storefronts or curbside features.
2. For analysis purposes, a standard width of five feet was assumed for all sidewalks. For segments with sidewalks on one side, width is
evaluated based on the width of the existing sidewalk to avoid conflicting with other tables.
3. Sidewalk condition is assumed to be good unless other information is available.
241
PC 07-14-2026
241 of 422
APPENDIX
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5
Table 4: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Physical Buffer Type
Buffer Type1
Prevailing or Posted Speed
≤ 25 mph 30 mph 35 mph ≥ 40 mph
No Buffer (curb tight) LTS 22 LTS 3 LTS 3 LTS 4
Solid Surface LTS 22 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
Landscaped LTS 1 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 2
Landscaped with Trees LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
Vertical LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 2
1. Combined buffer: If two or more of the buffer conditions apply, use the most appropriate (typically the lower-stress type).
2. If no centerline is present (residential street) or the street is traffic calmed (including sporadic vertical separation such as street furniture, street
trees, lighting, planters, surface change, and so on), then the PLTS can be lowered by one PLTS level.
Table 5: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress Based on Physical Buffer Width1
Total Number of Travel Lanes (both directions)3
Total Buffering Width (feet)2
< 5 ≥ 5 to < 10 ≥ 10 to < 15 ≥ 15 to < 25 ≥ 25
≤ 2 LTS 24 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1 LTS 1
3 LTS 34 LTS 2 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
4–5 LTS 45 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 1 LTS 1
6 ≥ LTS 45 LTS 45 LTS 3 LTS 2 LTS 2
1. Source: Based on Oregon Department of Transportation Analysis Procedures Manual, Table 14-23.
2. Total buffering width is the summation of the width of buffer, width of parking, width of shoulder, width of curb and gutter, and width of the bike
lane on the same side of the roadway as the pedestrian facility being evaluated.
3. One-way facilities are assumed to have their lanes multiplied by 2 to represent exposure to lane crossing.
4. If no centerline is present (residential street) or the street is traffic calmed (including sporadic vertical separation such as street furniture, street
trees, lighting, planters, surface change, and so on), then the PLTS can be lowered by one PLTS level.
5. Sections with a substantial physical barrier/tall railing between the travel lanes and the walkway (such as might be found on a bridge) can be
lowered to PLTS 3.
242
PC 07-14-2026
242 of 422
Active Trip Potential Methodology
City of Cupertino | 1
To: Matt Schroeder, City of Cupertino
David Stillman, City of Cupertino
From: Kim Voros, Chris Kidd, and Cyrus Chimento; Alta Planning + Design
Date: April 24, 2025
Re: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan – Active Trip Potential Analysis Methodology
Project Description
The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Update recommends projects and key corridors for active transportation
in Cupertino into the future. Active modes often fill first- and last-mile gaps for transit trips and in their own may
provide more flexibility for short trips that are not well-served by transit. As part of the Active Transportation
Plan, Alta will conduct an active trip potential analysis to identify areas of Cupertino where people make
numerous short trips and there is strong potential to see a reduction in vehicle trips if supportive infrastructure
were available for people to choose active modes of travel for these short trips.
Active Trip Potential Analysis Methodology
Background
Understanding demand for active transportation can help the City of Cupertino guide growth and development
to support sustainable transportation by identifying areas where latent demand for active transportation may
exist, and supportive infrastructure could encourage more people to convert motor vehicle trips to active trips.
Where there is high active trip potential but there are low numbers of active trips, it may indicate unsupportive
infrastructure or long distances from key destinations. While emerging technologies such as e-bikes and e-
scooters provide new options, ranges, and convenience, their ability to convert motor vehicle trips is still
dependent on the surrounding land use and transportation context. This memo presents the methodology for
that analysis.
Methodology
Alta will use Replica Places1 model data specific to the California-Nevada Megaregion from Spring 2024 for this
analysis. See Appendix A for additional information on Replica.
Alta will filter the Replica data to include only trips that:
Intersect the study area (start, end, or pass through)
Are made by the driver of a private vehicle or Transportation Network Company (TNC) vehicle (not
passengers)
Are 5 miles or less in length
1 https://www.replicahq.com/
243
PC 07-14-2026
243 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 2
Alta will aggregate and analyze trip data based on H3 resolution 8 hexagon geometries and focus on the typical
patterns observed during weekdays except where otherwise noted (Figure 1). H3 resolution 8 is generally the smallest
level of aggregation available for Replica data.
Figure 1. Example of H3 resolution 8 hexagon size in Cupertino, from the H3 Viewer.
Alta will use the Replica data to create a table of origin-destination pair hexagons with trips summarized to the origin
hexagon by trip distance to approximate trips that could be replaced by one of three active modes based on typical
trip distances for those modes:
Trips 0-1 miles: potential walking trips
Trips 1-3 miles: potential bike trips
Trips 3-5 miles: potential e-bike trips
The results of this will be static heatmaps of the City of Cupertino, visualizing the number of trips 0-1 miles, 1-3 miles,
or 3-5 miles starting in each hexagon, representing the potential of active trips.
Another way to visualize the Active Trip Potential is using origin-destination lines. To create origin-destination lines,
Alta will use a custom-built tool to plot lines between hexagon centroids and symbolize the lines based on the
number of trips. We will do this for trips 0-1 miles, 0-3 miles, and 0-5 miles. Alta will also use the results to create a
custom digital Flowmap2, to allow for easy exploration of the origin-destination data.
See Figure 2 for a generalized visualization of the Active Trip Potential analysis methodology.
2 https://www.flowmap.blue/
244
PC 07-14-2026
244 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Limitations
Barriers to Active Trip Making
While short trips are indicators of trips that can potentially be met using active modes, it is unrealistic to expect all
short trips can be converted to active transportation. Even if supportive infrastructure is provided, there are several
personal, structural, or trip-specific reasons why a trip would still be made by non-active modes, including but not
limited to:
Heavy Loads. In many cases, cargo bikes can support many types of grocery or shopping trips, but some
heavy loads are often bulky or heavy enough to warrant the use of the vehicle.
Multiple Passengers. While some cargo bikes can accommodate small children, people carrying multiple
passengers or who do not feel comfortable navigating a loaded cargo bike (which can make it more difficult
to maintain balance) may still opt for a vehicle.
Trip Chaining. Some trips are chained in a way that makes it difficult to envision using active transportation
for the entire tour/trip. For example, a person typically walks half a mile to work but on occasion needs to
travel from work to a doctor’s appointment that is two miles away. On these days, they might drive to work
rather than walk.
Seasonal Weather. Active trips become more difficult to accomplish in some weather conditions. While
walking and biking trips may still be viable in many instances, there may be sometimes where it is
inadvisable, such as in heavy rain, a heat wave or unhealthy air conditions.
Topography. Hilly routes may discourage walking or biking unless a person has access to an electric bike or
scooter.
Bike Parking. Lack of secure bike parking may discourage bike use for certain trips. However, this could be
included in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.
Formal occasions. If someone needs to wear formal clothing for an event, including work, they may be less
inclined to walk or ride a bike if they would be unable to shower or change clothes at their destination.
Structural barriers: Some people experience structural barriers to active travel, regardless of the specific trip.
These include concerns about the security of one’s bike while parked, the cost of purchasing a bike or e-bike,
harassment from police or passerby, or street crime.
Personal Limitations. Some members of the community may have an impairment that prevents them from
comfortably walking or may not know how to ride a bicycle.
Personal Preference. Some members of the community may elect to never bike or walk even if an all ages
and ability network is provided in a community.
Data Quality
The travel behavior data that forms the basis of this analysis is sourced from Replica Places. Replica rates its certainty
as medium certainty for bicycle and pedestrian trip counts by origin H3 hexagon, because volumes are relatively low
compared to vehicle trips. Vehicle trips are given high certainty because there is a larger sample size of these trips.
245
PC 07-14-2026
245 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Figure 2. This Active Trip Potential Explainer helps illustrate the concept behind stratifying trips by trip distance to understand whether
they could be met by walking, biking, or e-biking.
246
PC 07-14-2026
246 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 1
To: David Stillman, Matt Schroeder, Cupertino, CA
From: David Wasserman, Kim Voros, Alta Planning + Design
Date: 4/16/2025
Re: Stress-Adjusted Short Trip Analysis Methdology
Needs Assessment
This memo documents how Alta will approach synthesizing the level of traffic stress (LTS) and active trip potential
(ATP) analysis in Task 3.3 with the community input collected in Task 2 to diagnose the fundamental obstacles that
make short trips feel indirect, stressful, and inconvenient.. This combined dataset allows us to isolate short trips in
which circuitous routing or high stress suppresses walking, biking, and micromobility uptake.
Network Assessment of Short Trips
Alta’s existing conditions analysis will yield two specific deliverables that can be used to further understand network
level gaps in low-stress connectivity between areas of high potential demand. They are:
Network Level LTS Scores – For bicyclists and pedestrians we will have analysis for the bikeway network
(BLTS) and the pedestrian network (PLTS), ranking streets from low stress (LTS 1) to high stress (LTS 4). This
analysis identifies major barriers to bicycle and pedestrian travel based on these measures’ representation of
the travel experience of users on the facility.
Active Trip Potential – Alta will have short trips < 3 miles and < 1 mile represented across the study area.
Trips < 3 miles can serve as a measure of potential demand for bike travel and trips < 1 mile can serve as a
measure of demand potential for pedestrian travel for further analysis.
Alta intends to combine these two analyses through an advanced network analysis that will uncover the underlying
barriers to efficient and comfortable travel for short trips which are currently marred by significant levels of
indirectness and perceived barriers to travel. The steps to this analysis can be summarized in the following way:
Set up Perceived Costs to Travel – Based on the traffic stress scores, Alta will use weights from a soon to be
published NCHRP 08-149 Benefits of Active Gap Closure Study assign travel costs for the respective LTS scores
for bicycle and pedestrian travel on the network. Higher stress segments will have been modeled as requiring
a higher “perceived” travel time to traverse relative to low stress segments as illustrated in Figure 1. The
actual multipliers to identify these stress adjusted travel times are documented in Table 1.
247
PC 07-14-2026
247 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 2
Figure 1 Illustrates how higher stress segments can be perceived to have a longer travel time for the purpose of understanding network
quality's impact on behavior.
Table 1 Level of Traffic Stress & Perceived Costs Multipliers from NCHRP 08-149
LTS Score Pedestrian Impedance Multiplier Bicycle Impedance Multiplier
LTS 1 1 1
LTS 2 1.5 2
LTS 3 3 3
LTS 4 8 6
Public Feedback Integration – Alta will review the barriers people identify in public feedback to identify areas
where they agree and do not agree with the LTS results. Where they do not agree, Alta will inflate travel costs
by 50% in areas that are low stress that the public has identified existing barriers to active travel.
Assemble Short Trips Matrix – Alta will assemble a short trips OD matrix of lines that will be converted into
stop and end points for each flow at the centroids of the hexagons used to evaluate short trips similar to
those shown in Figure 2. These centroids were served as inputs for network analysis.
248
PC 07-14-2026
248 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Compute Travel Times – Alta will evaluate the traffic stress adjusted travel times between every hexagon
centroid in the study area within three miles for bicyclists and one mile for pedestrians. For every centroid-
to-centroid pair, there will be created a straight-line distance, a network travel time, and a stress adjusted
network travel time.
Compute Flow Gap Score – Alta will join the network analysis results for short trips to create a bicycle and
pedestrian gap score for each OD pair. The gap score represents “gap trips” or short trips that are unlikely to
be converted to active modes because of high differences between straight-line distance travel times and a
stress-adjusted travel time. This gap score will be based on the following formula:
o 𝐺𝑎𝑝 𝑆𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 = 𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 − (𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡 𝑇𝑟𝑖𝑝𝑠 ∗ ( )
)
o Intrazonal trips will be joined to the network by assuming the travel times between a hexagon’s
immediate six neighbors can represent the intrazonal travel time used to compute gap scores.
Figure 2 Alta Explainer on active trip potential and how short trips can help identify latent demand for active travel.
249
PC 07-14-2026
249 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Spatially Overlay Gap Scores with Hexagons – OD line gap scores will be spatially joined to the hexagon
layer to count the gap trips that land in that hexagon. Hexagons will have a higher score if they have
multiple lines touching them with high numbers of gap trips.
Gap Analysis Tabulations – Results will have cross-tabulations of origin-destination (OD) trip lengths
against corresponding modeled travel times, including both raw and stress-adjusted values. For select
key destinations, Alta will estimate the average difference between stress-adjusted and non-stress-
adjusted travel times specifically for short-distance trips, highlighting disparities in perceived versus
actual travel experience. Key statistics such as the typical short trips perceived travel times and the
difference in raw and perceived travel times at key destinations will be integrated into the needs
assessment memo.
Map Gap Scores – Results will be put into a series of maps identified in the next section.
Expected Map Outputs
The final maps will produce maps illustrating OD flows that have stressful routes between them and high active trip
potential. This mapping can provide clear insights into how infrastructure and stress impact travel choices, identifying areas
for active transportation investment.
There will be several maps created for this analysis. For each mode between walking and biking, Alta anticipates
creating the following maps:
One will be the OD lines with their stress adjusted travel times as the color, and the number of short trips between
zones as the thickness.
Another will be the OD lines with their color and thickness being the gap score computed between zones.
Informing Project Recommendations
Alta anticipates the results from this analysis being used as part of prioritization of project recommendations in the
next phase by identifying where there are large areas with possible mode shift potential in the form of short trips that
would be improved by an all ages and ability network. This analysis could be used alongside safety, equity, and public
engagement results to identify high priority recommendations by mode.
250
PC 07-14-2026
250 of 422
APPENDIX D
Public Participation
Summary Report
251
PC 07-14-2026
251 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 1 City of Cupertino
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: July 11, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Phase 1 Public Participation Summary
Introduction
Phase 1 of the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) involved a range of engagement activities throughout the
spring of 2025. Outreach activities were structured to reduce barriers for Cupertino’s residents and visitors by
bringing engagement to them, with central community meetings, virtual engagement, and nine pop-ups at existing
community gatherings. In-person outreach was supported by two online community meetings, a project website, an
interactive web map, an online survey, lawn signs, banners, and A-frames distributed throughout Cupertino, as well
as regular online communications through various City channels. Summaries of key outreach initiatives are provided
in this memo.
The first phase of public outreach ran from March 19 through June 5, 2025. This phase consisted of 12 events,
engaging over 1,300 residents and soliciting almost 3,000 comments from the public. This input will be used to
directly inform network recommendations for the ATP, which will be shared with the public in the fall of 2025.
Summary of Engagement
Event/Input Type Number of Events Participants Total Comments/Interactions
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 1 12 34
Pop-up events 9 406 274
Community workshops 2 59 146
Interactive webmap -- 618 2,268
Online survey -- 240 240
Emails -- 26 25
Total 12 1,361 2,987
252
PC 07-14-2026
252 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 2 City of Cupertino
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from public outreach:
Desire for Connected Networks – We heard that major barriers, like Highway 85 or De Anza Boulevard, act as a
deterrent to taking more trips by walking and biking. While much of Cupertino has good networks for walking and
biking, these barriers hold people back from walking and biking more often.
Focus on Pedestrian Improvements – Many residents feel like the City has, in recent years, prioritized bicycle-focused
projects. New projects should first ensure that pedestrian needs are being met.
Safety and Accessibility Lead the Way – When asked to prioritize six different plan goals, residents overwhelmingly
chose Safety and Accessibility. Projects should reflect and advance these priorities.
Focus Improvements near Schools –Many residents felt that projects should focus on safety and accessibility for
school trips and other destinations that youth want to reach in their daily lives.
Full-Community Engagement – Outreach needs to reflect the full range of voices and opinions in Cupertino. The
voices of people who disagree with active transportation projects are just as important as those who support them.
Concern About Tradeoffs – Many residents are concerned about the impacts on parking and traffic from
transportation projects, as well as planned and in-development housing projects.
Don’t Just Build, Maintain – Many residents expressed concerns with the maintenance of separated bikeways once
they are built, citing the buildup of debris, fallen leaves, and resident trash cans.
Track Progress – Residents expressed a desire for the City to more comprehensively monitor the effectiveness of new
projects, tracking changes in safety, utilization, and other metrics of success.
Phase 1 Outreach Materials
The first phase of outreach for the Cupertino ATP included the following outreach and engagement materials:
• A set of seven poster boards, used during pop-up and workshop events. These boards included:
o Three maps of Cupertino, two of which zoomed in on the eastern and western halves of the city.
o One board introducing the project's purpose and displaying the project schedule.
o Two boards showing visual examples of different bicycle and pedestrian projects.
o One board soliciting input from the public on the goals of the plan process.
• A project website, hosting an interactive webmap (+optional survey), and a separate survey:
o The interactive webmap solicited input on routes people like, destinations they want to reach,
barriers they experience to walking and biking, and areas where they may have concerns about
potential congestion impacts or parking loss from bike projects. The webmap also included an
optional survey for users to rank plan goals.
o The survey, developed by City of Cupertino staff, asked residents about their travel choices and
desire for different types of bicycle and pedestrian projects.
253
PC 07-14-2026
253 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 3 City of Cupertino
Figure 1: Poster board for input on routes, gaps, and areas of concern
Figure 2: Poster board for input on plans goals
254
PC 07-14-2026
254 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 4 City of Cupertino
Summary of Promotion
The City of Cupertino began promotion for the first phase of public outreach with the launch of the project website
on March 19. Promotion included:
• City emails to project mailing lists
• City posts to Nextdoor, Facebook, Gov Delivery, and Items of Interest
• The installation of lawn signs, banners, and A-Frames throughout the City promoting the project
• Circulation of project notices with community groups, schools, and Safe Routes to School networks
Summary of Print Promotion
A total of 36 signs were installed across the City, consisting of 3 A-frames, 6 banners, and 25 lawn signs (Figure 3). The
signs were placed to provide geographic coverage and maximize visibility for motorists, visitors to popular City
facilities, YMCA patrons, and trail users (locations shown in Figure 4). Roadway signs were located to provide visibility
to drivers traveling in all directions, engaging individuals who may not otherwise visit City facilities or receive
traditional communications.
Figure 3. Promotional Signs and Banners
255
PC 07-14-2026
255 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 5 City of Cupertino
Figure 4. Location of Promotional Yard Signs and Banners
256
PC 07-14-2026
256 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 6 City of Cupertino
Summary of Public Input
The Cupertino ATP sought three types of public input throughout the first phase:
• Map-based input on destination, barriers, and routes – this was collected through outreach board exercises
and an online webmap.
• Priorities and feedback for six different plan goals – this was collected through outreach board exercises and
a ranking exercise on the online webmap.
• Travel choices and preferences for different types of projects – this was collected through a City-developed
survey and added to the project website.
Summary of Map Input
At all pop-up and workshop events, residents were asked to identify locations on maps for the following information:
• Routes where they currently walk or bike
• Destinations in Cupertino that they would like to reach by walking or biking
• Barriers or gaps in the network that currently make walking or biking difficult
• Areas of concern for potential impacts on congestion or parking availability
The project website also hosted an online webmap where residents could similarly provide input on the four options
listed above. The webmap also allowed users to view the input of other residents, comment on other users’ input, or
like/dislike other users’ input. This summary represents 2,378 data points from the public.
Key Destinations
Residents identified 100 destinations across Cupertino. Areas with high numbers of responses cluster around parks
(Jollyman Park, Blackberry Farm, Creekside Park, and Library Field), schools (Cupertino High, Eaton Elementary, and
Collins Elementary), and shopping locations (The Marketplace, Bottegas Shopping Center, and Main Street Cupertino).
Results are shown in Figure 5.
Gaps and Barriers
Residents identified 203 barriers or gaps across Cupertino. Barriers were primarily concentrated along major roadways
such as Stevens Creek Boulevard and Bollinger Road. There were concentrations of barriers on Stevens Creek Boulevard
near Highway 85 and at the intersection of Torre Avenue and McClellan Road. Results are shown in Figure 6.
257
PC 07-14-2026
257 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 7 City of Cupertino
Figure 5. Phase 1 input – desired destinations
258
PC 07-14-2026
258 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 8 City of Cupertino
Figure 6: Phase 1 input – barriers or gaps
259
PC 07-14-2026
259 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 9 City of Cupertino
Routes and Multimodal Concerns
Residents were asked to draw out routes where they walk or bike most often, or to draw the route of streets where
they have concerns about congestion or parking loss. In total, 75 routes were drawn.
The visualization shown in Figure 7 shows not only the routes, but also the likes, dislikes, and comments left on drawn
routes in the online webmap. The line thickness of each route indicates how many comments, likes, or dislikes—with
a thicker line indicating a greater number of responses. Routes are also color-coded based on receiving a high number
of likes (green) or dislikes (pink) on the webmap.
A route on Wolfe Road in the City’s northwest region garnered the greatest number of likes. In the comments,
residents highlighted concerns about congestion resulting from the forthcoming “The Rise” development project.
A route primarily on Bubb Road and Rainbow Drive received two dislike votes. There were no comments on this
segment to elaborate further, and the dislike votes could be attributed to human error.
Overall Sentiment
The project team consolidated all destinations and gaps/barrier points, then visualized them based on the number of
responses received on the webmap, as well as whether they had net-positive likes or dislikes. In Figure 8, the size of
the circle reflects the total number of likes, dislikes, or comments a point received. The color of each point indicates
its net-positive or negative response from other users, with net-positive points shown in green and net-negative
points shown in pink.
Comments receiving the most interaction were largely to the east of Highway 85, with clusters on Bollinger Road, and
the Cupertino Library, on Blaney Avenue, Stevens Creek Boulevard, and Wolfe Road. To the west of Highway 85, there
were high-interaction comments clustered on Stevens Creek Boulevard, Foothill Boulevard, and Homestead Road.
The comments receiving the most positive votes were:
• Blaney Avenue at Regnart Creek – requesting a more robust crossing for the Regnart Creek Trail
• Stevens Creek Boulevard at Carmen Road – support for the Carmen Road bridge overcrossing of Stevens
Creek Boulevard
• Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road – expressing concern for traffic impacts with the construction of The
Rise development
The comments receiving the most negative votes were:
• Merritt Drive at Norwich Avenue – expressing opposition to having access through the soundwall at this
location
• Kim Street at Regnart Creek – expressing opposition to extending the Regnart Creek Trail west of De Anza
Boulevard
260
PC 07-14-2026
260 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 10 City of Cupertino
The comments receiving a high amount of interaction, but with a balance between likes and dislikes were:
• A series of comments along Bollinger Road asking for a road diet or additional pedestrian crossings, especially
between De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue
• Roadway and bike network safety upgrades on Blaney Avenue north of Stevens Creek Boulevard
• A request to pedestrianize the Main Street Cupertino commercial development
261
PC 07-14-2026
261 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 11 City of Cupertino
Figure 7: Phase 1 input on desired routes and areas of multimodal concern
262
PC 07-14-2026
262 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 12 City of Cupertino
Figure 8: Phase 1 input by comment density and sentiment
263
PC 07-14-2026
263 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 13 City of Cupertino
Summary of Plan Goals Input
At all pop-up and workshop events, residents were asked to share which plan goals were most important to them.
This data was collected on the “Goals & Priorities” outreach board. This feedback was also collected via a ranking
exercise on the online webmap.
Collecting input regarding plan goals during Phase 1 ensures that later plan development will reflect community
priorities. Using two different methods to collect this feedback—in-person and online, also allows for more resident
voices to be captured.
The data on plan goals was scaled to form an average against a six-point scale, so that the in-person and online input
was comparable despite their different quantities (online n=273, in-person n=102). See the table below for ranked
final scoring for plan goals.
Table 1: Plan Goal rankings by input type
Goal Online Average Score (N=273) In-Person Average Score (N=102) Combined Average Score
Safety 4.81 4.24 4.65
Accessibility 5.12 2.53 4.41
Maintenance 3.67 1.35 3.04
Sustainability 3.30 1.41 2.79
Balance 2.21 1.12 1.91
Fairness 1.89 1.35 1.74
Summary of City Survey
City of Cupertino staff developed an online survey, which was hosted on the project website and promoted by City
communications. The survey collected a total of 240 responses from individuals who visit, live in, attend school in, or
work in Cupertino. The survey included multiple-choice and an open-ended comment question. The multiple-choice
questions captured who is participating in online outreach activities, how they heard about the project, and their
travel preferences. The open-ended comment question provided an opportunity for respondents to share more
specific concerns.
Key findings from these questions are summarized below, and all multiple-choice survey results are presented in the
Online Survey Results section.
• Most respondents found out about the project from friends (54%), followed by City communications (34%).
• Most respondents are 50 to 64 years old (40%) or 30 to 49 years old (34%).
• Almost all respondents drive in Cupertino (95%), and some also walk (64%), bike (35%), and take the SV
Hopper (13%).
• Most respondents who walk or bike in Cupertino do so for exercise or recreation (85%). Many also walk or
bike to shop/run errands (47%), commute to work/school (33%), or for social visits (31%).
264
PC 07-14-2026
264 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 14 City of Cupertino
• When asked how comfortable respondents are when walking or biking in Cupertino on a scale from 1 (not
very stressful) to 10 (very stressful):
o The average score was 4.7, slightly lower than neutral.
o Comfort level with biking and walking in Cupertino is concentrated in four groups:
▪ 45% of respondents ranked 1-3 (less stressful).
▪ 18% of respondents ranked 4-6 (concentrated around neutral).
▪ 25% of respondents ranked 7-8 (more stressful than neutral).
▪ 13% of respondents ranked 9-10 (stressful).
• About a third of respondents said that pedestrian and bicycle facilities—including protected intersections
(32%), better street lighting (31%), and traffic calming (32%)—would encourage them to walk or bike more in
Cupertino. These facilities are familiar to many Cupertino residents as they are already prominent in the City.
• In contrast, respondents said that wider sidewalks (47%) and shorter crossings (46%) would not at all
encourage them to walk or bike more. This indicates that these primarily pedestrian facilities would not lead
to behavioral change, specifically among survey respondents.
• Over half of respondents said that bicycle facilities—including concrete protected bike lanes (58%), bollard
protected bike lanes (53%), and wider buffered bike lanes (53%)—would not at all encourage them to walk or
bike more. This indicates that these primarily bicycle facilities would not lead to behavioral change,
specifically among survey respondents.
Key themes from the open-ended text response question include:
1. Bike Infrastructure
• Frequent mentions of bike lanes, especially protected and concrete-separated ones.
• Mixed feedback: Some residents appreciate the improvements, while others find them underused or
poorly designed.
