Legislative Review Committee - Regular Meeting

I call this Monday, June 22nd meeting of the LRC to order. Sorry about that.

Right. And I believe we do. Oh, there we go. Yeah. We have Paul and Jason here.

All right.

I guess we do a roll call.

Yeah. Go ahead. I share a child here. Chair one here.

Okay.

That's it.

I guess that's it. I guess we're good. All right. I think we don't... Let's see. Let's go to... Is there any public... We don't have public comment, is there?

Let's see. We start with the... Approval minutes.

Let's do the approval minutes. So... All right. Do a motion to approve the minutes.

Motion made.

All right. I second. Vice Chair Chow?

Aye. Chair Wong?

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Cool. This portion of the meeting is now reserved for a person wishing to address the committee on any matter within jurisdiction of the committee and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes. In most cases, state law will prohibit the commission from making any decisions with respect to matters not on the agenda. Do we have any oral communications, clerk?

We have no speakers.

No speakers. Okay. No speakers present. No speakers online. We are good. Let's go to old business then. Subject to Sacramento trip overview. Yeah.

Yeah. I wanted to add it to the agenda as kind of an opportunity to provide a more, a little bit of a formal review of what happened on a couple of weeks ago now. Cause I know vice mayor, you did not attend and I want to give an opportunity for Jason and Paul to. Right. Council member, you can also feel free to add stuff and also for the public, right, for them to also hear how did it go? What are some key takeaways? So I wanted to open it up the floor to Jason just to get us started on his thoughts.

That sounds great. Thank you for the opportunity. And I guess first and foremost, I think it was overall a great, productive trip. I think two key highlights. Probably was the meeting with Assemblymember Lori Wilson. As you know, she's from the Solano County area, chair of the Transportation Committee, and very active and a leader amongst the e-bike legislative efforts that are moving through Sacramento and getting a lot of attention at the local level. In addition, the meeting with Assemblymember Ahrens went very well. I think Patrick, the Assemblymember, was as engaged as I've seen him in a number of meetings. He genuinely wants to be helpful for the city of Cupertino. He seems to have really drilled down into the inequities in the property tax as well as the sheriff's proposed 40 plus or minus percent contract increases, and again said he would be reaching out to the county and other stakeholders to be an ally for the city and potentially even put legislative pressure on them if things don't proceed. So overall, it was a series of back-to-back meetings. Thank the mayor and Councilmember Wong for making the trip and look forward to doing more of them. So I don't know, Councilmember Wong, if there's anything I missed as part of that. And the staff did a great job writing up a recap in the background materials as well. So I'll stop there.

Yeah, I think the main point was that going in person actually is very impactful. And what we are seeing is the fact that when council members, when assembly members and senators are in district, they tend to be more relaxed. They're here to kind of engage more on the relationship side. But when they're in Sacramento, they're serious, right? Their staff is there. They're ready to get things done. They can assign tasks. They have the ability to, you know, move roadblocks. And I think it is very valuable. And I hope future councils take advantage of the opportunity to go up more frequently to be able to actually get legislative action done and also clear some hurdles when possible and also find some information and insights. I think it's very useful that way. So that's what I would add.

So did you also have a briefing material talking point for the two council members who attended? I think they used to have like talking point for each person they meet.

Yeah, so we prepared binders for people to take up there. And so council member, you received the binder, right, with information on who they were meeting and general topics that had like our bills. And then so we had one for Ray, one for Mayor Moore and Tina and Kirsten, who attended at the meeting. Oh, we we gave them a hard copy binders only. But we did provide a report attached to this agenda. That just has general information, but it doesn't have.

It's only very high level.

Yeah, it's just a very high level recap.

It would be nice to have those attached to this agenda. Okay. Also, and I'm wondering, do you think it's worthwhile to have an info memo for the entire council? I don't know.

It could be useful to show what was done.

So maybe elaborating on this recap and adding more about what was discussed? Is that what you mean?

I don't know, because this is very high level.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, what's actually in there?

