CC 2-19-2026
#6
Legislative Affairs
Presentation
Legislative Review Committee &
2026 Legislative Platform
City Of Cupertino
City Council Meeting
February 19, 2026
Background
2018: Resolution No. 18-010 - established a Legislative Advocacy Policy, which formalized the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) and the Legislative Platform
2023: Resolution No. 23-026 - dissolved the LRC to streamline the legislative process and consider positions as a full council. 2025: Council established ad-hoc legislative subcommittee.
December 16, 2025: Council approved the subcommittee’s
recommendation to adopt a new Legislative Platform for 2026 and reestablish the LRC.
2026 Legislative Platform
▪ Outlines City priorities
▪ Allows LRC to take positions
▪ Any position inconsistent with platform must come to full Council Updates include:
o Climate: Added support for remediation of emerging
groundwater contaminants
o Housing: Reaffirms local control and opposition to unfunded mandates
o Public Safety: Supports funding Prop 36, EOC retrofits, and monitors wildfire and insurance issues
o Transportation: Supports micro-transit, monitors agency fiscal health
o Technology & Economic Dev: Monitors AI and digital
governance; adds sales tax monitoring and retail preservation Legislative Review Committee
▪ Create a standing, Brown-Acted,
committee
▪ Support timely and coordinated
legislative engagement
▪ Proposed membership
▪ Vice Mayor Liang Chao
▪ Councilmember R “Ray”
Wang
▪ Mayor Kitty Moore as
alternate
Next Steps:
Begin working with Lobbyist and execute LRC meetings
Questions?
CC 2-19-2026
#7
Potential November
2026 Revenue Ballot
Measure
Presentation
City of Cupertino
Revenue Enhancement Opportunities Report
February 2026
Executive Summary
HdL evaluated five potential revenue enhancement opportunities:
• Vacancy Tax
• Transactions and Use Tax
• Parcel Tax
• Business License Tax
• Business License Tax for Ride
Share Services
Evaluation of
Revenue
Enhancement
Opportunities
Description of
Tax
Implementation
Process
Pros and Cons
Potential
Revenue
Estimate
Voter Approval Requirements
Taxes can be approved for general or special use of funds General Use of Funds Special Use of Funds
• Require 2/3 majority approval by
City Council
• Require simple majority (50 + 1) for
voter approval of measure
• Transactions and Use Taxes always
require 2/3 City Council approval
• Require simple majority (50 + 1)
approval by City Council
• Require 2/3 majority (66 + 1) for
voter approval of measure
• Parcel Taxes can only be used for
specific purposes
Ballot Measure Timeline
In 2026, proposed ballot measures must follow the timeline below:
August
7 August
11 August
12 August
18 October
5 November
3 City Council
must approve
and submit a
resolution to
the County
Registrar of
Voters
Primary
arguments for
a measure
must be filed
with the City
Clerk’s Office
Last day to
amend or
withdraw a
ballot measure
Submission of
rebuttal
arguments and
impartial
analyses
Registrar of
Voters begins
mailing vote-
by-mail
packets
Election day
• Tax on unoccupied properties and
undeveloped land
• No current tax in Cupertino
• Tax in Berkeley, Oakland, and San
Francisco
• Pending court decision on legality of San
Francisco vacancy tax on multi-family units
• Oakland model could generate $846
thousand - $1.4 million in annual revenue
Vacancy Tax
• Destination based sales tax
• No current tax in Cupertino
• Campbell (1%), Los Gatos (0.125%),
Milpitas (0.25%), and San Jose (0.25%)
• Tax of 0.25% could generate $5.4 million
in annual revenue
• 28.8% of a Cupertino TUT would be paid
by non-residents
Transactions
and Use Tax
Active TUTs in Cupertino
Tax District State
Base
Sales and
Use Tax
Santa
Clara
County
Transit
District
Santa Clara
County Valley
Transportation
Authority
Santa Clara
VTA BART
Operating
and
Maintenance
TUT
Santa
Clara
County
Retail
TUT
Silicon Valley
Transportation
Solutions Tax
2020
Peninsula
Corridor
Joint
Powers
Board
Retail TUT
Measure
A Santa
Clara
County
Sales Tax
Increase
Public
Transit
Revenue
Measure
District
Sales Tax
Add On Rate 7.25% 0.5% 0.5% 0.125% 0.125% 0.5% 0.125% 0.625% 0.5% Contribution
to 2% Cap - 0.5% 0.5% 0.125% 0.125% 0.5% Exempt Exempt Exempt Effective
Date - 10-1-
1976 4-1-2006 7-1-2012 4-1-
2013 4-1-2017 7-1-2021 4-1-
2026
2026 Ballot
Measure
Cupertino can impose a TUT of up to 0.25% without state legislation Total sales tax rate of 9.75% in Cupertino starting April 1, 2026 Potential sales tax rate of 10.25% in 2027
Parcel Tax
• Flat tax on parcels by uniform application
(e.g. land use or building square footage)
• Must be for a specific purpose
• No current tax in Cupertino
• San Jose charges $29.84 per single-family
home for library operations
• Revenue depends on the nexus of fee to
service ($435 thousand – $20.5 million)
Business
License Tax
• Tax on businesses to support services
provided to the business community
• Cupertino charges tax on floor area
• Cupertino proposed an employment tax in
2018 that was not approved by Council
• Adoption of a gross-receipts model could
generate $3.1 million in revenue
• Adoption of an employee model could
generate $2 - $10.2 million in revenue
Ride Share
Services Tax
• Business license tax on ride share services
(transportation network companies)
• No current tax in Cupertino
• Ride share contractors are already subject
to business license taxes
• Tax in San Francisco on service providers
• Tax is based on the gross receipts of rides
that start in the city for the portion of the
trip within the city
Conclusion
Considerations when placing a tax measure on the ballot should include:
Administrative
Ease Equity Administrative
Costs
Revenue
Potential
Effort to set
up and
monitor
collection and
audit of the
tax
Impact of the
tax on
residents and
businesses in
the
community
Potential
increase in
annual tax
revenue
Resources
required for
monitoring
and
compliance
with the tax
Questions?