• Safety concerns: Many comments highlight the need for safer biking conditions, especially for
children and less experienced riders.
2. Traffic and Safety
• Concerns about speeding, aggressive driving, and cars not yielding to pedestrians or bicyclists.
• Requests for enforcement: Many want more traffic law enforcement, especially at intersections and
near schools.
• Intersection design: Some intersections are perceived as dangerous or confusing, especially with new
traffic patterns.
3. Pedestrian Experience
• Sidewalk conditions: Calls for wider, better-maintained sidewalks and more shade.
• Crosswalk safety: Many feel unsafe crossing busy roads due to fast traffic and poor driver behavior.
• Lighting and visibility: Better lighting is a common request to improve nighttime safety.
4. City Planning and Priorities
• Perceived imbalance: Some residents feel the City is focusing too much on biking infrastructure at
the expense of drivers.
• Desire for balance: Many call for a more inclusive approach that supports all modes of
transportation—cars, bikes, walking, and transit.
265
PC 07-14-2026
265 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 15 City of Cupertino
•Frustration with congestion: Some blame new bike lanes for increased traffic and reduced driving
lanes.
5.Community Sentiment
•Divided opinions: There’s a clear split between those who support sustainable transportation and
those who prioritize car travel.
•Calls for inclusivity: Residents want planning that reflects the needs of families, seniors, commuters,
and students alike.
•Civic engagement: Some comments express frustration with how public input is gathered or used.
Summary of Emails
In addition to the three types of input summarized in the previous sections, residents also submitted comments
by email. Key themes from 25 emails are summarized below:
•
•
re not representative of the broader community’s needs and views.
•
•
266
PC 07-14-2026
266 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 16 City of Cupertino
Event Summaries
Pop-Up Events
The Alta Planning + Design project team (with support from City staff) hosted pop-up engagement events at existing
community events, such as festivals, school activities, and flea markets. These pop-up events met the community
where they were and gathered additional project feedback throughout the project. During phase one, Alta staff
engaged with people on an array of poster boards, where participants were invited to learn more about the project,
timeline, and safety infrastructure, as well as provide feedback on specific points of interest or conflict on maps and a
list of plan goals. Cupertino City staff conducted additional pop-up events to supplement Alta’s activities.
At pop-up events, residents were encouraged to provide direct feedback with sticky notes and color-coded dots:
• Green dots – destinations where community members would like to go (On the Map: “What unique
destinations make Cupertino a one-of-a-kind place? Where would you like to go by walking or rolling with
friends and family?”)
• Yellow dots – Areas where residents would like multimodal balance (On the Map: “Where should extra
consideration be given to maintain parking supply and minimize vehicle delay?”)
• Red dots – Areas that are barriers or gaps (On the Map: “Which roadways or intersections pose significant
obstacles?”)
On another poster board, residents shared what priorities were most important to them, organized by the Plan’s
goals: accessibility, maintenance, safety, sustainability, balance, and fairness.
Table 2: Summary of pop-up participation
Event Date Staffed By Interactions Poster Board
Engagement
Earth and Arbor Day Festival April 5, 2025 Alta & City staff 45 19
Lincoln Elementary School Walk & Roll Day April 22, 2025 City staff 23 27
Cherry Blossom Festival April 26, 2025 Alta & City staff 190 57
Hyde Middle School Walk & Roll Day April 29, 2025 City staff 35 22
De Anza College Flea Market May 3, 2025 City staff 26 12
Live Well Age Well Health Expo May 9, 2025 City staff 16 9
Bike to Wherever Day May 15, 2025 Alta staff 40 49
Collins Elementary Walk & Roll Day May 21, 2205 City Staff 17 27
Monta Vista High School Lunchtime Tabling May 28, 2025 City Staff 14 19
267
PC 07-14-2026
267 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 17 City of Cupertino
Earth and Arbor Day Festival
On Saturday, April 5, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., the City of Cupertino hosted its annual Earth
and Arbor Day Festival at Library Field, next to the
new Regnart Creek Trail. This was an interactive
event that invited community members of all ages to
learn about environmental issues and solutions in a
family-friendly atmosphere. At least 45 people
engaged with Alta and City staff, leaving a total of 19
sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed seven
sticker dots on maps to identify destinations and
barriers. Mapped points included desired access to
the trails in the western hills of Cupertino and
schools, as well as points of conflict around existing bikeway and trail crossings, including the Wolfe Road and I-280
crossing. No multimodal balance stickers were placed. Participants also showed where they liked new infrastructure,
like the Regnart Creek Trail and the improvements at the intersection of De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road.
Plan Goals: Community members placed 12 comments on the plan goals poster board. Safety was the highest priority
(n=7), followed by accessibility (n=3). Creating safe routes for children to access schools, protected from traffic, and
safe from red light driver behavior were all areas of support.
Lincoln Elementary School Walk & Roll Day
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025, from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., City of
Cupertino staff tabled in front of Lincoln Elementary School for
their Walk & Roll to School Day. City staff engaged with parents
and students on their priorities, barriers, and destinations. Staff
engaged with 23 participants who left a total of 27 sticker dots
or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed 20 sticker dots on
the maps to identify destinations and barriers, and one desired
route was drawn on the map. Destinations were grouped
around southwestern Cupertino, including Blackberry Farm,
Linda Vista Park, and Jollyman Park. Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Bubb Road, and McClellan Road were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed seven comments on the plan
goals board. Safety was ranked as the highest priority among
plan goals (n=4), followed by accessibility (n=3).
Figure 9: Staff talking with residents at the Earth and Arbor Day Festival
Figure 10: Pop-up table at Lincoln Elementary
268
PC 07-14-2026
268 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 18 City of Cupertino
Cherry Blossom Festival
On Saturday and Sunday, April 26 to 27, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., the City of Cupertino sponsored the
annual Cherry Blossom Festival with Japanese sister city Toyokawa at Memorial Park. Alta and City staff were present
for public engagement on Saturday, April 26, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., engaging at least 190 members of the
public. Participants left a total of 57 sticker dots or comments
on the poster boards. This was a family-friendly event featuring
community resources and organizations, where people of all
ages provided input to staff on site, including several individuals
who had been struck by vehicles while walking or biking in
Cupertino. Common themes included support for:
• Improved access to transit
• Protected bike and pedestrian infrastructure, including
enhanced maintenance of existing facilities
• Better connectivity with the neighboring cities and
destinations, including extending the Stevens Creek
Trail
• Creating safe routes to schools and parks was largely
proposed by children.
Barriers and Destinations: Community members placed 21
sticker dots on the maps to identify destinations and barriers.
The following roadways received multiple stickers for concerns about safety, comfort, and connectivity: Homestead
Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Wolfe Road/Miller Avenue, and Tantau Avenue. Popular destinations
and access points included Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve, Stevens Creek Trail, Cupertino City Hall,
Cupertino Library and Park, Regnart Creek Trail, The Marketplace, and Creekside Park. No multimodal balance stickers
were placed.
Plan Goals: Community members placed 36 comments on the plan goals board. Safety was ranked as the highest
priority (n=14), followed by accessibility (n=9) among plan goals.
Figure 11: Engaging with youth at the Cherry Blossom
Festival
269
PC 07-14-2026
269 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 19 City of Cupertino
Hyde Middle School Walk & Roll Day
On Tuesday, April 29, 2025, from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., City of Cupertino
staff tabled in front of Hyde Middle School for their Walk & Roll to
School Day. City staff engaged with parents and students on their
priorities, barriers, and destinations. Staff engaged with 35
participants who left a total of 22 sticker dots or comments on poster
boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed 15 sticker dots on
maps to identify destinations and barriers. Destinations were
grouped around the Cupertino Library and Creekside Park. Stevens
Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, and Tantau Avenue were identified
as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed 7 comments on the plan goals board.
Safety was ranked as the highest priority among plan goals (n=6),
followed by fairness (n=1).
De Anza College Flea Market
On Saturday, May 3, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., City of Cupertino staff tabled at the De Anza Flea Market, held
on the campus of De Anza College. City staff engaged with the public on their priorities, barriers, and destinations.
Staff engaged with 26 participants who left a total of 12 sticker dots or comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed seven sticker dots on the maps to identify destinations and barriers.
Destinations included Blackberry Farm, Linda Vista Park, and northeastern Cupertino. Wolfe Road, Homestead Road,
Foothill Boulevard, and Bollinger Road were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed five comments on the plan goals board.
Maintenance was ranked highest priority among plan goals (n=3),
followed by safety (n=2).
Live Well Age Well Health Expo
On Friday, May 9, 2025, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., City of Cupertino
staff tabled at the Live Well Age Well Health Expo, held at the City of
Cupertino Senior Center. City staff engaged with attendees to discuss
their priorities, barriers, and destinations. Staff engaged with 16
participants who left a total of 9 sticker dots or comments on poster
boards.
Barriers and Destinations: Participants placed six sticker dots on maps
to identify destinations and barriers. Destinations included Blackberry
Figure 12: Students at Hyde Middle School
Figure 13: Live Well Age Well Health Expo
270
PC 07-14-2026
270 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 20 City of Cupertino
Farm, Linda Vista Park, and northeastern Cupertino. Wolfe Road, Homestead Road, Foothill Boulevard, and Bollinger
Road were identified as barriers.
Plan Goals: Participants placed three comments on the plan goals board. Maintenance was ranked as the highest
priority plan goal (n=2), followed by accessibility (n=1).
Bike to Wherever Day
On Thursday, May 15, 2025, from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., the City of Cupertino hosted an energizer station for Bike to
Wherever Day at the intersection of Stelling Road and McClellan Road. This event was designed to celebrate and
encourage people to ride their bikes for errands, socializing with friends, commuting to work or school, and as an
opportunity for those who don’t usually bike commute to try it out. Energizer stations are community hubs where
residents will pedal to grab a free bag filled with goodies and celebrate the day. The energizer station was hosted by
the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, with Alta staff setting up a table adjacent for public input. At least 40 of
the 100+ people passing through the station engaged with the ATP staff and left a total of 49 sticker dots or
comments on poster boards. Common themes included support for:
• Better bike connections and coordination across
municipal boundaries
• More protected bike lanes
• More multi-use paths (including strong praise for
the Regnart Creek Trail as an example)
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed 31 sticker dots
on the maps, identifying barriers and destinations. The
following roadways received multiple stickers for concerns
about safety, comfort, and connectivity: Foothill Boulevard,
Stevens Creek Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Homestead Road,
De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue. Destinations and
access points included Stevens Creek Trail, Cupertino City
Hall, Cupertino Library and Park, Regnart Creek Trail, Apple Park Visitor Center, and the many parks and trails up
Stevens Canyon Road.
Plan Goals: Students placed 18 comments on the plan goals board, with safety ranked as the highest priority goal
(n=10), followed by accessibility (n=8).
Figure 14: A family on a cargo bike at Bike to Wherever Day
271
PC 07-14-2026
271 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 21 City of Cupertino
Collins Elementary School Walk & Roll Day
On Wednesday, May 21, City staff hosted a table for the
ATP at the Walk & Roll Day for Collins Elementary on
Blaney Avenue in eastern Cupertino. City staff engaged
with 17 adults who left a total of 19 sticker dots or
comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed 15 sticker
dots on the maps, identifying barriers and destinations.
The following roadways received multiple stickers for
concerns about safety, comfort, and connectivity:
Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, Blaney
Avenue, and Lazaneo Avenue. Destinations included
Monta Vista Park, Cupertino Library, and Lawson Middle School.
Plan Goals: Students placed four comments on the plan goals board, all for safety.
Monta Vista High School Lunchtime Tabling
On Wednesday, May 28, City staff hosted a table for the ATP
during the lunch hour at Monta Vista High School in western
Cupertino. City staff engaged with 17 adults and youth, collecting
a total of 19 sticker dots and comments on poster boards.
Barriers and Destinations: The public placed 17 sticker dots on
maps, identifying barriers and destinations. The following
roadways received multiple stickers for concerns about safety,
comfort, and connectivity: McClellan Road near Stevens Creek
Trail, locations along Bubb Road, and De Anza Boulevard.
Destinations included Cupertino Library, Varian Park, and
Kennedy Middle School.
Plan Goals: Students placed two comments on the plan goals
board, both for safety.
Figure 15. Students at Collins Elementary School
Figure 16. Students at Monta Vista High School
272
PC 07-14-2026
272 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 22 City of Cupertino
Community Workshops
The City and Alta hosted two community workshops, one in person and one virtual. These provided dedicated spaces
for the public to learn about the project and engage with project staff with any questions, concerns, or ideas they had
for the ATP.
Table 3: Summary of community workshop participation
Event Date Attendance Comments
Community Workshop #1 (virtual) May 5, 2025 35 44
Community Workshop #2 (in person) May 7, 2025 24 102
Community Workshop #1
The City of Cupertino hosted a virtual workshop on the evening of May 5 for the Cupertino ATP, held from 6:00 to
7:30 p.m. 51 members of the public registered for the event, and 35 attended. The workshop included a 35-minute
presentation, followed by a question-and-answer (Q&A) session. There were 28 questions posed in the Q&A chat
window, and 16 attendees provided spoken comments and questions.
Below is a summary of comments and questions from members of the public at the virtual workshop.
Youth and School Access
• Students’ Needs: Multiple participants emphasized the importance of engaging students directly, especially
at high schools and middle schools, to understand their transportation challenges.
• School Commutes: Parents expressed concern about unsafe walking and biking conditions near schools,
particularly around Foothill Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard, citing heavy traffic and recent
accidents.
• Drop-Off Congestion: A student suggested designated drop-off zones away from school entrances to reduce
traffic chaos and improve safety.
• Scooter Safety: Concerns were raised about electric scooters on sidewalks, especially near schools.
Suggestions included better infrastructure and education to keep faster devices off sidewalks.
Pedestrian Safety and Infrastructure
• Sidewalk Conditions: Several residents highlighted uneven, narrow, or missing sidewalks, especially near
schools and major roads like Bubb Road and Stelling Road.
• Crosswalks: Bollinger Road was repeatedly mentioned for its lack of safe midblock crossings, with residents
witnessing dangerous pedestrian behavior and near misses.
• Intersection Safety: Intersections like Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza Boulevard and Blaney Avenue at
Stevens Creek Boulevard were flagged as particularly hazardous for pedestrians.
273
PC 07-14-2026
273 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 23 City of Cupertino
Bicycling Infrastructure and Concerns
• Concerns over Major Streets: Opinion from participants was mixed on the utility of dedicated bike lanes on
major streets. Some participants suggested that people riding bikes should use parallel side streets to
minimize congestion impacts on major roads. Others pushed back on the idea that they should stick to side
streets, noting that key destinations (jobs, shops, schools) are located on arterials like Stevens Creek
Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and Miller Avenue/Wolfe Road.
• Stressful Bike Routes: Painted bike lanes next to fast-moving traffic and parked cars (e.g., on Miller Avenue)
were described as high-stress and unsafe.
• Connectivity Gaps: Residents called for a more connected north-south bike network, citing streets like
Stelling Road, Blaney Avenue, and Wolfe Road as needing improvements.
Fairness and Community Engagement
• Multimodal Balance: Some residents emphasized the need to balance improvements across all modes—
walking, biking, driving—without disproportionately impacting any group.
• Inclusive Planning: Residents urged the City to ensure all neighborhoods are included, not just those with
vocal opposition or support. Concerns were voiced that future bicycle and pedestrian projects would not
heed the desires of local communities; others expressed concern that local groups could stymie the
implementation of projects that could create regional connections and benefits.
• Regional Coordination: Participants asked how Cupertino’s plan aligns with neighboring cities and county
plans, recognizing that many trips cross city boundaries.
Development and Future Growth
• Developer Contributions: Residents asked whether new housing developments would be required to
contribute to walking and biking infrastructure.
• Proactive Planning: Suggestions included involving residents early in the planning process to address
concerns and improve transparency.
General Themes
• Safety Is Paramount: Across all modes, safety was the most frequently cited concern and top priority.
• Desire for Ambition: Many residents expressed hope that the plan would be bold and transformative,
making walking and biking truly viable and attractive options.
• Concern for Potential Impacts: Many speakers expressed concerns that projects would negatively impact
congestion, parking availability, and quality of life without providing commensurate benefits to the
community.
• Pedestrian Focus: Multiple speakers wanted the ATP to prioritize pedestrian safety and access improvements
over bicycle projects.
274
PC 07-14-2026
274 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 24 City of Cupertino
Community Workshop #2
The City of Cupertino hosted an in-person workshop on
the evening of May 7 for the Cupertino ATP, held from
6:00 to 7:30 p.m. Twenty-four members of the public
attended the workshop. A 35-minute presentation was
given, followed by a 10-minute Q&A session and
interactive poster board activity. During the
presentation, 18 residents participated in the interactive
polling, and there were six questions posed during the
Q&A.
During the interactive posterboard activity, residents
were encouraged to provide direct feedback regarding
their walking or rolling routes with sticky notes and
color-coded dots on a map of the city.
Participants were encouraged to identify locations on
the printed maps of the city to outline:
• Green dots – destinations where community
members would like to go (On the Map: “What
unique destinations make Cupertino a one-of-a-
kind place? Where would you like to go by
walking or rolling with friends and family?”)
• Yellow dots – Areas where residents would like
multimodal balance (On the Map: “Where
should extra consideration be given to maintain
parking supply and minimize vehicle delay?”)
• Red dots – Areas that are barriers or gaps (On
the Map: “Which roadways or intersections pose
significant obstacles?”)
On another poster board, residents shared which plan goals they think the Plan should prioritize: accessibility,
maintenance, safety, sustainability, balance, and fairness. There were 96 sticky notes or color-coded dots on the map
poster boards, and 12 notes shared on the priorities poster boards.
Below is a summary of the Q&A session, general comments, and comments on the poster boards.
Q&A
• Foothill Boulevard: A resident was surprised that Foothill Boulevard was not captured in the High Injury
Network. There was a recent collision involving youth, but it is also a long-standing issue.
Figure 17: Presentation at Community Workshop #2
Figure 18: Workshop participants at breakout tables
275
PC 07-14-2026
275 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 25 City of Cupertino
• Slideshow: A resident would like the slideshow, without the polling slides, available on the Cupertino ATP
website.
• Recreational Travel: A resident was interested in how we are capturing recreational travel by mode, not just
commute travel.
• E-Bikes: A resident was interested in how the Plan will account for the increasing use of e-bikes in Cupertino.
• In-Progress Projects: When looking at the completed and in-progress projects map, a resident was interested
in why a pedestrian treatment was in progress near a new Eden Housing Development.
• Secure Bike Parking: A resident was interested in how the Plan will incorporate the need for more secure
bike parking.
Overall Themes from Outreach Boards
• Shared Use Trails: 10 comments were regarding access to existing trails, the continuation of existing trails, or
the construction of new trails. Three comments were specifically regarding constructing the Tamien Trail.
• Key Destinations: In addition to trail access, common destinations for Cupertino residents include the City’s
shopping centers, parks, and schools.
• Alternatives to Highways and Busy Streets: 7 comments requested bike/pedestrian infrastructure where
residents could either avoid interacting with busy streets/highways or gain access through barriers in the
existing infrastructure. This includes requests for tunnels, trails, and bridges.
• Concerns over Major Streets: Major streets, including Stevens Creek Boulevard, De Anza Boulevard, and
Bollinger Road, were often cited as having barriers or gaps in pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
• School Access and Congestion: In addition to identifying schools as key desired destinations, residents
identified barriers/gaps and the need for multimodal balance around Cupertino schools.
Goals and Location-Specific Outreach Boards
Resident comments on the goals and location-specific outreach boards are listed below:
Accessibility
• Add safe bike parking.
• Make bike + pedestrian access easier when possible by opening a closed gate, for example.
Maintenance
• Debris on bike path or bike lane is a hazard.
• Fix Stevens Creek & 280/85 sidewalks.
Fairness
• Finish Tamien Innu trail.
Safety
• Miller has too many lanes. Could be 1 on each side and center turn lane.
• Stevens Creek & Wolfe. Fix Wolfe (N-5).
276
PC 07-14-2026
276 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 26 City of Cupertino
• It’s important to give as many children as possible a completely traffic-free bike/walk route to school.
Imagine how traffic could improve if cars rarely needed to drop off & pick up kids!
• Bollinger; Bollinger at De Anza; Bollinger at Clifden needs a pedestrian crossing to support overflow parking
from Trader Joe’s and people riding VTA 25.
• Crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard is a hazard for pedestrians.
• Need to consider elderly walking and biking. They need to increase crossing times because elderly do not
walk as fast.
Location-Specific Outreach Boards
A summary of locations is listed below based on the color of the dot used on the outreach boards.
Destinations where the community would like to go (green dots) include:
• Alves Dr @ Beardon Dr
• Alves Dr @ Shopping Center between N Stelling Rd and Saich Way
• Bandley Dr @ Greenleaf Dr
• Bollinger Rd @ De Anza Blvd
• Bollinger Rd @ Miller Ave
• Bollinger Rd Between Alderbrook Ln and Miller Ave
• I-280 from Mary Ave to De Anza Blvd
• Calvert Dr @ Lawrence Expy
• Civic Center Park
• Cristo Rey Dr @ Canyon Oak Way
• Cupertino Historical Society @ Museum
• Cupertino Memorial Park
• De Anza Blvd @ Homestead Rd
• De Anza Blvd @ Kirwin Ln
• De Anza Blvd @ Stevens Creek Blvd (Cali Mill Plaza Park)
• De Anza Blvd @ Stevens Creek Blvd (NE corner)
• Hammon Snyder Loop Trailhead
• Homestead Rd @ Blaney Ave
• Hyde Middle School
• Hyde Middle School
• Jollyman Park
• Linda Vista Park
• Mary Ave @ Junipero Serra Fwy
• Main Street Shopping Mall
• McClellan Rd @ Bubb Rd
• McClellan Rd @ Stevens Creek Trail
• Monta Vista Park
• Northeast city limits/Hammond Snyder Loop Trail
277
PC 07-14-2026
277 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 27 City of Cupertino
• Portal Park
• Rainbow Dr @ Rainbow Knoll Trail
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Anton Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Bianchi Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Carmen Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Carmen Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Crossroads shopping mall
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Imperial Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Miller Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Pasadena Ave (Mann Shopping Center)
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Portal Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Saich Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Scenic Blvd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Stelling Rd (shopping center)
• Stevens Creek County Park
• Tantau Ave @ I-280
• Torre Ave @ Town Center Ln
• Wilson Park
Areas where residents would like multimodal balance (yellow dots) include:
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Wolfe Rd
• Lawson Middle School
• Portal Park
Areas that are barriers or gaps (red dots) include:
• Auburn Dr @ Drake Dr
• Beardon Dr @ Greenleaf Dr
• Blaney Ave @ Lucille Ave
• Bollinger Rd @ Alderbrook Ln
• Bollinger Rd @ Blaney Ave
• Bollinger Rd @ Clifden Way
• Bollinger Rd @ Martinwood Way
• Crescent Rd @ Orchard Ct
• De Anza @ McClellan
• De Anza Blvd @ Bollinger Rd
• De Anza Blvd @ I-280
• De Anza Blvd @ SR 85
• De Anza Blvd @ Rodrigues Ave
• Lawrence Expressway @ Mitty Way
• McClellan Rd @ North East Corner of Monta Vista High School
278
PC 07-14-2026
278 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 28 City of Cupertino
• Miller Ave @ Phil Ln
• Miller Ave @ Vicksburg Dr
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Bianchi Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Blaney Ave
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Bubb Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ SR 85 Offramp
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ De Anza Blvd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Saich Way
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Stelling Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd @ Vista Dr
• Tantau Ave @ Loree Ave
• Wolfe Rd @ I-280 N Onramp
• Wolfe Rd @ Vallco Pkwy
General Comments on Outreach Boards
• You can fit 12-13 bicycles in one parking space. 3 car spaces would make enough bike parking to fill
community hall.
• Pickup and drop off time around the schools is a mess. Please build designated drop off points 1-2 blocks
from the schools to spread out car load. I bike to school faster than my neighbor who drives because he has
to sit in drop off traffic in front of school. I have witnessed crashes in front of school, been in crashes, and
provided police witness testimony on crashes. The area in from of schools is far too congested and
dangerous.
Online Interactive Map
The online interactive map for phase one was structured to enable users to provide feedback in the form of routes
and points on the map. Before accessing the map, users were also able to provide feedback on priorities among plan
goals.
Map input options included:
• Preferred walking and biking routes
• Challenging locations for walking and biking
• Desired destinations
• Streets causing concern about the potential for parking loss or congestion
Interactive Map Summary – Phase 1
Summary of Desired Destinations
• Cupertino Library, Eaton Elementary, Apple Park Visitor Center, Jollyman Park, and more.
• Concerns include a lack of safe access, especially for children and seniors.
• Suggestions include better crossings, sidewalks, and trail connections.
279
PC 07-14-2026
279 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 29 City of Cupertino
Summary of Barriers and Gaps
• Unsafe crossings (e.g., Homestead Rd, McClellan Rd, Blaney Ave, Bollinger Rd).
• Missing infrastructure like crosswalks, bike lanes, or pedestrian bridges.
• Visibility issues due to sun glare, parked cars, or trash bins.
• Speeding and traffic flow concerns, especially near schools and intersections.
• Suggestions include adding speed bumps, protected bike lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and better signage.
Summary of Multimodal Balance
• Balancing the needs of different travel modes in areas with:
o High congestion (e.g., Stevens Creek Blvd, Wolfe Rd).
o New developments (e.g., The Rise).
o Suggestions include traffic light synchronization, designated drop-off zones, and better multimodal
planning.
Key Themes
• Bike Infrastructure: There are a limited number of protected bike lanes in the City, a high prevalence of
unsafe intersections for bicyclists, and the desire for trail extensions (e.g., Regnart Creek Trail).
• Pedestrian Safety: There are issues with pedestrian visibility, speeding cars, a need for better signage, and
pedestrian refuge islands.
• Traffic Behavior: There is congestion near schools and shopping areas, illegal or unsafe parking, speeding,
and a failure to yield to pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Roads and Trail Conditions: There is a desire for improving road design for multimodal use, maintaining and
expanding trails, and repainting or redesigning intersections.
Intersections with a High Number of Votes (including direct quotes from comments)
1. Wolfe Road and I-280 (5 comments, 112 votes)
a. “Proposed housing development should have access to Portal Park and schools without using Wolfe
Road.”
2. Stevens Creek and Highway 85 (11 comments, 32 votes)
a. “A safe crossing over CA-85 is desperately needed. Currently the only way across in this area is
Stevens Creek Boulevard, which has fast-moving and lane changing traffic, plus many
exits/ramps/intersections. Best would be to have a crossover on Mary just north of this area to
Fitzgerald or University Way.”
3. Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard (8 comments, 29 votes)
a. “This intersection is really dangerous. I avoid it whenever possible, and it makes reaching businesses
and locations on the other side difficult. It’d be awesome if we could get a protected intersection
here like there are in Fremont or San Jose.”
4. Pacifica Drive and Whitney Way (6 comments, 27 votes)
a. “Drivers often don’t yield to pedestrians.”
5. McClellan Drive and De Anza Boulevard (3 comments, 17 votes)
280
PC 07-14-2026
280 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 30 City of Cupertino
a. “The beginning of the protected bike trail on McClellan going east is unprotected and cars often
drive into the bike lane while making a right turn and even sometimes when going west to east on
McClellan.”
Streets with a High Number of Comments/Votes (including direct quotes from comments)
1. Wolfe Road and Stevens Creek Boulevard (3 comments, 27 votes)
a. “Stevenson & Wolf is extremely congested, especially during the commute hours. With the 3000
apartments from The Rise and Wolfe Road Housing, commuting through this road will be infeasible.
The City should prioritize preemptively to assure larger flow of vehicle traffic on these roads.”
2. McClellan Road (4 comments, 4 votes)
a. “McClellan road where there is a protected bike is lane feels so much safer than it used to. The speed
reduction has helped as well--cars are no longer whipping past as they used to.”
3. Stelling Road (3 comments, 6 votes)
a. “Of the parallel roads to get from Sunnyvale through Cupertino on a bike, this route seems best
balanced between safety and convenience. Though the Hollenbeck portion in Sunnyvale without bike
lanes is not safe. Be good if Cupertino and Sunnyvale could coordinate to make the entire stretch a
bike friendly corridor.”
4. UPRR Tail (4 comments, 4 votes)
a. “Union Pacific Railroad to the Permanente Quarry. As the Quarry will be decommissioned, this
stretch of the railroad will be entirely unused.”
5. Budd Road (2 comments, 3 votes)
a. “Route to drop kids to Lincoln and Kennedy middle school.“
Summary of Streets and Intersections with Many Likes and Dislikes
1. Blaney Avenue and Regnart Creek Trail (Intersection) (2 comments, 22 likes, 0 dislikes)
a. Cars speed at this intersection and do not yield to pedestrians/bicyclists. Requests for additional
traffic calming measures.
2. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Carmen Road (Intersection) (2 comments, 25 likes, 9 dislikes)
a. Support for a pedestrian/bicycle bridge
3. Merritt Drive and Norwich Avenue (Intersection) (1 comment, 11 likes, 77 dislikes)
a. Conflicting opinions about the benefit of creating an access point at this location versus the
preference to keep an existing wall, and direct pedestrians/bicyclists to use the Tamien Innu trail.
4. Kim Street and Regnart Creek Trail (Intersection) (1 comment, 9 likes, 29 dislikes)
a. Conflicting opinions about the benefits of expanding the Regnart Creek Trail, versus privacy concerns
for nearby residents.
5. Stevens Creek Boulevard and Wolfe Road (street) (3 comments, 25 likes, 0 dislikes)
a. Concern about the current level of congestions, and it being exacerbated by forthcoming housing
development.
6. Blaney Avenue (3 comments, 12 likes, 0 dislikes)
a. Request for additional parking at Stevens Creek Boulevard for commercial uses.
281
PC 07-14-2026
281 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 31 City of Cupertino
Online Survey Results
City of Cupertino staff developed an online survey, which was hosted on the project website and promoted by City
communications. A total of 240 survey responses were collected among people who visit, live, go to school, or work in
Cupertino. Results of the survey are presented in the following tables.
Table 4: How did you learn about the project? (Select all that apply.)
Response Number Percentage
From friends 129 54%
City communications 81 34%
Other 32 13%
Yard signs or banners 23 10%
Tabling event 7 3%
Total 272 113%
Table 5: What is your age?
Response Number Percentage
Under 18 7 3%
18-29 19 8%
30-49 81 34%
50-64 96 40%
65+ 37 15%
Total 240 100%
Table 6: How do you travel around Cupertino? (Select all that apply.)
Response Number Percentage
Personal car 227 95%
Walk 153 64%
Bike 84 35%
SV Hopper 31 13%
Rideshare services(e.g., Uber/Lyft) 20 8%
VTA bus 18 8%
Electric device (scooter, bike, or other) 13 5%
Total 546 228%
282
PC 07-14-2026
282 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 32 City of Cupertino
Table 7: If you walk or bike, what purpose is it primarily for? (Select all that apply.)
Response Number Percentage
Exercise/recreation 198 83%
Shopping/errands 113 47%
Commuting to work/school 78 33%
Social visits 74 31%
Connecting to transit 33 14%
Other 10 4%
Total 506 211%
Table 8: How often do you currently walk or bike in Cupertino?
Response Number Percentage
Several times a week 93 39%
Daily 86 36%
Occasionally 34 14%
Rarely 19 8%
Never 8 3%
Total 240 100%
Table 9: On a scale from 1 (not very stressful) to 10 (very stressful), how comfortable do you feel when walking or biking in Cupertin o?
Response Number Percentage
1 - not very stressful 55 23%
2 36 15%
3 16 7%
4 18 8%
5 - neutral 12 5%
6 14 6%
7 28 12%
8 31 13%
9 14 6%
10 - very stressful 16 7%
Total 240 100%
283
PC 07-14-2026
283 of 422
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. 33 City of Cupertino
Table 10. What would encourage you to walk or bike more in Cupertino? (Select all that apply.)
Percentage Not at all Slightly Moderately Significantly
Wider sidewalks 47% 22% 21% 11%
Shorter crossings 46% 19% 18% 17%
Protected intersections 33% 17% 18% 32%
Better street lighting 19% 22% 27% 31%
Traffic calming 25% 21% 22% 32%
Traffic enforcement 33% 26% 19% 23%
Slower traffic speeds 36% 23% 20% 21%
Concrete protected bike lanes 58% 9% 9% 24%
Bollard protected bike lanes 53% 14% 16% 17%
Wider buffered bike lanes 53% 16% 14% 16%
Secure bike parking 44% 21% 16% 19%
284
PC 07-14-2026
284 of 422
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: March 24, 2026
Re: Cupertino ATP: Phase 2 Public Participation Summary
Introduction
Phase 2 of the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP) involved a range of engagement activities throughout the
fall of 2025. Outreach activities were structured to reduce barriers for Cupertino’s residents and visitors by bringing
engagement to them, with central community meetings, virtual engagement, and eight pop-ups at existing
community gatherings. In-person outreach was supported by one online community meeting, a project website, an
interactive web map, lawn signs, banners, and A-frames distributed throughout Cupertino, as well as regular online
communications through various City channels. Summaries of key outreach initiatives are provided in this memo.
The second phase of public outreach ran from August 20 through November 30, 2025. This phase consisted of 13
events, engaging over 600 residents and soliciting over 2,000 comments from the public. This input will be used to
directly inform the draft plan development for the ATP, which will be shared with the public in the spring of 2026.
Summary of Engagement
Event/Input Type Number of Events Participants Total Comments/Interactions
Interactive webmap -- 279 comments 1,671 votes
Community workshop 2 20 50
Pop-up events 8 299 316
Emails -- 1 1
Public hearings 3 40 57
Total 13 639 2,095
285
PC 07-14-2026
285 of 422
Summary of Findings
The following are key findings from public outreach:
Pedestrian Recommendations:
• Main Concerns: Intersection safety issues, particularly conflicts and situations with right-turning vehicles,
limited visibility, and speeding vehicles at major intersections during peak hours.
• Supportive Feedback:
o Proposed Class I shared-use paths, such as the Tamien Innu, Lawrence Mitty Trail, and Union Pacific
Railroad alignment.
o Extending the Lawrence Mitty Trail across Lawrence Expressway to enhance school access.
o Recommended sidewalk network.
Bicycle Recommendations:
• Main Themes:
o Desire for upgrading buffered bike lanes to separated bikeways on high-speed corridors (Homestead
Rd, Bollinger Rd, and Blaney Ave).
o Safety concerns along Stevens Creek Blvd, especially near Highway 85 and De Anza College.
• Supportive Feedback:
o Strong support for shared-use paths as safe alternatives to major roads.
o Positive feedback on protected intersections; suggestions to add more along Stevens Creek Blvd.
o Emphasis on safe school access and reducing conflicts with right-turning vehicles.
General Themes:
• Safety Near Schools: Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle improvements around Lincoln Elementary, Monta Vista
High, and Cupertino High.
• Traffic Calming: Requests for speed reduction measures (speed bumps, raised tables, and rapid rectangular
flashing beacons [RRFBs]).
• Connectivity: Desire to link parks, schools, and neighborhoods via shared-use paths.
• Visibility and Signage: Calls for better intersection visibility and signage.
Phase 2 Outreach Materials
The second phase of outreach for the Cupertino ATP included the following outreach and engagement materials:
• A set of nine poster boards, used during pop-up and workshop events. These boards included:
o One board introducing the project's purpose and displaying the project schedule.
o One board summarizing what was heard during Phase 1 outreach.
o One board showing the bicycle network recommendations.
o One board showing the pedestrian network recommendations.
o One board providing visual examples of bicycle facilities rolling improvements.
o One board providing visual examples of pedestrian facilities walking improvements.
286
PC 07-14-2026
286 of 422
o Three boards providing an analysis on how recommendations were considered: level of traffic stress,
stress-adjusted short trips, and active trip potential.
• A project website, hosting an interactive webmap:
o The interactive webmap solicited input on recommendations for the pedestrian network and for the
bicycle network. The webmap also included a virtual glossary to explore the types of infrastructure
that was recommended for the ATP.
Webmap Summaries
The project website CupertinoATP.org hosted an interactive webmap from August 22 through November 30, 2026.
The webmap solicited input from the public on both pedestrian network recommendations and bicycle network
recommendations. Users could “like” a project, “dislike” it, or leave a comment. In all, there were 279 unique
comments and 1,671 votes on facility recommendations. The overwhelming majority of votes on facility
recommendations were “likes.” Table 1 provides a summary of all the unique comments and votes by type.
Table 1. Summary of Comments by Type
Comment Type Number of Comments Vote Count
Sidewalk 48 178
Pedestrian intersection 117 659
Shared-use path 10 134
Separated bikeway 10 127
Buffered bike lanes 14 171
Bike lanes 2 19
Neighborhood bike routes 70 294
Bike intersections 8 89
Pedestrian Recommendations
There were 165 unique comments regarding the pedestrian recommendations. Among these, 117 comments focused
on the proposed intersection improvements, 48 pertained to sidewalk recommendations, and 10 were related to
shared-use path suggestions. The comments primarily highlighted concerns about dangerous intersections caused by
right turns, limited pedestrian visibility, and speeding vehicles. Participants noted that safety issues at intersections
become more pronounced during commute hours. The intersections most frequently mentioned were Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Bollinger Road, Prospect Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue. Participants were
highly supportive of the proposed Class I shared-use paths along I-280, the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, and Saratoga
Creek. Some participants suggested extending the shared-use path recommendations along Saratoga Creek to cross
Lawrence Expressway so that it can serve as a route to school. Participants were overall supportive of the
recommended sidewalk network. The map in Figure 1 displays the webmap comments by popularity and location.
287
PC 07-14-2026
287 of 422
Figure 1: Webmap Comments Related to Pedestrian Recommendations
Bicycle Recommendations
The webmap received 114 unique comments related to the bike recommendations. Of these, 8 related to
recommended protected intersections, 96 were related to the on-street bike recommendations, and another 10
related to shared-use paths. 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, noting that these paths would offer safe alternatives to major roadways and
intersections. Additionally, there were calls to upgrade the buffered bike lanes on Homestead Road, Bollinger Road,
and Blaney Avenue to separated bikeways, as fast travel speeds were identified as a significant barrier preventing
students from biking to school. Concerns about speeding and unsafe intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard
were highlighted, particularly near Highway 85 and De Anza College. Separated bikeways were requested on Foothill
Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Wolfe Road. Most unique comments were regarding the recommended neighborhood
bike routes, with overall support for the enhanced network serving schools. Comments regarding the recommended
protected intersections were generally positive, emphasizing the importance of reducing conflicts with right-turning
vehicles. Some participants suggested adding protected intersections all along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Figure 2
displays the webmap comments related to the bike recommendations.
288
PC 07-14-2026
288 of 422
Figure 2: Webmap Comments Related to Bike Recommendations
289
PC 07-14-2026
289 of 422
Event Summaries
Pop-Up Events
The Alta Planning + Design project team (with support from City staff) hosted pop-up engagement events at existing
community events, such as festivals and farmers’ markets. These pop-up events met the community where they were
and gathered additional project feedback throughout the project. During Phase 2, Alta staff engaged with people on
an array of poster boards, where participants were invited to learn more about the project, timeline, and safety
infrastructure, as well as provide feedback on the project recommendations. Cupertino City staff conducted
additional pop-up events to supplement Alta’s activities.
At pop-up events, residents were encouraged to provide the following feedback on the bicycle and pedestrian
network recommendations:
• Draw a check mark to indicate that residents like a recommended improvement.
• Trace a route that is currently missing, and residents would like included in the recommendations.
• Add a sticky dot in a location where residents would like to see additional spot improvement.
Residents could also add a sticky note with additional context regarding a traced route and/or sticky dot, or to
provide a more general comment. Key themes among resident feedback are summarized in the event summary.
Table 2: Summary of Pop-Up Participation
Event Date Staffed By Interactions Poster Board
Engagement
Creekside Farmers’ Market September 5 City of Cupertino 30 16
Silicon Valley Fall Festival September 13 Alta and City of Cupertino 90 67
De Anza Farmers’ Market September 21 Alta 50 11
Cupertino Bike Fest September 27 Alta 35 21
Senior Center Octoberfest October 8 City of Cupertino 14 38
Diwali Celebration October 11 City of Cupertino 49 87
Block Captains Conference October 22 City of Cupertino 22 76
Teen Commission November 12 City of Cupertino 9 0
Total 288 316
290
PC 07-14-2026
290 of 422
Creekside Farmers’ Market
On Friday, September 5, 2025, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., the Creekside Farmers’ Market held its weekly market at
Creekside Park. At least 30 people engaged with Alta and City staff, leaving a total of 16 check marks or requests for
additional spot improvements (no traced routes).
Check marks: Residents showed significant support for the shared-use path recommendations on both the bicycle
and pedestrian network recommendation maps. A total of six check marks were drawn on either the Calabazas Creek,
Saratoga Creek, or Memorial Park shared-use path
recommendations. Another popular
recommendation was the Finch Ave separated
bikeway, which had two check marks.
Additional spot improvements: Residents placed
three sticky dots on either the bicycle or pedestrian
network recommendation maps:
• Lazaneo Dr & De Anza Blvd, “sunlight
visibility issues”
• Blaney Ave & Regnart Creek Trail, “add stop
sign”
• Portal Ave & Merritt Dr, “need to make cars
stop”
Figure 3: Creekside Farmers’ Market
291
PC 07-14-2026
291 of 422
Silicon Valley Fall Festival
On Saturday, September 13, 2025, from 10:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m., Rotary Club of Cupertino held its annual
Silicon Valley Fall Festival at Memorial Park. At least
90 people engaged with Alta and City staff, leaving a
total of 52 check marks, requests for additional spot
improvements, or traced routes. Residents also
placed 15 general comments or provided feedback
that are outside of the scope of the ATP.
Check marks: Residents showed significant support
for the Union Pacific shared-use path
recommendation (four check marks), the Stevens
Creek separated bikeway recommendation (five
check marks), and the Tamien Innu shared-use path
recommendation (five check marks). Residents also showed support (two check marks at each location) for the
Foothill Blvd separated bikeway recommendation, Stelling Rd and Alves Dr intersection recommendation, and the
Foothill Blvd and Stevens Creek Blvd intersection recommendation.
Additional spot improvements: Residents placed eight sticky dots on either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. One theme that emerged among the sticky dots is commentary about where the entrance to
the Tamien Innu Trail should be, and mixed feelings about whether the Auburn Dr soundwall should be opened or
remain closed.
Traced route: Residents drew or indicated eight changes to routes on either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. One theme that emerged is the desire to upgrade the existing bike lane on McClellan Ave and
complete the separated bikeway network all the way to Monta Vista High School.
Figure 4: Silicon Valley Fall Festival
292
PC 07-14-2026
292 of 422
De Anza Farmers’ Market
On Sunday, September 21, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m., De Anza Farmers’ Market held its weekly
market at De Anza College. Fifty people engaged with
Alta staff, leaving a total of 10 check marks, requests
for additional spot improvements, or traced routes.
One resident placed a more general comment
outside of the scope of the ATP.
Check marks: Residents placed two check marks on
the network recommendation maps. One was on the
pedestrian network map, indicating support for the
intersection improvements at De Anza Blvd and
Stevens Creek Blvd. The other check mark was on the
bicycle network map, indicating support for the
separated bikeway recommendation for Stevens Creek Blvd.
Additional spot improvements: Residents placed five sticky dots on either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. No themes emerged from the sticky dot locations or comments.
Traced route: Residents drew or indicated three changes to routes on either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. No themes emerged from the routes or comments.
Figure 5: De Anza Farmers’ Market
293
PC 07-14-2026
293 of 422
Cupertino Bike Fest
On Saturday, September 27, 2025, from 9:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m., the City of Cupertino hosted its annual
Bike Fest. Thirty-five people engaged with Alta and
City staff, leaving a total of 19 check marks, requests
for additional spot improvements, or traced routes.
Two residents placed a more general comment
outside of the scope of the ATP.
Check marks: Residents placed 10 check marks on
either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. One theme is that two
people showed support for the buffered bike lane
recommendation on Bollinger Rd.
Additional spot improvements: Residents placed seven sticky dots on either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. One theme that emerged is that there are conflicts between modes at the Stevens Creek Blvd
and Wolfe Rd intersection crossing.
Traced route: Residents drew or indicated two changes to routes on either the bicycle or pedestrian network
recommendation maps. No themes emerged from the routes or comments.
294
PC 07-14-2026
294 of 422
Diwali Festival
On Saturday, October 11, 2025, from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce held its annual Diwali
Festival at Memorial Park. Forty-nine people engaged with
City staff, leaving a total of 87 check marks, requests for
additional spot improvements, or traced routes.
Check marks: Event participants showed significant support
for the intersection improvement recommendations on Finch
Avenue and Bollinger Road, placing a total of 17 check marks
along both corridors. Participants also showed significant
support for the bike intersection improvements and
separated bikeway recommendations on Stevens Creek
Boulevard, placing 25 check marks on the corridor.
Additional spot improvements: One note placed on the pedestrian map said that they would love to see a bike park
in Memorial Park similar to the one at the Great Highway in San Francisco, possibly indicating that the facility could
use improvements for pedestrian safety.
Traced route: There was one traced route on the pedestrian map, indicating that Peninsula Avenue would benefit
from sidewalk rehabilitation.
Figure 7: Diwali Festival
295
PC 07-14-2026
295 of 422
Senior Center October Festival
On Wednesday, October 8, 2025, City of Cupertino staff tabled at the
Cupertino Senior Center for the October Festival. At least 14 people
engaged with City staff, leaving a total of 33 check marks or requests for
additional spot improvements (no traced routes). Residents also placed
five general comments or provided feedback that is outside of the scope
of the ATP.
Check marks: Residents placed 25 check marks on either bicycle or
pedestrian network recommendation maps. On the bicycle network
recommendations, there was significant support for the Tamien Innu,
and on the pedestrian network recommendations, there was significant
support for pedestrian improvements on Foothill Blvd between Stevens
Creek Blvd and Walnut Circle N.
Additional spot improvements: Residents placed eight X marks on
either the bicycle or pedestrian network recommendation maps. It was
noted that Foothill Blvd north of Stevens Creek needs speed limit
reductions.
Figure 8: Senior Center October Festival
296
PC 07-14-2026
296 of 422
Community Workshops
The City and Alta hosted two community workshops, one in person and one virtual. These provided dedicated spaces
for the public to learn about the recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements and engage with project staff
with any questions, concerns, or ideas they had for the ATP.
Table 3: Summary of Community Workshop Participation
Event Date Attendance Comments
Community Workshop #1 (in person) September 29, 2025 13 40
Community Workshop #2 (virtual) October 23, 2025 7 12
Community Workshop #1
The City of Cupertino hosted an in-person workshop on the evening
of September 29 for the Cupertino ATP, held from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m.
Thirteen members of the public attended the workshop. A 35-
minute presentation was given, followed by a 10-minute question-
and-answer (Q&A) session and an interactive poster board activity.
There were seven questions posed during the Q&A.
During the interactive posterboard activity, residents were
encouraged to provide direct feedback on the proposed pedestrian
and bicycle recommendations with sticky notes and by making
notes on a bicycle map and pedestrian map of the city.
Below is a summary of the Q&A session, general comments, and
comments on the poster boards.
Q&A
• Past plans: A resident was curious how the ATP will utilize the recommendations from the 2016 Bike Plan.
• Collision data: A resident wanted to know where we got the collision data from.
• Analysis: A resident wanted to let the project team know that they were impressed with the data and
analysis.
• Prioritization: A resident wanted to know if there would be a section in the ATP that would explain how we
prioritize pedestrian and bicycle recommendations.
• Funding: A resident wanted to know if the City had a budget for these projects or how these projects would
be funded.
• Lane reduction: A resident wanted to know if the recommendations would reduce travel lanes.
• Type of project recommendations: A resident wanted to know if these bicycle and pedestrian
recommendations are all for future projects.
Figure 9: Presentation at Community Workshop #1
:
297
PC 07-14-2026
297 of 422
Overall Themes from Outreach Boards
Pedestrian Network
• Safety near schools: There was mention of prioritizing and ensuring that improving pedestrian access and traffic
calming near schools was prioritized (Lincoln Elementary, Monta Vista High School, Cupertino High School).
• Crosswalk enhancements: There were requests for raised crosswalks and RRFBs at intersections for
pedestrian improvements.
• Traffic calming: The public would like to see elements that would support reducing vehicle speeds on streets
such as McClellan, Finch, and Bollinger.
• Shared-use paths: There was a desire to connect parks, schools, and neighborhoods to shared-use paths and
trails.
Bicycle Network
• Protected bike lanes: Strong demand for buffered or separated bike lanes on major roads (Stevens Creek,
Foothill, Bollinger).
• School access: Emphasis on safe bike routes for students.
• Speed and safety: Comments showed unsafe conditions due to fast-moving vehicles.
Additional Spot Improvements
Build Protected or Separated Bike Lanes
• Wolfe Rd and Miller Ave
• Blaney from Homestead to Bollinger
• Foothill Blvd
• Stevens Creek Blvd to Foothill Blvd
• Bollinger Rd and Clifden Way
• Miller Ave between Calle de Barcelona and Stevens Creek Blvd
Roadway or Crosswalk Improvements
Group A Typology (Signage & Striping)
• Intersections along Rodrigues Ave
• Intersections along Bollinger Dr
• Miller Ave and Rancho Rinconada
• Along McClellan Road
• Mary Ave near Memorial Park and the senior center
Group C Typology (Signal Modifications)
• Finch Ave near schools
• De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd
• S Blaney Rd and Regnart Creek Trail
• Rodregues Ave and Torre Ave
298
PC 07-14-2026
298 of 422
General Comments on Outreach Boards
• Prioritization: Prioritize improvements near schools and high-traffic areas.
• Visibility and signage: Requests for better signage and visibility improvements at intersections.
Community Workshop #2
The City of Cupertino hosted a virtual workshop on the evening of October 23 for the Cupertino ATP, held from 6:00
to 7:30 p.m. Members of the public registered for the event and seven attended. The workshop included a 35-minute
presentation, followed by a Q&A session. There were questions posed in the Q&A chat window, and attendees
provided spoken comments and questions.
Below is a summary of comments and questions from members of the public at the virtual workshop.
General Comments
• Participants were generally supportive of project recommendations.
• Questions about how projects identified in the plan would move through into design and implementation.
• One attendee wanted to understand how plan recommendations would improve traffic safety specifically on
his street; the conversation was moved offline to interface directly with City staff.
• Requests for driver education on right-of-way and yielding for people walking and riding bikes.
Public Hearings
The project team gave presentations at three public hearings between August and November of 2025. Each
presentation dealt with the results of Phase 1 outreach, recommendations for the bicycle and pedestrian networks,
and project prioritization. At each hearing, input was explicitly sought on how prioritization criteria should be
modified to best reflect community priorities for the ATP.
Event Date Attendance Comments
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission August 20, 2025 13 20
Planning Commission September 9, 2025 14 13
City Council Study Session November 4, 2025 10 20
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
The project team gave a presentation to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) on the evening of August 20. Eight
members of the public were in attendance. The purpose of the presentation was to seek BPC feedback on the
prioritization criteria to be applied to the recommended projects.
General Feedback
• Bicycle and pedestrian project scores should be normalized to ensure a single project list.
• Prioritization should reflect safety and access—which were the two most highly ranked goals during Phase 1
outreach.
• Vision Zero and safety should have a higher level of emphasis in prioritization.
299
PC 07-14-2026
299 of 422
• A desire to expand criteria for School Safety scoring.
• Sustainability scoring should include connectivity to surrounding cities.
• Criteria should not include public input, which could spark an “arms race” between supporters and
opponents.
• Criteria should consider future growth and its accompanying demand for trips.
• Requests for better data collection and evaluation of project impacts.
Following the meeting, the BPC issued a formal letter to City staff with their recommendations for prioritization
scoring.
Planning Commission
On Tuesday, September 9, 2025, Alta and City staff presented at the City of Cupertino Planning Commission. Project
staff presented a summary of Phase 1 activities, an overview of what to expect during Phase 2, and requested
feedback on the draft project prioritization criteria. After the presentation, project staff answered clarifying questions
from the commission and received seven public comments (some comments touched on multiple subjects):
Public prioritization feedback:
• Three speakers suggested expanding the distance for the school proximity criteria.
• Two speakers suggested eliminating the public input criteria.
Other public questions:
• One speaker spoke about their challenges with navigating the curb extension at Stevens Creek Boulevard and
De Anza Boulevard as a driver.
• One speaker shared their concern about red light running.
• One speaker shared their concerns about hoverboard and e-bike riding—not stopping at stop signs and riding
on the sidewalk.