Right, yeah. I don't really know. Yeah, I'm just... It's kind of a summary. I'm not requesting it because I don't really know.

Right, right. Yeah, I mean, I think that it would be helpful for the other council members to hear what was said, you know, if we have some of that. But I don't know how much note-taking, I didn't personally go, so I don't know how much note-taking was actually, a lot of it was very candid discussion.

Yeah, you might not want to share some of the things, right? If they are doing something until it's more certain, maybe you don't want to share.

I can elaborate a little bit more by saying that certain things where we have concerns about, things that have been within the city around how we look at taxes or how we look at share allocation or what's important for wildfire safety, what's important for other issues coming down the pike. with certain individuals around like e-bikes or e-bike regulations that are there. We looked at legislation that legislators were taking and we were meeting to see what the viewpoints were. So for example, let's take you do legislation in e-bikes. We could pass around local law, but if something was coming down the line from the state level, we wanted to know from the person that was writing the bill and who has kind of support and it's already come out of committee, like what those rules were. And then maybe we don't have to write those or we can provide input. And that's an example of one of those.

Okay. And then I'll also add that at the June 1st LRC meeting, when you guys met to discuss the June 9th, we did attach the agenda for that day with the top three priorities of discussion. That was already listed as an attachment at the last meeting. And then also this update also serves as a record, right?

Okay. Yeah.

Great.

Yeah.

Well, thank you for the update. Any other questions?

Any other comments? Members of the public have joined.

Okay. No one from there?

Speakers. Okay.

No speakers? Okay. All right. Okay. Let's go to a new business, legislative update. Let's see the update we have on the bill tracking list, as well as the positions from YIMBY and CalCities. So, take that over, I guess. To Jason. Jason. Yeah.

As you know, there's quite a few bills moving through the legislative process. We have, as you noted, put together a report on quite a few bills that are still moving. All legislation that is currently active has passed out of the House of Origin. So all assembly bills have moved over to the Senate and all Senate bills over to the assembly. And, you know, there's some i would note and i know it's later on the agenda but for example ab956 that the staff is recommending an opposed position it's sponsored by cal yimby it's not a criticism of cal yimby but we're oftentimes finding ourselves on the opposite side on those type of land use policies in addition there's quite a bit in the e-bike space staff is recommending a support on sb 1167 Again, I know I'm moving down the agenda, but those are two that are kind of highlighted from this list of 100 plus bills. 153 measures.

And then Jason, could you touch a little bit more on the schedule where we are with the session? I think we're, are we, I know we're just before the recess, right? The summer recess.

Thank you, Astrid, absolutely. Last week, and I should back up just a bit, last week they did on June 15th pass the framework of a $350 billion state general fund budget. There's still ongoing negotiations, particularly in the healthcare space with the governor, and legislative leaders, so we will see trailer bills. But to Astrid's point, the legislature will adjourn for summer recess on July 2nd, and they will return on August 2nd for the final push, meaning August 31st is sine die. So constitutionally required adjournment midnight on August 31st, with about 1,500 bills still yet to move through the process. So things will start really ramping up between now and July 2nd, and then obviously post August 2nd through the 31st. So we're down to the last five weeks plus or minus.

There are also a number of bills we've already taken positions on. So Jason, I don't know if you can go down the list of those bills that we've considered and see where we are with those. I think some have either died or are still moving forward, the ones that we've already adopted positions on.

You know, Esther, I don't have that list in front of me, but I do know a few of them. 1751, the housing for the townhome legislation is continuing to move through the process. Assemblymember Wilson's e-bike legislation is continuing to move, but... I apologize. I can pull the list up real quickly if you'd like that.

Yeah, I think it would be important to go into the highlights of some of the things that we were supporting to see how far they along or if they're taken off the list. I think that differential will be important.

Yeah, I think, Paul, I think you had sent me a report of all of those. I don't know if you have it with you.

I'm working on pulling it up as we speak.

I think one of our big ones was AB 1751. The Missing Middle Town Home Ownership Act.

Yes.

