CC 07-15-2025 Late_Oral_Written Communications (updated 7-16-25)CC 07-15-2025
Oral
Communications
Written Comments
Addressing youth climate anxiety
with city Climate Action Plan
Krish Arora
Rising Senior, The Harker School
krisharora2030@gmail.com
About myself
Aug 2020: Orange skies over Bay Area compelled me to do something.
Summary: Climate anxiety → Climate action
5+ years of research in climate impact mitigation and climate resilience
FindMySpace: Affordable AI/ML based method to reduce idling emissions caused by drivers
looking for parking in cities. (Synopsys award, IEEE, Patent, City Recognition)
EcoSat: Affordable AI/ML based method to accurately estimate CO2 emissions from satellite
images of power plant chimneys. (Synopsys award, IEEE, City Recognition)
MIT/BWSI: Coursework and project to build most efficient routing of relief supplies in hurricane
impacted region.
UCSD/INC: Research intern in a multi-university effort on neuromorphic computing with a goal to
build chips that are 2X more energy efficient for AI workloads. (Nature publication pending)
Climate anxiety: Research youth climate anxiety and ways to address.
Youth climate anxiety is a real and growing concern
Study after study shows >80% of youth are highly concerned about climate change and its
impact.
Climate anxiety is characterized by a feeling of lack of control and helplessness. It can
manifest as a mental health concern.symptoms can include depression.
California wildfires are especially a huge factor contributing to local youth climate anxiety.
Pictures taken by my cousins
Google search trends in California (2010:2025)
climate anxiety vs. climate disaster vs climate progress
Climate anxiety
Climate disaster Climate
progress
Concern and worry about
climate and climate disaster
far outweighs curiosity about
climate progress
Recommended Solutions
1.Take action: reduce impact on climate
2.Connect with nature: nature walks, conservation projects
3.Balance negative news with climate progress updates. Be real and balanced.
4.Learn about climate resilience through courses like one offered by UC.
5.Engage with local community
I focused on #3.
California Air Emissions Board(CARB) provides detailed transportation emissions data since
2000. I took some of this data and generated some insights that show the progress we’ve
made.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/msei/on-road-emfac
Santa Clara county and California have made progress (2000:2024)
Analyzed GHG and population dataset: custom analytics tool
43 out of 58 counties reduced GHG
emissions between 2000 and 2024.
54 out of 58 counties reduced per capita
GHG emissions between 2000 and 2024
Year GHG Emissions Per person GHG Population
2000 7,509,119 MT 4.46 MT 1685000
2024 5,724,622 MT 2.97 MT 1926325
Change -23.76%-33.4%+14.32%
Year GHG Emissions Per person GHG Population GDP
2000 165031500 MT 4.87 MT 33871648 1.8 Trillion
2024 153077200 MT 3.88 MT 39431263 4.1 Trillion
Change -7.2%-20.3%+16.41%+128%
Santa Clara county reduced
net emissions by 23.7% and
per capita GHG by 33%
between 2000 and 2024
California reduced its net
emissions by 7.2% between
2000 and 2024 while GDP
increased by > 100%
Santa Clara county and California have made progress (2000:2024)
Analyzed GHG and population dataset
Proposals
1.Sections in green newsletter around climate progress
a.I already have an Op Ed written with these insights.
2.Update the city’s Climate Action Plan with a goal for reducing climate anxiety.
3.Make an accessible analytics tool/website that shows local climate progress.
a.I am developing a website with the insights I showed and more.
Thank you for listening!