After public comment, commissioners provided the following feedback and recommendations regarding the
prioritization criteria:
• Access criteria: Change the school proximity score to “fifteen points if within one-half mile of a school.” Add
“senior housing and senior facilities such as the Senior Center” to the metric definition of “Parks & Other
Destinations Proximity” for pedestrians.
• Sustainability/connectivity goal: Change the “Sustainability” goal name to “Connectivity.” Add 10 points if
it’s within one-quarter mile of a trail or a low-stress facility like Class IV separated bike lanes, making the total
maximum score for this section 20 points instead of 10 points.
• Balance goal: Subtract five points if removal of a substantial number (five or more) of regularly used parking
spaces (used 51% or more of the time). Subtract 15 points if it eliminates a car lane for a substantial (10% or
more) portion of the project length.
• Fairness goal: Delete this goal as it is not an objective, measurable criteria for the positive or negative impact
of a project.
300
PC 07-14-2026
300 of 422
• Additional project recommendations: Add a project to prioritize intersections on the high-injury network
with red-light and speeding cameras. Consider adaptive right-turn-on-red technology where necessary.
Conduct a bike count of existing bicycle facility use as a baseline for major proposed bike projects. Partner
with bicycle education providers (in addition to the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition) to offer routine adult and
child education courses in Cupertino.
The Planning Commission passed a motion for City staff to adjust prioritization criteria according to feedback shared
by the commission.
City Council Study Session
The project team gave an informational presentation to the Cupertino City Council on the evening of November 4. Six
members of the public attended the City Council meeting. The purpose of the presentation and study session was to
seek City Council feedback on the prioritization criteria to be applied to the recommended projects.
General Feedback
• Concern about the cost of the ATP.
• Concern about impacts to people driving cars and a lack of outreach explicitly focused on people who drive
cars.
• Questions about how projects get funded and the consequences of failing to adopt a new ATP.
• Requests for analysis on the trip patterns of car drivers to complement the analysis completed for the ATP.
• Consider the needs of an aging population when looking at the selection and location of active projects.
• The ATP should further prioritize technology-based solutions, such as red-light cameras and adaptive signal
technology.
• Concerns about the safety of e-bikes, especially around pedestrians.
Prioritization Feedback
• A strong preference to adopt the prioritization recommendations of the BPC and the Planning Commission.
• A request for cost-effectiveness as a measure in prioritization.
• A desire to remove public input as a scoring criteria for prioritization, as it may encourage an “arms race”
between supporters and opponents of the plan.
• More clarity is needed on how prioritization metrics are defined and scored.
• A desire to better account for vehicular impacts on arterial roadways.
The City Council introduced and passed a motion for City staff to revise prioritization criteria based on feedback from
the BPC, Planning Commission, and City Council. City staff were instructed to return to City Council to present and
confirm revised criteria.
301
PC 07-14-2026
301 of 422
APPENDIX E
Development of
Recommendations Memo
302
PC 07-14-2026
302 of 422
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: February 26, 2026
Re: Cupertino Active Transportation Memo – Recommendations Network Memo
Introduction
This memo outlines the approach and methodology for developing recommendations for the City of Cupertino Active
Transportation Plan. This methodology uses consistent data and a clear process to apply federal, state, and City design
guidance in an objective and context-sensitive manner. The outcome of this methodology is a set of maps depicting existing
and newly proposed projects. A full list of proposed projects, extents, and facility types is provided in the Project
Prioritization memo.
Proposed improvements will prioritize the development of a complete active transportation network that improves
equitable outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for people of all ages and abilities.
This memo is organized in the following sections:
- Guidelines and Standards – Doucumentation of the local, state, and federal guidelines considered during
development of recommenations.
- Bicycle Recommendation Considerations – Documentation of evaluation criteria used when selecting bicycle
network recommendations.
- Pedestrian Recommendation Considerations – Documentation of evaluation criteria used when selecting
pedestrian network recommendations.
- Existing Active Transportation Network – Documentation of the existing active transportataion network as of Fall
2025.
- Recommended Active Transporation Network – Documentation of recommended active transportation projects.
303
PC 07-14-2026
303 of 422
Guidelines and Standards
Local, state, and federal guidelines and standards to follow for developing recommendations includes:
• City of Cupertino Standard Details (2016)
• Defines standards for street cross sections, roadway striping, and sight triangles at intersections
• City of Cupertino Transportation Study Guidelines (2025)
• Defines how to evaluate a private development project's effect on transportation access and circulation for all travel
modes
• City of Cupertino Complete Streets Policy (2018)
• Informs process for ensuring right-sized, multi-modal treatments for roadways
• Caltrans 7th Edition Highway Design Manual (HDM) – Chapter 1000 Bicycle Transportation Design (2015)
• Informs the design and implementation of bicycle facilities. References FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 94 – Complete Streets Contextual Design Guidance (2024)
• Informs decision to maximize the use of the public right of way to achieve sustainable and equitable mobility
• Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 89-02 – Class IV Bikeway Guidance (2022)
• Informs the design and implementation of Class IV bicycle facilities
• Caltrans Traffic Calming Guide (2023)
• Informs design and implementation of different traffic calming treatments
• FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (2019)
• Informs facility type recommendation based on roadway speed, volume, and urban/rural context
• FHWA Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (2016)
• Informs rural bicycle and pedestrian recommendations
• FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP)
• Informs pedestrian improvements
• FHWA STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings (2021)
• Informs pedestrian and bicycle improvements at trail crossings
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• Supplements pedestrian and bicycle recommendations as needed based on location
• FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide
• Informs road diet feasibility determination
In instances of conflicting guidance between the resources above, precedent will be given to Cupertino City Standard
Details and past practice.
Recommendation Development Phases
Infrastructure recommendations for bicycle projects and for pedestrian projects were developed in two main phases. The
first phase built directly on the Existing Conditions memo and the Needs Assessment memo, using key data to build out an
initial “backbone” network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
• Gaps and Deficiencies - A desktop review of existing facilities (ex. sidewalk, marked crosswalks, and bike
infrastructure) to identify clear network deficiencies and/or gaps.
• Needs Assessment - Streets identified in the key findings for Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress analysis, Bicycle
Level of Traffic Stress analysis, high activity areas identified in Active Trip Potential analysis, and areas with high
indirect trip values in the Stress-Adjusted Short Trips analysis.
• Vision Zero Action Plan - Streets and intersections identified as priority corridors and locations in the 2024 Vision
Zero Action Plan.
• Travel Demand - Streets with transit routes and high-ridership bus stops, areas near schools, commercial corridors,
large employment sites, and recreation sites.
304
PC 07-14-2026
304 of 422
The second phase focused on identifying additional improvements across the rest of the city, based on the considerations
and criteria listed below. This round also incorporated feedback received during public engagement activities from Fall
2025, as appropriate, such as specific locations or infrastructure improvements requested using the online mapping tool
and during in-person outreach events. Community input was evaluated by the project team to identify feasible, cost-
effective solutions to community concerns and ideas.
Recommendation Development Approach
Bicycle Recommendations Considerations
The project team identified context-sensitive bike facility recommendations using a multi-step approach that allows us to
evaluate feasibility while meeting the needs of people bicycling in Cupertino. Following the guidelines and standards
described above (Guidelines and Standards), the process for determining proposed bicycle projects is outlined below:
1. Identify potential improvements (i.e., corridors and intersections)
2. Identify desired bike facility type (class)
3. Evaluate desired bike facility type (class) for feasibility using various criteria (described below)
4. Recommend preferred bike facility based upon feasibility evaluation (step 3 above)
5. If necessary, explore feasible alternatives or the “next best” facility if the preferred bike facility is not determined
to be feasible.
The citeria used to evaluate bicycle network recommendations for feasibility are described in the following sections.
Criterion 1: Plan Context
Recommended bicycle projects from Cupertino’s 2016 Bike Plan were screened for projects that have not been
implemented or that are in the design process. These projects were reviewed for feasibility and used to identify potential
connection enhancements. The project team also screened Cupertino streets that are identified as Countywide Corridor
Connections in the 2025 VTA Countywide Bike Plan (ongoing at the time) and the 2025 Santa Clara County Active
Transportation Plan. This second screening helped ensure the County and Cupertino Bicycle Network recommendations
were aligned.
Criterion 2: Roadway Reconfiguration Feasibility Index & Usable Space
The project team used average daily traffic (ADT) data to identify roadways which may be candidates for roadway
reconfiguration (“road diet”) based o ncurrent traffic volumes, number of lanes, and identified need for greater
accommodation for active transportation modes (i.e., people walking, biking, or rolling). Per FHWA and Caltrans guidelines,
ADT provides a good first determination of whether to consider a road diet. This threshold was used to update
recommendations from the 2016 Bike Plan.
305
PC 07-14-2026
305 of 422
Criterion 3: Roadway Context
Roadway context, such as posted speed limits and traffic volumes, were used to determine the appropriate type of bicycle
facility to recommend. State and Federal guidance suggest, in general, the higher the speed and volume of a roadway, the
more separated and protective the recommended bike facility should be. Figure 1 shows general guidance for how vehicle
volumes and speeds can be taken into consideration to determine a preferred bike facility type.
Criterion 4: Public Input
Public input that was collected during the first round of outreach regarding major barriers, popular destinations, and
commonly used routes was also used to develop bicycle network recommendations.
Public input that was collected during the second round of outreach regarding proposed projects was used to further refine
and update network recommendations for the bicycle network.
Other Considerations
In addition to the three primary criteria described above, Alta considered other factors when determining bicycle
recommendations, including but not limited to:
• High Stress (Level of Traffic Stress 4) roadway segments according to the Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (BLTS)
analysis
• Unique environmental conditions like topography and landscape
• Physical constraints including available right of way
• Barriers such as railroads, highways, and waterways
• Traffic vehicle mix (e.g., whether roadways have a lot of bus or freight/truck traffic)
• Frequency of driveways and intersections
Figure 1. Caltrans DIB-94 Selection Chart
306
PC 07-14-2026
306 of 422
Pedestrian Recommendation Considerations
The project team developed pedestrian network recommendations with intentions to update the recommendations from
the 2018 Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan and support the land use visions as currently presented in the 2024
Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element. The pedestrian recommendstions include both intersection and corridor
improvements for people walking.
Pedestrian Intersection Recommendations
The process utilized to develop the Pedestrian Intersection Recommendations is outlined below.
• Intersection Typologies: The project team developed pedestrian crossing treatment typologies for intersections
based on the City’s street functional classifications – for example, arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, and other
combinations, as well as facilities such as highway on/off ramps and mid-block crossings. Ongoing and/or adopted
project designs for intersections, especially freeway interchanges, were incorporated into this typology approach.
The typologies will include a recommended crossing enhancement design toolbox, for which multiple options
could potentially be used in tandem, depending on the context. The specific mix of recommended treatments was
developed based on demonstrated effectiveness from guidance including FHWA’s Guide for Improving Pedestrian
Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations, FHWA, 2017, Caltrans’ Traffic Calming Guide, Caltrans DIB 94, and
FHWA’s STEP: Improving Visibility at Trail Crossings. Typologies are not intended to be “one size fits all”, but to
provide a starting point for further analysis and to develop a systematic, consistent approach for use of these
treatments throughout the City.
• Compile Previous Project Recommendations: The project team identified previously proposed pedestrian
infrastructure projects from the City of Cupertino’s 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan, 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan,
2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan that have been completed or have
been funded. This set the stage for identifying intersections for potentil improvements.
• Identify Additional Candidate Intersections: The project team developed a list of candidate project locations by
evaluating intersections between arterials and/or collector streets within a one-quarter mile of public schools,
major bus stops, popular City facilities, and selected large employer. Other locations included the on- and off-
ramps at interstate interchanges as well as intersections in the High Injury Network. The project team also
reviewed feedback received during public engagement activities, as appropriate, such as specific locations or
infrastructure types requested using the online mapping tool and during in-person outreach events.
• Assign Typologies to Candidate Intersections and Integrate with Previous Data Collection: Available GIS data was
used to identify the known features of these intersections in the candidate project list, such as traffic controls and
presence of crosswalks. Candidate project locations identified in the previous two steps were further screened for
feasibility and need of pedestrian safety. The intersections in the finalized list were classified according to the
pedestrian crossing typologies and included as the pedestrian intersection recommendations.
Sidewalk Network Recommendations
The following sections summarized the development process of the recommended sidewalk network.
• Assess Sidewalk Network, Gaps, and Connectivity: The project team identified major sidewalk gaps from the
existing conditions analysis, focusing on arterials and collectors. The recommended sidewalk network ensures
sidewalk are on both sides of the roadway if located within one-quarter mile of the following: large-scale
commercial/residential land use; schools; popular City facilities; or high-ridership bus stop as identified in the
existing conditions analysis. Sidewalk recommendations were also considered where barriers that require a
circuitous path of travel between key origins and destinations, including railroad tracks, creeks, and highways.
307
PC 07-14-2026
307 of 422
Transportation Technology Corridors Considerations
The project team developed Transportation Technology Corridors recommendations based on the intersection
recommendations typology C, which include traffic signal and traffic control improvements. Improvements along these
corridors are intended to improve mobility for all travel modes while ensuring safety by reducing conflicts between
motorized travel modes and active modes.
The recommended corridors were identified by reviewing the intersection typology C recommendations at existing
signalized intersections and screening those to determine their appropriateness for potential technology upgrades.
Improvements in this category could include red-light cameras, speed-enforcement cameras (when legally permissible),
adaptive detection for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and audible pedestrian detection.
308
PC 07-14-2026
308 of 422
Existing Active Transportation Network
Existing Bike Network
The City has an existing bikeway network with 50.5 miles of bikeways shown in Figure 2 and Table 1. These include over 25
miles of bike lanes (Class II) and buffed bike lanes (Class IIB), seen on major roads like De Anza Boulevard and Homestead
Road. The existing bike network also consist of a series of bike boulevards (Class IIIB), which account for several miles of
lower-traffic streets that prioritize comfort for users of all ages and abilities. Cupertino’s bike boulevards are routed
through residential areas where traffic is less dense, often supplemented with speed tables, traffic circles, or traffic
diverters. The City has also invested in low-stress shared-use paths (Class I), including trails like the Regnart Creek Trail,
which connect key areas of Cupertino with off-road options for people of all ages and abilities.
Table 1: Summary of Existing Bike Network
Bikeway Facility Mileage
Shared use path (Class I) 6.5 mi
Bike lane (Class II) 18.5 mi
Upgraded bike lane (Class II) 7.1 mi
Bicycle Boulevard (Class III) 8.2 mi
Bike Route (Class III) 6.5 mi
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 4.4 mi
Total 51.2 mi
309
PC 07-14-2026
309 of 422
Figure 2. Existing Bike Network
310
PC 07-14-2026
310 of 422
Existing Pedestrian Network
Cupertino has a relatively well-developed sidewalk network, particularly in the areas around its denser centers and
southern residential neighborhoods. In areas near the Cupertino Village Shopping Center, Main Street, and schools, like
Cupertino High School, sidewalks are common and well-maintained.
The roadway crossings for pedestrians in Cupertino is variable, with a mix of well-designed crossings in higher-density areas
and gaps in infrastructure in lower-density, residential areas. In denser commercial zones crosswalks are generally well-
marked. Areas with higher foot traffic have enhanced crosswalks, including use of Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons
(RRFBs) at uncontrolled intersections. Some residential or less-developed areas, especially in the outskirts of the City,
crosswalks are sparse, requiring pedestrians to cross without adequate infrastructure or walk further to find a safe crossing
point.
311
PC 07-14-2026
311 of 422
Figure 3. Existing Sidewalk Network
312
PC 07-14-2026
312 of 422
Figure 4. Existing Crosswalks
313
PC 07-14-2026
313 of 422
Recommended Active Transportation Network
Recommended Bike Network
The recommended bike network consist of 36.5 miles of new or upgraded bike facilities as shown in Figure 5. The
recommended bike network primarily expands the Neighborhood Bike Routes (Class III & IIIB) which are routed
through residential areas where traffic is less dense, often supplemented with traffic calming elements. Many of the
existing Class II Bike Lanes are upgraded to Class IIB Buffered Bike Lanes or Class IV Separated Bikeways to provide
people on bikes more separation from motor vehicles on major roadways such as Stevens Creek Boulevard or Miller
Avenue. Recommnedations continue the City’s history of investment in its network of Class I Shared-Use Paths to
provide residents and visitors with recreational opportunities and off-street connections. The recommended bike
network also includes eight bike intersections improvements to facilitate crossings at major roadways.
Table 2. Summary of Recommended Bike Network
Bikeway Facility Mileage/Quantity
Shared use path (Class I) 6.3 mi
Bike lane (Class II) 0.5 mi
Upgraded bike lane (Class II) 9.0 mi
Neighborhood Bike Route (Class III & IIIB) 15.1 mi
Separated Bikeway (Class IV) 5.6 mi
Bike Intersection Improvement 8 count
Total 36.5 mi
314
PC 07-14-2026
314 of 422
Figure 5. Recommended Bike Network
315
PC 07-14-2026
315 of 422
Recommended Pedestrian Network
The recommended sidewalk network consist of 3.6 miles of new sidewalks and 115 intersection improvements to bridge
gaps in the existing pedestrian network. The recommended intersection typologies are described below.Table 3, Table 4 &
Figure 6 provide a summary of the recommended pedestrian network.
• Group A – Crossing and Accessibility Improvements: Advanced Stop/Yield Bar, In-Street Crossing Sign, High-
Visibility Crosswalk, Visibility Improvements, Improved Lighting.
• Group B – Roadway Improvements: Pedestrian refuge island, Curb extension, Curb ramp.
• Group C – Traffic Control Improvements: Signal timing changes (LPI, longer ped phase), Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB), New signal.
Table 3. Summary of Sidewalk Recommendations
Sidewalk Recommendation Mileage
Sidewalk on 1-side 2.3 mi
Sidewalk on 2-sides 1.3 mi
Total 3.6 mi
Table 4. Summary of Intersection Recommendations
Intersection Recommendation Typologies Quantity
Typology A 42
Typology B 10
Typology C 9
Typology AB 29
Typology AC 3
Typology BC 7
Typology ABC 15
Total 115
316
PC 07-14-2026
316 of 422
Figure 6. Recommended Pedestrian Network
317
PC 07-14-2026
317 of 422
Recommended Transportation Technology Corridors
The recommended transportation technology corridors consist of technology improvements along major roadways to
ease the movement of motor vehicles and active transportation modes while improving safety for all modes. There
are 11.2 miles of recommended transportation technology corridors shown in Figure 7. Improvements at
intersections along these corridors may include red-light cameras, speed-enforcement cameras (when legally
permissible), adaptive detection for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and audible pedestrian detection. Corridors
for transporation technology corridors were selected in coordination with the Planning Commission and City Council,
with a focus on high-priority corridors from the Vision Zero Action Plan, as well as corridor intersections with Typology
C identified for pedestrian network recommendations.
318
PC 07-14-2026
318 of 422
Figure 7. Recommended Transportation Technology Corridors
319
PC 07-14-2026
319 of 422
APPENDIX F
Recommended Policies
and Programs Memo
320
PC 07-14-2026
320 of 422
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.
321
PC 07-14-2026
321 of 422
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.
322
PC 07-14-2026
322 of 422
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.
323
PC 07-14-2026
323 of 422
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
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
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, biking, and rolling can be expanded and
improved at key locations across the City to further
support active transportation
Accessibility Cupertino Wayfinding
Project
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
Recommended
324
PC 07-14-2026
324 of 422
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
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
reduces crime. 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
Crossing Facility
Improvements
The City may improve crossing facilities by
implementing high-visibility crosswalks, advance stop
or yield markings, pedestrian refuge islands, and
raised crosswalks or intersections These
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
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
325
PC 07-14-2026
325 of 422
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
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
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 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
326
PC 07-14-2026
326 of 422
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 and 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
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. The
City may consider developing 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
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
“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
327
PC 07-14-2026
327 of 422
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 continue to place 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
328
PC 07-14-2026
328 of 422
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
Accessibility and
Fairness
Palo Alto, CA
Santa Cruz, CA
329
PC 07-14-2026
329 of 422
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 Ordinance 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. This roll can be integrated
with the City’s own SR2S parent champion program.
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
330
PC 07-14-2026
330 of 422
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 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
Safety and
Multimodal
Balance
UC Davis
331
PC 07-14-2026
331 of 422
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
332
PC 07-14-2026
332 of 422
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
333
PC 07-14-2026
333 of 422
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
Safety and Fairness San José, CA
334
PC 07-14-2026
334 of 422
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
335
PC 07-14-2026
335 of 422
Policy/Program Description Plan Goal Examples
improvement projects to minimize installation costs
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.
336
PC 07-14-2026
336 of 422
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.
337
PC 07-14-2026
337 of 422
• 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).
338
PC 07-14-2026
338 of 422
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
339
PC 07-14-2026
339 of 422
• 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
340
PC 07-14-2026
340 of 422
APPENDIX G
Prioritization Methodology
Memo
341
PC 07-14-2026
341 of 422
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transit and Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Alyson Goulden, HMH Engineers
Date: March 19, 2026
Re: Cupertino ATP: Cost Estimate Basis
Summary
This memo outlines the basis of costs developed for the City of Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (ATP). Unit costs
were developed for each of the following recommendations based on engineering best practice, precedent costs, and
recent bid estimates for projects with similar proposed elements. These recommendation types are:
• Sidewalk Improvements
• Pedestrian Intersection Improvements
• Bicycle Network & Intersection Improvements
1. OVERALL ASSUMPTIONS
As shown in the final ATP project recommendations, the costs for each project are used to help score
project prioritization. The following represents the cost ranges which define both the scoring and overall
cost scales used to evaluate all project recommendations.
The costs provided in the following memorandum and the ATP project recommendations represent
capital costs only, and do not include contingencies such as minor items, mobilization, inflation, design
fees or other general project contingency. When projects are budgeted into the capital improvement
program and designed under future contract, contingency should be considered.
2. SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalk improvements will consist of new or repaired sidewalks to improve pedestrian safety and
overall continuity of the sidewalk network. The mileage shown below reflects total length of sidewalk;
342
PC 07-14-2026
342 of 422
for example, if a 0.5 mile stretch of road will have sidewalk improvements on both sides, this summary
would count that as 1 mile of improvements.
Costs used for sidewalk improvements utilize a per-mile unit cost which reflects engineering best
practice, precedent costs, and recent bid estimates for projects with similar proposed elements.
Proposed sidewalk improvements vary between one or both sides of the street needing improvements,
for which the unit costs are shown below.
per mile
Assumptions
1 1 $1,056,000 Includes new concrete,
base, and curb & gutter
These unit cost were applied to each proposed sidewalk project. See below for an example calculation.
Carmen Rd, from Janice
Ave to Scenic Blvd
Sidewalk (2 sides) 0.046 $2,112,000 $98,000 5
3. PEDESTRIAN INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Pedestrian intersection improvements require bespoke detailed design specific to each intersection’s
unique existing conditions. Due to this limitation, generalized cost scoring was developed to help
prioritize the projects, and detailed costs will need to be developed when the intersection
improvements become projects in the future. Intersections were broken into typologies to represent
the potential improvement types as shown below:
Improvements • In-Street Crossing Sign
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Visibility/Sightline Improvement
Changes • Curb Extensions
• Curb Ramps
Improvements • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
343
PC 07-14-2026
343 of 422
While overall costs were not calculated for each intersection at this time, unit costs were developed for
the improvement elements listed above, for future cost-estimating use.
per intersection
Assumptions
A Advanced Stop or Yield Bar $1,500 4 legs, 2 lanes each
A High-Visibility Crosswalk $28,000 4 per intersection, ~60ft each
4x R1-6, included in crosswalk cost
A Visibility Improvements (Lighting) $80,000 4 lights
B Median Refuge Islands $21,600 4x, new concrete islands
B Curb Extensions $480,000 drainage, utility relocations, and
B Curb Ramps $80,000 8x ramps
C Traffic Signal $760,000
8 per intersection
Additionally, general cost scales were applied to Intersection Typologies proposed within the ATP to
help score these intersections and inform the overall project prioritization process.
344
PC 07-14-2026
344 of 422
There are two grade separated crossing projects included in the ATP - the Carmen Rd Bridge and the
McClellan Rd Undercrossing. These projects each present unique existing conditions and design
considerations and must be evaluated on an individual basis. While some past work has been done to
consider the concepts behind these projects, both will require a design contract, schematic design and
cost estimating for further evaluation. See the information currently available below for each grade
separated crossing.
over Stevens Creek 2022 for the City of Cupertino. Further detailed cost estimate
Undercrossing of
4. BICYCLE NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS
Bicycle network improvements will consist of new or upgraded facilities (both on-street and off-street)
to improve cyclist safety and overall continuity of the bicycle network. These facility types have been
defined in the ATP. The mileage shown below reflects total length of bike lane; for example, if a 0.5 mile
stretch of road will have improvements on both sides, this summary would count that as 1 mile of
improvements.
(85th percentile)
(85th Percentile)
345
PC 07-14-2026
345 of 422
Costs used for these improvements utilize a per-mile unit cost which reflects engineering best practice,
precedent costs, and recent bid estimates for projects with similar proposed elements. A cost-range of
low to high was developed for each facility type due to the variable nature of these improvements. The
above table uses the 85th Percentile cost of the high-low range to estimate total capital cost. The table
below shows the unit cost ranges as well as the design elements driving each end of the cost. See memo
attachment 1 which provides visual examples of the high-low assumptions described in the table.
(Low - High) per mile
Assumptions
Shared Use Trail 1 $314,800 $3,324,700 Low = 10ft wide AC path + 2ft gravel shoulders
Low = Sharrows, speed markers, MUTCD signage
High = Separation via a raised 2ft concrete median + 1
Low & High = same as above, but 2-way track on one
These unit cost were applied to each proposed bike lane project. See below for an example calculation.
Memorial Park Bike Path
from Christensen Dr to
Mary Ave
Shared Use Trail 0.2 $314,800 -
$3,324,700
$63,000 - $664,000 5 - 2
346
PC 07-14-2026
346 of 422
5. TECHOLOGY CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
Technology corridor improvements will be dependent on each roadway’s unique existing conditions.
Due to this limitation, project-specific costs will need to be developed when the intersection and
corridor improvements become more-defined projects in the future. While overall costs were not
calculated for each intersection at this time, unit costs were developed for the improvement elements
listed above, for future cost-estimating use. These unit costs should be verified with the traffic engineer
when designing these improvements, as these systems have large cost-ranges depending on the
technology chosen and the preferences of local law-enforcement agencies.
Multiple detection technologies have been listed, as the method of detection has not yet been specified
for each intersection.
intersection $150,000 installation, and contract with a camera
operation company.
