Legislative Review Committee - Regular Meeting

All right, we call this meeting to order. Yep, we're calling the August 17th LRC meeting officially to order. And of course, I'll pass it back to you, to any folks in the public wishing to comment.

Phil, we need to start with roll call.

Oh, let's do roll call. Good idea. So roll call.

Vice Chair Chao? Yes. Chair Wong?

Here.

Okay. And that's the approval of minutes.

Okay. Have you looked through the minutes? Any comments?

No. So moved.

Okay. Motion to approve the minutes. We have a second. Vice Chair Chau?

Aye. Chair Wong? Aye. Motion carries unanimously.

All right, let's go to oral communications. Do we have any members of the public wishing to speak in this minute?

We have no speakers, Chair.

Okay, no speakers. No old business, let's move to new business. Item two, legislative update. Let's take a look at that. Pass it on to the team.

Great, thank you. I will pass it on to Jason and Paul who are joining us here tonight to provide an update on where we are in the session, an update on where we are on our bills that we've taken positions on. So pass it on, take it away, Jason.

Well, thank you, Astrid, and good afternoon. I'll start with the good news. The legislature and the legislative session is winding down. As you likely know, they reconvened August 3rd for the final month. August 31st is sine die, which means midnight on August 31st, all ordinary session bills have to pass. Otherwise, they have failed. And since we're in the second year of a two-year session, they are constitutionally dead. They can't carry over like last session where bills on the odd years can carry into the following legislative session is the point. The legislature again, August 3rd, they came back from summer recess with 1,632 bills pending. The deadline was last Friday, which they took up the suspense calendars in the appropriations committees. 609 of those 1,600 bills were held on suspense due to fiscal anticipated costs, obviously the state's budget challenges being considered. And that leaves us with 1,023 bills now in the Assembly and Senate in each respective house that have two weeks to today, two weeks from today to pass. So the legislature will be moving rather quickly over the next two weeks as they approach that constitutional deadline I mentioned, August 31st. In addition to the thousand plus bills, there's a few key high level items. I just wanna note the climate fund, cap and invest, cap and spend, cap and trade, whatever we wanna call it. They don't wanna cap it and how they spend the money. is still yet to be determined. It's been a carryover item since the June budget negotiations, and it's one that the governor and speaker and pro tem have not reached a final decision on. One other issue that's getting quite a bit of attention, the governor's proposed or not proposed or ever-changing wildfire resiliency plan. The governor's looking to address wildfire risk. The big question is how much does that allow the investor-owned utilities, most notably, at least within the public, PG&E, and how much is PG&E off the hook? Right now, there's wildfire proposals that are being guesstimated as could increase homeowners insurance by $1,000 on average, particularly for rural communities per policy. So the insurance industry is actively engaged and opposing the governor's, I'll call it, Tempid plan because it's really not... moving at this point. It's just bits and pieces kind of being aired. And then the last piece that's also taking a lot of the airspace, and that is the counties, most notably Los Angeles County, is working to try to obtain some type of statutory protection to protect counties, stave off bankruptcy, I'll call it, and put limits on lawsuits, particularly in lawsuits that pertain to county employees corrections, et cetera, from child abuse and school district abuse. So as you likely know, there was a youth facility in LA County that has had some several billion dollar settlements. And that was for a fraction of the plaintiffs with still a couple thousand plaintiffs yet to settle. And obviously the multi-billion dollar settlements are a concern for LA County and other counties throughout the state. With that, the one other key bill I would highlight, AB 1751, the townhome ownership opportunity for everyone, I guess we'll call it. That bill did move off of suspense and it's one of the few bills that the city has taken a position on that We will continue to oppose. It's on the Senate floor. It will have to go from the Senate floor back to the Assembly for concurrence. But it's a bill that we're actively engaged on opposing, but it does continue to move under the by right trend we're seeing in Sacramento. So I'll stop there. Happy to answer any questions and look forward to the other remaining items in the agenda. Any questions?

I was just going to say, Jason, if you could also provide a quick update on what happens after August 31st.

Oh, yep. Minor detail. Thank you, Astrid. When the legislature passes the thousand plus or minus bills, Governor Newsom, rather than the typical signing deadline of a week, Governor Newsom has 10 days, typically. He has 30 days. So September 30th will be the deadline for the governor to take action on the slew of bills and it'll be 800 to a thousand of them. It'll be 900 to a thousand of the thousand plus remaining. So the governor's September will be quite busy amongst his travel plans and other things.

