[0:00] All right, good evening everyone. I'd
[0:02] like to call this meeting to order.
[0:05] So, we don't have any remote, so we can
[0:09] just do this roll call orally. Okay,
[0:12] Veronica, roll call, please.
[0:17] » Council member Husco here.
[0:20] >> Council member Flynn,
[0:21] >> present.
[0:22] >> Vice Mayor Hufty
[0:24] >> here.
[0:25] >> Mayor Taylor,
[0:26] >> present.
[0:26] >> We have a quorum.
[0:27] >> Thank you.
[0:29] All right. So, for tonight, um, we won't
[0:31] do the sort of general oral
[0:32] communications on things not on the
[0:34] agenda until we get to the regular
[0:36] meeting. So, the first item on the
[0:38] special meeting is the closed session.
[0:41] So, I'll open that if there are any
[0:42] public comments on the closed session
[0:44] item. Now is your time to speak.
[0:48] So, anybody? No. Anybody online?
[0:54] » Veronica.
[0:56] >> Okay, great. All right. So Ben, I'd like
[0:59] to close the session. So
[1:02] this is your opportunity and then we'll
[1:04] come call you guys and and hopefully
[1:05] it'll be pretty quick. I would hope 15
[1:07] minutes or so, but um but but we'll come flag you down.
[1:19] » Okay. We're gonna we're going to call
[1:20] the council meeting back in session. Oh,
[1:24] Katherine, do you want to report on the
[1:26] close session?
[1:28] Uh thank you mayor. Yes, the council met
[1:30] in close session just before um this
[1:33] item to discuss uh the litigation county
[1:37] of Sonteo at all versus state of
[1:39] California. Uh the town and all of the
[1:43] cities and town towns in uh the Sanonteo
[1:46] County are parties to this litigation
[1:49] which is challenging the state of
[1:51] California regarding the what's known as
[1:53] the BLF shortfall. Uh, I have nothing to
[1:57] report out of close session. Thank you.
[2:00] >> Thank you.
[2:02] All right, let's move on to 5A.
[2:06] Do does the subcommittee want to present
[2:09] anything before I open it up to public
[2:11] comment?
[2:12] >> Yeah, just a brief summary.
[2:13] >> Okay.
[2:14] >> Yeah.
[2:14] >> Then you're up.
[2:16] >> Okay. Well, just to re refresh folks,
[2:20] um, our subcommittee was formed with a
[2:23] pretty direct task of identifying
[2:25] outside council other than our town
[2:28] attorney to advise us in connection with
[2:31] the Hawthorne's uh, property in town.
[2:35] Um, we wanted to make sure that we had
[2:38] council available should
[2:41] we have a need to confer and understand
[2:44] the town's rights with respect to MRSD's
[2:48] plans for the lowerbound project and
[2:52] historic complex. That's when the
[2:54] decision to
[2:56] uh seek alternate counsel was made. Um,
[3:01] we are, uh, we're happy to report out
[3:04] that we identified Bill Seligman, who is
[3:08] a veteran attorney. I think he's the
[3:11] town attorney for Campbell at this
[3:12] point, but also has a private practice,
[3:16] and he's very experienced in these these
[3:18] types of issues. So, we made the
[3:21] recommendation that we select Mr.
[3:24] Seligman as alternate counsel for this
[3:27] uh set of issues for the town where our
[3:30] current town attorney is conflicted out.
[3:32] So that's the setting here. Um I'll turn
[3:36] it back.
[3:36] >> Great. Thank you, Judith. Um any
[3:38] clarifying questions for Judith before I
[3:40] open it to public comment?
[3:43] >> Uh yes. Um there's a budget associated
[3:46] with him. No more than $10,000 for is
[3:49] that for this fiscal year or or does
[3:51] that include some of the costs that
[3:53] might be for next fiscal?
[3:55] >> Well, right now it's just to get him
[3:57] started with getting his bearings um to
[4:00] look at relevant documents that are
[4:02] publicly available.