Annual maintenance/operation costs are
highly dependent on both the camera-
operator contract & the local law-
enforcement agency, potentially up to $60K
Speed-Enforcement Cameras each $25,000
Operating costs are highly dependent on the
Video Detection (vehicles, peds,
bikes)
per
intersection
$50,000 -
$60,000
Adaptive detection added to an existing
signal, 4-leg intersection (4 cameras).
Typically require 4 loops per lane in the
intersection, total intersection cost is highly
Pedestrian Push Button - includes a speaker,
button locating tone, walk/speech message.
Cost includes wiring, etc. When designing,
347
PC 07-14-2026
347 of 422
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: April 15, 2026
Re: Cupertino ATP: Project Prioritization Memo
Introduction
This memorandum summarizes the criteria and methodology used to weigh projects to develop a planning-level
assessment for the prioritization of recommended projects as part of the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan.
The approach to enhancing and expanding the City’s active transportation network must consider what is realistic given
historic and anticipated funding, while also providing the City with flexibility to respond to changing conditions and
opportunities that may arise. The prioritization of proposed projects helps formulate a strategic list to guide the
development of a complete active transportation network that imposes fair outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for
people of all ages and abilities. Prioritization results are flexible concepts that serve as guidelines.
It is recommended that the City re-evaluate the proposed projects and rankings every five years. Over time as development
occurs or other changes to land uses and Cupertino’s transportation network take place, this framework can be used to re-
evaluate remaining projects and continue pursuing implementation of the recommended improvements. For example, a
low-priority spot improvement may be completed ahead of a high-priority corridor project due to immediate funding
opportunities as part of a redevelopment or larger project. Similarly, a high-priority project may require additional study
and funding making it take longer to implement.
Methodology
Focusing public investments into areas with the greatest needs helps to leverage the greatest public benefits from scarce
public dollars for improving transportation access, connectivity, and project sustainability. This project used a weighted
prioritization process for pedestrian and bicycle improvements. Each prioritization scheme included mode-specific analysis
such as bicycle level of traffic stress, collision history and larger community metrics including health and equity needs. The
project prioritization process also placed a high priority on ensuring projects balanced the competing needs of various
travel modes on limited rights-of-way, such as on-street parking and separated bike facilities. Tables 2- Table 4 breakdown
the prioritization matrix for the bicycle network, pedestrian network, sidewalk network, and transportation technology
corridors.
The prioritization criteria were developed in collaboration with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission,
and City Council to ensure the results aligned with Cupertino’s values.
Criteria for prioritization have been aligned with the Goals of the Active Transportation Plan:
-Safety
-Access
-Sustainability
-Multimodal Balance
-Cost Effectiveness
348
PC 07-14-2026
348 of 422
Interpreting Prioritization Results
The overall prioritization rankings provide a suggested order for which projects may provide the greatest community
benefit by improving safety and connectivity. Overall project rankings can help select projects for Active Transportation
Program (ATP) grant applications or for projects to add to the City’s next Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Breaking down
the scores of the different inputs can provide guidance for more specific needs. The rankings are not intended to be a
hardened list but rather a guide for staff and City Council to select projects based on a variety of factors that present
opportunities to move projects forward. Tables 5- Table 9 breakdown the individual scoring for each project within the
bicycle network, pedestrian network, sidewalk network, and transportation technology corridors by goals and criteria.
Projects are scored according to their corresponding tables below (Table 1), then scores are normalized to create a unified
set of scores for a single project list.
Table 1: Project Scoring Modifiers
Project Type Maximum Score Score modifier Consolidated list
maximum score
Bicycle Network
Recommendations
100 1x
100 80 1.25x
90 1.11x
349
PC 07-14-2026
349 of 422
Table 2: 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 30
40
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 10
20
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
350
PC 07-14-2026
350 of 422
Table 3: Pedestrian 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 30
40
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 10
20
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
351
PC 07-14-2026
351 of 422
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 20
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 5
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”. 5
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
352
PC 07-14-2026
352 of 422
Combined Project Prioritization List
The table below represents the unified, consolidated prioritization scores for all projects identified in the Active Transportation Plan. Bike network projects were
sometimes grouped according to logical extents for project implementation. Those projects are represented with a single prioritization ranking and single final score
across multiple rows. Project costs are abstracted to represent the general scale of cost for each project.
The following assumptions are used for cost-scaling, at 2026 dollars:
$ - Under $500,000
$$ - $500,000 - $2,000,000
$$$ - Over $2,000,000
For details on facility types and project descriptions, refer to the Network Recommendations Memo.
Table 5: Combined Project Prioritization List
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
1 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 89.57 $
2 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 89.31 $
3 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 87.95 $
4 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83.32 $
5 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Stelling Rd Alves Dr 81.7 $
6 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd 81.14 $$$
7 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 79.72 $
8 Bike Network Shared-Use Path Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 79.63 $$$
9 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave John Dr 78.49 $
10 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 78.21 $
11 Bike Network Crossing Stevens Creek Undercrossing McClellan Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 78.09 $
12 Bike Network Bike Path San Thomas Aquino/Saratoga
Creek Trail Extension
Stevens Creek Blvd Barnhart Ave 77.83 $$
13 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 75.4 $
14 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave Rodriguez Ave 75.29 $
15 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Miller Ave Phil Ln 75.21 $
16 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 75.21 $
17 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 75.01 $
18 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd 74.81 $$$
353
PC 07-14-2026
353 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
19 Bike Network Shared-Use Path Union Pacific Railroad Trail Prospect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 74.45 $$$
20 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 74.42 $
21 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Richwood Dr Miller Ave 74.04 $
22 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 73.59 $
23 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave 73.59 $$$
24 Bike Network Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 73.09 $
25 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stevens Creek Blvd Portal Ave 73.01 $$$
26 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Stevens Creek Blvd Phar Lap Dr 72.85 $
27 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 72.82 $
28 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek Blvd Torre Ave 72.76 $$$
29 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr 72.45 $
30 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C Bubb Rd McClellan Rd 72.41 $
31 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 72.39 $$
32 Sidewalks 1 side of street Bubb Rd 230' South of Stevens
Creek Blvd
1,200' North of Results
Way
71.35 $
33 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 71.31 $
34 Transportation Technology
Corridors
Stevens Creek Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Miller Ave/Wolfe Rd Foothill Blvd 71.06 $$
35 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 70.99 $
36 Sidewalks 1 side of street McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave 70.64 $
37 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A September Dr McClellan Rd 69.5 $
38 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd I-280 69.12 $
39 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Bollinger Rd Miller Ave 68.9 $
40 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave 68.9 $$
41 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B, C Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 68.84 $$$
42 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C Stevens Creek Blvd Blandley Dr 68.56 $
43 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr 68.53 $
44 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek Blvd Tantau Ave Judy Ave 68.35 $
45 68.05
354
PC 07-14-2026
354 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr $
46 Bike Network Crossing Carmen Rd Bridge Carmen Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 67.98 $$
47 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Forest Ave Blaney Ave 67.96 $
48 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A N Portal Ave Merritt Dr 67.96 $$
49 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 67.7 $$
50 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd 67.7 $$
51 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Calvert Dr Loree Ave 67.42 $
52 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln 67.39 $
53 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 67.22 $
54 Bike Network Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Calle De Barcelona 66.99 $
55 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 66.78 $$$
56 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr 360' East of Stelling Rd 520' West of Beardon
Dr
66.74 $
57 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr 66.74 $
58 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd I-280 66.62 $
59 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 66.55 $$
60 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 66.05 $
61 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave 66.03 $
62 Bike Network Separated Bikeway N Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Beekman Pl 65.34
63.56
68 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane N Stelling Rd Garden Gate Dr Gardena Dr 61.32
355
PC 07-14-2026
355 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
69 Bike Network Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd SR 85 Foothill Blvd 61.11 $$$
Bike Network Separated Bikeway Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd SR 85 $$
70 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 60.99 $
71 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 60.78 $
72 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Vista Dr Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 60.76 $
73 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Lance Dr Bollinger Rd 60.44 $
74 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 59.9 $
75 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Martinwood Way Bollinger Rd 59.74 $
76 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of Echo Hill
Ct
59.39 $
77 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane Lazzeneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 58.72 $
78 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd Harland Dr Westlynn Way 58.49 $
79
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln
57.92
82
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr Dead End
56.6
83 56.41
356
PC 07-14-2026
356 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 300 ft. South of
Perimeter Rd
$
84 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Bandley Dr Valley Green Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 55.75 $
85 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Torre Ave Pacifica Dr 55.56 $
86 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd 54.76 $$
87 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 54.36 $
88 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave 54.01 $
89 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Portal Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Wintergreen Dr 54.01 $
90 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr 52.91 $$
91
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
San Fernando Ave Orange Ave Blackberry Farm
52.79
93 52.36
96
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr
51.59
97 50.93
357
PC 07-14-2026
357 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave $
98 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd Santa Lucia Rd 50.85 $
99 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Terry Way Rodrigues Ave 50.68 $
100 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Bonny Dr Sola St 50.68 $
101 50.48
104
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits (South)
49.8
108
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd
48.3
358
PC 07-14-2026
358 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End $
109 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Merritt Dr Larry Way 47.88 $
110 Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 47.66 $
111 Transportation Technology
Corridors
Stelling Rd Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr I-280 47.33 $$
112 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Granada Ave Orange Ave 47.01 $
113 Transportation Technology
Corridors
Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Wolfe Rd/Miller Ave Calle de Barcelona Homestead Rd 46.35 $$
114
46.05
116 45.22
118 45.14
359
PC 07-14-2026
359 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Santa Teresa Dr Rae Ln Terrace Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd $
119 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr 45.14 $
120 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr 44.55 $
121 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Wheaton Dr Portal Ave 44.1 $
122 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln 43.9 $
123 Sidewalks 1 side of street S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 43.88 $
124 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 43.76 $
125 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Saich Way Alves Dr 43.64 $
126 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 43.4 $
127 Sidewalks 1 side of street Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct 43.3 $
128 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Foothill Blvd Voss Ave 43.28 $
129
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd
42.62
134 41.4
360
PC 07-14-2026
360 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
135 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of Stelling Rd 41.15 $
136 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 41.15 $
137 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Randy Ln Merritt Dr 41.05 $
138 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Merritt Dr Vista Dr 41.05 $
139 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr 40.76 $
140 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Permanente Rd 40.68 $
141 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: C Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr 40.48 $
142 Transportation Technology
Corridors
Homestead Rd Homestead Rd Tantau Ave De Anza Blvd 39.96 $$
143 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 39.72 $
144 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek Blvd 39.38 $
145 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 39.26 $$
146
Bike Network Neighborhood Bike
Route
Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom Dr
38.98
361
PC 07-14-2026
361 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
161 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek Blvd Lockwood Dr 160' East of Lockwood
Dr
33.2 $
162 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek Blvd Lebanon Dr 170' East of Lebanon
Dr
33.2 $
163 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Stevens Creek Blvd 170' East of Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr 33.2 $
164 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Creek Blvd California Oak Way 33.12 $
165 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Regnart Rd 32.91 $
166 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr 32.08 $
167 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Kirwin Ln Erin Way 32 $
168 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A 100' East of Scenic Ct Cir Pathway 31.84 $
169 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave 30.78 $
170 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Scenic Blvd Palm Ave 30.7 $
171 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Foothill Blvd 170' South of Voss Ave Palm Ave 30.49 $
172 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Merriman Rd Voss Ave 29.64 $
173 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 29.56 $
174 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 29.22 $
175 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct 28.94 $
176 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 28.65 $
177 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 28.5 $
178 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Canyon Rd Riverside Dr 28.4 $
179 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave 28.29 $
180 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr 27.7 $
181 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Seven Springs Pkwy 27.41 $
182 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Waterford Dr 27.41 $
183 Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr 26.33
184 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Kim St Bollinger Rd 24.52 $
185 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct 24.24 $
186 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir 314' South of Rancho
Ventura St
24.24 $
187
Bike Network Buffered Bike Lane Homestead Rd S Bernardo Ave Stelling Rd
23.6
362
PC 07-14-2026
362 of 422
Prioritization Category Project
Description
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Final
Score
Project
Cost
188 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, C De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd 23.35 $$
189 Sidewalks 2 side of street McClellan Rd 250' East of Stevens
Canyon Rd
90' west of San
Leandro Ave
22.4 $
190 Sidewalks 1 side of street Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl 21.1 $
191 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Prospect Rd Stelling Rd 19.56 $$
192 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Kim St Kirwin Ln 19.41 $
193 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr 19.36 $
194 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave 18.3 $
195 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd 18.24 $
196 Sidewalks 1 side of street Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd 17.99 $
197 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Dempster Ave Stokes Ave 16.02 $
198 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B, C Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln 15.47 $$
199 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr 14.91 $
200 Sidewalks 2 sides of street De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way 14.6 $
201 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: B, C Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd 14.18 $$
202 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, B, C Via Roncole Prospect Rd 10.85 $$
203 Sidewalks 1 side of street Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct 9.65 $
204 Pedestrian Intersections Typology: A, C Canyon Oak Way Cristo Rey Dr 6.25 $$
363
PC 07-14-2026
363 of 422
Project Prioritization Scoring Results
The tables below show the scoring for each project identified in the Active Transportation Plan. Scoring is broken down by goals and criteria defined in Tables 2-4.
Table 6: Bicycle Network Scoring Breakdown
Location Cross Street
A Cross Street B Project
Description Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Multimodal
Balance
Cost
Effectiveness
Project
Group
Mileage
Final
Score
Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett
Bridge
Bike Path 2.98 30 10 10 5 0.05 2.13 2.45 10 10 0 40 15.05 4.58 20 0 2.98 79.63
Stevens Creek
Undercrossing
McClellan Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
Bike Path 0.05 30 5 10 0 2.32 0.20 0.57 10 10 10 35 12.32 0.77 20 10 0.05 78.09
San Thomas
Aquino/
Saratoga Creek
Trail Extension
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Barnhart Ave Bike Path 0.57 30 10 10 0 0.00 2.83 5.00 10 10 0 40 10 7.83 20 0 0.57 77.83
Union Pacific
Railroad Trail
Prospect Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
Bike Path 2.12 30 10 10 2 0.08 1.26 1.11 10 10 0 40 12.08 2.37 20 0 2.12 74.45
Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd Bike Lane 0.11 30 5 10 2 0.58 2.69 2.82 0 10 10 35 12.58 5.51 10 10 0.11 73.09
Terry Way Rodrigues
Ave
Shelly Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.05 10 0 10 2 2.98 3.41 3.15 10 10 10 10 14.98 6.56 20 10 0.63 68.05
Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.25 10 0 10 2 0.72 3.41 3.15 10 10 10 10 12.72 6.56 20 10 0.63 68.05
Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.17 30 5 10 5 0.69 4.21 4.05 10 10 10 35 15.69 8.26 20 10 0.63 68.05
Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.08 10 0 10 2 1.74 3.41 3.15 10 10 10 10 13.74 6.56 20 10 0.63 68.05
Bonny Dr Pepper Tree
Ln
McClellan Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.08 10 0 10 5 1.69 3.41 3.15 10 10 10 10 16.69 6.56 20 10 0.63 68.05
Carmen Rd
Bridge
Carmen Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
Bike Path 0.05 30 5 10 0 2.98 0.00 0.00 10 10 0 35 12.98 0 20 0 0.05 67.98
Miller Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Calle De
Barcelona
Bike Lane 0.39 30 10 0 0 0.32 3.25 3.42 0 10 10 40 0.32 6.67 10 10 0.39 66.99
N Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Beekman Pl Buffered Bike
Lane
1.51 30 5 10 0 0.11 2.07 2.14 0 10 5 35 10.11 4.21 10 5 1.92 65.34
N Blaney Ave Homestead
Rd
Beekman Pl Separated
Bikeway
0.41 30 5 10 0 0.14 2.12 1.84 0 10 10 35 10.14 3.95 10 10 1.92 65.34
Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.20 30 0 0 0 0.52 1.40 1.64 10 10 10 30 0.52 3.04 20 10 0.20 63.56
N Stelling Rd Garden Gate
Dr
Gardena Dr Buffered Bike
Lane
0.44 30 5 10 5 0.31 2.86 3.56 0 10 5 35 15.31 6.42 10 5 0.73 61.32
364
PC 07-14-2026
364 of 422
Location Cross Street
A Cross Street B Project
Description Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Multimodal
Balance
Cost
Effectiveness
Project
Group
Mileage
Final
Score
N Stelling Rd Homestead
Rd
Gardena Dr Separated
Bikeway
0.28 10 5 0 5 0.26 1.96 2.67 0 10 10 15 5.26 4.62 10 10 0.73 61.32
Stevens Creek
Blvd
SR 85 Foothill Blvd Separated
Bikeway
1.07 30 10 10 2 3.17 0.89 1.01 0 0 0 40 15.17 1.9 0 0 2.01 61.11
Stevens Creek
Blvd
De Anza Blvd SR 85 Separated
Bikeway
0.94 30 10 10 5 3.15 4.07 3.47 0 0 0 40 18.15 7.55 0 0 2.01 61.11
Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.49 10 0 10 5 0.19 3.03 2.56 10 10 10 10 15.19 5.59 20 10 0.49 60.78
Vista Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd
Forest Ave Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.25 10 0 10 2 0.63 4.66 3.48 10 10 10 10 12.63 8.13 20 10 0.25 60.76
Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.86 10 5 10 0 0.07 2.08 2.75 10 10 10 15 10.07 4.83 20 10 0.86 59.90
Lazzeneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike
Lane
0.11 10 5 0 5 0.59 4.66 3.48 10 10 10 15 5.59 8.13 20 10 0.11 58.72
Bollinger Rd Harland Dr Westlynn Way Buffered Bike
Lane
1.65 30 10 0 0 0.09 1.64 1.77 0 10 5 40 0.09 3.4 10 5 1.65 58.49
Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.11 10 0 10 0 0.46 0.96 2.03 10 10 10 10 10.46 2.99 20 10 0.59 57.92
Stendhal Ln Shadygrove
Dr
Phil Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.21 10 5 10 0 0.42 0.96 2.03 10 10 10 15 10.42 2.99 20 10 0.59 57.92
Phil Ln Finch Ave Stendhal Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.02 10 5 10 0 5.00 1.19 2.37 10 10 10 15 15 3.57 20 10 0.59 57.92
Hyde Ave Shadygrove
Dr
Bollinger Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.25 10 5 10 0 0.14 1.76 2.19 10 10 10 15 10.14 3.95 20 10 0.59 57.92
S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl Buffered Bike
Lane
1.00 30 5 0 0 0.06 0.93 1.13 0 10 10 35 0.06 2.06 10 10 1.00 57.12
Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr
Dead End
Bike Path 0.04 10 5 10 0 0.90 1.34 1.27 10 10 10 15 10.9 2.61 20 10 0.65 56.60
Orograde Pl Stelling Rd Festival Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.02 10 5 10 0 2.18 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 15 12.18 3.91 20 10 0.65 56.60
September Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.28 10 0 10 0 0.21 2.14 1.60 10 10 10 10 10.21 3.74 20 10 0.65 56.60
Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr
Dead End
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.18 10 5 10 0 0.28 1.45 1.08 10 10 10 15 10.28 2.52 20 10 0.65 56.60
Festival Dr Stelling Rd Festival Dr
Dead End
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.12 10 5 10 0 0.53 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 15 10.53 3.91 20 10 0.65 56.60
N Wolfe Rd Homestead
Rd
Pruneridge Ave Buffered Bike
Lane
0.24 30 5 0 0 0.09 3.69 1.98 0 0 5 35 0.09 5.67 0 5 1.02 56.41
365
PC 07-14-2026
365 of 422
Location Cross Street
A Cross Street B Project
Description Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Multimodal
Balance
Cost
Effectiveness
Project
Group
Mileage
Final
Score
N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
300 ft. South
of Perimeter
Rd
Buffered Bike
Lane
0.33 30 10 10 0 0.30 2.83 3.16 0 0 5 40 10.3 5.98 0 5 1.02 56.41
N Wolfe Rd Pruneridge
Ave
300 ft. South
of Perieter Rd
Separated
Bikeway
0.45 30 5 10 0 0.19 1.79 1.57 0 0 10 35 10.19 3.36 0 10 1.02 56.41
Bandley Dr Valley Green
Dr
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.66 10 5 0 5 0.24 2.69 2.82 10 10 10 15 5.24 5.51 20 10 0.66 55.75
Portal Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Wintergreen
Dr
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.21 10 5 10 0 0.73 2.41 2.78 10 10 10 15 10.73 5.2 20 10 0.40 54.01
Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.19 10 0 0 0 0.97 2.41 2.78 10 10 10 10 0.97 5.2 20 10 0.40 54.01
Janice Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Carmen Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.26 10 5 10 0 0.50 0.41 0.65 10 10 10 15 10.5 1.06 20 10 1.18 52.79
Carmen Rd -
Scenic Blvd
