Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 09-01-2026 Item No. 11 Accepting the LRC recommendation supporting Senate Bill 922_Written CommunicationsCC 09-01-2026 #11 Acceptance of LRC recommendation supporting Senate Bill 922 Written Communications From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; Chad Mosley Subject:Please Pull Item 11 and Maintain Cupertino"s Neutral Position on SB 922 Date:Tuesday, September 1, 2026 2:24:49 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 City Clerk, Please include the below in written comments for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you. (Writing on behalf of myself only as an Cupertino resident) Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to respectfully request that Item 11, regarding Senate Bill 922 (Laird), be pulled from the consent calendar and considered separately by the City Council. I am also asking the Council not to take a position in support of or opposition to SB 922 at this time, and instead maintain Cupertino’s current neutral position. The staff report notes that the Legislative Review Committee discussed SB 922 but was unable to adopt a position because the City’s legislative platform places this bill in the “monitor” category. The report further states that taking a formal position of support or opposition requires consideration by the full Council. Given that the bill has potentially significant implications for how local agencies recover roadway maintenance and repair costs through utility rates, franchise fees, and other public service charges, I believe the Council should have a full public discussion before changing Cupertino’s position from monitoring to supporting the legislation. The staff report itself presents legitimate arguments on both sides. Supporters argue that SB 922 provides legal clarity and preserves existing local cost-recovery practices. Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, have raised concerns about transparency and taxpayer protections when road repair costs are recovered through service fees without voter approval. This is precisely the type of issue that deserves deliberation by the full Council rather than an action through the consent calendar. I am not asking the Council to oppose SB 922. I am asking that Cupertino refrain from taking a position until Councilmembers and the public have had an opportunity to fully consider the legislation, its potential effects on residents and taxpayers, and whether supporting it is consistent with Cupertino’s legislative priorities. Importantly, the staff report states that if the recommended support position is not approved, the City will remain neutral on SB 922. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Council: 1. Pull Item 11 from the consent calendar; 2. Decline to adopt a position of support for SB 922 at this time; 3. Decline to adopt a position of opposition as well; and 4. Maintain Cupertino’s neutral/monitor position on SB 922 unless and until the Council determines, following public discussion, that a formal position is warranted. Thank you for considering this request and for ensuring that significant policy matters receive appropriate public discussion before the City takes a formal legislative position. Sincerely, Santosh Rao Candidate for Cupertino City Council 2026 From:Santosh Rao To:City Council; City Clerk; Tina Kapoor; Floy Andrews; Chad Mosley Subject:Re: Please Pull Item 11 and Maintain Cupertino"s Neutral Position on SB 922 Date:Tuesday, September 1, 2026 4:01:12 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. (Writing on behalf of myself only as a Cupertino resident) Dear Councilmembers, I respectfully ask that Item 11, concerning SB 922, be pulled from the consent calendar and considered separately. The staff report recommends sending a letter to Governor Newsom requesting that he sign SB 922. However, the Governor has already signed SB 922 into law. Given this discrepancy, I believe the Council should not approve the item as presented. The Council should instead discuss whether any action or revised communication is appropriate now that the bill has become law. I respectfully ask that the Council pull Item 11 and refrain from taking a position to support or oppose SB 922 at this time. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, Santosh Rao Candidate for Cupertino City Council 2026 On Tuesday, September 1, 2026, 11:24 PM, Santosh Rao <santo_a_rao@yahoo.com> wrote: Dear City Clerk, Please include the below in written comments for the upcoming city council meeting. Thank you. (Writing on behalf of myself only as an Cupertino resident) Dear Councilmembers, I am writing to respectfully request that Item 11, regarding Senate Bill 922 (Laird), be pulled from the consent calendar and considered separately by the City Council. I am also asking the Council not to take a position in support of or opposition to SB 922 at this time, and instead maintain Cupertino’s current neutral position. The staff report notes that the Legislative Review Committee discussed SB 922 but was unable to adopt a position because the City’s legislative platform places this bill in the “monitor” category. The report further states that taking a formal position of support or opposition requires consideration by the full Council. Given that the bill has potentially significant implications for how local agencies recover roadway maintenance and repair costs through utility rates, franchise fees, and other public service charges, I believe the Council should have a full public discussion before changing Cupertino’s position from monitoring to supporting the legislation. The staff report itself presents legitimate arguments on both sides. Supporters argue that SB 922 provides legal clarity and preserves existing local cost-recovery practices. Opponents, including the California Taxpayers Association, have raised concerns about transparency and taxpayer protections when road repair costs are recovered through service fees without voter approval. This is precisely the type of issue that deserves deliberation by the full Council rather than an action through the consent calendar. I am not asking the Council to oppose SB 922. I am asking that Cupertino refrain from taking a position until Councilmembers and the public have had an opportunity to fully consider the legislation, its potential effects on residents and taxpayers, and whether supporting it is consistent with Cupertino’s legislative priorities. Importantly, the staff report states that if the recommended support position is not approved, the City will remain neutral on SB 922. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Council: 1. Pull Item 11 from the consent calendar; 2. Decline to adopt a position of support for SB 922 at this time; 3. Decline to adopt a position of opposition as well; and 4. Maintain Cupertino’s neutral/monitor position on SB 922 unless and until the Council determines, following public discussion, that a formal position is warranted. Thank you for considering this request and for ensuring that significant policy matters receive appropriate public discussion before the City takes a formal legislative position. Sincerely, Santosh Rao Candidate for Cupertino City Council 2026