CC 2-19-2026
#9
Active Transportation Plan
Presentation
Active Transportation Plan
City Of Cupertino
City Council Meeting
February 19, 2026
Agenda
Project Description
Phase 2 Outreach
• What we heard
Updates and Changes
• Revised prioritization criteria and
ranked projects list
• Transportation technology corridors
Proposed New Project Guidelines
• Project impact assessment memo
• Project effectiveness memo
Project Background
April 4, 2023: The City Council approved the FY 23/24 City Work Program (CWP), including the ATP as an item "to be considered" in the FY 24/25 City Work Program.
April 3, 2024: The City Council approved the FY 24/25 CWP, including the ATP as an approved item.
June 26, 2024: The City Council adopted Resolution 24-063, requesting that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission allocate FY 24/25 TDA3 funding for the development of an Active
Transportation Plan.
December 3, 2024: The City Council approved a contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for the development of an ATP.
What is an Active Transportation Plan?
The ATP aims to make it easier for people to walk and bike in Cupertino.
• Identify gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks. • Perform community outreach and different data analysis techniques to develop network recommendations that are data- driven and based on community input.
• Develop network recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle projects, while also balancing the needs of motorized vehicles.
Project Schedule
Commission and Council Feedback
The ATP was presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council following Phase 1. • Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – August 20, 2025
• Planning Commission – September 9, 2025
• City Council – November 4, 2025
Staff received comments at each of these meetings and this presentation explains how staff addressed those comments.
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Preferred Network Recommendations
What we Heard in Phase 2
Network Recommendations Process
Description
• Community feedback
helped validate the
technical analysis, and
together, these two sources,
along with state and federal
design guidance
documents, were
referenced to develop draft
network recommendations.
Network Recommendations
Following Local, State, and Federal Guidance and Standards • The Caltrans Design Information Bulletin #94, FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, and other design manuals served as references to ensure consistency with state and federal design guidance.
Network Recommendations
Categories
• Intersection
projects were
grouped into
typologies to
allow for greater
flexibility with
future project
delivery.
Phase 2 Community Feedback
Summary of Engagement
• 8 pop-up events, 2 community workshops, and 3 public hearings
Pedestrian Network Recommendations
Summary of Input
• Strong support for shared-use paths
• Intersection projects at major
intersections along:
• Stelling Rd
• De Anza Blvd
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• Bollinger Rd
• Blaney Ave
Bicycle Network Recommendations
Summary of Input
• Shared-use, off-street paths remain
popular
• Upgrade bike lanes on major roads:
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• Homestead Rd
• Blaney Ave
• Bollinger Rd
• Focus on projects that improve safety
for students
• Support for new traffic calming
neighborhood routes that would
connect destinations, especially schools
Preferred Network Recommendations
The community’s preferred
pedestrian projects were:
• Tamien Innu
• Lawrence Mitty Trail
• Blaney Ave & Stevens
Creek Blvd
• Typology A, B, C
Intersection
• Union Pacific Trail
• Pacifica Dr & Torre Ave
• Typology A Intersection
The community’s preferred bicycle
projects were:
• Stevens Creek Blvd
• Separated Bike Lanes
• Blaney Ave
• Buffered Bike Lanes
• Homestead Rd
• Buffered/ Separated Bike Lanes
• Bollinger Rd
• Buffered Bike Lanes
• Stelling Rd
• Buffered/ Separated Bike Lanes
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Updated Criteria
Revisions and New Scoring
Council and Commission Comments
Areas of Consensus
• Safety should be prioritized,
especially near schools and on the
Vision Zero HIN
• Scoring criteria should emphasize
objective, data-based measures
• Technology solutions need greater
emphasis
New Bicycle
Network Criteria
Revisions:
● Greater consideration
to projects either on or
near the HIN
● More points and
precision for school
scoring
● New arterial impacts
● Added destinations
for seniors
● Removed Fairness
criterion
● Added Cost-
Effectiveness as a
criterion
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN) 20
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential
Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5
Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5
Balance Roadway Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking
removal 10
Potential need for lane reduction or parking
removal on a City arterial 10
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10
New Pedestrian
Network Criteria
Revisions:
● Greater consideration
to projects either on or
near the HIN
● More points and
precision for school
scoring
● Added destinations
for seniors
● Removed Fairness
criterion
● Added Cost-
Effectiveness as a
criterion
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN) 20
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential
Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5
Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10
New Sidewalk
Network Criteria
Revisions:
● Greater consideration
to projects either on or
near the HIN
● More points and
precision for school
scoring
● Added destinations
for seniors
● Removed Fairness
criterion
● Added Cost-
Effectiveness as a
criterion
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN) 20
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10
Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5
Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential
Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5
Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10
New
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
A New Project Category:
● The Council and
community requested
that transportation
technologies be given
greater consideration.