contact: krisharora2030@gmail.com
Propose an update to
city ADU ordinance –
4 ft setback for ADU <1000 sq ft
My ADU permit application
•Permit to build 999 sq ft 1-story ADU,
10 ft ceiling,
•to align with 11 ft ceiling of main house
•designed for no loss to neighbor’s view,
privacy or light
•Subject to non-streamlined review
•applied 10 weeks ago
•working with City Planning thru multiple
meetings
Main
House
ADU
proposed
Apartment Complex
R-1-10
House for
wheelchair
dependent
residents
Encountered CMC contradiction to building code
(confirmed with City Planning)
•Current CMC requires my ADU to have a 10.5 setback to side and rear
•The issues:
•“Wall plate height” not well defined in CMC
•Wall-plane rule (CMC 19.100.030.2.h) limits to
~5′-8″ top plate at 4 ft setback
•Building code requires min 7 ft plate height
•Four-foot ADU setback thus infeasible
•Neighboring practice for reference:
•San José, Los Altos: 4–5 ft setbacks with ministerial review
•Santa Clara County: detached ADUs up to 1,200 sq ft via simple building permit
CMC 19.100.030.2.h
Propose amendment
•Amend CMC § 19.112.040.C: 4 ft side/rear setback for detached
ADUs ≤ 1,000 sq ft
•Exempt Wall-Plane Height: CMC § 19.100.030.2.h not to apply to
habitable ADUs
•Help to expedite my permit application
•This benefits the whole Cupertino community
•Resolves code inconsistencies
•Promotes infill housing
•Aligns with State ADU vision (esp. 4ft setback)
Fr
o
m
:
Co
n
n
i
e
-
C
o
m
c
a
s
t
S
w
i
m
5
a
m
To
:
Ci
t
y
C
l
e
r
k
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
Re
n
t
e
r
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
f
Y
u
y
i
H
e
,
V
i
c
e
C
h
a
i
r
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
Da
t
e
:
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
J
u
l
y
1
5
,
2
0
2
5
8
:
2
0
:
0
7
P
M
CA
U
T
I
O
N
:
T
h
i
s
e
m
a
i
l
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
D
o
n
o
t
c
l
i
c
k
l
i
n
k
s
o
r
o
p
e
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
y
o
u
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
t
h
e
s
e
n
d
e
r
a
n
d
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
s
s
a
f
e
.
Pl
e
a
s
e
p
u
t
t
h
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
f
o
r
O
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
J
u
l
y
1
5
,
2
0
2
5
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
,
C
o
n
n
i
e
Fr
o
m
C
o
n
n
i
e
'
s
i
P
h
o
n
e
Fr
o
m
:
Co
n
n
i
e
-
C
o
m
c
a
s
t
S
w
i
m
5
a
m
To
:
Ci
t
y
C
l
e
r
k
Su
b
j
e
c
t
:
Re
n
t
e
r
D
i
s
p
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
Y
u
y
i
H
e
Da
t
e
:
Tu
e
s
d
a
y
,
J
u
l
y
1
5
,
2
0
2
5
8
:
1
6
:
1
2
P
M
CA
U
T
I
O
N
:
T
h
i
s
e
m
a
i
l
o
r
i
g
i
n
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
r
g
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
D
o
n
o
t
c
l
i
c
k
l
i
n
k
s
o
r
o
p
e
n
a
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
y
o
u
r
e
c
o
g
n
i
z
e
t
h
e
s
e
n
d
e
r
a
n
d
k
n
o
w
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
i
s
s
a
f
e
.
Hi
K
i
r
s
t
e
n
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
p
u
t
t
h
i
s
i
n
t
h
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
f
o
r
Y
u
y
i
H
e
,
V
i
c
e
C
h
a
i
r
,
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
r
.
S
h
e
s
p
o
k
e
a
t
O
r
a
l
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
J
u
l
y
1
5
,
2
0
2
5
.
Fr
o
m
C
o
n
n
i
e
'
s
i
P
h
o
n
e
CC 07-15-2025
Item No. 11
Study Session -
Application to develop
ELI and BMR housing
units
Written Communications
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk; City Council
Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 11, Mary Avenue project
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 5:07:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 11, Study Session, Mary Avenue project
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager:
My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and Chair, Housing Commission,
speaking for myself only.
I am pleased to support the application to develop new ELI (Extremely Low
Income ) and BMR housing units for Developmentally Disabled Individuals (IDD)
on City-owned property along Mary Avenue.
This is much needed housing that has been on the Council’s Work Program for
many years. I remember 2019 when former Mayor Scharf made it a priority and
I was new to the Housing Commission. I have attended the Housing Commission
and City Council meetings for this project.
Many families and individuals will be helped with this housing. It will also
facilitate our goal to keep individuals from falling into homelessness. Many IDD
individuals live with aging parents, therefore, these apartments will help them
and will, also, help our community.
It is good to see that the issue of parking is discussed and can be resolved with
careful thought.
I urge you to give comments to staff that will move this project forward.
Sincerely,
Connie L Cunningham
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; City Attorney"s Office; Tina Kapoor; Benjamin Fu; Luke Connolly; Chad Mosley; Gian Martire; City
Clerk
Subject:Request to Review Mary Ave Villas in Light of Article 34 Applicability Due to City Financial Participation
Date:Wednesday, July 16, 2025 12:17:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Clerk,
Please include the below in written communications for the 07/15/25 city council meeting
agenda item on Mary Ave Villas.
[Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident]
To:
Mayor Liang Chao
Cupertino City Council
CC:
City Clerk
City Attorney
Interim City Manager Tina Kapoor
Director Fu, Community Development
Director Mosley, Public Works
Deputy Director Connolly, Planning
City Planner Martiere
Subject: Request to Review Mary Ave Villas in Light of Article 34 Applicability Due to City
Financial Participation
Date: July 16, 2025
Dear Mayor Chao and Honorable Councilmembers,
I am writing to respectfully but urgently request that the City Council reconsider its recent
vote approving the proposed Mary Ave Villas low-income housing project, and to place this
item back on the agenda at the next regular City Council meeting.
I believe there are serious legal and constitutional issues that deserve fuller consideration
before this project proceeds further — in particular, compliance with Article 34 of the
California Constitution, which requires voter approval for certain types of publicly
supported and funded low-income housing.
Article 34 Requirements
To ensure transparency and shared understanding, here is the verbatim text of Article
XXXIV, Section 1:
"No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or
acquired in any manner by any state public body, as defined by law, whether
for itself or for another, until a majority of the qualified electors of the city,
town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to be developed,
constructed, or acquired, voting upon such issue, approve such project by
majority vote."
This language makes clear that if the City is involved in the development “in any
manner”—whether through financing, leasing, or other material participation—then voter
approval is constitutionally required.
Case Law That Guides This Interpretation
The California courts have consistently affirmed that public financing or subsidy—even
where the City does not directly own or construct the housing—can still qualify as
“development” under Article 34. Relevant cases include:
Anderson v. City of Santa Barbara (1974): City’s financial involvement in a
nonprofit-led project triggered Article 34.
City of Santa Clara v. Perry (1971): Land leases and financial support by the city
constituted development requiring a vote.
Griffin v. County of Marin (1984): Below-market public financing qualified as
“development.”
San Mateo County v. Boss (1971): Differentiated projects with minimal city
involvement, clarifying that passive land leasing without public financing does not
trigger Article 34.
Given this precedent, it would be prudent for the City to conduct a detailed review of
whether Mary Ave Villas involves public financial support, land arrangements, or other forms
of development activity that would fall under the scope of Article 34.
I urge the Mayor and council to:
1. Agendaize a reconsideration of the Mary Ave Villas approval at your next council
meeting.
2. Review and evaluate whether the City’s involvement in the project rises to the level of
“development” under Article 34 given the funding by the city to the project.
3. If so, consider placing the matter on the November 2026 ballot so that Cupertino voters
have the opportunity to weigh in. Alternatively rescind all funding offered to Mary Ave
Villas and any other similar project that would similarly trigger Article 34.
4. In the meantime, pause further steps that would advance the project until this
constitutional question is properly addressed.
This is not about opposing affordable housing, but rather ensuring that constitutional due
process is followed and that the community is involved, as Article 34 intends.
Thank you for your continued service to our community. I trust that the City Council will give
this matter the thoughtful but urgent and careful consideration it deserves.
I also urge the city attorney to carefully review the above case law precedent and give your
legal recommendation to council so as to not put the city in a place where it is exposed to risk
of non-compliance to Article 34 of the California constitution.
Sincerely,
San Rao (Writing on behalf of myself only, as a Cupertino resident)
From:Lina Meng
To:City Council; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Public Comments
Subject:Public Comments on Application No.: ASA-2025-006 (Mary Avenue Housing Proposal)
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:43:07 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
My name is Lina, a concerned resident of Cupertino. I attended the council meeting in person
tonight but had to rush home to relieve my babysitter and did not have a chance to speak
during special study Item 11 tonight regarding the proposed Mary Ave Villas project.
As a mother of two young children, our lives are deeply intertwined with Mary Avenue. We
frequent the bike lanes, spend countless hours at Memorial Park—our city's main park for
city-wide events—and our dog loves the dog park, all accessible via this very street. I write
today, pleading for the safety and well-being of our community. I respectfully urge you to
reconsider and vote against the proposed affordable housing development on Mary Avenue.
While I wholeheartedly support our city's need for more housing, the chosen location for this
project presents critical challenges that cannot be overlooked.