Let's start there.

And Cal Cities is opposed to it as well. It has been moving through the process. It moved out of the assembly 47 to 0 with 33 abstentions. So that bill is continuing to move. It has been referred to the Senate Housing Committee with a hearing date of June 24th. It'll be heard on Wednesday.

Yeah, it's coming up. So... I had a question on AB 1761, and I just wanted to understand the implications of that. Who's backing this one in terms of getting data calculated properly? I've been reading a number of recent reports that nobody understands the calculation of how electric rates are set. And I think this is trying to address that, but I just wanted to be sure I had the full facts behind that. This is AB 1761, electricity calculation methodology, data disclosure.

Yes, and that you're absolutely right. The Alliance for Retail Energy Markets, California Community Choice Association, CSAC, a number of cities are supporting the bill. It's often sponsored technically, but it has a lot of Cal cities is supporting. The only opposition is from Southern California Edison or Edison International and San Diego Gas and Electric. But it absolutely is trying to provide some clarity in the general rate case proceedings in the CPUC process as it relates to utility rates.

Okay. Do you have a position on that? Vice Mayor?

I don't know. A lot of times they first have a bill to collect data, but then they'll have something that follows up. And it depends on what they are following up with.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then Paul and Jason, I just sent over, re-sent over the document that Paul sent me with the list of the Cupertino bills. And I think those, if you can go through high-level updates on those.

Yeah, and while you're at it, I'm looking at AB 1976. This is the streets and highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This is the one that says that, you know, limiting petition requirements for traffic calming measures. That's in place, so. I don't know if that affects us. I think that's really trying to go after the charter cities. I just want to make sure that's the case. It's WICs.

And I'm sorry, what bill number was that, Councilmember Wong?

1976, streets and highways, pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Yeah. It really is targeting charter cities in the bill. And, you know, it has some secret provisions, but I think it would also impact general law cities as well, the way I'm reading it.

Okay. Are we supporting AB 2037, which is the next one, which is Becker's bill, wildfire mitigation, aging, and disability grant pilot program?

We do not have, the city has not adopted a position on that bill, no.

We could add it to the next meeting if we want to.

I think it would be good to add that given the fact that given our meeting with Senator Becker and given the fact that wildfire issues are aligned with our wildfire issues, I think that would be a good one to kind of support. So I want to see if there's a reason to or not support, but let's put it on our list.

So does the 1976, is that on our list?

It's not a bill that the city has adopted a position on to date, but it's one we definitely can't bring back and make a recommendation depending on the committee's direction.

And it is on our bill tracking list, we just don't have a position on it yet, so we're tracking it.

Yes.

I could take a position on that.

We can recommend it for the next meeting. So for the next meeting. I don't know.

No cities have opposed the bill thus far. Streets for All is the sponsor and the County of Fresno and Pacific Merchant Shipping Association are opposed, which is kind of interesting.

What's the purpose of this bill? It feels like the state is again getting into the nitty-gritty details that if the local government needs to delay or reconsider something, there must be good reasons. So why are the state getting into this again? But who has the motivation for that? I guess who is pushing for that?

The Streets for All organization is the sponsor, and it's really seeking to prohibit local agencies from putting gates or other devices, as they call them in the statute, that would prohibit access to public roads for constituents, Californians. So you can't erect traffic control devices that don't comply with the standards and specifications from the Department of Transportation.

I'm trying to read that. Is that for folks that want to put more bike lanes in, or is it for folks that want to stop more bike lanes coming in?

It's for folks that want to put more bike lanes in, and it's prohibiting local agencies from erecting gates and other devices to prohibit access on public roads such as bike lanes.

That's good to know.

At the end of the meeting, when we get to future agenda items, we can discuss that if we want to consider it.

I'll add it to my notes. We'll forget. There's too many bills.

Petition requirement for traffic calming majors. So they don't like traffic calming majors? I thought these streets for all would want traffic calming majors.

It's a weird bill. I'm looking at that too, in a sense that it seems to be conflicting on its own purpose, but something is off, probably in my understanding of that.