Great. Thank you, Jason. And I also wanted to add, just attached to the agenda, we have the bill tracking list, which is a list of bills that the city is currently tracking. And we also added the second attachment, which is the list of positions from YIMBY, CalCities, and then thanks to Gonsalvo's team, we added the Contract Cities Association list. So those are all on one attachment to your agenda.

Good to see that. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

I think the question for me, just as a general trend, are we seeing a shift in terms of legislators' view on housing? Or is it still the same, let's build everything at all costs and support the real estate lobby? Or is there any kind of local control sense of movement back to saying, hey, we've got to give these cities back some of their control?

But unfortunately, Council Member Wong, I wish the answer was more of the latter. And there was a heightened sensitivity towards local control. I use the poor analogy that housing is like heaven. We all want to go. We just don't want to die. They all want housing. And at what cost seems to be the overarching question. There's starting to be some. movement towards some level of local control, but it's moving from zero to maybe 50%. And what I mean by that is we've seen an onslaught of 30 plus or minus housing bills each year. This session is no different. Initially it was ADUs and now it's townhomes and everything moves towards buy right. And the short answer is we're starting to see, because of locals and the pushback, we're starting to see some movement in our direction, but they have a long ways to go. And the only other tidbit I would note is after November elections, we will see about 25% turnover in the legislature, about 30 new members, which could create an opportunity, but lots of education still remaining.

Okay. Good to know. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? Okay, I appreciate the update. Let's move to item number three.

Oh, public comment.

Oh, for public comment.

We have no speakers.

No one online either?

We have. Let me see. Nobody's online right now.

No one online. All right. Good to know. All right. Keep us posted. All right. Let's move to item number three. Consider adopting an opposed position unless amended position on AB 1976. This is Buffy's Wix Street and Highways Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Act recommendation. recommended action adopted and opposed unless amended position on AB 1976 and authorized the mayor to send letters to the state legislature. Let's go through the report.

Yeah, I'll pass it on to Jason to provide a brief overview of what the bill does and why we're recommending this position.

Go ahead, Jason. The bill seeks to streamline... the implementation of transportation projects once they've gone through and they're in your transportation plans and they've reached what they consider 90% design and construction has been authorized. Cal cities is opposed unless amended. So the recommended position would be consistent with other cities throughout the state. But really the amendment that we would be requesting in alignment with Cal cities is to allow local elected officials to revisit the projects should there be community concerns, responses, or any changes to development in essence around the previously designed or approved project. So to allow the ability for the mayor and council to respond to your constituents concerns on a project by project basis. And that's really, you know, don't box us in on a project that's been approved, even though the dynamics around that project could have changed.

Has there been provisions to go back to level of service for drivers, given that a lot of these, like 80 to 90% of the traffic is still vehicular traffic and that we are impacting a good amount of their time? So we've put people into traffic longer than they have to be for the usage and given the usage that's there. So is anyone asking for any level of service standard as to any impact to be considered in these ATPs?

That hasn't been part of the debate. It's not probably, it's a very valid point. What's really kind of driving a lot of this is the, and I think wrongfully so that locals don't have enough bike and pedestrian lanes because the mayors and council members aren't approving them as they should have or as they had previously been designed. And then the constant attention and ever-growing attention on e-bikes has really been kind of the drive for the need for these lanes. But you're absolutely right. If people aren't out of cars and the more congestion you have on the highway, the more the cyclists are at risk.

I'm worried about that from both an environmental aspect, given the amount of idle time that you put the cars in. And the second piece is it's actually impacting people's lives. But that's all. OK, so there's nothing on the agenda that's listed that way. Nothing on anyone's agenda that's asking for an amendment that would bring LOS back to these calculations.

level of service? No, not at this point. It doesn't preclude us from, you know, as part of our request for the amendment from including at least a statement on allowing locals to analyze level of service. But currently, Cal Cities and others haven't been asking for that thus far.

and you ask 20 minutes going outbound, 20 minutes inbound on the commute, times the number of people that are actually impacted, let's say it's even 10 minutes, times 50 weeks out of the year, or you'd say 48 if you wanna be a little bit more precise, you get a very, very large number of time wasted by everyone. So, and it's actually not helping anyone, so.