First, the sheer density and its impact on traffic and community flow are alarming. Mary
Avenue is already a heavily trafficked artery, burdened by 269 new residential units from
Westport and Arroyo Village, with 40 more units from Mary Avenue Villas and another
Westport facility in the pipeline. This street is at its absolute capacity, especially during school
hours for Garden Gate Elementary. The project plans themselves confirm this, showing the
complex will cut into Mary Avenue, impacting existing bike lanes and removing street
parking to accommodate the new buildings and their on-site parking. Adding more units here,
coupled with the parking lot's entrance directly across from Glenbrook Apartments, will create
an unbearable parking nightmare and gridlock, pushing our community past its breaking point.
The recent July 4th celebration, with cars parked all the way down Mary Avenue to this
proposed site, clearly illustrates how quickly our existing capacity is overwhelmed. This
increases the risk of motor vehicle collisions with pedestrians.
Second, this project directly compromises the safety of our children and residents. The
plans indicate building into our precious bike lanes and existing parking spots. I often hold my
breath as my kids navigate these lanes. What was once a relatively safe passage for them to get
to school or Memorial Park, where hundreds gather for city events, will become a gauntlet of
increased traffic and reduced safe space, directly jeopardizing our most vulnerable.
We need housing, yes, but not at the expense of our community's safety, health, and quality of
life. I urge the City Council to explore alternative uses for this city-owned land, or to consider
other, more suitable locations within Cupertino that do not compromise the well-being of our
existing neighborhoods.
Thank you for listening to my concerns, and the concerns of many other families in Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Lina
Cupertino Resident and Property Owner
CC 07-15-2025
Item No. 13
Stevens Creek Corridor
Vision Study
Written Communications
From:Kim Guptill
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 6:26:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Kim Guptill and I’m a Cupertino commuter.
As you know, Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs,
housing, and transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task.
Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of
us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Kim Guptill
San Jose
From:Andrea Lund
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 5:48:33 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello,
I’m a resident of Cupertino writing in strong support of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, which is being
discussed at tonight’s council meeting. Stevens Creek Boulevard is an essential thoroughfare for my family and I, as
we live near the post office in the Monta Vista neighborhood. We use Stevens Creek to access highway 85 for our
commutes, to go shopping for groceries and other necessities and to walk to the farmers market at De Anza College
on Sunday mornings.
Participating in a joint vision for Stevens Creek Boulevard with the other cities through which this important
thoroughfare runs should be a no-brainer for the City of Cupertino. It does not mandate any specific changes, and
doing so will position Cupertino and its neighbors to benefit from state and county grant funding. Buy-in has already
been secured from other cities, and I see no reason for Cupertino to not accept the study results.
Additionally, I encourage the Council to consider extending the corridor vision study to include Steven Creek
Boulevard all the way to Foothill Boulevard, rather than stopping at Bubb Road. This is the most important segment
of Stevens Creek Boulevard for my family and our neighbors and also affects folks who may use Stevens Creek to
get to work along Bubb Road from Foothill. Our end of Stevens Creek Boulevard may be quieter than other
segments, but it is still full of activity at nearby businesses, schools and parklands.
Thank you for your consideration and for keeping the interests of Cupertino residents at the forefront of your
deliberations.
Sincerely,
Andrea Lund
From:Daniel Strokis
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:53:54 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Daniel Strokis. I work in Cupertino and live close to Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and transportation, but the current
design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially
those of us who are unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the state forcing us to
plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the transportation options along the corridor can
mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve safety and reduce
traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It
was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By
accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships
without binding the city to any new financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek Boulevard that we
deserve.
Sincerely,
Daniel Strokis
From:Dolly Sandoval
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:SCC Vision Study - item 13
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 4:20:36 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thank you City Councilmembers for placing item 13 o n tonight's agenda, the Stevens Creek
Corridor Vision Study. I hope you will take staff's advice and adopt a resolution accepting the
report as well as the additional comments by the Bike Ped Commission and Planning
Commission. There is one comment from the Planning Commission I disagree with - this plan
should cover SCB from end-to-end, so should include planning for improvements from Bubb
road to Foothill Expressway..
Collaborating with our neighborhood stakeholders is vitally important and I hope the City of
Cupertino will join Valley Transportation Authority and the cities of Santa Clara and San Jose,
as well as the SCC Board of Supervisors, in moving forward with enhanced transportation
options. A well-thought-out community vision for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
riders can only improve our mobility through Cupertino.