An exempt pedestrian mall from CEQA? Yeah. Oh. It just feels like it's for a very specific project, like someone is trying to...

Stick a bike lane at Fresno.

For some mall somewhere with bike lane, they are trying, couldn't get it through the local government, and now they are trying to get it through the state law and trying to apply to everyone. That's the kind of bad feeling about it.

Yeah, and it's... stems from an issue in Oakland where Oakland side, a community-based nonprofit published an article surrounding a controversial bike lane. And the controversy led to the neighborhood and city installing diverters to force traffic off of public roads around this bike lane.

So it- Wouldn't that be good to protect the bike lanes from traffic if they are against that?

Yeah, it's been a polarizing issue according to the analysis. And they're saying that by prohibiting the bike lane, it created a public safety issue for kids, elders, pedestrians, in essence. That said, it's one issue that's really turning into a statewide law that... That's ridiculous.

It's such a very limited local issue.

And I'll add that, though no cities seem to have an opposed position, the League has an opposed unless amended position.

Oh, what's there? I was just glancing through the letter now.

Jason, I don't know if you know more about what they would like to amend from that. But I have the letter.

Yeah, it's just like just another.

Fix one thing, but let's apply every question.

Okay.

Yeah, as we're looking through these, let's see if there's any other ones that... Oh, it's AB138.

Yeah. Okay. So... I heard about this. I'm not sure. So it has to do with pension reform that somehow legislator reduced our liability to the pension and now they are trying to revert it. So it would affect the city's financial. It's for it applies to public safety officers likely not directly related to us, but indirectly it would affect us.

Yes, that's Tina McKenna's. If I heard the bill number right, one, three, eight, three. And it's rolling back provisions of PEPRA, the Public Employees Pension Reform Act, which was done under Jerry Brown. in 2013, and it's really going to lead to additional pension costs for local agencies, police and fire in particular.

So did the League take a position on this?

I believe the League is opposed.

Yes.

Cool.

Chair, if we could open the public comment period.

Let's open public comment. Thank you.

We have no speakers in person and no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay. Sounds good.

Where's Jennifer? That's what I was saying.

We would hope she was here.

She's on vacation. Who's without?

All right. Well, we've got the legislative update. I think we will move on if there's anything else.

The only one thing I should note just for your... information and update. As of this morning, the governor's office and legislative leadership has announced an agreement to propose on the November ballot a nearly 11, about $11 billion housing bond for veterans and affordable housing purposes. We sent out an update via email this morning, kind of outlining what's being proposed, but that will likely be moving through the legislature rather quickly in order to get it on the November ballot.

voters will ultimately decide on the 11 billion dollars interesting okay this is sp417 right yes you guys are all getting the their updates on via email okay good yeah and

And just for the date, it's the 25th, Thursday the 25th. So this Thursday is the last day for them to qualify an initiative for the ballot. So they'll be moving it very quickly this week.

Mm-hmm. So 1383, is that moving along? Does that likely, no one oppose, Cal City oppose it, but then they likely will get support, the legislature will pass it?

Given the public safety support, it's been moving rather quickly or swiftly, I should say. It passed out of the assembly 70 to 2, eight abstentions. So, yes, there's quite a bit of, you know, given the public safety union push, it has been moving through the legislative process.

And it's scheduled to be heard on Wednesday in the Senate Public Employees Committee and Labor Employee Committee.

Do we have a position on SB 922? I think that's an important one, given the amount of trucks we have going up and down Stevens Creek. I was trying to figure out if it was applicable to us once this passed or not passed. That's the vehicles, local agency charges, use of streets or highways. I'll read it just for posterity here. The bill would narrow an existing ban on local street or highway use charges to weight-based fees and would clarify that certain public service-related fees or surcharges for street maintenance are not prohibited. It also states that local agencies may impose or collect those charges, removes obsolete references, and makes additional technical changes and findings. So you could do a gross vehicle weight requirement on certain roads, given the fact that the damage up and down that street would incur more damage to that local road so that we could actually collect and pay for those damages. For example, if you're going up and down to a quarry back maybe.