So, well, this is a very severe invasion of local authority. Because even with a 90% design, there are often multiple options. So are we not allowed to even consider different options for a certain right turn, left turn? For example, we had removed the right turn even after implementation. Step find out it doesn't work, they restore the right turn lane. So now we are not allowed to do that.

Under the proposed legislation, yes. If it was previously approved and 90% of the design had been completed and staff came back with new findings, you still would not be able to change it absent the project proponents and others coming together. But even at that, it's questionable as to how many folks would have to sign off. The way I read it is no, you would not be able to change it.

You cannot change anything. Even if the council did not approve the 90% design, because often we approve the budget, we don't even see the 90% design. So even if the council did not approve the 90% design, we cannot change it?

No. If it was in your transportation plan, it would be locked in if it had been previously approved. I would think the council would have had to approve it at some point, but to answer the question, if it had previously been approved, even at the staff level is 90% approved. If you have a process that allows for that absent council approval, it would be locked in the way I read the legislation.

What if the staff sees the need to modify and decide that they would like to change the 90% design?

There's limited circumstances in the bill, CEQA and others, but just staff revision, I don't read the bill as providing such, which is precisely the amendment that CalCities and other local agencies and the recommendation that you consider the opposed unless the amendment allows for community input, council input, staff input. That's exactly where The limited flexibility in the current version of the bill is what's being opposed.

So what if the council just removed the funding? Even if you have the design, there is no funding. You cannot even get consultant to implement it. Are we then forced to lock in the funding?

You can, Councilman.

I don't think you could. The way I would read the bill, the project's still approved, but if there's no way to pay for it, then the bill can't force you to pay it. I mean, it's a great question, a great point. If the locals' hands get tied as the statute's proposing, I think you're gonna find a lot of projects that lose their funding rather quickly.

And then maybe the council decide to find a different project. That is a better option. Are we allowed to just start scratch?

Well, if the funding is from ATP, you have to cancel it and then relinquish funds and send a letter. That's how you do it. So at least that's what it looks like from other cities. So once you have that, that's fine. I mean, you basically say, we're not going to do this anymore. We're going to return any of the unused funds and then that's it, right? And you cancel the funding from ATP directly. So you can do that. But if you start a new project and you still have to get money from California's ATP program, that's different. If it's your own, then it's up to you. You do whatever you want. It's the problem is like the state put a lot of money into the ATP funding and we all took these ATP funds and now we end up with things we don't want or we think we don't want or we might have a change in how we want. So does that sound right?

It absolutely does. And then, you know, I think the vice mayor is pointing out some very key pieces that could be workarounds or even, I would say, mechanisms to protect your local authority. But at the same time, the statute may be also setting you up for potential legal challenges. depending on the reaction to some of those workarounds.

Maybe we would have to change our process to only provide provisional funding until the 90% design is approved. Then we actually run the project.

That's a good workaround. Great point. We could do it that way. We're going to have to start doing that. Okay. Any other discussion?

No. I move to... Oh, can we go to public comment? Sorry, guys. Oh, sorry.

Let's move to public comment.

We have no speaker's chair.

Okay. All right. Any other deliberations? You want to make a motion?

Yeah. Motion for the staff recommendation to oppose AB 1976. And authorize the mayor. And authorize the mayor.

I just want to correct. An oppose unless amend position?

No, just oppose. Okay. I don't think any amendment would be worth it. This is an extreme invasion of local authority.

Okay. You have a second from me?

Okay. Vice Chair Chao. Okay, aye. Chair Wong?

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, thank you. All right, let's move to item number four. Consider adopting a support position on AB 2037, Patterson Wildfire Mitigation Aging and Disability Grant Pilot Program. The recommended action is to adopt a support position on this. Let's go to the staff.

This one should be fairly quick, right, Jason, when you have an update for us?

This one will go quick. Unfortunately, while the bill was well-intended, it sought to set up a grant program for wildfire mitigation, given the state's budgetary constraints and the fact that the bill was contingent upon funding in subsequent budget years, the bill failed passage. in the Senate Appropriations Committee, so it is dead. As we often say, the bill's dead, the author isn't, so we may see it come back come January, but at this point, there's no need for a position. The bill's no longer moving.

Okay, let's move to any public comment.

We have no speakers, Chair.