[4:04] So, whenever he gets through that, he
[4:06] has to come back and we have to
[4:08] reauthorize.
[4:09] >> Do you know how much has been spent to
[4:10] date?
[4:11] >> I personally do not.
[4:15] We've not received any invoices for his
[4:18] services to date.
[4:21] >> Any other clarifying questions?
[4:24] All right, with that I
[4:28] go ahead. Yeah, no worries.
[4:30] >> Um, do we know if mid I'm sorry. Um,
[4:34] hang on. I might have jumped ahead.
[4:37] We're on item
[4:38] >> 5A.
[4:40] This is the report out.
[4:42] >> Yeah. Okay, never mind. my questions the
[4:44] next.
[4:45] >> No worries. Thank you. Okay. Um, so now
[4:48] I'll open it. Is there any public
[4:49] comment? So I see none in the
[4:52] schoolhouse.
[4:54] Is there any online?
[4:56] >> We have one in there. We have
[5:00] » Linda Brothers, uh, a resident of the
[5:03] ranch. Um, I just wondered to what
[5:06] extent you've authorized this to bring
[5:09] any action or undertake any work. You've
[5:12] just chosen him. Is that correct?
[5:15] >> We have only chosen him and um I think
[5:18] there's an agreement in place with a not
[5:21] to exceed number, but that's to get
[5:23] started. There's no decision or input
[5:26] that we've given him other than to get
[5:29] it bearings.
[5:29] >> Can I ask why he's not here? Uh
[5:32] specifically as to the next matter and
[5:34] with all due respect, why Katherine, who
[5:36] has an ethical barrier, is here.
[5:39] >> You can ask. Um, I don't we didn't,
[5:42] frankly, it's a cost issue. We didn't
[5:44] want him to spin his wheels essentially
[5:47] and spin up the cost. So, I would
[5:51] imagine that as time goes forward and if
[5:54] we approve additional amounts that that would be an appropriate
[5:58] >> step.
[6:01] Yeah, please.
[6:05] Um, yeah. No, thank you for the
[6:06] question. is something that um I've
[6:08] considered uh in terms of you know legal
[6:10] advice that wouldn't generally be given
[6:12] in open session um because of the
[6:15] confidential nature of it. So that would
[6:17] be another reason to not have Mr.
[6:18] Seligman here but ultimately that would
[6:20] be a council decision. Um, in terms of
[6:22] the items tonight, um, uh, as as
[6:25] indicated in the staff materials and
[6:27] when my firm was hired, um, my firm does
[6:30] represent a pen, um, as well as post on
[6:33] a variety of matters. And so that is did
[6:36] create the the conflict uh, for this
[6:38] situation. Um, I did give some
[6:40] consideration whether I mean this was a
[6:42] carryover item from a from a prior
[6:44] meeting. Uh, my personal opinion is this
[6:46] is a procedural item um, as opposed to a
[6:49] substantive one. And so for that reason,
[6:51] I didn't see a need uh to recuse. Of
[6:53] course, if the council wanted me to step
[6:55] out, I'd always be open to that.
[6:57] >> Um,
[6:57] >> thank you.
[6:58] >> May I follow up and ask you that I think
[7:00] I have substantive legal comments to
[7:02] make on the next matter and that
[7:04] appropriate then to ask if you leave
[7:10] » that would be a council decision.
[7:11] >> Uh, I I can wait and ask the question
[7:13] then.
[7:15] >> Sure. Why don't Why don't we wait for
[7:16] the next one? Um I I would say that the
[7:19] next one isn't about legal matters. It's
[7:22] what we think a subcommittee should
[7:25] start looking into to bring back to the
[7:28] council
[7:29] >> and it's a matter of perspective I think
[7:31] whether that should include legal
[7:33] matters but I'll wait till the next
[7:34] item. I just want raise the question.
[7:36] Thank you.
[7:37] >> Thank you.