The bill has a ton of support from local governments. Probably 20 or so cities are in support of it. Opposition from the California Building Industry Association and the California Taxpayers Association.

And it's really, it's in response to a case out of San Bernardino against the city of Redlands where they, the court, Superior Court ruled that Redlands weight fees were in violation of 218 or unconstitutional. So this bill reaffirms the ability for locals by addressing the court ruling and reestablishing the ability for locals to adopt such fees. Oh, they're charging the garbage trucks.

Got it.

Yeah, the garbage truck.

There's the garbage truck one. Yep, yep, yep. Okay. That makes sense. I don't know. It's amazing what kind of local news you get on Apple News these days. Okay. All right. Anything else on your end?

Yeah, no.

What's the last one for me? SB 1172 and the Bradley Burns piece, tax sharing agreements. Where is that coming from? Is it just trying to limit the consultants from figuring out how to get around this?

That's exactly it. That bill's in response to some tax attorneys, consultants. For example, Robert Zendejas, not a criticism of him personally, but he structured an agreement in Long Beach where they divert reimburses. reimburse rebate to Roberts and Dejas a million dollars a year for the life of the agreement. This bill seeks to put a cap on those type of sales tax consulting agreements. There was one consultant in the city of Fillmore many years ago that basically diverted, they set up sales offices for Southwest Airlines, Robertson's Ready Mix in a strip mall in Fillmore, rebated 75% of the sales tax. The city got 25, the consultant got 75% of the sales tax they diverted from other local agencies. So it's seeking to rein in some of those egregious agreements, I'll call them. It basically says you can't take sales tax from a neighboring community and give it to out-of-state consultants at lucrative amounts.

Got it. All right. I understand that. Thank you. So, all right. I guess we're good. I'm good on this end. Anything else from staff?

Oh, I just wanted to confirm from Paul or Jason, from the current bills that we have positions on, which ones are still active or just a general update?

Absolutely. There's six measures. I'll just go through them very briefly. AB 1674, that legislation has failed passage. That was Assemblymember Aaron's food desert legislation. Which we supported. Which we supported. Assembly Member Solache's AB 1708, which was supported. Unfortunately, the City of Los Angeles opposed the bill. That bill has been held in appropriation, so it has failed. However, I've had conversations with the Assembly Member. He is not giving up. We may see it as part of a budget trailer bill, or he will be back at trying to open housing assistance funding for communities under 300,000 population. So that bill, I would say the bill's dead, but the author isn't. He's not giving up on it. Nor should he. There's too many small cities that are not getting, you're getting mandates on housing, but you're not getting any of the statewide up to half a billion dollars in housing assistance funding. So that bill is likely to come back through the author. AB 1751, we discussed the Middle Home Township Act, that bill, the city opposed. It continues to move through the legislature. It'll be up in Senate housing. It should face a tougher road in the Senate as most bills do in the second house. AB 1821, that legislation, it has to do with um california public records act request and trying to make them reasonable and not counting weekends and providing 14 days the city has has supported that and that bill continues to move through the process and then ab2517 the city has a support position and that bill on um Fire hazard severity zones has failed passage, but again, they likely come back. And then lastly, SB 501 regarding recycling of batteries. The city has a support position on that bill and it failed passage, if I'm not mistaken.

Mm-hmm.

Oh, no, I'm sorry. It's in the assembly. It's pending in Assembly Environmental Safety Committee. So it continues to move and the city does have a support.

And then on last week, Jason, the council adopted a support position on AB 2346. So that's a new one that we have a position on. It was just taken by the full council instead of the LRC. And I think, Jason, correct me if I'm wrong, that same day it was slightly amended. Or maybe it was the next day after or something like that.

It was like the day after. The day after. And it took class one bikes out of it, or class two, I'm looking at the amendments, one of the others. So it took some amendments that narrowed the scope, but it still has the 15 miles per hour. The primary, I think, impetus based on our meeting with the author, as well as the city support position, The reason for doing so continues as the bill is still helpful in the e-bike space, but it's continuing to move as well.