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Scenic Cir
Pathway
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.62 10 0 10 0 0.26 0.20 0.57 10 10 10 10 10.26 0.77 20 10 1.18 52.79
San Fernando
Ave
Orange Ave Blackberry
Farm
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.30 10 0 10 0 0.56 1.39 1.28 10 10 10 10 10.56 2.66 20 10 1.18 52.79
Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek
Blvd
Separated
Bikeway
0.47 10 10 10 0 0.20 3.48 3.77 0 10 5 20 10.2 7.24 10 5 0.47 52.44
Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.51 10 0 10 0 0.24 1.41 0.45 10 10 10 10 10.24 1.86 20 10 0.78 52.36
Fort Baker Dr Hyannisport
Dr
Presidio Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.10 10 0 10 0 1.38 1.41 0.45 10 10 10 10 11.38 1.86 20 10 0.78 52.36
Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.18 10 0 10 0 0.78 1.41 0.45 10 10 10 10 10.78 1.86 20 10 0.78 52.36
Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd
Homestead Rd Separated
Bikeway
0.96 10 10 10 0 0.09 0.95 1.14 0 10 10 20 10.09 2.09 10 10 0.96 52.18
Memorial Park
Bike Path
Christensen
Dr
Mary Ave Bike Path 0.20 10 5 0 5 0.72 2.75 2.98 10 10 5 15 5.72 5.74 20 5 1.11 51.59
Memorial Park
Bike Path
Memorial
Park
Alves St Bike Path 0.09 10 5 0 5 1.55 5.00 4.96 10 10 5 15 6.55 9.96 20 5 1.11 51.59
Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.20 10 0 10 2 0.64 0.51 1.01 10 10 5 10 12.64 1.52 20 5 1.11 51.59
Ann Arbor Ct Christensen
Dr
Ann Arbor Ave Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.07 0 0 0 2 1.96 0.51 1.01 10 10 5 0 3.96 1.52 20 5 1.11 51.59
Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.55 10 5 0 5 0.27 4.83 4.22 10 10 5 15 5.27 9.04 20 5 1.11 51.59
366
PC 07-14-2026
366 of 422
Location Cross Street
A Cross Street B Project
Description Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Multimodal
Balance
Cost
Effectiveness
Project
Group
Mileage
Final
Score
Johnson Ave Wunderlich
Dr
Bollinger Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.23 10 5 0 0 0.15 1.45 2.18 10 10 10 15 0.15 3.63 20 10 0.42 50.93
Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.18 10 0 10 0 0.05 1.32 2.28 10 10 10 10 10.05 3.6 20 10 0.42 50.93
Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd
Santa Lucia Rd Buffered Bike
Lane
0.69 10 10 10 0 0.19 0.34 0.32 0 10 10 20 10.19 0.66 10 10 0.69 50.85
Kim St Kirwin Ln Bollinger Rd Bike Path 0.06 10 5 0 0 1.23 1.93 1.99 0 10 10 15 1.23 3.91 10 10 0.62 50.48
Westacres Dr McClellan Rd Shelly Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.20 10 0 0 2 0.83 3.41 3.15 10 10 10 10 2.83 6.56 20 10 0.62 50.48
Kim St Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.06 10 5 0 0 1.13 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 15 1.13 3.91 20 10 0.62 50.48
De Foe Dr Kim St Dumas Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.13 10 0 10 0 0.39 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 10 10.39 3.91 20 10 0.62 50.48
Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.16 10 5 0 2 0.83 2.67 2.57 10 10 10 15 2.83 5.24 20 10 0.62 50.48
Heatherwood
Dr
Tuscany Pl Colony Hills Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.05 10 0 0 0 1.27 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 10 1.27 3.91 20 10 0.99 49.80
Tuscany Pl Heatherwood
Dr
Jollyman Park Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.05 10 0 0 0 1.32 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 10 1.32 3.91 20 10 0.99 49.80
Colony Hills Ln Heatherwood
Dr
Fallenleaf Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.15 10 0 0 0 0.44 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 10 0.44 3.91 20 10 0.99 49.80
Tiptoe Ln Kentwood
Ave
Coloy Hills Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.04 10 0 0 0 1.65 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 10 1.65 3.91 20 10 0.99 49.80
Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits
(South)
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.30 10 0 0 0 0.20 2.65 2.34 10 10 10 10 0.2 4.98 20 10 0.99 49.80
Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom
Dr
Stelling Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.09 10 5 10 0 0.43 2.04 1.79 10 10 10 15 10.43 3.83 20 10 0.99 49.80
Rose Blossom
Dr
McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.32 10 0 10 2 0.19 2.14 1.60 10 10 10 10 12.19 3.74 20 10 0.99 49.80
Varian Park
Path
Varian Way Amelia Ct Bike Path 0.10 10 5 10 0 0.91 0.16 0.75 10 10 10 15 10.91 0.91 20 10 1.06 48.30
Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.11 0 10 10 0 0.48 1.28 1.55 10 10 10 10 10.48 2.83 20 10 1.06 48.30
Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.04 0 0 10 0 1.28 1.28 1.55 10 10 10 0 11.28 2.83 20 10 1.06 48.30
Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.16 0 0 10 0 0.32 1.28 1.55 10 10 10 0 10.32 2.83 20 10 1.06 48.30
367
PC 07-14-2026
367 of 422
Location Cross Street
A Cross Street B Project
Description Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Multimodal
Balance
Cost
Effectiveness
Project
Group
Mileage
Final
Score
Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.25 0 0 10 0 0.30 0.72 1.15 10 10 10 0 10.3 1.87 20 10 1.06 48.30
Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.05 0 0 10 0 1.75 0.16 0.75 10 10 10 0 11.75 0.91 20 10 1.06 48.30
Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.06 10 0 10 0 1.99 0.16 0.75 10 10 10 10 11.99 0.91 20 10 1.06 48.30
Crescent Rd -
Hillcrest Rd
Amelia Ct Cupertino Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.19 10 0 10 0 0.54 0.39 0.74 10 10 10 10 10.54 1.13 20 10 1.06 48.30
Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.07 10 0 10 0 1.39 0.41 0.65 10 10 10 10 11.39 1.06 20 10 1.06 48.30
Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.04 10 0 10 0 3.02 0.20 0.57 10 10 10 10 13.02 0.77 20 10 1.06 48.30
Alderbrook Ln Creekside
Park
Bollinger Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.36 10 5 0 0 0.24 0.73 1.69 10 10 10 15 0.24 2.42 20 10 0.36 47.66
Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.30 0 5 10 0 0.02 0.52 0.48 10 10 10 5 10.02 0.99 20 10 0.81 46.05
Voss Ave Lockwood Dr Foothill Blvd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.25 0 0 10 0 0.40 0.41 0.22 10 10 10 0 10.4 0.64 20 10 0.81 46.05
Palm Ave Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.25 10 0 10 0 0.46 0.31 0.40 10 10 10 10 10.46 0.7 20 10 0.81 46.05
Kirwin Ln Erin Way Kim St Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.22 10 0 0 0 0.34 2.04 1.79 10 10 10 10 0.34 3.83 20 10 0.27 45.22
Erin Way Stelling Rd Kirwin Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.05 10 5 0 0 1.02 2.14 1.60 10 10 10 15 1.02 3.74 20 10 0.27 45.22
Linda Vista Dr Hyannisport
Dr
Santa Teresa
Dr
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.51 10 0 10 0 0.24 0.82 0.20 10 10 10 10 10.24 1.02 20 10 1.28 45.14
Terrace Dr Santa Teresa
Dr
Bubb Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.34 10 0 0 0 0.17 0.49 0.25 10 10 10 10 0.17 0.75 20 10 1.28 45.14
Santa Teresa
Dr
Rae Ln Terrace Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.43 0 0 10 0 0.29 0.82 0.20 10 10 10 0 10.29 1.02 20 10 1.28 45.14
Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd Buffered Bike
Lane
0.57 10 5 0 0 0.09 2.17 1.99 0 10 10 15 0.09 4.16 10 10 1.07 42.62
Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.50 10 5 0 0 0.08 0.63 0.72 10 10 10 15 0.08 1.35 20 10 1.07 42.62
Jamestown Dr Plum Blossom
Dr
Prospect Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.26 0 5 0 0 0.19 2.83 3.29 10 10 10 5 0.19 6.12 20 10 1.15 41.40
Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.06 0 0 0 0 0.94 2.17 1.99 10 10 10 0 0.94 4.16 20 10 1.15 41.40
368
PC 07-14-2026
368 of 422
Location Cross Street
A Cross Street B Project
Description Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Multimodal
Balance
Cost
Effectiveness
Project
Group
Mileage
Final
Score
Gardenside Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.17 0 5 0 0 0.36 2.17 1.99 10 10 10 5 0.36 4.16 20 10 1.15 41.40
Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Blossom
Dr
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.21 0 5 0 0 0.23 1.90 2.29 10 10 10 5 0.23 4.19 20 10 1.15 41.40
Squirewood
Way
Scotland Dr Stelling Rd Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.14 10 5 0 0 0.36 1.93 1.99 10 10 10 15 0.36 3.91 20 10 1.15 41.40
Plum Blossom
Dr
Primrose Way Jamestown Dr Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.09 0 0 0 0 0.57 2.83 3.29 10 10 10 0 0.57 6.12 20 10 1.15 41.40
Scotland Dr Squirewood
Way
Kingsbury Pl Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.23 10 0 0 0 0.27 1.45 1.64 10 10 10 10 0.27 3.09 20 10 1.15 41.40
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Foothill Blvd Permanente
Rd
Buffered Bike
Lane
0.62 10 10 10 0 0.13 0.22 0.34 0 0 10 20 10.13 0.55 0 10 0.62 40.68
Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St Buffered Bike
Lane
0.14 10 5 0 0 0.81 1.93 1.99 0 10 10 15 0.81 3.91 10 10 0.14 39.72
Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom
Dr
Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.06 0 0 0 0 0.94 2.83 3.29 10 10 10 0 0.94 6.12 20 10 0.34 38.98
Waterford Dr Stelling Rd Primrose Way Neighborhood
Bike Route
0.28 0 5 0 0 0.17 1.90 2.29 10 10 10 5 0.17 4.19 20 10 0.34 38.98
De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr Buffered Bike
Lane
0.18 0 10 0 0 0.27 3.36 2.69 0 0 10 10 0.27 6.06 0 10 0.18 26.33
Homestead Rd Crist Dr El Sereno Ave Buffered Bike
Lane
0.11 0 0 0 0 0.10 0.50 0.75 0 0 5 0 0.1 1.25 0 5 1.60 23.60
Homestead Rd S Bernardo
Ave
Stelling Rd Buffered Bike
Lane
0.91 10 5 0 5 0.08 1.72 2.14 0 0 5 15 5.08 3.86 0 5 1.60 23.60
Homestead Rd El Sereno Ave S Bernardo Ave Separated
Bikeway
0.59 0 5 0 2 0.02 0.44 1.04 0 0 10 5 2.02 1.48 0 10 1.60 23.60
369
PC 07-14-2026
369 of 422
Table 7: Pedestrian Intersection Network Scoring Breakdown
Cross Street A Cross Street B Improvement Type Safety Access Sustainability Cost Effectiveness Final Score
Carmen Rd Bridge Carmen Rd Crossing 30 5 10 0 3.64 0.40 0.52 0 35 13.64 0.92 0 67.98
Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln B, C 0 5 0 0 1.36 0.52 0.50 5 5 1.36 1.02 5 15.48
Stelling Rd Alves Dr B 30 0 10 5 3.18 3.59 3.59 10 30 18.18 7.18 10 81.70
Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd A, B 30 5 10 0 4.09 0.40 0.52 10 35 14.09 0.92 10 75.01
Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd B, C 30 10 0 5 3.64 3.35 2.86 5 40 8.64 6.21 5 74.81
Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave A, B, C 30 5 10 0 3.64 2.81 2.42 5 35 13.64 5.23 5 73.59
Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd A, B, C 30 10 0 2 0.91 5.00 5.00 5 40 2.91 10 5 72.39
De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave C 30 10 10 0 0.45 3.35 2.86 10 40 10.45 6.21 10 83.33
De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr A 30 10 10 5 0.45 3.35 2.86 10 40 15.45 6.21 10 89.58
Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln A 30 5 10 5 3.18 3.59 3.59 10 35 18.18 7.18 10 87.95
Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd B, C 30 5 10 5 2.73 3.59 3.59 5 35 17.73 7.18 5 81.14
Bollinger Rd Miller Ave B 30 10 0 0 0.91 2.22 1.99 10 40 0.91 4.21 10 68.90
Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr A 30 0 10 0 2.27 1.40 1.15 10 30 12.27 2.55 10 68.53
Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct A, B 30 10 0 0 1.82 0.52 0.50 10 40 1.82 1.02 10 66.05
Bubb Rd Columbus Ave A, B 30 5 10 0 0.91 0.45 0.43 10 35 10.91 0.88 10 70.99
Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr A, B, C 30 0 0 0 3.18 2.15 2.01 5 30 3.18 4.15 5 52.91
Miller Ave Phil Ln A 30 5 10 0 3.18 1.01 0.98 10 35 13.18 1.99 10 75.21
Johnson Ave Tilson Ave A 30 0 0 0 0.00 1.46 2.04 10 30 0 3.49 10 54.36
Calvert Dr Loree Ave A, B 30 0 10 0 0.45 1.46 2.04 10 30 10.45 3.49 10 67.43
Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave A, B 0 10 0 0 3.18 0.77 0.67 10 10 3.18 1.44 10 30.78
Stevens Canyon Rd Riverside Dr A, B 0 10 0 0 2.27 0.23 0.23 10 10 2.27 0.45 10 28.40
Stevens Creek Blvd California Oak Way A, B 0 5 10 0 0.00 0.81 0.69 10 5 10 1.5 10 33.13
McClellan Rd Undercrossing Stevens Creek Trail Crossing 30 5 10 0 4.55 0.23 0.23 0 35 14.55 0.45 0 78.09
Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr B 0 0 10 0 3.64 1.08 0.95 10 0 13.64 2.02 10 32.08
McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln A, B 30 5 10 0 4.09 0.23 0.23 10 35 14.09 0.45 10 74.43
Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr A 0 10 10 0 1.36 0.71 0.85 10 10 11.36 1.56 10 41.15
Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek Blvd A, B, C 10 10 10 0 2.27 0.81 0.69 5 20 12.27 1.5 5 48.46
SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd A, B, C 30 10 0 2 2.73 2.16 2.27 5 40 4.73 4.43 5 67.70
SR 85 Stevens Creek Blvd A, B, C 30 10 0 2 2.73 2.16 2.27 5 40 4.73 4.43 5 67.70
Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd B, C 30 10 0 2 3.64 2.16 2.27 5 40 5.64 4.43 5 68.84
Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr C 10 10 0 0 1.36 0.52 0.50 10 20 1.36 1.02 10 40.48
September Dr McClellan Rd A 30 0 10 0 1.36 2.28 1.96 10 30 11.36 4.24 10 69.50
Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr C 30 0 10 2 3.18 1.29 1.50 10 30 15.18 2.78 10 72.45
Stelling Rd Gardena Dr A 30 0 10 2 2.27 1.29 1.50 10 30 14.27 2.78 10 71.31
Stelling Rd Homestead Rd A, B, C 30 5 0 5 1.36 3.52 3.54 5 35 6.36 7.06 5 66.78
De Anza Blvd I-280 C 30 10 0 0 0.91 1.12 1.28 10 40 0.91 2.39 10 66.63
De Anza Blvd I-280 C 30 10 0 2 0.91 1.12 1.28 10 40 2.91 2.39 10 69.13
De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave C 30 10 10 2 4.55 2.66 2.24 10 40 16.55 4.9 10 89.31
Blaney Ave Rodriguez Ave A, B 30 0 10 0 5.00 2.81 2.42 10 30 15 5.23 10 75.29
Terry Way Rodrigues Ave A 10 0 10 2 3.64 2.66 2.24 10 10 15.64 4.9 10 50.68
De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd A, C 0 10 0 0 0.45 1.62 1.61 5 10 0.45 3.23 5 23.35
Stelling Rd Waterford Dr A 0 10 0 0 0.91 0.52 0.50 10 10 0.91 1.02 10 27.41
370
PC 07-14-2026
370 of 422
Cross Street A Cross Street B Improvement Type Safety Access Sustainability Cost Effectiveness Final Score
Stelling Rd Seven Springs Pkwy A, B 0 10 0 0 0.91 0.52 0.50 10 10 0.91 1.02 10 27.41
Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr A 0 0 0 0 0.91 0.52 0.50 10 0 0.91 1.02 10 14.91
Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr A, B 0 5 0 0 0.00 0.28 0.21 10 5 0 0.49 10 19.36
Bubb Rd Regnart Rd A, B 10 5 0 0 0.45 0.45 0.43 10 15 0.45 0.88 10 32.91
Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave A 0 0 10 0 2.27 0.20 0.16 10 0 12.27 0.36 10 28.29
Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd A, C 30 0 10 0 4.55 1.08 0.95 5 30 14.55 2.02 5 64.46
Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr A 10 0 10 0 4.09 1.08 0.95 10 10 14.09 2.02 10 45.14
Bubb Rd McClellan Rd C 30 5 10 0 0.91 1.08 0.95 10 35 10.91 2.02 10 72.41
Scenic Blvd Palm Ave A 0 0 10 0 3.64 0.40 0.52 10 0 13.64 0.92 10 30.70
100' East of Scenic Ct Cir Pathway A 0 0 10 0 4.55 0.40 0.52 10 0 14.55 0.92 10 31.84
Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave A 10 0 10 0 4.09 0.40 0.52 10 10 14.09 0.92 10 43.76
Foothill Blvd Voss Ave A 0 10 10 0 3.18 0.77 0.67 10 10 13.18 1.44 10 43.28
Merriman Rd Voss Ave A 0 0 10 0 2.27 0.77 0.67 10 0 12.27 1.44 10 29.64
Lockwood Dr Voss Ave A 0 0 10 0 1.36 0.77 0.67 10 0 11.36 1.44 10 28.50
Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek Blvd A, B 0 10 10 0 0.00 0.81 0.69 10 10 10 1.5 10 39.38
Ainsworth Dr Bahl St B 0 0 10 0 1.82 0.71 0.85 10 0 11.82 1.56 10 29.23
Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr A 0 0 10 0 1.36 0.71 0.85 10 0 11.36 1.56 10 28.65
Dempster Ave Stokes Ave A 0 0 0 0 2.27 0.26 0.28 10 0 2.27 0.55 10 16.03
Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave A 0 0 0 0 4.09 0.26 0.28 10 0 4.09 0.55 10 18.30
Mary Ave Lubec St B 0 5 10 0 3.18 0.46 0.46 10 5 13.18 0.91 10 36.36
Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr B 10 0 10 2 2.73 0.46 0.46 10 10 14.73 0.91 10 44.55
Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr A, B 30 0 10 2 4.09 1.29 1.50 10 30 16.09 2.78 10 73.59
Stelling Rd Orion Ln A, B 30 5 0 0 1.36 1.80 1.45 10 35 1.36 3.26 10 62.03
Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln B 30 5 10 0 0.00 1.80 1.45 10 35 10 3.26 10 72.83
Kirwin Ln Erin Way A 10 0 0 0 1.36 2.28 1.96 10 10 1.36 4.24 10 32.00
Kim St Kirwin Ln A, B 0 0 0 0 2.27 1.80 1.45 10 0 2.27 3.26 10 19.41
Kim St Bollinger Rd A, B 0 5 0 0 1.36 1.80 1.45 10 5 1.36 3.26 10 24.53
Kirwin Ln Felton Way A 10 0 0 0 3.64 2.66 2.24 10 10 3.64 4.9 10 35.68
Saich Way Alves Dr A, B 10 0 0 5 2.73 3.59 3.59 10 10 7.73 7.18 10 43.64
Granada Ave Orange Ave A 10 0 10 0 3.18 2.16 2.27 10 10 13.18 4.43 10 47.01
Imperial Ave Olive Ave A 10 0 0 0 2.73 2.16 2.27 10 10 2.73 4.43 10 33.95
Alves Dr De Anza Blvd A 30 10 0 5 1.36 3.35 2.86 10 40 6.36 6.21 10 78.21
Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd C 30 5 10 0 2.73 3.24 2.81 10 35 12.73 6.05 10 79.73
Richwood Dr Miller Ave A, B 30 10 0 0 3.18 3.24 2.81 10 40 3.18 6.05 10 74.04
Miller Ave Greenwood Dr A, B 30 5 0 0 2.73 3.24 2.81 10 35 2.73 6.05 10 67.23
Bollinger Rd Clifden Way A, B, C 30 10 0 0 4.09 2.15 2.01 5 40 4.09 4.15 5 66.55
Martinwood Way Bollinger Rd A, B 30 0 0 0 3.64 2.15 2.01 10 30 3.64 4.15 10 59.74
Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave A 30 5 0 0 0.91 2.15 2.01 10 35 0.91 4.15 10 62.58
Blaney Ave John Dr A, B 30 5 10 0 3.64 2.15 2.01 10 35 13.64 4.15 10 78.49
Forest Ave Blaney Ave A, B 30 0 10 0 1.82 1.40 1.15 10 30 11.82 2.55 10 67.96
Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln A, B 30 0 10 0 1.36 1.40 1.15 10 30 11.36 2.55 10 67.39
Stevens Creek Blvd Portal Ave A, B, C 30 5 10 0 3.18 2.81 2.42 5 35 13.18 5.23 5 73.01
Wheaton Dr Portal Ave A 10 0 10 0 2.73 1.40 1.15 10 10 12.73 2.55 10 44.10
371
PC 07-14-2026
371 of 422
Cross Street A Cross Street B Improvement Type Safety Access Sustainability Cost Effectiveness Final Score
Bollinger Rd Estates Dr A, B 30 5 0 0 1.82 1.01 0.97 10 35 1.82 1.97 10 60.99
Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd A, B, C 30 5 0 0 1.82 1.01 0.98 5 35 1.82 1.99 5 54.76
Lance Dr Bollinger Rd A 30 5 0 0 1.36 1.01 0.98 10 35 1.36 1.99 10 60.44
Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave A 10 0 10 0 2.73 1.01 0.98 10 10 12.73 1.99 10 43.40
Stendhal Ln Phil Ln A 10 5 10 0 2.73 1.40 1.21 10 15 12.73 2.61 10 50.43
Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd B, C 0 0 0 0 1.36 2.58 2.40 5 0 1.36 4.98 5 14.18
Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd A 0 0 0 0 1.36 1.62 1.61 10 0 1.36 3.23 10 18.24
Prospect Rd Stelling Rd A, B, C 0 10 0 0 0.45 0.10 0.10 5 10 0.45 0.2 5 19.56
Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr A, B 0 0 10 0 0.00 1.10 1.06 10 0 10 2.16 10 27.70
Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr A, B 10 0 10 0 0.00 1.40 1.21 10 10 10 2.61 10 40.76
Stern Ave Tilson Ave A, B 10 0 10 0 0.91 1.40 1.21 10 10 10.91 2.61 10 41.90
Merritt Dr Larry Way A, B 10 5 10 0 0.91 1.12 1.28 10 15 10.91 2.39 10 47.88
Randy Ln Merritt Dr A 10 0 10 0 0.45 1.12 1.28 10 10 10.45 2.39 10 41.05
Merritt Dr Vista Dr B 10 0 10 0 0.45 1.12 1.28 10 10 10.45 2.39 10 41.05
Forest Ave Randy Ln A 10 0 10 2 1.82 3.35 2.86 10 10 13.82 6.21 10 50.04
Stevens Creek Blvd Torre Ave B, C 30 0 10 2 5.00 3.35 2.86 5 30 17 6.21 5 72.76
Torre Ave Pacifica Dr A 10 5 10 0 4.55 2.66 2.24 10 15 14.55 4.9 10 55.56
Pacifica Dr Whitney Way A 0 0 10 0 4.55 2.15 2.01 10 0 14.55 4.15 10 35.88
N Portal Ave Merritt Dr A 30 0 10 0 1.82 1.40 1.15 10 30 11.82 2.55 10 67.96
Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona C 30 5 10 0 3.18 1.01 0.98 10 35 13.18 1.99 10 75.21
San Fernando Ave Orange Ave A 0 0 10 0 3.64 2.16 2.27 10 0 13.64 4.43 10 35.09
Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave A 10 0 10 0 0.00 1.46 2.04 10 10 10 3.49 10 41.86
Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave A, B, C 30 5 10 0 0.91 2.22 1.99 5 35 10.91 4.21 5 68.90
Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln B 10 0 10 0 0.91 2.22 1.99 10 10 10.91 4.21 10 43.90
Bixby Dr Portal Ave A 10 0 10 0 3.64 2.81 2.42 10 10 13.64 5.23 10 48.59
Bonny Dr Sola St A 10 0 10 2 3.64 2.66 2.24 10 10 15.64 4.9 10 50.68
Stevens Creek Blvd Phar Lap Dr B 30 5 10 0 2.73 0.26 0.28 10 35 12.73 0.55 10 72.85
Via Roncole Prospect Rd A, B, C 0 0 0 0 0.45 1.62 1.61 5 0 0.45 3.23 5 10.85
Canyon Oak Way Cristo Rey Dr A, C 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 0 0 0 5 6.25
Stevens Creek Blvd Blandley Dr C 30 0 0 5 3.64 3.35 2.86 10 30 8.64 6.21 10 68.56
Torre Ave Town Center Ln A, B, C 10 0 10 2 4.55 2.66 2.24 5 10 16.55 4.9 5 45.56
372
PC 07-14-2026
372 of 422
Table 8: Sidewalk Scoring Breakdown
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Project Description Miles Safety Access Sustainability Cost
Effectiveness
Final
Score
Kirwin Ln Lonna Ln De Anza Blvd Sidewalk on One
Side
0.21 10 10 0 0 3.75 2.98 2.41 2 20 3.75 5.39 2 38.93
Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct Sidewalk on One
Side
0.06 10 0 10 2 4.17 1.58 1.89 5 10 16.17 3.47 5 43.30
De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way Sidewalk on One
Side
0.08 0 0 0 0 1.25 2.78 2.65 5 0 1.25 5.43 5 14.60
Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd Sidewalk on One
Side
0.05 10 0 10 0 4.17 0.26 0.44 5 10 14.17 0.69 5 37.33
Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr Sidewalk on One
Side
0.06 30 0 10 2 2.92 1.58 1.89 5 30 14.92 3.47 5 66.74
Stelling Rd Catalano Ct Orion Ct Sidewalk on One
Side
0.04 30 5 0 0 1.25 2.34 1.83 5 35 1.25 4.17 5 56.78
Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way Sidewalk on One
Side
0.06 30 10 10 0 0.42 2.70 2.20 5 40 10.42 4.9 5 75.40
Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of Stelling Rd Sidewalk on One
Side
0.13 10 0 0 5 2.92 5.00 5.00 5 10 7.92 10 5 41.15
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Lockwood Dr 160' East of Lockwood Dr Sidewalk on One
Side
0.04 0 10 10 0 0.00 0.86 0.70 5 10 10 1.56 5 33.20
Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr Sidewalk on One
Side
0.06 10 0 10 2 2.92 1.58 1.89 5 10 14.92 3.47 5 41.74
Bubb Rd Edward Way Vai Ave Sidewalk on One
Side
0.12 30 5 10 0 0.83 0.33 0.30 5 35 10.83 0.63 5 64.33
Bubb Rd 230' South of Stevens Creek
Blvd
1,200' North of Results Way Sidewalk on One
Side
0.22 30 10 0 2 4.17 2.87 3.04 5 40 6.17 5.91 5 71.35
S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek Blvd Sidewalk on One
Side
0.10 10 5 10 0 1.25 2.18 1.67 5 15 11.25 3.85 5 43.88
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr Sidewalk on One
Side
0.04 0 10 10 0 2.08 0.86 0.70 5 10 12.08 1.56 5 35.80
Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd Sidewalk on One
Side
0.25 10 5 10 0 3.33 0.53 0.55 2 15 13.33 1.08 2 39.26
Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl Sidewalk on One
Side
0.05 10 5 0 0 1.25 1.34 1.06 5 15 1.25 2.4 5 29.56
Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl Sidewalk on One
Side
0.05 10 0 0 0 1.25 0.33 0.30 5 10 1.25 0.63 5 21.10
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Tantau Ave Judy Ave Sidewalk on One
Side
0.06 30 5 10 0 0.83 2.18 1.67 5 35 10.83 3.85 5 68.35
Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir 314' South of Rancho
Ventura St
Sidewalk on One
Side
0.02 0 10 0 0 2.92 0.81 0.66 5 10 2.92 1.47 5 24.24
McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave Sidewalk on One
Side
0.16 30 5 10 0 4.17 1.27 1.07 5 35 14.17 2.34 5 70.64
Foothill Blvd 170' South of Voss Ave Palm Ave Sidewalk on One
Side
0.04 0 5 10 0 2.92 0.81 0.66 5 5 12.92 1.47 5 30.49
Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr Sidewalk on One
Side
0.06 10 0 10 2 2.50 0.34 0.34 5 10 14.5 0.68 5 37.73
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Lebanon Dr 170' East of Lebanon Dr Sidewalk on One
Side
0.03 0 10 10 0 0.00 0.86 0.70 5 10 10 1.56 5 33.20
McClellan Rd 250' East of Stevens Canyon
Rd
90' west of San Leandro Ave Sidewalk on One
Side
0.02 10 0 0 0 2.92 0.00 0.00 5 10 2.92 0 5 22.40
Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave Sidewalk on One
Side
0.17 30 0 10 2 3.75 0.96 1.12 5 30 15.75 2.07 5 66.03
Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct Sidewalk on One
Side
0.05 0 0 0 0 1.25 0.81 0.66 5 0 1.25 1.47 5 9.65
Mary Ave 500' South of Lubec St 160' North of Point Reyes
Ter
Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.20 10 5 10 2 3.75 1.61 1.69 5 15 15.75 3.3 5 48.81
Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of Echo Hill Ct Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.01 30 10 0 0 1.67 0.44 0.40 5 40 1.67 0.84 5 59.39
373
PC 07-14-2026
373 of 422
Location Cross Street A Cross Street B Project Description Miles Safety Access Sustainability Cost
Effectiveness
Final
Score
Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.11 0 10 10 0 1.25 0.72 0.93 5 10 11.25 1.65 5 34.88
Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.08 0 5 0 0 2.92 0.81 0.66 5 5 2.92 1.47 5 17.99
Stevens Creek
Blvd
170' East of Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.03 0 10 10 0 0.00 0.86 0.70 5 10 10 1.56 5 33.20
Foothill Blvd 170' South of Stevens Creek
Blvd
Rancho Ventura St Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.11 10 10 0 0 3.33 0.84 0.68 5 20 3.33 1.52 5 37.31
Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.05 10 0 10 2 3.33 1.58 1.89 5 10 15.33 3.47 5 42.25
Stevens Creek
Blvd
200' East of Lockwood Dr Prado Vista Dr Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.03 0 10 10 0 1.25 0.86 0.70 5 10 11.25 1.56 5 34.76
Greenleaf Dr 360' East of Stelling Rd 520' West of Beardon Dr Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.06 30 0 10 2 2.92 1.58 1.89 5 30 14.92 3.47 5 66.74
Stelling Rd Squirehill Ct Rainbow Dr Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.09 10 10 0 0 1.25 0.44 0.40 5 20 1.25 0.84 5 33.86
Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.07 0 10 0 0 2.92 0.81 0.66 5 10 2.92 1.47 5 24.24
Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.16 10 0 0 2 2.50 3.24 3.41 2 10 4.5 6.65 2 28.94
Forest Ave 260' East of Randy Ln 110' West of Toni Ct Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.04 10 0 10 0 1.67 1.74 1.38 5 10 11.67 3.12 5 37.24
Scofield Dr Western Dr De Anza Blvd Sidewalk on Both
Sides
0.25 10 10 0 5 5.00 3.62 2.99 5 20 10 6.61 5 52.01
374
PC 07-14-2026
374 of 422
Table 9: Transportation Technology Corridors Scoring Breakdown
Corridor To From Mileage Safety Access Sustainability Final
Score
Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Miller Ave/Wolfe
Rd
3.01 20 1.67 5 5 10 10 5.72 6.62 31.67 20 12.35 71.06
De Anza Blvd Homestead
Rd
Prospect Rd 3.01 8 1.39 1.36 5 0 4.98 10 10 15.75 4.98 20 45.21
Wolfe Rd/Miller
Ave
Homestead
Rd
Calle de
Barcelona
1.41 4 5 1.36 5 10 6.44 4.00 5.97 15.36 16.44 9.96 46.35
Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd Tantau Ave 1.49 18 0 2.73 5 10 0 0.27 0 25.73 10 0.27 39.96
Stelling Rd I-280 Rainbow Dr 2.29 8 3.89 0 0 20 5.97 0 4.78 11.89 25.97 4.78 47.33
375
PC 07-14-2026
375 of 422
APPENDIX H
Complete Streets
Policy Review Memo
376
PC 07-14-2026
376 of 422
To: City of Cupertino
From: Parin Patel and Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: September 30, 2025
Re: City of Cupertino Complete Streets Policy Review
Introduction
This memo provides a review of the City of Cupertino Complete Streets Policy, and how the policy below aligns with
the current funding eligibility requirements for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Santa
Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Cupertino’s Complete Streets Policy was also measured against external
metrics for Complete Streets policies, established by City Health and Smart Growth America.