I would like my email to be included in the public record for this topic.
Thank you,
Dolly
Dolly Sandoval
From:E. Poon
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:65 signatures against Bus Only Lanes, SC Blvd, Dec 18, 2024
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7:35:37 PM
Attachments:EmilyEmailsGillmor.docx
signature_against_bike_lane-1.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attached is a letter I wrote to the Santa Clara City Council in June 2025 and the 65 signatures
collected in Dec. 2025.
Emily Poon
Cupertino Resident
Emiy Poon’s 6/10/2025 email
Dear Mayor Gillmor and Council Members,
I have been a Cupertino resident for 18 years. I heard that at the May 27, 2025 Santa Clara City Council
meeting, the Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study (SCBCVS) was not discussed, and it was placed
on the Consent Calendar.
I have followed the Vision Study, and feel that the case I have heard so far for Bus-Only Lanes on
Stevens Creek Blvd is one-sided. There are many stakeholders whose livelihood and daily activities are
impacted by any changes to the use of traffic lanes on Stevens Creek Blvd. And they have been left
out.
In December 2024, I teamed up with a volunteer from Santa Clara to visit a number of car dealerships
along Stevens Creek Blvd, with San Jose and Santa Clara addresses. We collected a total of 65
signatures against Bus-Only Lanes. I submitted these signatures to the Vision Study Steering
Committee in the meeting on December 18, 2024.
Attached are the 65 signatures. I think that you should have access to these signatures.
At the meeting, Scott Jobe, managing partner of Chevrolet-Cadillac spoke. In his 1-minute speech
Scott explained how his two dealerships had not been included in any consultant outreach, as he
heard about the Vision Study only as a result of our volunteer visit.
Despite the two-year effort of the consultants, most of the car dealerships were not notified. Such an
omission is serious, as car dealerships bring in much revenue to the cities and any changes should
ensure that they are not negatively impacted.
Stevens Creek Auto Row is well known in our region. The Boulevard needs to provide space in the
center median for the big rigs that transport new cars to be unloaded. The street parking on both
sides is needed for the sales staff, for them to park their own cars when they arrive for work. Most of
the time, the dealership parking lots are reserved for inventory.
If it works well, why change it?
The Vision Study's ideal of "complete streets", with shade trees, medians for pedestrian crossings,
may not even make sense in this part of the Boulevard.
Instead of placing the Vision Study on the Consent Calendar, please take the time at your convenience
to go through the Study, to find if it has relevance for your City. Mayor Lisa Gillmor said it well in the
closing remarks on December 18. Santa Clara has the premier shopping mall in our region, the
important car dealerships, as well as the legacy small businesses. She used the word "customize" to
describe the task.
The City of Cupertino is far along in its path of such customization, as two committees in April and
May have deliberated and are ready with recommendations for our City Council. The latest I have
heard is that our City Council will look into it in September. I was in the audience at these lower level
advisory committee meetings, where committee members asked how the neighboring cities are
receiving the Study.
Thanks for looking into the petitions and bringing the proper balance, allowing all stakeholders of the
Stevens Creek Blvd to voice their opinion.
From:Tina Kapoor
To:City Clerk
Subject:Fwd: Proposed Resolution for Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 5:32:23 PM
Attachments:Liang - Cupertino 2025 SCB Vision Study Resolution Draft.docx
Kitty - Cupertino 2025 SCB Vision Study Resolution Draft.docx
Begin forwarded message:
Tina Kapoor
Interim City Manager
City Manager's Office
TinaK@cupertino.gov
(408)777-7607
From: Liang Chao <LChao@cupertino.gov>
Date: July 15, 2025 at 5:29:50 PM PDT
To: Tina Kapoor <TinaK@cupertino.gov>, Kitty Moore
<KMoore@cupertino.gov>
Cc: Floy Andrews <fandrews@awattorneys.com>, Chad Mosley
<ChadM@cupertino.gov>, Benjamin Fu <BenjaminF@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Proposed Resolution for Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study
Attached is the proposed resolution, combining the staff's draft resolution
with Vice Mayor's draft.
I removed any mention of BPC or planning since the Council either accept or
not accept their recommendations. It makes no sense to quote their specific
recommendations in a city council resolution.
I have also attached Vice Mayor's draft for reference.
Please enter this as a desk item (or late written communication) so that the
council has a copy of the proposed resolution in writing.
Thanks!