Great. So there's still like a couple that are still moving, two or three, I think, that we have.

Yes.

Great.

All right. Okay. We'll close out this issue and go to the item number four, which is consider adopting a position on AB 956, the Quirk Silva Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit. Recommended action, adopt an opposed position on 956 and authorize the mayor to send letters to the state legislature. Let's take a look at the summary report.

Yeah, we attached a summary report that was provided by Jason and his team. So that is helpful there for the public and anyone to view. But go ahead and Jason, I'll turn it over to you to explain the bill.

This author has been difficult, I guess. And she's a friend, but I guess the good news is she's nearing the end of her time in the assembly. She's been kind of the champion in the assembly on SB 79, you know, the transportation legislation, multi-stories around transit centers last year. She's been supportive of SB 9, the ADU by-right legislation that was carried by former pro tem Tony Atkins. And the point being is now she's back with, and she's also the author on the townhome legislation this year that the city has opposed. Well, adding to that track record is this legislation AB 956, and it's really building upon SB 9, the Buy Right, ADU and Junior, accessory dwelling unit legislation and it's seeking to what they would call clarify but it's restricting community CC&Rs and improvement districts and HOAs in essence from restricting ADUs so it's another effort to further I would say erode your local land use authority but also your your local CIDs and HOAs and their ability to kind of govern their communities as well.

Oh, great. That's a question. Any clarifying questions, Vice Mayor?

So this one, it doesn't affect the city directly, but it affects the HOAs or those who have CCNR. MPIDs, yeah. Prevents ADU, joint ADU.

Yes. And I should have noted, I apologize, the Cal Cities, rural counties organization, as well as CSAC and others are opposed to the legislation. California YMBA is in support, no surprise there, but that's kind of the support and opposition.

They're sponsoring it, right?

Yep.

They're supporting it, yes. Yes. Yes. They're heavily supporting it. Okay. Any other questions? I make a motion. Public comment. Okay.

Oh, public comment. No speakers in person and no hands raised on Zoom.

All right. Okay. Motion.

Motion to further staff recommendation.

Okay, motion to adopt an opposed position on AB 956 and authorize the mayor to send letters to the state legislature. I will second that. Let's call for a vote.

Vice Chair Chau. Aye. Chair Wong.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, thank you.

All right, item number five. Consider adopting a position on Senate Bill 1167 around electric bikes. Adopt a support position on SB 1167. Authorize the mayor to send letters to the state legislature. Let's go for the staff report.

Yeah, and before I hand it over to Jason, I'll add, I believe this is one that was mentioned during the future agenda item discussion on June 1st. I think, Vice Mayor, you maybe mentioned this one, along with SB 2346, the one we already adopted by council. So both of them related to e-bikes. I wanted to add it here just because you guys did request it, but we already have one. So it's totally up to you guys if you do want to continue with this to adopt both. Or if you think the 2346 one is, you know, it's up to you guys if you want to do both. But we can hear from Jason. Maybe. Yeah. Yeah.

This bill really kind of is building upon what Assemblymember Wilson is doing. It's the Senate's version. It's ensuring the definitions of class two and three e-bikes. It has prohibitions from false advertising and what they're calling unfair competition. It has specifications for miles per hour and wattage on the motors. And in essence, you can't say it's a 150 watt motor and really have a 750 watt motor. So it's just really looking to put transparency on and requirements of accuracy on the labeling of e-bikes.

Yeah, I would make the case to support both because one is consumer protections on what is an e-bike and how fast it goes, and that's 1167. And 2346 is about what happens when the bikes are on the road and how you define the regulations.