Recommended updates to the policy include examples of design standards, inclusion of equity and vulnerable
communities, involvement of city departments and stakeholders, inclusion of data-based analyses, public input, and
performance measures. Both MTC and VTA periodically update their Complete Streets Policies; the City of Cupertino
should continue to modify their Complete Streets policy into the future to retain funding eligibility.
Complete Streets Policy Recommendations
In April 2018, the City of Cupertino adopted a Complete Streets Policy to further the goals of meeting the safety,
access and mobility needs of all users of the roadways1. The 2018 policy can be found here.
While the 2018 Complete Streets Policy is not out of compliance with funding eligibility, the following recommended
updates will help strengthen funding eligibility, as well as meet the “Silver” designation of CityHealth’s Complete
Streets policies.2 As VTA in in the middle of a process to revise their Complete Streets Policy as of the publication date
of this memo, the City of Cupertino should wait until after the new VTA Complete Streets Policy is adopted to pursue
any updates to their Complete Streets Policy in order to eliminate duplicative efforts. Recommendations are shown in
bold and underlined.
A. Complete Streets Principles
1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. The City of Cupertino, through its 2015 Mobility Element update of the
General Plan, has committed to creating and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable
and convenient travel along and across streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the
transportation system through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all categories
1 Staff Report.pdf
2 Complete Streets - CityHealth — Helping everyone live healthy, full lives
377
PC 07-14-2026
377 of 422
of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods,
users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth, and families.
2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projects, departments of the City of Cupertino shall
maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential and business districts as well as urban, suburban,
and rural areas, and shall work with residents and businesses to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues.
Improvements that may be considered include sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes, bicycle routes,
paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge
islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle parking facilities, public transportation stops and
facilities, transit priority signalization, and other features assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users
as identified in adopted plans.
Proposed Addition: The project meets professional design standards or guidelines appropriate for bicycle
and/or pedestrian facilities. (City should list explicit design standards and/or adopted plans they will
follow; this could include):
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
• NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
• United States Department of Justice ADA Standards for Accessible Design
• U.S. Access Board Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way
• Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), DIB 89
• City/County General + Area Plans
• Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit Plan
• Community-Based Transportation Plan
• ADA Transition Plan
• Station Access Plan
• Short-Range Transit Plan
• Vision Zero/Systematic Safety Plan
3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by all Departments. All relevant departments of the City of Cupertino
shall work towards making Complete Streets practices a routine part of everyday operations, approach every
relevant project, program, and practice as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network
for all categories of users, and work in coordination with other agencies and jurisdictions to maximize
opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity and cooperation.
378
PC 07-14-2026
378 of 422
Proposed Addition: The city department which leads the project planning and/or implementation will bear
the responsibility of ensuring that the project aligns with all Complete Street guidelines and ensures
project sponsors and partners are actively engaged. This includes coordination with VTA, the Water
District, MTC, Caltrans, local CBOs, and a local (city or county) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission
(BPAC). The BPAC should also be included in reviewing MTC’s complete streets checklist.
4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably safe travel along and
across the right of way for each category of users, consistent with the City’s Mobility Element update, shall be
incorporated into all planning, funding, design, approval and implementation processes for any construction,
reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of streets, roads, highways, bridges
and other portions of the transportation system, except that specific infrastructure for a given category of
users may be excluded if an exemption is approved via the process set forth in section C.1 of this policy.
Proposed Addition: Developers of private projects must also meet Complete Streets standards, except that
specific infrastructure for a given category of users may be excluded if an exemption is approved via the
process set forth in section C.1 of this policy.
B. Implementation
1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, and design of projects affecting the
transportation system shall be consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other
relevant plans, except that where such consistency cannot be achieved without negative consequences,
consistency shall not be required if the head of the relevant department provides written approval explaining
the basis of such deviation.
Proposed Addition: The project / plans include a timeline for the review and improvements to the project
selection criteria.
2. Street Network/Connectivity. Consistent with the City’s Mobility Element update, the City of Cupertino shall
incorporate Complete Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of
users, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of facilities accommodating each category of
users, and increasing connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries and between existing and anticipated
future areas of travel origination or destination.
Proposed Addition: The project or plan will review the High Injury Network (HIN) and include a traffic
safety asessement if a high incidence of bicyclist / pedestrian-involved crashes is found within the project
area. If the project includes a bikeway, a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), or similar assessment will be
conducted.
3. Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Consultation. Transportation projects shall be reviewed by the Cupertino
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission early in the planning and design phase to provide the Cupertino Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete
Streets features to be incorporated into the project.
379
PC 07-14-2026
379 of 422
Proposed Addition: City of Cupertino staff, or project leads, should also seek community input on projects
and programs early in the planning and design stages.
4. Evaluation. All relevant departments shall perform evaluations of how well the streets and transportation
network of the City of Cupertino are serving each category of users by collecting baseline data and collecting
follow-up data on a regular basis.
Proposed Addition: Performance metrics, strategies, and mechanisms will produce actionable data that
accounts for equity and is made publicly available. Performance metrics will align with the City of
Cupertino’s ATP.
C. Exceptions
1. Exception Approvals. Projects that seek exception from the Complete Streets approach must provide written
finding of how exceptional circumstances dictated that accommodations for all modes were not to be
included in the project. The memorandum should be signed by the Public Works Director or an equivalently
senior staff person or his/her designee. Projects that are granted exceptions must be made publicly available
for review.
CityHealth Complete Street Policy Assessment
CityHealth is an initiative by the de Beaumount Foundation and Kaiser Permanente, in partnership with Smart Growth
America, to streamline evidence-based policy solutions that improve and support the health and well-being of people
and communities. The Complete Streets policy ensures that streets are “designed and maintained to meet all our
needs. Whether you walk, bike, roll, drive, or use public transit, we all deserve streets that are safe. Tragically, people
in the United States are struck and killed, maimed, and seriously injured by vehicles on unsafe streets at alarming
rates. All people from all neighborhoods should have access to Complete Streets that help them get where they need
to go, live, play, and grow.”3
CityHealth’s Complete Streets Policy Checklist 4
The following policies were taken into consideration for recommended updates to the City of Cupertino’s Complete
Streets Policy:
1. Lays out a clear vision about the goal of creating a complete, connected transportation network that
allows all users to safely travel to and from destinations
2. Defines which projects, programs, and interventions (including new construction, reconstruction/ retrofit,
maintenance and ongoing operations) will be subject to the policy
3. Describes the balance and prioritization of different modes of travel, with an emphasis on non-motorized
mobility
4. Specifies the design guidelines that will be adopted and/or created
5. Describes vulnerable users and how they will be identified, protected, and prioritized
3 Complete Streets - CityHealth — Helping everyone live healthy, full lives
4 Complete-Streets-Policy-Action-Guide.pdf
380
PC 07-14-2026
380 of 422
6. Designates entities or departments that will be responsible for implementing the policy
7. Describes a robust and inclusive community engagement plan
8. Describes performance measures, strategy and mechanisms that will produce actionable data that
accounts for equity and is made publicly available
9. Lists the specific, and limited, exceptions to the policy
10. Indicates how private development projects will be encouraged, incentivized, and guided to comply with
the policy
11. Includes the timeline for the review and improvements to the project selection criteria
Medal Designation
City Health grades the adopted Complete Streets Policies of cities across America on a Bronze-to-Gold medal scale. To
meet the Silver designation, the City of Cupertino’s complete street policies should include the following:
• City has a complete streets policy.
• Policy requires compliance.
• Policy balances pedestrians, bicyclists, and at lead two other modes.
• Policy references the adoption of specific design guidelines, and/or requires the development or revision
of internal design policies and guides.
• Policy explicitly prioritizes vulnerable users.
• Policy requires compliance of all new construction, reconstruction, and retrofit projects.
• Policy references compliance of all maintenance projects and ongoing operations.
Funding Eligibility
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTC updated their regional policy for provision of Complete Streets in 2022 (Resolution 4493)5. This policy works to
advance Plan Bay Area 2050 objectives of achieving mode shift, safety, equity, and vehicle miles traveled and
greenhouse gas emission reductions, as well as state & local compliance with applicable CS-related laws, policies, and
practices, specifically the California Complete Street Act of 2008 (Gov. Code Sections 65040.2 and 65302) and
applicable local policies such as the CS resolutions adopted before January 16, 2016 (as part of MTC’s OBAG 2
requirements.)
This policy applies to transportation project planning, design, funding, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance
activities. A Complete Streets checklist from projects seeking discretionary funding or funding endorsements from
MTC is required. MTC’s CS Policy requires that all projects (with a total project cost of $250,000 or more) applying for
regional discretionary transportation funding – or requesting regional endorsement or approval through MTC – must
submit a Complete Streets Checklist (Checklist) to MTC.
The following topics must meet Complete Streets Policy Considerations:
5 MTC Resolution No. 4493 Approved
381
PC 07-14-2026
381 of 422
1. Bicycle, Pedestrian and Transit Planning – Does Project implement relevant Plans, or other locally adopted
recommendations? Plan examples include:
• City/County General + Area Plans
• Bicycle, Pedestrian & Transit Plan
• Community-Based Transportation Plan
• ADA Transition Plan
• Station Access Plan
• Short-Range Transit Plan
• Vision Zero/Systematic Safety Plan
2. Active Transportation Network – Does the project area contain segments of the regional Active
Transportation (AT) Network? [See AT Network map on the MTC Complete Streets webpage.]
3. Safety and Comfort
1. Is the Project on a known High Injury Network (HIN) or has a local traffic safety analysis found a high
incidence of bicyclist/ pedestrian-involved crashes within the project area?
2. Does the project seek to improve bicyclist and/or pedestrian conditions? If the project includes a bikeway,
was a Level of Traffic Stress (LTS), or similar user experience analyses conducted?
4. Transit Coordination
1. Are there existing public transit facilities (stop or station) in the project area?
2. Have all potentially affected transit agencies had the opportunity to review this project?
3. Is there a MTC Mobility Hub within the project area?
5. Design – Does the project meet professional design standards or guidelines appropriate for bicycle and/or
pedestrian facilities?
6. Equity – Will Project improve active transportation in an Equity Priority Community (EPC)?
7. BPAC Review – Has a local (city or county) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) reviewed this
checklist. The CS Checklist MTC review will begin once the BPAC meeting has occurred.
The MTC Complete Streets Checklist can be found here: Complete Streets Checklist | Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
VTA updated their Complete Streets principles and practices to all transportation capital projects and funding
programs in December 2017 6 and is currently (as of 2025) in the process of updating their Complete Streets Policy.
The following from the 2017 Complete Streets Policy apply:
6 https://www.vta.gov/sites/default/files/2022-07/Attachment-A3_Complete-Streets-Policy.pdf
382
PC 07-14-2026
382 of 422
1. Serve All Users – All transportation improvements must be planned, designed, constructed, operated and
maintained to support safe and convenient access for all users, and increase mobility for walking, bicycling
and transit use.
2. Use Context Sensitive Design – VTA staff should design transportation projects to be appropriate for the
surrounding land use, community character, and function of the transportation facility. Designs should reflect
desired or anticipated future conditions.
3. Maintain or Enhance Networks – With every transportation project, VTA staff should seek opportunities to
create, maintain or enhance network connectivity for all users, and ensure that the user experience is
maintained across jurisdictional boundaries. The transportation network for pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit riders should not be severed or degraded with the completion of new or modified transportation
infrastructure.
4. Incorporate Technology – VTA staff should incorporate technology to improve safety and operations of the
roadway system for all users, and to improve information dissemination.
5. Be Consistent with Adopted Plans– VTA staff should assure consistency with regional, local and VTA planning
documents, including the Countywide Bicycle Plan, Pedestrian Access to Transit Plan, Transit Passenger
Environment Plan, VTA’s corridor studies, Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Regional
Transportation Plan, and Member Agency planning documents.
6. Maintain Transportation Infrastructure –With every transportation project, VTA staff should seek
opportunities to maintain, upgrade, or replace transportation infrastructure and technology, using asset
management best practices.
7. Seek and Respond to Public Input– VTA staff should seek community input on transportation projects and
programs early in the planning and design stages. Input should be sought from relevant VTA Advisory
Committees, local communities, and other stakeholders.
8. Build Complete Streets Infrastructure – VTA staff should proactively seek opportunities to integrate
Complete Streets infrastructure into every transportation project.
9. Design Using Latest and Best Practice Design Standards and Guides – VTA staff should: (i) use latest and best
practice multi-modal design standards and guides when developing and delivering capital projects; (ii) consult
innovative pedestrian, bicycle, and transit design manuals; and (iii) seek new examples as innovations are
tested. Examples of national, state, and local design standards/guidelines that support Complete Streets
include:
National
• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design
of Highways and Streets
• AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
• AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares
383
PC 07-14-2026
383 of 422
• ITE Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at Interchanges
• National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide
• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide
• NACTO Transit Street Design Guide
• NACTO Urban Street Stormwater Guide
Regulatory
• United States Department of Justice ADA Standards for Accessible Design
• U.S. Access Board Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way
State
• California Highway Design Manual and all Deputy Directives and Design Information Bulletins
• California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and adopted Interim Approvals
• Main Street, California – A Guide for Improving Community and Transportation Vitality
• Caltrans Class IV Bikeway Guidance (Separated Bikeways/Cycle Tracks), DIB 89
Local
• VTA Community Design and Transportation Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and
Land Use
• VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines
• VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines
• VTA Multi-Modal Design Practices and Principles
• Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook
384
PC 07-14-2026
384 of 422
APPENDIX I
Active Transportation Plan
Impact Evaluation Guidelines
385
PC 07-14-2026
385 of 422
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.
386
PC 07-14-2026
386 of 422
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.
387
PC 07-14-2026
387 of 422
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
388
PC 07-14-2026
388 of 422
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.
389
PC 07-14-2026
389 of 422
APPENDIX J
Project Effectiveness
Guidelines
390
PC 07-14-2026
390 of 422
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.
391
PC 07-14-2026
391 of 422
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
392
PC 07-14-2026
392 of 422
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.
393
PC 07-14-2026
393 of 422
APPENDIX K
Bicycle & Pedestrian Count
Technology White Paper
394
PC 07-14-2026
394 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino
Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino
From: Christopher Kidd and Petra Reyes, Alta Planning + Design
Date: July 28, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Bicycle and Pedestrian Count White Paper
Introduction
This memorandum outlines the key steps and considerations for establishing a bicycle and pedestrian count program in the
City of Cupertino. Reference memo sources for additional details on concepts discussed, and the California Active
Transportation Safety Information Pages (CATSIP) for more resources. Key takeaways include:
• Thorough planning is essential for selecting a count product that meets all potential program purposes and uses
technology that can be deployed at desired count locations.
• All long-term, continuous count programs need to incorporate short-term counts for baseline data validation and
should plan regular short-term counts to validate data, as part of a QA/QC protocol.
• There are many different products and staff time costs associated with starting a bicycle and pedestrian count
program. Comprehensive life cycle budgetary planning will reduce unexpected and preventable costs.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Count Planning
During the bicycle and pedestrian count planning stage, program staff should identify all possible count purposes and
locations to select the most appropriate count method. One component of identifying the count purpose(s) is establishing
the count duration (short-term versus long-term) and which users (bicyclists and/or pedestrians) the program aims to
count. Count duration, user compatibility, and location compatibility are three considerations that differentiate between
the count technology (outlined Table 1 and Table 2).
Count Purpose
There are several potential purposes for conducting bicycle and pedestrian counts, including but not limited to (Hugh,
Davis, Voros, O'Toole, & Piper, 2016):
• Establishing a baseline for bicycle and pedestrian volume
• Determining locations where there is the greatest demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities
• Analyzing changes over time in bicycle and pedestrian facility utilization
• Quantifying utilization when prioritizing resources and competing for funding
Establishing a baseline bicycle and pedestrian volume is an example of a count purpose where short-term, temporary count
methods can be utilized. However, if the count program also aims to analyze changes over time, that is an example of a
count purpose where long-term, permanent counting methods can be utilized. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Traffic Monitoring Guide (TMG) recommends collecting a two-week, short-term count before installing permanent,
continuous counting equipment. As a result, all long-term counts should include baseline data collection as a program
purpose.
395
PC 07-14-2026
395 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 2
Count Location
The FHWA TMG recommends that bicycle and pedestrian count locations be representative of the network, aiming for
geographic diversity and encompassing a range of low, medium, and high volumes of bicycle and pedestrian traffic. The
short-term count, conducted in advance of installing continuous counting equipment, validates assumptions about traffic
volume and supports the notion that these locations are representative of geographic and volume diversity. In a study of
Municipal Planning Organizations (MPOs) piloting bicycle and pedestrian count programs, some MPOs selected count
locations where they previously completed manual counts (Federal Highway Administration, 2016). This data may be
sufficient for validating geographic and volume diversity.
Other factors that MPOs considered when selecting count locations include:
• Stakeholder Input: MPOs considered input from their local agencies, a university, a bicycle and pedestrian advisory
committee, and interested parties. Coordination across agency departments was particularly crucial for identifying
the specific locations where continuous count products would be installed and obtaining the necessary
permissions for installation.
• Recently completed projects: Some MPOs used counts to assess the impact of recently completed projects on
bicycle and pedestrian volumes. Alternatively, some collected a baseline volume for planned projects in advance of
project completion.
A final consideration when selecting count locations is proximity to a power source. When identifying potential count
locations, it is helpful to note in advance which locations are near a power source and which locations would require a
battery-operated product.
Selecting a Count Method
In their report on bicycle and pedestrian counting technology, Ozan et al. (2021) provide a high-level overview of the
different counting methods, their typical application, and the type of locations where they can be implemented. While not
included in Table 1 and Table 2, Ozan et al. (2021) also suggest manual entry as a very portable and expensive count
method due to training and staff time. Manual entry is most often cited in the literature as a short-term method for
validating automated count technology.
When used singularly, automated counting technologies have various limitations. Some can’t be placed near vehicles, or
they can’t differentiate between bicyclists and pedestrians. However, when companies combine count technologies, their
products are more flexible, can differentiate between user types, and can be deployed at a variety of location types. This
memo prioritized discussing products that are either compatible with multiple user types or multiple location types. Below
is a general description of each technology utilized in the products outlined in Table 3 and Table 4.
Passive infrared sensors detect humans based on their heat signatures and cannot differentiate between
bicyclists and pedestrians. The technology also captures individuals when they are in vehicles, making it
unsuitable for collection near roadways. Passive infrared sensors can be used on trails or shared-use paths
separated from traffic. They are best suited for either temporary or permanent counts where bicyclists and
pedestrians do not need to be separately classified.
Pneumatic tubes use pressure sensors to detect when a bicycle passes over the tubes on a shared path, bike
lane, or shared street lane. This technology is only used for short-term, temporary counts due to product wear
and tear over time. When in combination with passive infrared sensors, as is the case with the Eco-Counter
Mobile MULTI, bicyclists and pedestrians can be classified separately. Pedestrians are identified on sidewalks
using passive infrared sensors, and bicyclists are identified using pneumatic tubes.
396
PC 07-14-2026
396 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Inductive loops are a long-term, permanent alternative to pneumatic tubes. They use electric currents
embedded under the pavement to detect magnetic objects. When in combination with passive infrared
sensors, as is the case with the MULTI Evo, bicyclists and pedestrians can be classified separately. Pedestrians
are identified on sidewalks using passive infrared sensors, and bicyclists are identified using inductive loops. A
downside to inductive loops is that they do not capture bicycle traffic that does not pass over the loop (i.e., on
the sidewalk or in the vehicle travel lane).
Piezoelectric sensors emit electric signals when a bicycle or pedestrian passes over the surface. The
MetroCount RidePod BP is the only piezoelectric product on the market that can classify bicyclists separate
from pedestrians. It is a long-term, permanent count technology, as the sensors are slotted into the pavement
under a resin cover.
Radar sensors detect users based on reflected electromagnetic pulses and cannot differentiate between
bicyclists and pedestrians combined. Radar sensor products can be used for temporary or permanent counts.
The Smartmicro Traffic Radar uses radar sensors in combination with AI to distinguish between bicyclists and
pedestrians.
Camera and AI uses videos or imagery to classify bicyclists and pedestrians separately. Products can be used
for temporary or permanent counts. One technical specification that differentiates between products is
whether video or images are saved. The Telraam S2 and Eco-Counter CITIX-AI explicitly state that images are
not recorded – other products require further inquiry to determine their privacy policies.
Equipment Installation
As previously described, some count methods are more portable and can be used for either temporary or permanent
counts. Other methods have a more intensive and permanent installation process, and may require special equipment or
training. For example, Ozan et al. (2021) stated that installing a piezoelectric strip was the most time-intensive and
challenging count method to install. The level of precision may require hiring a consultant, depending on current staff
training. Installing permanent count methods may also require additional time and coordination across city agencies to
validate site location permissions and installation logistics. As a result, installation equipment and staff time should both be
considered in the program budget.
Count Program Management
According to the FHWA TMG, after installation, traffic monitoring equipment should be periodically calibrated and validated
to ensure accurate reporting. In the study of MPOs piloting bicycle and pedestrian count programs, when validating their
automatic count data, some MPOs identified instances of over- and under-counting due to factors like counter positioning.
Count programs should establish quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) protocols for testing count equipment, as
well as establish a procedure for inputting data in the event of counter malfunction. Equipment maintenance, including
battery checks and changes, as well as sensor cleaning, should also be incorporated into QA/QC protocols. Count products
vary with regards to battery life (2 years to up to 10 years) and sensor sensitivity. Some vendors, such as Eco-Counter, offer
subscriptions that detect inconsistencies in data collection and send alerts when issues arise with counters. QA/QC protocol
costs, including additional monitoring subscriptions and/or staff time, should be incorporated into count budgeting and
count product selection considerations.
Other additional costs with regard to the count program management may include data storage and transmission. Setting
up an internal and/or publicly accessible dashboard (Figure 1) may also come at an additional cost. These costs vary by
vendor and product. Costs included in the analysis from Ozan et al. (2021) are summarized in Table 5 – obtaining estimates
for other costs may require communicating directly with vendors.
397
PC 07-14-2026
397 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Cupertino’s Current Approach
There has been increasing community interest in Cupertino adopting a more robust data collection approach for
transportation management. In response to these comments and those heard from the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
during the ATP Phase 1 outreach, Cupertino staff presented various counting technologies and methods to the Cupertino
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission on July 17, 2025. During this meeting, staff solicited feedback on a potential program the
City should consider. Although the Commission did not recommend a single method or technology, it reiterated its support
for ongoing data monitoring to understand transportation trends.
Currently, the City has nine intersections capable of collecting bicycle and, in some circumstances, pedestrian counts.
Expanding this network would require the City to consider the associated capital, staffing, and maintenance costs related to
a count program. Both increasing the number of City-owned permanent counters and the scheduling of routine vendor
counts would require additional City resources.
Permanent Counters
As Cupertino has upgraded its traffic control cabinets, signals, and general hardware, these upgrades have also come with
new technology to detect bicycles and pedestrians. Inductive loops are being phased out and upgraded to video systems for
improved vehicle detection and signal coordination. These modern systems now include features to collect bicycle
movement data. This technology exists at the following intersections:
• Stevens Creek Boulevard/Mary Avenue
• Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR-85 northbound ramp
• Stevens Creek Boulevard/SR-85 southbound ramp
• Stevens Creek Boulevard/Wolfe Road
• De Anza Boulevard/Homestead Road
• De Anza Boulevard/I-280 northbound ramp
• De Anza Boulevard/I-280 southbound ramp
• De Anza Boulevard/McClellan Road/Pacifica Drive
• De Anza Boulevard/Stevens Creek Blvd
Historically, data from these locations has been collected on an as-needed basis, as exporting and validating the counts
requires significant staff time.
While Cupertino could establish a formal bicycle and pedestrian count program, doing so would require additional
resources to purchase technology, maintain the equipment, and review the data for accuracy.
Vendor Performed Counts
Cupertino has previously contracted with vendors to conduct citywide bicycle counts. Most recently, in 2018, the City
conducted counts at 47 locations for a cost of $40,000.
These contractor-facilitated counts are costly and may not accurately represent typical travel patterns because they capture
data over short periods. Variables such as weather, holidays, school schedules, and special events can influence results,
leading to undercounts or overcounts of walking and biking activity. Therefore, when conducting temporary counts, it is
critical that they occur during periods that reflect a typical day, when patterns are likely representative of normal
conditions.
398
PC 07-14-2026
398 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Conclusion
Primary Recommendation
Based on the factors discussed in this memo, we recommend using the Eco-Counter MULTI Evo Nature on shared-use paths
and the Eco-Counter Urban MULTI Evo on sidewalks or roadways for conducting long-term and/or continuous counts at a
permanent location. Eco-Counter utilizes a dynamic combination of technologies that is rated as highly accurate.
Additionally, Eco-Counter has additional products like the Eco-DISPLAY Classic+ (Figure 2) and the online dashboard (Figure
1) which can be used for communicating bicycle and pedestrian counts to the public.
Per Ozan et al. (2021), these specific products come at a high cost when combining equipment, software, data transmission,
and installation (Table 6). Ozan et al.’s (2021) estimates for staff time to conduct site selection, installation, maintenance,
and validation are also conservative, as the wage/hour rates are based on assumptions from North Carolina wages in 2020.
Accounting for an estimated 10% increase in costs due to wage/hour differences, a bicycle and pedestrian counter could
cost between $14,000-$28,000 per location, depending on the number of inductive loops used and the type of product (Evo
Nature has a lower cost per unit compared to the Urban MULTI Evo).
