Planning Commission supports Active Transportation Plan; asks staff to broaden school proximity and add safety projects

The Cupertino Planning Commission on Sept. 9 received an update on the city’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP) and unanimously passed a motion directing staff to revise the draft project prioritization criteria and add specific implementation items, including a new project to address safety on the city’s high‑injury network.

Transportation staff framed the ATP as a citywide planning effort to unify prior biking and pedestrian documents and create a single prioritization framework. "We hope [the ATP] will be a road map for a safer, more active Cupertino into the future," Transportation Manager David Stillman said. Alta Planning and Design summarized phase‑one outreach and technical analysis: "Across all forms of input, we've received almost 3,000 public comments and reached over 1,300 people," consultant Petra Reyes said. Alta's technical lead, David Wasserman, described an analysis that combined short‑trip potential and level‑of‑traffic‑stress mapping. "Roughly 30% of all car trips starting or ending in Cupertino are 5 miles or less," Wasserman said, underscoring the potential to shift short vehicle trips to walking or biking if barriers are reduced.

What commissioners decided: After discussion and public comment, the commission approved a motion (unanimous) that asked staff to update the ATP prioritization matrix and to add a separate, actionable safety project. Key direction included:

- Increase the school proximity score to include projects within a half mile of schools and add senior‑facility proximity as an access metric. Several commissioners and student speakers argued a quarter‑mile buffer was too tight to capture typical student commutes.

- Replace the draft "sustainability" criterion with an explicit "connectivity" criterion and award points when projects are within a quarter‑mile of a trail or a low‑stress facility (for example, a Class 4 protected bike lane).

- Remove the "fairness" score based on raw counts of public comments; commissioners said that criterion risks gaming and is not an objective performance measure.

- Adjust the "balance" or roadway‑impact penalty so that small removals of parking yield a modest negative score while large removals (for example, five or more regularly used spaces) or elimination of a travel lane carry larger penalties; staff were directed to revise the specific point levels.

- Add a named project to pursue intersection and corridor‑level solutions on the high‑injury network, using tools such as red‑light cameras, speed enforcement technology, and adaptive right‑turn controls that restrict turns when a bicyclist or pedestrian is present. The commission did not specify a citywide rollout; it directed staff to scope corridor or multi‑intersection projects for grant applications.

- Require baseline bicycle counts for major proposed bicycle projects so the city can measure utilization before and after improvements.

- Replace the single named training partner in the draft with a more general directive to "partner with bicycle education providers" to offer routine adult and family bicycle safety and skills classes in Cupertino.

Public input: Students, parents and local bicycle and pedestrian advocates commented during the public comment period. A Cupertino High School student urged broader school proximity weighting, saying typical commute radii extend beyond a quarter mile. Several commenters urged prioritizing safe routes to schools and warned that subtracting points for parking impacts could have deprioritized previously popular projects such as the Regnard Creek Trail.

What the ATP staff presented: Alta walked the commission through the analysis approach: (1) active‑trip potential using origin‑destination mobile data; (2) pedestrian and bicycle levels of traffic stress (LTS) that rate corridors on a 1–4 comfort scale; and (3) a gap‑score methodology that aggregates suppressed short‑trip demand. Alta recommended a project toolbox of intersection treatments and a prioritization rubric weighting safety and access most heavily. Staff confirmed the plan is funded with the city’s share of MTC TDA‑3 money (formula allocation) and that MTC requires the plan to be completed within three years in order for the city to receive reimbursement.

Ending and next steps: Staff will update the draft ATP prioritization criteria and the project list to reflect the commission’s directions, incorporate the requested baseline counting approach, and bring a revised draft back to the commission and then to City Council. Consultants expect to present a draft plan for public review early next year and seek council adoption in spring.