No speakers? Okay. I guess nothing to vote on. So we'll move on to the next item. Is that okay?

Yeah.

All right. Item number five.

Oh, for item number four, is there a motion to adopt a support position?

Oh, we can still adopt, even if the bill's dead?

The bill's dead, so I would recommend they take no position on it. Okay. So do they still need to make a motion for that? Yeah, for that one, I would say yes. So a motion to take no position.

To take no position on it.

So...

All right, I'll make a motion to take no position on AB 2037 until Patterson brings it back.

Okay, second. Vice Chair Chao? Aye. Chair Wong?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Thanks. All right, item number five. Subject, consider recommending the city council adopt a support position on SB 922, Laird's vehicle, local agency charges use of streets or highways. Recommend that the city, the recommended action is recommend that the city council adopt a support position on SB 922 and authorize the mayor to send a letter to the governor requesting his signature on this bill. Back to you, Astrid.

Thank you. Before I pass it on to Jason. So this bill, when I looked at the legislative platform has a monitor language on it. So that way, therefore it needs to be approved by the city council and we can make that recommendation here today. I'll also add this bill, correct me if I'm wrong, Jason, is an engrossment and enrolling, correct? So this one is like, almost is basically at the governor's desk or almost there. And so if you do adopt the position today, it'll go to council at the September 1st meeting for their consideration. And if they do accept the support position, then we would just submit a letter to the governor directly since it'll be most likely with him at that time. So with that, I'll pass it on to Jason.

Well, and it's one that it's not by any fault of the mayor and council. This is legislation that resulted from litigation on the city of Redlands versus Rogers has to do with the ability to collect basically heavy duty, heavy, high weight fees, trash trucks and the like within your community. The courts ruled in favor of the local agency's ability to collect to collect those fees. This bill seeks to ratify that decision and further clarify the ability to do so. Irrespective of how quickly it may or may not get signed by the governor, I think it's worth notifying or at least the mayor and council being aware of it in large part because of the Taxpayer Protection Act and all the other activity going after local agencies' ability to collect or to even impose or seek voter approval for fees. So this is one that moves in our direction, allows the local decision-making process to be maintained, and it's moved very quickly as a result of the court case.

So the key provision in this bill is the fact that weight-based limits go away, right? Yes. And it's replaced by, it doesn't matter whether it's weight-based or not. How do you determine the damage? That's the part I couldn't understand. Do I just say, hey, you're running your cement trucks here longer than more. You're a construction company. You've been running things in and out. You're hauling waste in and out of the area more than others, and we're going to come patch you for that. He's like, I couldn't quite understand how that worked.

I think there's some local autonomy as to how you determine that and whether you do it by way of a permit or a fee.

I need that for a cleanup.

Go ahead. Yes, you're absolutely right. Basically, the fee goes away and it allows the locals to, I'm sorry, the weight-based fee goes away and allows the locals to make a determination as to the roadway needs, repairs, and how to assess it.

So playing this out, we could come up with a formula that says if your vehicle weighs X and you make X number of trips, right, we're going to charge you a certain percentage based on that. Yes. It could be a flat fee. It could be a tax. It could be what's in the truck, the value of the items or the goods. It's up to us. Yep, absolutely. No, I read it the same way. Okay, it's the most power we've had in the city. No, I'm just kidding.

So the weight-based fee goes away.

You can't restrict just on weight-based fee.

Can we... You can do anything.

You can do anything is what this thing says. We have to come up with a new rubric. What's your new algo for what it costs?

Frequency.

Like if you're too heavy on this, you know, the type of, it could be on only concrete roads, you have this fee. It could be asphalt roads have a different fee. Dirt roads have a different fee. Like it's up to you to go crazy. Please don't. Let's try to keep it. But you get the idea. You get full out of it.

Yeah, and it could be a fee, it could be a tax, or a other charge. It could be a one-time permit.

It's up to you how you want to collect the revenue. Bunch of toll roads.

So you mentioned the Taxpayer Protection Act. That has been withdrawn, right?

Well, it was modified. So the retroactivity and the more egregious provisions were negotiated with the governor and legislative leadership and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. So the modified version will be before the voters in November, which... And it's fairly straightforward. It will subject most, if not all future general or special purpose initiatives to be a two-thirds vote. So it's raising the threshold for future tax or fee measures for local voters. But the retroactivity piece that tried to deem previously approved voter initiatives invalid, those provisions were removed.

