HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 - September 25, 2026 - Bill Positions Adopted by the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) in August 2026
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3200
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Date: September 25, 2026
To: Cupertino City Council
From: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Re: Bill Positions Adopted by the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) in August 2026
Background
The Legislative Review Committee (LRC) adopts positions that align with the Council adopted
Legislative Platform. Any positions that do not align with the Platform must be taken to the
City Council for adoption. In August, the LRC met once and adopted two bill positions that
aligned with the Platform. The purpose of this informational memorandum is to notify the City
Council and public of the LRC’s positions and to view the corresponding position letters.
On August 17, the LRC adopted an oppose position on AB 1976 (Wicks) related to streets and
highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This bill restricts cities and counties from holding
community input meetings to delay or cancel bicycle/pedestrian safety projects after reaching
90% design. It prohibits terminating construction once contracted without specific public
findings, caps petition signature requirements for traffic-calming measures at a simple majority
and imposes a state-mandated local program. The opposition letter (Attachment A) was
approved by the Mayor and then formally submitted to the State Legislature on August 24.
The LRC also wanted to support SB 922 (Laird), however this was a “monitor” position in the
Legislative Platform, therefore the LRC voted to request that the full Council adopt a support
position at the next City Council meeting. This bill explicitly clarifies that local agency fees
charged to public service providers or ratepayers for street maintenance and repair are not
prohibited taxes or charges. It confirms that nothing in the Vehicle Code prevents collecting
these fees, removes obsolete references, and includes various formal findings and declarations.
This bill was brought forward for Council consideration at the September 1 City Council
meeting, however the bill was signed into law by the Governor on August 27 therefore this item
was not heard by the City Council and a letter was no longer necessary.
All other position letters can be found online at the City’s Legislative Activity webpage1, along
with all other bill positions adopted throughout the year.
1 https://www.cupertino.gov/Your-City/City-Council/Legislative-Activity
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Council Goal(s):
Public Engagement and Transparency
TBD Item:
No
California Environmental Quality Act
The proposed action does not constitute a “project” subject to CEQA
____________________________________
Prepared by: Andy Schramm, Management Analyst
Astrid Robles, Assistant to the City Manager
Reviewed by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – AB 1976 Opposition Letter
MAYOR KITTY MOORE
kmoore@cupertino.gov
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-1389
CUPERTINO.GOV
August 24, 2026
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Member, California State Assembly
1021 O Street, Suite 8140
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1976 (Wicks) Streets and Highways: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Notice of
OPPOSITION
Dear Assemblymember Wicks:
On behalf of the City of Cupertino, I am writing to express our opposition to Assembly Bill (AB)
1976, which would impose new statewide restrictions on how cities and counties receive public
input and exercise local discretion over pedestrian and bicycle safety projects. As amended June
17, 2026, the bill would limit certain community input meetings after a project has reached 90%
design, restrict when a local agency may terminate a project after construction has been
authorized, and establish statewide requirements affecting local traffic-calming petition
processes.
The City of Cupertino supports efforts to improve safety for people walking and bicycling and
recognizes the importance of delivering transportation improvements efficiently. However, AB
1976 would achieve streamlining by constraining local public engagement and decision-making
at stages when site-specific concerns may still require meaningful review.
Local transportation projects can affect emergency access, school circulation, loading and
deliveries, accessibility, neighborhood traffic patterns, parking, construction sequencing, and
other conditions that vary substantially from one community to another. City councils and local
staff must be able to respond to changed circumstances and new information while remaining
accountable to the residents they serve.
The City of Cupertino is particularly concerned that AB 1976 would:
CITY OF
CUPERTINO
•Limit Meaningful Public Participation: Preventing certain community input meetings
after a project reaches 90 percent design could foreclose useful feedback before
construction, even when residents, businesses, schools, or emergency responders
identify legitimate implementation concerns.
•Undermine Local Control and Accountability: Restricting a city’s ability to reconsider,
modify, pause, or terminate a project substitutes a statewide rule for the judgment of
locally elected officials who are responsible for balancing safety, mobility, fiscal, and
neighborhood impacts.
•Create Rigid Procedural Mandates: The bill’s prescribed thresholds and findings could
add administrative burdens and procedural risk while reducing a city’s flexibility to
tailor public engagement and traffic-calming processes to local conditions.
Cupertino believes pedestrian and bicycle safety projects are most durable and effective when
they are developed through transparent local processes that preserve both timely
implementation and meaningful community participation. State law should support local
agencies in delivering safety improvements without unnecessarily limiting the discretion of
local elected bodies.
For these reasons, the City of Cupertino opposes AB 1976.
Sincerely,