Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Stevens Creek topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and students urge council to move Stevens Creek corridor study back onto agenda after postponement
Summary
After the council moved the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study to Sept. 3, multiple public speakers and students implored councilors to act sooner, saying delay prolongs safety issues and risks partner relationships and funding; council postponed item 9 by motion.
The city council postponed consideration of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study from the June meeting to Sept. 3, prompting several residents and students to ask the council to accelerate review and acceptance of the study.
Harry Neal, a De Anza College student, told the council the delay is "unacceptable" because acceptance of the study does not obligate the city to spending but delays a timeline for safety improvements. "Acceptance of the study does not commit the city to any new financial obligations," Neal told the council, and he said the delay would push out safety measures.
Other speakers echoed the call for a sooner meeting. Jonah Zhang, who said he relies on public transit to get around, said delaying from June to September was an insult to students who want safer Stevens Creek. Jennifer Griffin, a resident and corridor-area participant, said she supported the delay because she has questions and wants more information; others, including Betsy Magus of the VTA Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, expressed disappointment that the council postponed rather than accepted the study now.
Speakers raised related concerns about transit agency funding and countywide coordination: commenters noted VTA budget uncertainty following recent service disruptions, the multiple agencies involved (Cupertino, San Jose, Santa Clara, Santa Clara County and VTA), and the study27s $800,000 regional funding footprint. Some residents also linked the Stevens Creek study to retail impacts and state housing legislation discussions.
Action: Council made a motion to postpone item 9 (the "Finch" item reference in the agenda) to a later date; the motion carried (transcript: "The motion carries with Wong Bodie no.").
Ending: Several speakers asked the council to return the item at the earliest feasible meeting; council members did not set a new earlier date in public comment but acknowledged they had received correspondence and would post materials for further public review.