Okay.

Any other discussion? Questions?

No.

Let's check public comment. Public comment.

We have no speakers here.

No speakers. All right. All right. Back to you, Vice Mayor.

Okay. No. No.

I think we'll make a motion to take the staff's recommended action that the city council adopt a support position on SB 922 and authorize the mayor to send a letter to the governor requesting a signature on the bill.

Right, so we'd be recommending that the full council take a position.

The full city council.

Yes.

To be placed on the next agenda.

Yeah, September 1.

September 1. All right, is there a second?

Oh, second. Vice Chair Chau? Aye. Chair Wong?

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Okay. Item number six. Consider adopting a watch position on AB 1997. Oh, Lee. Okay. Land use, housing development approvals, timelines, and processes. The recommended action is adopt a watch position on AB 1997. Let's go to details. Astrid?

Yeah. This bill, I'll pass it on to Jason to give a brief update and explanation on the position, recommended position.

Thank you. This bill, AB 1997, it's really, I would call it almost more of an informational item. And to Council Member Wong's prior question at the outset of the meeting, is the legislature moving towards a little bit more I'll call it supportive or sympathetic view of local land use authority. This is one that is moving in that opposite direction. And while it probably won't have sweeping impacts, it does speak to the unfortunate trend of shortening your approval process timelines and review timelines and environmental timelines for projects that meet 90% affordable for very low or extremely low development. for households. So that's the piece that probably won't have sweeping impacts. I don't know that you can get many projects with 20% very low and extremely low occupancy or units. So the 90% threshold provides some level of, I would say, limited application. But at the same time, it was one we wanted to at least have the legislative review committee consider watching because it just it further perpetuates the trend again to councilmember wong's earlier question of eroding local land use authority got it good to know thank you

And I'll just add as well that the watch position, the other positions at the end of last time's meeting in June, we got clear direction from you guys. And this was just like a look into it one. So at this point, like kind of late in the game, we were recommending a watch currently. But you're obviously you you can take an opposed position or other position based on the legislative platform, which is written in the report for this bill. but there also isn't a lot of activity like there wasn't a lot of support or a position in general um and so we wanted to just for now recommend a watch and see what you guys thought there's no point raising activity something that doesn't have any activities what you're saying right just want to make sure we're clear on that okay well and then also one other caution would be you know um

to highlight whether Cupertino supports or doesn't support and the optics of very low and extremely low housing. I think most, if not all communities are supportive of the need. The problem is who buys them down? I mean, in Cupertino with your median home price, how are you gonna buy down an extremely low unit? So I would argue it's the state's problem, not the city's. They're the ones putting all the requirements on you.

Okay. Any other comments?

No, but I guess I have some comments on future agenda.

Okay, let's do that. Let's go to any public comments for now. Not yet. We have to get public comments.

Okay. We have no speakers.

No speakers? Okay. And are you okay with adopting a watch position on this? Mm-hmm. Okay. Do we have to vote on that? Yes.

Okay.

Okay. I'll make a motion to adopt a watch position on AB 1993.

So second.

Okay.

Vice Chair Chau? Aye. Chair Wong?

Aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Okay, this one's interesting. Item seven, consider adopting a support or watch position, Assembly Bill 1857, where a query, unlawful restrictive covenants, grocery stores, and supermarkets. Recommended action, adopt one of the following positions on AB 1857. Option one, adopt a support position and authorize the mayor to send letters to the state legislature. Option two, adopt a watch position on AB 1857.

Yeah. We also kind of worded it similar to item six, where we were looking into it and wanted to give you options. The support is possible based on the legislative platform, but a watch is also fairly fine as well at this stage in the game. So I'll pass it on to Jason to give more information.

Yeah. And can we get some history behind this? Because it seems like it was someone didn't like something in a locality and decided to make it state law.

There is that. I would say even going a little bit further back in particularly late 60s, early 70s, when you had the growing conversion of ag land to retail centers and population-based centers. the mall owners and the large anchors, the seers of the world and the grocery stores, they were very creative and they have these everlasting covenants that basically allow them last right of approval on what goes in these former seers or shuttered locations, large anchor locations. And this is a way of trying to allow locals to navigate. And most notably, we have, perhaps food deserts, replace grocery centers and work around the covenants that right now are giving the property owners and former developers, the former grocers, that's really the property owners, ultimate approval. So it's an effort to try to work around some of these, I don't wanna call them archaic, but everlasting protections

Is there anything in this that would allow a loophole for someone to replace a supermarket with a supermarket so that they can build housing on it?