[7:47] All right. Anybody else in the
[7:49] schoolhouse? Don't see any hands. I
[7:51] don't see any hands online. All right.
[7:54] So, let me close public comment.
[7:58] Bring it back to the council. There any
[8:02] more comments for the sub committee?
[8:06] No. Okay. Then let me close 5A and move
[8:09] to 5B.
[8:11] So, who's going to present this? Darcy,
[8:14] is this you? Great. Thank you.
[8:33] Okay, just give me a second. So, this is
[8:35] an item to discuss the appointment or
[8:40] potent potential appointment of a town
[8:42] council ad hoc subcommittee to research
[8:45] options to work directly with the Mid
[8:47] Peninsula Regional Open Space District
[8:49] regarding the Hawthorne's property. And
[8:51] I'm Darcy Smith, your town manager. This
[8:54] is just a brief presentation, a simple
[8:56] background on the Hawthorne's property.
[8:58] It's a 79 acre site in the Pulla Valley
[9:01] town limits. It was gifted from post to
[9:04] midpen in 2011.
[9:07] No town permit applications have been
[9:09] submitted yet. So the town has not been
[9:12] formally engaged at this point. Um the
[9:16] town has been informed through
[9:18] conversations with the midpen staff and
[9:21] action by the midpen board directors
[9:23] that the SQA environmental review is
[9:25] anticipated to start this year. And the
[9:28] town is a SQA responsible agency. Again,
[9:31] according to MidPen correspondence,
[9:35] um, also important to note the planning
[9:37] public access planning process led by
[9:39] Midpen began about five years ago. There
[9:42] was a public access working group that
[9:44] met in 23 24 and the last time the
[9:47] council had a session with MIDI pen was
[9:50] um October 2024.
[9:54] So, just a quick
[9:57] update on ad hoc subcommittees and what
[10:01] they're allowed to do under state law.
[10:04] So, the composition is a minority of the
[10:06] council, so maximum of two. It's a Brown
[10:08] Act exempt subcommittee and it can only
[10:11] include council members only. It can't
[10:13] include staff. Um, it's advisory only to
[10:16] the town council. There's no authority
[10:19] and no action of the subcommittee could
[10:20] bind the town. And the subcommittee must
[10:24] have a specific finite assignment of
[10:27] work. And for this rough estimate,
[10:31] depending on what the council chooses to
[10:32] assign to the subcommittee, I would
[10:35] estimate is about a two or three month
[10:36] duration where the subcommittee would
[10:39] work and then return to the council with
[10:41] a presentation similar to the one we
[10:43] just had by the other subcommittee. Um,
[10:45] and important to note that that
[10:47] subcommittee dissolves after that point.
[10:49] no formal action is required to dissolve
[10:51] it, but essentially like what you saw on
[10:53] the previous item, that subcommittee
[10:54] doesn't exist anymore. They're not going
[10:56] to do any more work. Uh so some options
[10:59] that were developed and in is in the
[11:02] staff report. So this is not any new
[11:04] information. Um, but some options
[11:07] uh because this is a an item that is on
[11:10] the council agenda from a council
[11:11] request is there's some options to for
[11:14] the subcommittee. But I want to
[11:15] emphasize that this is not work that the
[11:17] subcommittee would be doing. These are
[11:19] just options that the subcommittee would
[11:22] be studying more or analyzing and
[11:24] they're and then come back and advise
[11:26] the council as to which options these
[11:29] options may be other options that the
[11:30] council would want to um direct any
[11:34] potential subcommittee tonight to
[11:36] examine and then they would report back.
[11:38] So there's not going to be actually
[11:39] actual work done by the subcommittee
[11:41] which is important consistent with the
[11:43] Brown Act. They're advisory in nature.