Secondary Recommendation
A secondary recommendation is to start with a small count program using a camera and AI product. This is a more flexible
option for conducting long-term and/or continuous counts, which can be relocated easily.
Telraam S2 is the recommended product for a camera and AI product because it has a relatively low device and annual
subscription cost (approximately $500 combined). Additionally, no videos or images are saved to the device or cloud,
addressing a data privacy concern that is often associated with some camera and AI products. The Telraam S2 is ideal for
starting small, building momentum, and establishing support for a more sustained count program in the future. The primary
challenge for a Telraam counter device is finding an available Wi-Fi source for data transmission.
Ozan et al.’s (2021) review of the Miovision Scout system, which utilizes standard video and algorithm processing, received
high scores for accuracy but was penalized for its high cost ($5,000 per unit, excluding data processing fees).
399
PC 07-14-2026
399 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 6
Appendix
Source: (Ozan, et al., 2021)
Table 1. Technology Overview
400
PC 07-14-2026
400 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 7
Table 2. Technology Overview (continued)
Source: (Ozan, et al., 2021)
401
PC 07-14-2026
401 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 8
Table 3. Short-term and/or Recurring Counts
Vendor/Product Technology User Type Location
N/A Manual Count Bicyclists and Pedestrians All locations
Eco-Counter Mobile
MULTI
Passive Infrared,
Pneumatic tubes
Bicyclists and Pedestrians Shared-use path, on-road
MetroCount RidePod BT Pneumatic tubes Bicyclists Shared-use path, on-road
Miovision Scout Camera and AI Bicyclists and Pedestrians Shared-use path, on-road
Table 4. Long-term and/or Continuous Counts
Vendor/Product Technology User Type Location
Eco-Counter MULTI Evo Passive Infrared,
Inductive Loop
Bicyclists and Pedestrians MULTI Evo Nature on shared-use path,
Urban MULTI Evo on on-road
Eco-Counter CITIX-AI Camera and AI Bicyclists and Pedestrians On-road
MetroCount RidePod BP Piezoelectric Bicyclists and Pedestrians Shared-use path
Miovision TrafficLink Camera and AI Bicyclists and Pedestrians On-road
Smartmicro Traffic Radar Radar and AI Bicyclists and Pedestrians On-road
Telraam S2 Camera and AI Bicyclists and Pedestrians On-road
TRAFx Infrared Trail
Counter
Passive Infrared Bicyclists and Pedestrians
(combined)
Shared-use path
402
PC 07-14-2026
402 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 9
Figure 1. Publicly Accessible Bike and Pedestrian Count Dashboard
403
PC 07-14-2026
403 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 10
Table 5. Count Product Costs
Vendor/Product Estimated Cost
Per Unit
System Package Cost Additional Fees
Eco-Counter Mobile
MULTI
Product not referenced in the literature or publicly available online. Requires contacting the vendor
for a quote.
MetroCount RidePod BT $1,345 $195 per tube install kit
Miovision Scout $5,000 $198 processing fee for 6 hours of video
footage
Eco-Counter MULTI Evo $5,545 - $6,530 for
shared-use path
$6,100 - $7,320 for
on-road
$420 per counter per year for automatic data
transmission and software subscription to
access the data
Eco-Counter CITIX-AI $1,200 - $8,000 on
average
MetroCount RidePod BP $4,400
Miovision TrafficLink $1,200 - $8,000 on
average
$198 processing fee for 6 hours of video
footage
Smartmicro Traffic Radar
Telraam $1,200 - $8,000 on
average
TRAFx Infrared Trail
Counter
$490 - $540 $2,215 $20 per security box supplies (electrical
disconnect box, wire mesh, and hose clamp)
Source: (Ozan, et al., 2021)
404
PC 07-14-2026
404 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 11
Source: (Ozan, et al., 2021)
Table 6. Total Cost for Eco-Counter Products
405
PC 07-14-2026
405 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 12
Figure 2. Eco-DISPLAY Classic +
406
PC 07-14-2026
406 of 422
MEMORANDUM
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 13
Sources
Federal Highway Administration. (2016). FHWA Bicycle-Pedestrian Count Technoogy Pilot Project. Retrieved from:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/countpilot/summary_report/fhwahep17012.pdf
Federal Highway Administration. (2022). Traffic Monitoring Guide. Retrieved from:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/tmguide/2022_TMG_Final_Report.pdf
Hugh, L., Davis, B., Voros, K., O'Toole, K., & Piper, S. (2016). Innovation in Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts. Retrieved
from Alta Planning + Design: https://altago.com/wp-content/uploads/Innovative-Ped-and-Bike-Counts-
White-Paper-Alta.pdf
Ozan, E., Searcy, S., Geiger, B., Vaughan, C., Carnes, C., & Baird, C. (2021). State-of-the-Art Approaches to Bicycle and
Pedestrian Counters. FHWA.
407
PC 07-14-2026
407 of 422
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: April 07, 2026
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase
2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback
on the agenda packet attachments.
Executive Summary
The City of Cupertino is developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to update and
consolidate the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The ATP is a City Work Program project and fully funded through TDA Article 3 funds, a state
funding source for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Phase 1 of the project established the
technical foundation for the Plan, which included a Needs Assessment and Existing Conditions
Review that applied methods such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress to identify
where walking and biking are most challenging and where short vehicle trips could realistically
shift to active modes. Community input validated the analysis and emphasized strong support
for improving safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network (HIN), connectivity to schools,
designing for all ages and abilities, and balancing project tradeoffs for drivers.
Phase 2 advanced the Plan through continued engagement and produced clear priorities for both
pedestrian and bicycle networks. The ATP and the draft prioritization criteria were presented to
Commissions and Council in fall 2025, where there was strong consensus and feedback
converged on prioritizing safety (especially near schools and on the HIN), using objective metrics
to score projects, and elevating technology solutions. These comments led staff to revise the
scoring frameworks and create a new project category, Transportation Technology Corridors.
Staff also developed a new set of guidelines to address comments on potential project impacts
and on how to measure project effectiveness. Next steps are to release a draft ATP for public
review in spring, incorporate revisions, and return to City Council for adoption in late June or
early July.
408
PC 07-14-2026
408 of 422
Background
With substantial progress made on implementing the recommended projects from the 2016
Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, a new, comprehensive
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is being developed that will build on those successes and
address evolving community needs. Additionally, this unified, citywide plan will align bicycle
and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of motorized vehicles. This coordinated
approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses
overlapping concerns.
The City Council approved the FY 24/25 City Work Program on April 3, 2024, with the ATP
included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to wholly fund the Plan's development. On
December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta
Planning + Design, Inc., for development of an ATP.
Phase 1 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review, community
outreach, and technical analysis to develop data-driven project recommendations. The first step
of Phase 1 was to develop a Plan Review Memo to ensure the ATP is consistent with and supports
local and regional policies, including Cupertino plans like the General Plan’s Mobility Element
and Vision Zero Action Plan, the Countywide Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant
documents.
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured the
shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and rolling are easy,
safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and objectives were developed by
consolidating similar and overlapping statements from existing Cupertino plans and refining
them using input gathered during Phase 1 outreach to also reflect today's community needs and
concerns. The community ranked these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active transportation
network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes involving pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero. Enact measures to anticipate
human error and minimize the impact of traffic crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that offers
comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key destinations for all
residents and visitors in the City.
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated in all City
roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the City by
providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent usage and
improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a reduction in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs).
409
PC 07-14-2026
409 of 422
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects to
improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts to all other
transportation modes whenever possible, including transit and personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed across
all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
During Phase 1, the project team also conducted a Needs Assessment and an Existing Conditions
Review. These documents examined the City’s transportation network in detail, identifying
where walkers and bikers feel stressed or disconnected. Analyses such as Active Trip Potential
and Level of Traffic Stress were applied to determine areas in the City where existing short
driving trips could realistically shift to walking or biking. Together, these analysis methods
established a clear picture of where gaps are greatest and where investments could potentially
yield the greatest community benefits.
In parallel with the analysis task, staff reached out to the community to learn which destinations
they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or biking. Residents
consistently expressed concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network (HIN), the
need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, the need to consider
potential project impacts on drivers, and the importance of designing facilities for people of all
ages and abilities. Feedback from the community helped validate the technical analysis, and
together, these two sources, along with state and federal design guidance documents such as the
Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 94 and the Federal Highway Administration
Bikeway Selection Guide, were leveraged to develop draft network recommendations.
Draft project prioritization criteria that align with the Plan goals were established to assist in
ranking the draft network recommendations. The scoring metrics were selected to be consistent
with community goals and VTA Measure B funding requirements. These criteria were presented
to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (August 20, 2025), Planning Commission (September 9,
2025), and City Council (November 4, 2025) for review and public comment. These draft project
prioritization criteria included the following metrics to rank recommended projects:
• Collision History
• Stress Level
• School Proximity
• High Frequency Transit Proximity
• Parks & Other Destination Proximity
• Active Trip Potential
• Roadway Impact
• Public Input
Phase 2 Summary
Following Phase 1, the project transitioned to the Network Recommendations Phase (Phase 2).
All Phase 1 documents can be referenced on the project webpage at www.cupertino.gov/atp. This
information was included in the staff report (Attachment A) for the November 04, 2025, City
Council meeting. During this phase, public engagement continued, with the community
410
PC 07-14-2026
410 of 422
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, Union Pacific Trail, 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 (the top-voted projects online and on outreach boards)
were:
• Tamien Innu (Shared Use)
• Lawrence Mitty Trail (Shared Use)
• Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (Typology A, B, C Intersection)
• Union Pacific Trail (Shared Use)
• Pacifica Dr and Torre Ave (Typology A Intersection)
For bicycling, popular projects included upgrading bike lanes on corridors such as Homestead
Road and Blaney Avenue, and addressing intersection safety issues along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, especially near Highway 85 and De Anza College. The community’s preferred bicycle
projects (the top-voted projects online and on outreach boards) were:
• Stevens Creek Blvd (Separated Bike Lanes)
• Blaney Ave (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Homestead Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
• Bollinger Rd (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Stelling Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
Overall, participants expressed support for enhanced network connections to schools and
requested that some of the proposed buffered bike lanes be upgraded to separated bikeways to
improve safety due to high-speed traffic. The corridors that received the most feedback included
the recommended shared-use paths, as well as Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Blaney Avenue, and Bollinger Road. Many participants favored the suggested shared-use paths,
expressing that they would provide safe alternatives to major roadways and intersections.
Concerns about speeding and unsafe intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard were
highlighted, particularly near Highway 85 and De Anza College. Separated bikeways were
supported on Foothill Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Wolfe Road. Most unique comments were
regarding the recommended neighborhood bike routes, with overall support for the enhanced
neighborhood network serving schools.
411
PC 07-14-2026
411 of 422
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 - Fall 2025
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 programmatic recommendations to address comments from
the three bodies. Additionally, staff prepared two new guideline documents to accompany the
ATP, which will be applied to new ATP projects to better evaluate potential project impacts and
project effectiveness.
A review of the Commission and Council feedback showed clear consensus among the
Commissions and the Council regarding each body’s comments on the ATP and the draft project
prioritization criteria. These areas of agreement were:
• Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN.
• Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures, and Fairness should be
removed as a criterion.
• Support for improving future decision-making with more robust data collection.
• Technology solutions need greater emphasis.
Specifically, on August 20, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission provided the following
comments to staff:
• The Commission emphasized considering road maintenance before approving new
projects.
• Concerns were raised about including public likes and dislikes in the evaluation process,
and it was suggested that they be treated cautiously.
• Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data, and to avoid penalizing projects
that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to the City Council.
• There was strong support for prioritizing safety, with extra points suggested for projects
near schools and along high-injury corridors.
• The evolving nature of the City was acknowledged, with a push to ensure plans address
both current and future needs, particularly in growing residential areas.
On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission provided feedback to staff through the
following motion:
412
PC 07-14-2026
412 of 422
• Access Criteria: Award fifteen points if within one-half mile of a school and include senior
housing and senior facilities in the “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity” definition.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Rename “Sustainability” to “Connectivity” and
award ten points for being within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress facility, raising
the section maximum to twenty points.
• Balance Criteria: Subtract five points if five or more regularly used parking spaces are
removed and subtract fifteen points if a car lane is eliminated for ten percent or more of
the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is subjective, unmeasurable, and likely to
increase community divisiveness.
• Additional ATP Recommendations: Improve high-injury intersections with cameras,
evaluate adaptive right-turn-on-red technology, conduct baseline bike counts, and partner
with multiple providers for routine bike education.
On November 4, 2025, the City Council provided the following feedback to staff through the
following motion, during which Vice Mayor Moore made a friendly amendment to add grant
funding (Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang accepted the friendly amendment).
• Drop “Public Input” from ranking criteria since it’s not objective and unreliable.
• Remove Fairness as a ranking criterion, as the CIP adoption process will address that.
• Add “Cost-efficiency (user impact)” to ranking criteria - low cost, high impact projects
should have high priority; and grant funding.
• Add impact to vehicular traffic to arterial streets as a ranking criterion to subtract points.
• Add and prioritize technology solutions such as sensor-driven pedestrian and bicyclist
detection
o Safe driving technology – speed feedback signs, red light cameras
• Need input from drivers on dangerous points.
• School crossing - needs traffic management too, in addition to bike and ped infrastructure.
• Need data:
o Longer trip data from cell phone data, in addition to short trip data
o Project list generated
o Data for De Anza Buffered Bike Lane collected so far.
o Hopper data
o TDM data from Apple
Responses to Commission and Council Feedback - Fall 2025
Staff addressed the comments specifically related to the draft prioritization criteria by:
• Modifying the scoring for the HIN and High Injury Intersections (HII) to give greater
consideration to projects along the HIN/HII or locations in close proximity.
• Modifying School Proximity scoring so that Suggested Routes to School is the chosen
metric, rather than a distance-based proximity score for schools. This is more precise and
appropriate, as it specifically addresses safety on known walking and biking routes to
school.
• Adding senior facilities to the Destinations proximity for scoring.
• Creating a new project category for transportation technology.
413
PC 07-14-2026
413 of 422
• Removing the Fairness criterion so that all metrics are based on objective data.
• Adding additional negative scoring for projects that impact Cupertino arterials.
• Adding cost effectiveness as a scoring criterion.
Staff revised the criteria tables, which are included in Attachment B, and the draft project scores
based on the revised criteria are listed in Attachment C.
Staff addressed general comments on the ATP by creating a new project category for technology,
developing two guideline documents to apply to the new ATP network recommendations during
project delivery, and making minor revisions to the programmatic recommendations
(Attachment D). 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 programmatic recommendations. This new project
category is titled Transportation Technology Corridors.
• A Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment E), 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 (Attachment F), which describes how the City can better
evaluate long-term project effectiveness.
• Minor edits to the programmatic recommendations to better reflect the character of
Cupertino and address comments received during public hearings.
The first major revision to the ATP following the last Planning Commission review in September
was the addition of a new project category, Transportation Technology Corridors. This new
category addresses the community’s desire and the Council's direction to prioritize technology.
To achieve this, transportation technologies were added to the ATP network recommendations
as standalone corridor projects rather than as programmatic elements as previously identified.
Staff began by reviewing Typology C intersection recommendations (intersection signal and
control changes) located at Cupertino-owned signalized intersections and evaluated their overlap
with the Vision Zero HIN. Following this exercise, staff analyzed collision data to identify
corridors with higher collision rates where “unsafe speed” is listed as the primary collision factor,
or where collisions occurred due to traffic signal or sign violations. Lastly, corridors and the
intersections along them were screened for implementation feasibility to determine appropriate
Technology Corridors. This process helped staff select five corridors that would benefit most from
transportation technologies, based on collision history and the City’s ability to control and
implement different technologies. These corridors are:
• De Anza Blvd: From Homestead Rd to Prospect Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd: From Foothill Blvd to Wolfe Rd
• Homestead Rd: From De Anza Blvd to Tantau Ave
• Wolfe/ Miller Rd: From Homestead Rd to Calle de Barcelona
• Stelling Rd: From I-280 to Rainbow Dr
414
PC 07-14-2026
414 of 422
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 guideline documents to be presented to
Council for consideration. These guidelines 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 E and F) describe the approach that staff will follow for
new ATP network recommendations.
For evaluating project impacts, the Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment E) states that
following the Council-approved initiation of any new ATP project, and when parking or traffic
impacts are identified during the preliminary engineering (30% design) phase, staff will return to
the City Council to present the 30% design, identified impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that
meeting, the Council will determine whether the project should undergo a detailed impact
analysis tailored to its specific impacts. This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail
that is available only once the 30% design phase has been completed.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical accuracy
because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-based models, require
defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking layouts, and other project
features to produce meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion patterns, and parking
utilization. Additionally, tying the analysis to the identification of parking or traffic impacts at
30% ensures that funding is focused on projects that clearly reveal meaningful operational or
parking impacts, rather than expending significant resources on every concept in the ATP,
regardless of its risk profile. A description of the potential scope and cost estimates for that work
is included in Attachment 4.
The second draft guideline document (Attachment F) 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.
The ATP advances City objectives for traffic safety and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
consistent with the Council-adopted Vision Zero Action Plan and 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.
415
PC 07-14-2026
415 of 422
To demonstrate progress toward these objectives, staff must track the number of people using
new facilities and the safety of those facilities over time. This proposed evaluation approach will
allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such as whether these projects encourage
the use of active transportation modes, whether collision rates are decreasing even as ridership
increases, and, potentially, which types of improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
Historically, due to the costly nature of this work, city staff has relied on occasional spot counts
or project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle and pedestrian
volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes establishing an approach
that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along with project-specific before-and-
after counts for certain bikeway projects. This effort will require the purchase or lease of bike-ped
counting equipment and, potentially, the associated analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian
activity can be measured in a repeatable way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive snapshot
baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at ATP priority project locations. This initial effort would
record how many people are currently biking (and walking, where feasible). Following
completion of the baseline count, for individual bikeway projects approved by the Council, staff
proposes a before-and-after evaluation approach for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways.
Upon Council approval of project initiation, staff would begin a pre-construction data collection
period at the project site. This establishes a clear pre-project picture of both ridership and safety.
After the project is constructed, staff would then repeat this process for post-construction. With
these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average daily and peak-period bicycle volumes,
as well as changes in collision rates. The key metric will not just be the number of collisions, but
collisions relative to the number of bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project would be one in
which more people use the facility while the collision rate per bicyclist or pedestrian remains the
same or decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns
with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives.
These draft guidelines 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.
Commission and Community Feedback - Winter 2026
After incorporating the requested Commission and Council changes, the ATP was brought back
to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission to gather feedback on the
updated draft project list and draft guidelines.
A summary of the comments provided by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2026, and
the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission on February 18, 2026, is included below.
416
PC 07-14-2026
416 of 422
At the Planning Commission, the Commission noted that making small adjustments to individual
scoring criteria could create a “whack-a-mole effect”, where changes unintentionally shift project
rankings elsewhere. That said, there was general agreement that the Safety and School criteria
could be refined to better elevate Vision Zero–related projects. Following prioritization, the
discussion shifted to emergency response times and the design of Class IV separated bike lanes.
Commissioners acknowledged the importance of this issue but did not agree that these facilities
universally worsen response times and concluded that the topic should be addressed through the
Programmatic Recommendations in the ATP.
The Planning Commission provided comments on the ATP through the following individual
straw polls:
Chair Kosolcharoen conducted a non-binding straw poll to have Council and staff consider
the ways in which public safety response time can be incorporated into the project
prioritization criteria. (Rao in favor; none opposed; no abstentions)
Commissioner Lindskog conducted a non-binding straw poll to revisit the scoring system and
put less weight on school routes and less weight on cost-effectiveness criteria to balance things
out, and put more weight on intersections in High Injury Network, particularly the top twenty,
and increase the ranking on Foothill Blvd. (Scharf, Kosolcharoen, Fung and Lindskog in
favor; Rao opposed; no abstentions)
Chair Kosolcharoen conducted a non-binding straw poll to support incorporating emergency
response times into programmatic recommendations. (Kosolcharoen, and Rao in favor; Scharf
Fung, and Lindskog opposed; no abstentions)
Commissioner Fung conducted a non-binding straw poll to reinstate proximity to parks in
addition to proximity to schools. (Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung and Lindskog in favor; Rao
opposed; no abstentions)
Commissioner Rao conducted a non-binding straw poll to discard the criteria proposed and
use the feedback provided at Council. (Rao in favor; Fung and Lindskog opposed;
Kosolcharoen and Scharf abstained)
At the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, a consistent theme was that the updated project
prioritization criteria could be refined to elevate Vision Zero-related projects. Commissioners
emphasized the importance of accounting for the High Injury Network, specifically by adding
consideration of KSI locations or Intersections and Corridors of Concern (the top 7 intersections
and corridors listed in the Vision Zero Action Plan). Many felt the School Proximity criteria may
be over-weighted, and there was interest in shifting from individual project thinking toward
clustering or zone strategies for future project delivery. Commissioners also noted that having to
normalize scores due to the Balance criterion might cause confusion when reading the table, and
this type of scoring could be simplified. Overall, the Commission was supportive of the presented
Plan documents and agreed that the scoring system could be adjusted to elevate Vision Zero
Corridors and Intersections of Concern in the project list.
417
PC 07-14-2026
417 of 422
The BPC provided formal comments through the following motion:
MOTION: Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck moved, seconded by Vice Chair Munisekaran
Madhdhipatla, to approve the ATP draft materials as presented today, with the following set of
modifications.
1. Address the inequality or imbalance between the ranking of projects in the ATP and the
Cupertino Vision Zero high injury network by reducing the max score for being on a safe
route to school to 10 for all three matrices, reducing the goal max score for access from 30
to 20 and increase HIN max scoring to 30.
2. Eliminate 1.25 modifier by making balance in bicycle matrix to a negative score.
3. Consider ATP project clustering as appropriate for future ATP updates.
Responses to Commission Feedback - Winter 2026
As both the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission felt that the Safe
Routes to School scoring may be overweighting certain projects, staff informally rescored
projects by adding an additional 10 points to projects located on the Vision Zero High
Injury Network (for a new Max of 30 points) and limiting the max score for School
Proximity to 10 points rather than the previous 20 points.
Since the two edits are directionally opposed, projects that score high on both criteria remain
comparatively stable, while projects that rely disproportionately on only one of those criteria see
the largest shifts. The results demonstrated that the strongest positive movement is concentrated
among projects that received only the Vision Zero adjustment. These projects generally gained
about 10 points and rose significantly on the list. The greatest negative movement concentrated
among projects that received only the SR2S adjustment. Those projects generally lost about 10
points and fell substantially in rank, showing that reducing SR2S from 20 to 10 points has a
stronger downward effect when it is not offset by a Vision Zero increase. Projects that received
both edits tended to stay closer to their prior position and typically changed by less than 1 point,
indicating that the +10 Vision Zero adjustment and the -10 SR2S adjustment largely offset one
another.
Responses to Community Questions - Winter 2026
Following Commission review, staff also received community questions about how the
recommended network facilities are defined and what construction treatments are
envisioned for Neighborhood Routes (Class III) and Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV).
Where the ATP references Neighborhood Routes (shown on the map in Attachment H, in
purple), these are envisioned as Class III bikeways that rely on wayfinding, speed tables,
and other context-appropriate treatments rather than bike lane striping that is typically
used on larger streets. An example of a Neighborhood Route would be Price Ave near
Wilson Park or Greenleaf Dr between Stelling Rd and Beardon Dr. Creation of a
Neighborhood Route would generally not require the removal of any on-street parking.
An ATP is a planning-level document that identifies project concepts and, for separated
bike lanes, does not prescribe a single divider type to be used citywide, nor does it state
418
PC 07-14-2026
418 of 422
that separated bikeways must only use concrete as the divider. The appropriate separation
treatment (flexible delineators, raised median, planters, curb, or parking-protected
design) is determined during subsequent project development and design, based on site-
specific context and constraints such as available right-of-way, drainage, driveway and
intersection conditions, cost, and community and Council input.
As described in the attached Visual Glossary (Attachment H; also available on the project
webpage and previously shared with the public during Phase 2 outreach), a separated
bike lane is defined as “an on-street bike lane that is separated from motor vehicle traffic
by a vertical barrier such as bollards, raised medians, planters, or parked cars.” The
Recommendations Map illustrates bikeway classification and not its design features.
Similarly, intersection recommendations in the ATP are presented as conceptual
typologies. Specific treatments at individual intersections will be selected and refined
during design through engineering analysis and public engagement. The Visual Glossary
provided during Phase 2 outreach remains the clearest summary of the pedestrian and
bicycle improvement types that are referenced in the ATP.
What Comes Next?
Next steps for the ATP will include preparing a draft report for public review in the spring. After
the public review period, staff will incorporate any needed revisions and bring the Draft Plan to
the City Council for adoption in late June or early July.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will develop
infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and accessibility for all non-
motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include mode shift strategies to promote
walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile dependency, which will reduce local
greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier,
more sustainable community. The development and implementation of an Active Transportation
Plan is a Transportation Measure (TR-1) in the Climate Action Plan (2022).
• Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15
percent of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040
Fiscal Impact
The ATP project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes, FY 24-25
Active Transportation Plan: This is a consolidation of existing and new transportation efforts that
aim to further the goals outlined in the City’s Vision Zero Initiative, including:
18.1 Review and update bike plan
18.2 Review and update pedestrian plan
419
PC 07-14-2026
419 of 422
18.3 Review current Complete Streets Policy and propose adjustments to create a better interface
between all modes of transportation
Council Goal:
Transportation, Environmental Sustainability
California Environmental Quality Act
The project is not subject to CEQA.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – November 04, 2025, City Council Staff Report
B – Revised Project Prioritization Criteria
C – Draft Prioritized Project List
D – Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
E – Draft Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
F – Draft Project Effectiveness Guidelines
G – Draft Network Recommendations Maps
H – Visual Glossary
420
PC 07-14-2026
420 of 422
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/10/2026Page 1 of 1
421
PC 07-14-2026
421 of 422
PLANNING COMMISSION
UPCOMING DRAFT AGENDA ITEMS
July 28, 2026
-Municipal Code Amendments for clarifying and establishing new definitions.
August 11, 2026 - Meeting canceled (recess)
August 25, 2026 - Meeting canceled (recess)
Subject to Change. Chair and Staff Liaison coordinate on Commission agendas.
DRA
F
T
422
PC 07-14-2026
422 of 422