Not that I would see. There has been other legislation in the past. So under government code, we have had bills in prior sessions that allow for conversion, expedited conversion of former retail centers and large retail shopping centers to housing. I know the city of Lakewood in LA County is utilizing that code currently. So nothing in this bill, but I think the government code could allow for such under current law. So if I had a grocery store and I wanted to turn it into townhomes, current law does have provisions that may work for that.

But this is to address the covenants that say you can't necessarily put it back to another supermarket. Exactly.

Interesting. Interesting why there will be.

Okay.

But I think it's not as relevant to us, so maybe we'll just watch.

I'm okay watching it. I'm just trying to figure out how it could be abused.

Yeah. Okay.

Like, if I had this bill and I was trying to unload this thing, what would I do? I mean, if I was told it couldn't be a supermarket, then it would be nice because then I have to find another use for it. So it's probably in our favor if we want to preserve our retail and our supermarkets to support it. That's all. I'm not asking for a support position. I'm just saying, I think we want to make sure that... Do I have any place in Cupertino that has this confidence?

Scenario?

Do we have any covenants like that in Cupertino? I don't know.

I might have to ask our planning team.

I would ask. I don't think so.

Yeah, I have to verify.

Is all Valco was that probably? Right.

Yeah, I can confirm.

Actually, it'd be very nice to know if Valco has that covenant and we might have avoided it by accident. We'd love to know.

But there was no grocery stores there.

One big mall.

The supermarket there?

Couldn't tell. At some point we had a bazaar going on down there.

If it was a big mall, the prior mall owners probably had some restrictive covenants.

We had Macy's, Sears.

Sears was known for them. They were very good at putting those restrictions on future development.

Oh, but too late now.

Good to know. One for the history books.

Okay.

All right. So you okay with the watch position? Is that where you want to go? Okay. Make the motion.

Public comment first.

Public comment, please. Public comment. So sorry.

We have no speakers, Chair.

Okay. No speakers. Thank you. We're all for transparency. I keep forgetting there's no one in this room. We have a Zoom meeting. We have public comment. Please join us next time if you're here.

We're on YouTube.

We're on YouTube. We're getting zero views, no I'm just kidding. More views, all right. Make a motion?

Yeah, so I move to adopt a watch position on AB 1857. I'll second that.

Okay, Vice Chair Chau.

Aye.

Chair Wong. Aye. Legend, Hayes, Hayes.

Okay, we are now, any Staffing Committee reports?

None.

Okay. And future agenda setting. You had some comments you wanted to add?

I have some comments from the Cities Association Legislative Action Committee. Some things they considered that might be of interest. So SB 1117, that's a bill that would allow not allow force the city to waive the fees for the first 750 square foot of an ADU or JADU. So it's only charging for anything that's above 750 square feet. I think now it's just too late for taking position on, but I think this kind, I wish this could have been brought to the committee I think we didn't because this would affect the city revenue. And continue the legislators thinking impact fee is somehow not going to impact city revenue because impact fees have to go through a Texas study to show that there is an actual impact. And if they are waiving that, that means the city will eventually have to pay and cure those costs, the burden for them. So I just want to present that.

I'll just add that this one is on our tracking list, so it's part of the packet. And as far as the rest of the legislative session goes, like Jason said earlier, the next LRC meeting is in October. So it was meant to be like a wrap up meeting after the end of session. But if there was something that you were strongly wanting to see, we could still We can still bring it to like a full council meeting and not an LRC meeting if there's something that you're really like not to see taken. Cal Cities does have an opposed position on SB 117, but that's something we might want to talk to with, if you want to, we can talk to Tina and the mayor on whether or not they would like to see this.