Liang
Liang Chao
Mayor
City Council
LChao@cupertino.gov
408-777-3192
Resolution No. [Insert Cupertino Resolution Number]
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, Cupertino staff and Councilmembers have participated in discussions with neighboring communities since a multijurisdictional group was established by the San Jose City Council on August 8, 2017, comprised of the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, San Jose, Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to discuss key regional issues affecting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor with a focus on transportation and circulation; and (comment: from draft resolution)
as part of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s 2018 Horizon Initiative, San Jose, Santa Clara, Cupertino, and VTA jointly proposed a high-capacity transit line from Diridon Station in San Jose to De Anza College in Cupertino, securing inclusion in Plan Bay Area 2040; and (comment: from draft resolution)
the Mobility Element of the City of Cupertino General Plan (Community Vision 2015-2040) supports the participation in regional transportation planning processes and working with neighboring cities to develop programs consistent with the goals and policies of Cupertino's General Plan, to minimize adverse impacts on the City's circulation system, and to address regional transportation and land use issues of mutual interest through Policy M-1.1, Regional Transportation Planning; and (comment: from draft resolution)
on July 26, 2019, the Cupertino City Council adopted Resolution 19-089 supporting the study of transit efficiency and streetscape improvements for the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor in partnership with the City of San Jose, City of Santa Clara, the County of Santa Clara, and VTA; and (comment: from draft resolution)
the process of completing the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study (Vision Study) was launched in January 2023 and guided by the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Steering Committee, comprised of elected officials from the participating jurisdictions, and with input from a working group of participating agency staff and a community advisory group; and (comment: from draft resolution)
WHEREAS, the Vision Study was completed in December 2024 and is being presented to the governing body of each jurisdiction for acceptance; (comment: from draft resolution)
WHEREAS, the 2016 Cupertino Bicycle Master Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Master Plan identify separated bike paths along Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority. Cupertino has been improving safety along the corridor through annual Capital Improvement Projects. (comment: added) Cupertino prioritized safety with the adoption of the Local Road Safety Plan in January 2023 and the Vision Zero Plan in July 2024, both of which identified safety projects along Stevens Creek Boulevard. (comment: added)
, California Government Code Section 65088 establishes the framework for Congestion Management Programs and emphasizes the need for VTA to develop and implement transportation investment priorities based on regional needs; (comment: from Moore's draft) NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT:
1. The City of Cupertino accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision
Study as one of many valuable planning documents for consideration.
2. The City wishes to ensure the following:
A. The City reaffirms its commitment to the provisions contained within
Resolution 19-089, specifically that “high-capacity transit service along the
corridor on City surface streets would not use general purpose travel lanes or
adversely impact vehicular capacity”, and that it should “be grade separated,
and time- competitive with auto travel”. (comment: part of BPC
recommendation)
B. The City continues to advocate for a study, as stated in Resolution 19-089, of
“an alternate alignment in Cupertino along I-280, continuing to DeAnza
College at the junction of SR85 and Stevens Creek Boulevard, ensuring
service to areas of high employment density and De Anza College, while
connecting the Cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, and Cupertino, supported by,
and developed in collaboration with, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority. ” (comment: in line with BPC recommendation)
C. The City maintains final decision-making authority regarding any projects or
recommendations contained in the Vision Study. (comment: part of BPC
recommendation)
D. All projects within the City of Cupertino, including any intersection
modifications, will conform to the City’s standard processes, plans, and
procedures for public outreach and approval. (comment: from BPC
recommendation) 3. The City remains committed to: A. Improving safety along Stevens Creek Boulevard and other corridors throughout the City by implementing the Vision Zero Plan, the Local Roadway Safety Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans. B. Prioritizing investments in safety, with a focus on—but not limited to—technology and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian detection. C. Considering cost-effective options to maintain prudent fiscal management and responsible allocation of public resources.
