[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:04] Good afternoon. This is the town of Los Altos Hills City Council special meeting. Today is
[0:11] Thursday, June 18th, 2026. So the time is 4.30 p.m. I will now call the meeting to order.
[0:19] And the meeting is occurring both in person and via Zoom in accordance with applicable law.
[0:25] Erica, can we have a roll call, please? Yes, Mayor. Council Member Muck?
[0:30] Council Member Swan here. Council Member Tonka. Yes. Vice Mayor Tyson here. Mayor
[0:35] Bataja. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. We have a quorum. Thank you. At this time, the
[0:41] council will receive public comments, which is limited to matters that are
[0:44] subject to this special meeting. I don't see anybody in the room.
[0:50] Is there
[0:51] anybody online? Yes, Mayor. John O'Connell. We are promoting to speak. So
[0:56] The comments are limited two minutes per speaker.
[0:58] Speakers and members of the audience are reminded that public comments must comply with the town's
[1:03] rules of decorum.
[1:04] Profane language or disruptive conduct is prohibited under Los Altos Hills Municipal
[1:08] Code.
[1:10] Let's go ahead with the public comment, please.
[1:14] Okay, John.
[1:15] We're ready to hear your comment.
[1:17] Thank you.
[1:18] Today's legal topics, although different, have one thing in common.
[1:22] None of them should be wasting the town's time and money.
[1:25] The CalHDF linebarger brief paints the town as a bad actor, doing anything to avoid multifamily housing,
[1:34] suggesting nuances of words and sentences in California government codes to provide an interpretation of their meaning,
[1:41] and makes claims that a reasonable person would disagree with Los Altos Hills.
[1:47] I contend the reasonable person would likely consider the safety of evacuating 40 to 80
[1:53] seniors in the event of a fire from a 55 by 150 foot 4 to 5 story building with almost
[2:00] no access to 80% of the residents since the lot is less than 66 feet wide. Further the
[2:08] building is in a high fire hazard severity zone and it is likely that a reasonable
[2:12] person would expect Santa Clara County Fire and Los Altos Hills to put the
[2:17] safety of residents as their number one priority. Clearly the plaintiff's lawyers
[2:22] do not have that responsibility. There is nothing Los Altos Hills can do to stop
[2:28] lawyers like Cal HDF from making frivolous claims. However, having read the
[2:33] court documents, I believe Los Altos Hills needs to make clear why the project
[2:39] was denied rather than defending against the narrative that it has used process and details
[2:45] to deny a wonderful project. In contrast, the town had full control over the
[2:52] Grady case. Mr Grady made several requests to the City Council and City Attorney to
[2:58] direct the town manager to stop stonewalling and comply with the law. The actions of the
[3:04] town manager were not surprising, but if the city attorney had advised the
[3:08] council to direct the town manager to comply, this case would never have
[3:12] happened. The invoices of the city attorney are twice the amount, more than
[3:18] twice the amount that Mr. Grady has spent himself, plus having to refund Mr.
[3:24] Grady on a case that should never have happened. No wonder the overhead
[3:28] being allocated to building and planning staff brings their hourly
[3:32] rate to nearly two-thirds of a million dollars for processing resident permits.
[3:38] I am also concerned that the shield case is headed in the same direction. It is already
[3:43] more than 140 hours and greater than $60,000, but I'll comment more on that in your second
[3:49] closed session. Thank you.
[3:52] Thank you, John. Is there anybody else online?
[3:55] No, Mayor.
[3:56] All right. We will close public comment and now retire to the closed session.