● Corridors created by
analyzing collision
history, reviewing
pedestrian
intersection
recommendations,
and assessing the
City’s ability to control
and implement
projects.
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Max Score
Safety
Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a VZAP High Injury Network Intersection 10
Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per
mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
10 Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and
signs" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
10 Level of Traffic Stress Average PLTS for the corridor 10 Access
School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 20 Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior
center/facilities and shopping centers along the
roadway
10 Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting the corridor
10 10SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Draft Project List
Scored Projects Using Updated Criteria
Scoring
Network Projects
Takeaways:
● Top Projects:
- School-related
- Vision Zero-related
- Low cost
● Scoring also prioritizes
implementable
projects with fewer
tradeoffs and less
delivery complexity.
Project Type Description Location Cross St Cross St Score 1 Pedestrian A (Signage & Striping) De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 90 2 Pedestrian C (Signal Controls & Changes) De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 89 3 Pedestrian A (Signage and Striping) Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 88 4 Pedestrian C (Signal Controls & Changes) De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83 5 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 81 6 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 80 7 Shared Use Trail Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 80 8 Bicycle Neighborhood Route
- De Anza Blvd to Stelling Rd via Rodrigues Ave, Terry Way, Shelly Dr, Bonny Dr, and Pepper Tree Ln.
- De Anza Blvd to McClellan Rd via Rodrigues Ave, Terry Way, Shelly Dr, and Westacres Dr
77 9 Pedestrian A, B Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 75
10 Pedestrian C (Signal Controls & Changes) Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 75 11 Pedestrian A Miller Ave Phil Ln 75
12 Pedestrian A, B Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 75
13 Shared Use Trail UPRR Prospect Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 74 14 Pedestrian A, B McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 74
15 Pedestrian A, B, C Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave 74
16 Pedestrian A, B Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 74
17 Bicycle Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 73 18 Shared Use Grade Separated McClellan Rd
Undercrossing Linda Vista Trail Stevens Creek Trail 73
19 Bicycle Separated Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 72 20 Shared Use Trail Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct 72 21 Pedestrian A (Signage and Striping) Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 71 22 Technology Transportation Technology
Corridor
Stevens Creek
Blvd Miller Ave/Wolfe Rd Foothill Blvd 71
23 Pedestrian A, B Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 71
24 Bicycle Neighborhood Route - Stevens Creek Blvd to Foothill Blvd via Carmen Rd, Crescent Rd, Varian Path, Ainsworth Dr, Hartman Dr, Chase Dr, and Starling Dr 71
25 Pedestrian A September Dr McClellan Rd 70
Project Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Shared Use
Technology
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Proposed New Guidelines
Project Impact Assessment and Effectiveness
Project Impact Assessment Guidelines
Why?
• Based on Council, Commission, and community requests for project-specific comprehensive traffic operations analysis.
What?
• Present the preliminary engineering phase (30% design) to Council to determine whether the project should undergo a detailed analysis tailored to its specific impacts.
Project Effectiveness Guidelines
Why?
• Council, Commission, community, and staff’s desire to collect more data on bicycle and pedestrian volumes, both generally and for pre- and post-construction analysis.
What?
• A successful project will be one in which more people use the facility while the collision rate remains the same or decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives.
Sample Title For This Section
Short description about this section
Next Steps
Document Development & Public Review
What Comes Next
Prepare Draft Report
• Compile the different elements of the Plan and address any comments from Council and Commissions.
• Organize the elements and prepare a Draft Plan document for public review, which will be open for 1 month.
June 2026
• The Draft Plan will be brought to the City Council for adoption consideration.