4. The City conditionally supports the Vision Study as a planning tool, while emphasizing the need to prioritize projects based on documented regional need and cost estimates—especially given the funding demands of projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension. (comment: from Moore's draft) 5. The City does not support immediate funding or implementation of costly high-capacity transit in the 9-mile Stevens Creek Corridor without clear regional need and VTA prioritization under Government Code §65088. Future support will depend on VTA designating the corridor as a top regional investment priority. (comment: from Moore's draft) 6. The City urges VTA and MTC to develop a regionally prioritized transportation investment plan that allocates funding based on demonstrated need, and to evaluate the costs and benefits of any Stevens Creek high-capacity transit proposal in light of BART Phase 2 budget lessons. (comment: from Moore's draft) 7. The City directs staff to collaborate with VTA, MTC, and other agencies to advocate for a data-driven, needs-based approach to transportation planning, ensuring taxpayer funds are allocated responsibly and with clear benefit. (comment: shortened from Moore's draft) PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Cupertino this [Date of Adoption] day of [Month, Year], by the following vote: AYES: NOES:
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: [Mayor's Signature] Mayor of the City of Cupertino
Resolution No. [Insert Cupertino Resolution Number]
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO REGARDING THE STEVENS CREEK BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VISION STUDY
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino participated in the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, a multi-jurisdictional effort to develop a shared vision for mobility along a 9-mile stretch of the road, from Foothill Boulevard in Cupertino to Diridon Station in SanJosé; and
, the Vision Study explored various transportation options including potential high-capacity transit; and
, the City acknowledges the importance of regional transportation planning and supports the exploration of mobility enhancements within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor; and
, the City is committed to prudent fiscal management and the responsible allocation of public resources;
, the BART Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project, a six-mile extension of BART service from Berryessa/North San José Station to the City of Santa Clara, originally estimated to cost around $4 billion, has seen its estimated project cost increase to $12.75 billion with an anticipated opening in 2036, a change reflecting updated engineering, risk assessments, and significant market shifts since the initial estimate in 2020;
, the estimated costs for potential high-capacity transit options within the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, including a separate transit line, range from $1.7 billion to $2.8 billion, with a timeline of at least 20 years for completion, indicating a substantial future investment;
, California Government Code Section 65088 establishes the framework for Congestion Management Programs and emphasizes the need for VTA to develop and implement transportation investment priorities based on regional needs;
, the City believes that substantial investments in high-capacity transit must be
carefully evaluated within the context of county-wide transportation priorities and documented need, taking into account the factors that have influenced the cost and schedule of similar major infrastructure projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension; , the City supports strategically investing in expensive transit where it is most needed in the county; , the City desires to express its conditional support for the Vision Study, recognizing its value as a planning document while advocating for careful prioritization based on demonstrated regional need and documented cost estimates, especially in light of the significant funding requirements of projects like the BART Phase 2 Extension; , the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission has reviewed the Vision Study and recommended safety improvements such as protected bike lanes, recognizing Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority in the City's Vision Zero plan; , the Cupertino Planning Commission has recommended acceptance of the Vision Study, recognizing the need for continued study while acknowledging the aspirational nature of certain elements and the significant funding required; NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO THAT: 1. The City of Cupertino accepts the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study as a valuable planning document. 2. The City Council acknowledges the recommendations of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission regarding the importance of safe pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and recognizes Stevens Creek Boulevard as a top priority for safety improvements in the City's Vision Zero plan. 3. The City Council acknowledges the Planning Commission's motion to recommend acceptance of the Vision Study, recognizing the need for further study. 4. The City recognizes the significant financial implications of high-capacity transit projects, as demonstrated by estimated costs within the Stevens Creek Corridor and changes experienced by the BART Phase 2 Extension Project. 5. The City does not endorse or commit to advocating for the immediate funding or implementation of expensive, high-capacity transit options within the 9-mile
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor, without a clear demonstration of regional need and documented prioritization by VTA in accordance with California Government Code Section 65088. 6. The City supports the concept of aspirational future high-capacity transit projects within the Stevens Creek Corridor, but only when VTA has clearly demonstrated that this corridor is a top priority for regional transportation investment, based on a comprehensive evaluation and documented in accordance with California Government Code Section 65088. 7. The City urges VTA and MTC to develop a regional prioritized plan for transportation investments that strategically allocates resources to projects demonstrating the greatest need, and to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed high-capacity transit project within the Stevens Creek Corridor in light of the experiences with the BART Phase 2 Extension and factors influencing its budget adjustments. 8. The City directs staff to work with the participating agencies, including VTA and MTC, to advocate for a data-driven and prioritized approach to regional transportation planning and investment, ensuring that the allocation of taxpayer dollars is prudent and aligned with regional needs, and to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of any proposed high-capacity transit project within the Stevens Creek Corridor. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Cupertino this [Date of Adoption] day of [Month, Year], by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: [Mayor's Signature] Mayor of the City of Cupertino