I see there is a large list of supported organizations from attorney, city, school district,

It's a pedestrian safety issue and a other biker issue because the speeds. And so on one hand, the demand side, if you have a bike that is going 40 miles an hour, but was said would only go 15, then there's safety issues for the rider and parents potentially might not know, though I think most are in on it. The second piece is once they're there, you have different designations for regulations based on the type of bikes, which is the Wilson bill, which is why you would want to actually find some level regulation. And between those two bills, we could probably just support them and craft the city's regulations because I think they've been thoroughly considered.

Yeah. Okay.

And so the vice mayor's point, it does have statewide support, law enforcement, local agencies. pedestrian safety, and there's no opposition recorded on the legislation. So I think Council Member Wong makes a good point about the consumer distinction versus the streets and highway side.

Including the streets for our organization. Who is the co-source? What does that mean, co-source?

What's a co-source on a bill mean? It's essentially a co-sponsor.

Is that different from co-sponsor?

They're essentially the same. Sometimes an author will say it's a source, meaning they brought the idea to them versus technically sponsoring. But I would say they're synonymous. Yes, they're the same.

Okay.

Clerk, any public comment?

We have no speakers in person and no hands raised on Zoom.

Okay. All right.

So move to support the staff recommendation to support the bill.

Okay. I will second that. Let's do a roll call vote.

Vice Chair Chau. Aye. Chair Wong.

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Okay. All right. Do we have any staff and committee reports?

Nothing additional.

Okay. And let's talk about future agenda setting. I think we have a few items on the housekeeping list.

Yeah. So based off our legislative update discussion, I've written down AB 1976, potentially considering an oppose unless amended. Just we can look at the league's position and try to understand a little bit more if we want to be more aligned. And Paul, I think you said there are no opposition right now. So maybe an oppose unless amendment might be a better strategic place. Or what do you guys think?

I think that makes a lot of sense to be aligned with Cal cities and their position and we'll gather on the amendments of what they're asking for.

Yeah, we can look into it and make sure before we recommend that. And then we also have AB 2037, which I think we were leaning toward to support that. And SB 922 also to potentially support. So those are the three that I've written down. And do you guys feel good about recommending those for the August meeting?

I do. I also want to make a suggestion to the Gonsalves team to also study the legislation tracker for the Contract Cities Association as well to see if there's anything there that we should actually pull from as well in future agenda setting items. I think there are a few in there that are actually fairly helpful to cities like us, and I think it would be good to find some of those.

Great suggestion. We work well with contract cities, and they're very closely aligned, I think, on policies very similar to Cupertino. You know, most of their cities are small and medium-sized agencies. So great suggestion.

All right. Okay.

Yeah.

We're good? Okay. Yeah.

All right. So I will work on that and prepare that for the August, I believe August 17th meeting, which will be after the recess. And then Jason, after following that, if you can just remind us of the schedule. So August 31st is the deadline, is the end of the session. Is that correct?

That's correct. Signing die at midnight, meaning all bills have to pass. So post August 31st, we'll know what's heading to the governor. And then we would be looking after August 31st for signature request or veto letters aligned with the positions the city's taken.

Great. So August 17th will be kind of our last meeting to meet during the session before it ends. So if you guys do think of any other bills, please feel free to email us, email Jason and Paul, and we'll keep track of them and then take positions at our last meeting on the 17th. And then we meet again in October, which is after the governor signed everything, right? It's like a wrap-up meeting. Is that correct, Jason?

That's correct. Okay, great. We'll know the damage that was done or the good news.

Great, all right. Well, I think we have a good plan for the next meeting and you guys can always let us know if anything comes up between then.

Got it. And I was gonna say AB 1997 and AB 1887 are interesting. Just if those aren't on the list. I don't think they were. These are coming from the contract cities. I just remembered to look there, so.

1997 and 1987?

Let's see. 1887. 1997, 1857. I can't see. 1857. I cannot see. Argyler-Curry. Let me zoom this thing. It's 50 something. My contact's in backwards. I know that now. Fine earlier, but yes. Great.

All right, we'll look into those.

Thank you.

Yeah, great.

All right, well, with that, I guess we'll call this meeting to an end. So, all right, thank you, everybody. Thank you.

Thank you, Paul. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.