Planning commission backs Stevens Creek Boulevard vision study, urges local priorities and cost focus

The Cupertino Planning Commission on May 13 voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council accept a multi‑agency Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor vision study, with added qualifications to emphasize corridor identity and maintenance, prioritize safety (including technology and innovation), and to focus on cost and off‑corridor active‑transportation investments.

The plan covers roughly a nine‑mile multi‑jurisdictional corridor spanning San Jose, Santa Clara and Cupertino and sets a package of near, mid and long‑term recommendations: near‑term maintenance and placemaking actions, policy steps to optimize transit service, a midterm set of intersection and crossing improvements, and a long‑term study of grade‑separated high‑capacity transit with an alternative alignment consideration along I‑280.

Why it matters: Stevens Creek Boulevard is a major multimodal corridor with shopping centers, De Anza College and high commuter volumes. The study was developed by a regional steering committee and a community advisory group and is intended to guide coordinated project selection, help prioritize grant applications and identify safety and multimodal needs along and near the corridor.

What staff presented

Matt Schroeder, the city’s senior transportation planner, told commissioners the study was started in 2022 after a 2019 council resolution directing Cupertino’s participation. Schroeder said outreach included community workshops, a community advisory group, pop‑up engagement (notably at the De Anza Farmers Market), webinars and public meetings. The plan’s draft vision statement called for a corridor that is “safe and enjoyable for all ages and abilities and all transportation modes,” and the recommendation plan grouped community‑endorsed projects into near‑term (placemaking, corridor maintenance, transit signal priority and pedestrian/bicycle improvements), midterm (priority intersection safety projects) and long‑term (further study of grade‑separated high‑capacity transit and alternative alignments).

Transit and funding issues

Commissioners and members of the public discussed multiple transit options and financing. David Stillman, the city’s transportation manager, explained transit signal priority as a signal‑timing measure that can advance a green for a bus by a few seconds or slightly delay competing movements; he said parameters and any incremental delays remain under local control. The study notes the long‑term, grade‑separated transit concept is complex: it would be expensive and would require further engineering and multi‑agency decisions. Staff told commissioners Cupertino contributed about $154,000 toward the corridor study; future project work would require separate funding decisions and would likely rely on competitive grants and interagency coordination. Accepting the study does not obligate Cupertino to build any specific project.

Public comment: mixed views

Public comment was split. Several business and dealer representatives (written submissions) urged the city not to remove general‑purpose travel lanes or street parking, citing customer access concerns. Other speakers — including residents, safety advocates and regional advisory committee members — urged approval of the study and highlighted pedestrian and bicycle safety needs, improved transit reliability, and the benefit of corridor‑wide coordination. Among speakers, Harry Neal (former community advisory group member) urged the commission to adopt the recommended plan unchanged; Betsy Magus (a bicycling‑advocacy participant) noted that the corridor’s collision history and daily ridership patterns justify improvements; other residents urged clarity and more transparent outreach to local businesses.

Commission comment and qualification

Commissioners expressed both support for the study’s near‑ and mid‑term projects and caution about long‑term, grade‑separated transit. Commissioners raised concerns including long‑term capital and operating costs, current VTA budget shortfalls, ridership expectations and the possibility that at‑grade options could reduce the chance of future grade‑separated solutions. Several commissioners asked staff to ensure the plan remained consistent with the 2019 Cupertino council resolution — which required that any local option avoid removing general‑purpose lanes within Cupertino, be grade‑separated to avoid local congestion, and study the I‑280 alignment as an alternative.

Formal action

Chair Rao moved — and Commissioner Fung seconded — a recommendation that the City Council accept the Stevens Creek Boulevard corridor vision study with several qualifications: reaffirm the BikePed commission recommendations (including not eliminating car lanes in Cupertino), prioritize investments in corridor identity and maintenance, prioritize safety investments (with a focus on but not limited to technology and innovation such as adaptive signals and pedestrian sensing), limit major costly corridor transit commitments in the near term while pursuing grant funding and interagency coordination, and prioritize complementary off‑corridor active‑transportation investments (for example, the Lawrence/Mitty and Tamienino trail connections). The motion passed unanimously.

What happens next

Staff said the steering committee and each jurisdiction will continue review; the near‑term elements in the recommendation plan are intended to support grant pursuits and coordinated local investments. Schroeder repeated that acceptance of the study does not constitute approval of any single project and that each proposed project would return to the responsible city or agency for independent review and approval.

Quotes

“This is a multi‑agency long range transportation planning study,” Matt Schroeder told commissioners. On transit signal priority, David Stillman said, “Transit signal priority is a feature...that allow[s] buses that may be behind schedule to get an advanced green,” and emphasized that signal parameters remain under local control.

Ending

The planning commission’s recommendation moves the study to City Council with the commission’s requested qualifications; staff and the regional partners will continue outreach and follow‑up on potential funding pathways for recommended projects.