I don't think, I think at point any action probably won't make any difference. So for information. But another two bill, I think it would be of interest, maybe for the council. It's two bills on nitrous oxide cells. So SB 936 and SB 758. Both of these cities' associations took a support position because there are smoke shops selling nitric oxide as a smoking option. And then Sunnyvale actually had an emergency moratorium on nitric oxide sales in their smoke shops. And then they adopted an ordinance to

the page i'll just say that um i know that cupertino doesn't have any smoke shops currently um so that's good for us have any smoke show we don't have any specific 11 those can they still well those aren't considered smoke shops they sell cigarettes um but like they're not allowed to sell like vapes or flavored vapes right now currently ordinance flavored tobacco so I don't know if they can, but I just know we don't have any specific smoke shops where they only sell smoke products. There's none in Cupertino. So that's at least good for us. But I can definitely look into if that's something that 7-Eleven sells, if you would like.

Yeah, just something to look into because it seems to be such a big deal in Sunnyvale, right? So I know it's not us, but we had parents complain about some other product. I think 7-Eleven sold that. I forgot the name. Yeah. They always come up with new things.

All right, I'll look into that. Okay, any other?

Anything else on your end?

No.

I think the other one people are selling are banning is Kratom. So it's an energy supplement. Oh, yeah, Kratom. That's the other one. We don't have any statewide bans on nitrous or Kratom coming up as well. Washington State just passed a ban on nitrous. So that was the one. Oh, yeah? Yeah.

Just those two bills that the Vice Mayor mentioned on the nitrous oxide side, as far as prohibiting the sale in these smoke shops. Creighton, nothing that... I'll do a search and we'll report back if there is, but nothing that comes to mind. I know it's becoming a trend of seeing these shops selling Creighton around.

They're being sold everywhere, especially on truck routes. That's the other piece.

It's amazing. A hundred years ago, my wife worked in dentistry and you had nitrous oxide. You had to have it locked up in a separate room and it couldn't be accessed by the general public. Now the idea that smoke shops can sell it to kids or 18-year-olds, it's I guess the way the pendulum has swung is somewhat crazy in my view. Yeah. That was my old man moment, harkening back to the old days.

There was a bill, AB 1088, dealing with Kratom, but that bill was held on the assembly floor, so that bill is dead. So I expect to see them reintroduce it in January. Oh, I'll come back and see that.

So Louisiana and Washington are the two states that have banned nitrous oxide. Two of the least likely states, I would imagine. Yeah.

That's great.

That's great for them. Washington state surprised me because... Louisiana surprised me, too, because I think it's become a problem. It's up there with horse trunk in Philly. Okay, thank you. Anything else to ask for the agenda items? No. Okay, when is our next meeting?

Just to- Yeah, as I was gonna say, October 19th. It will be kind of our last kind of wrap up meeting for this year, wrap up the legislative session. And then, is it October? Yeah, it's on a Monday, October 19th, it'll be here at two o'clock. And we'll prepare a wrap-up for all of you and go over kind of where our positions landed. And the last thing I'll say is for any positions that you already took positions on this year, if they go to the governor, we will automatically send letters of signature or veto, depending on what you adopted, right? So that is what we'll be working on for the next couple months, and then we'll come back with an update for you in October.

Are we going to provide an info memo maybe for the city council? Yeah, we usually do. Summarize of what we.

Yeah, we usually do. So we'll try to publish the memo close to when the meeting is. So it's kind of like at the same time.

And then are we planning to invite the legislators to come to the council for an update? Yeah.

Yeah, I think we did that last year, right? So I can, we can work on that. I'll reach out to them and see what we can do.

Yeah, let's get them.

I'll try my best.

We can come separately and come together. It's fine. Okay.

Okay. Great.

That's it for us. This might be a little late. I think we were planning that a little earlier last year because of their schedule.

Yeah, yeah. I think we did a wrap-up last year as well, didn't we? In October? Or was it earlier? I don't recall. Oh, you mean for ARC? No, we did it at the council meeting. They presented on that.

Oh, it was a special meeting. It was something for errands. It was like Monday, eventually.

Oh, a special meeting, yeah.

Yeah, because we somehow... Well, scheduling them is difficult.

Yeah, but I remember we tried that. Yeah. Before all this. Yeah, we'll try to find a meeting that works for them. And then we'll publish a memo and have this meeting as well. So, yeah.

I know you did it in the fall because Patrick showed up without an umbrella and it was raining outside.

There we go. Yeah. Good memory, Jason.

Great. That was a nice way of saying he showed up all wet.

Yeah. So maybe sometime late November, like after election. Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. All right.

We'll do our best to schedule that. Great.

Yeah.

That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you. Meeting is simply adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.