[11:45] They study these. come back and report
[11:48] again, that would likely be August or
[11:50] September. Um, so that the the things
[11:54] that I've heard in the community that
[11:56] might rise to the level of the
[11:57] subcommittee examining to whether they
[11:59] would want to move that forward. Again,
[12:02] separate action by the council would be
[12:04] community communications, potentially
[12:07] working with the midpen board at joint
[12:09] meetings or forming what is considered a
[12:11] Brown Act joint subcommittee. Important
[12:14] to note, it would not be this
[12:15] subcommittee. there' be a separate
[12:16] subcommittee writing a formal comment
[12:19] letter to Mid Pen, which again we have
[12:21] not done at this point because the
[12:23] comment letter would need to come before
[12:25] the council for a vote. So, we've had
[12:27] this body has had no formal
[12:28] correspondence with midpen staff or the
[12:30] board. Um, and there's some other
[12:33] options here, including working with
[12:35] Council Bill Seligman to study potential
[12:38] legal options.
[12:40] So, the council's consideration tonight
[12:43] is fairly simple. I would suggest you
[12:45] take this in two pieces. First, does a
[12:48] council want to appoint tonight
[12:50] a town council ad hoc subcommittee to
[12:52] research the options to work directly
[12:54] with midpen regarding the Hawthorne's
[12:56] property? And then if yes, what specific
[12:59] finite assignment or assignments should
[13:02] the subcommittee work on? And it's just
[13:03] really important that those are defined
[13:05] tonight so that we leave this meeting
[13:06] with a record of what the subcommittee
[13:08] is doing. Um and then you can the
[13:11] subcommittee would return back and again
[13:13] that estimate is two to three months. So
[13:15] August or September
[13:18] and that concludes my staff report.
[13:19] Happy to answer any questions.
[13:21] >> Thank you Darcy. Clarifying questions.
[13:27] » So just timeline I'm picking up figure
[13:29] one out of your submission. Um and it's
[13:36] pretty complicated. Um develop. So, I'm
[13:39] looking at where we are on this. It's 26
[13:42] 27 and 27 plus. Uh, this is
[13:47] uh
[13:49] well, it's in the staff report, the the packet, and I'm wondering what the
[13:55] next step on that timeline practically
[13:58] is for the Hawthorne's MRSD. Is it SQA?
[14:04] like like how far out are we from them
[14:08] doing taking some action?
[14:11] >> Well, so there is a board meeting
[14:13] tonight where they would be approving a
[14:15] SQA scope of work and contract and
[14:17] budget. SQUA is slow.
[14:22] So I think when I last looked at their
[14:25] schedule, they were going to be working
[14:26] on the project description neck. Um, and
[14:30] that could be done later this year into
[14:33] next year.
[14:35] >> Mhm.
[14:36] >> And the the next milestone in the SQL
[14:39] process is that they send an official
[14:40] letter out. It's called a notice of
[14:42] preparation, official notice, and the
[14:44] town again as a responsible agency would
[14:46] get that notice and be able to comment
[14:48] on it. But my best guess right now is
[14:51] that would come later in the fall,
[14:54] >> assuming they approved tonight.
[14:55] >> Yeah, assuming they approved.
[14:56] >> Several many months away. several months
[14:58] away.
[14:59] >> Yes. Yes.
[15:00] >> Thank you.
[15:01] >> Another ignorant question. When does it
[15:04] do they submit for a cup? What is And
[15:08] >> well, I'll just say we do not know
[15:11] exactly what they're submitting for. So,
[15:14] just to correct you, it could be of a
[15:16] cop, it could be something else. We do
[15:18] not know at this time. The notice of
[15:20] preparation does list anticipated
[15:23] entitlements or discretionary approvals
[15:25] that they may seek again from other
[15:27] agencies or they may have to give
[15:28] themselves. Um, and that's a preliminary
[15:31] list. It would be refined through the
[15:33] SQL process, but we have no timeline of
[15:36] that. Again, my best educated guess is
[15:39] it's after SQA and SQA could probably
[15:41] take 12 or 18 months. So, it could be
[15:44] late 2027 or even 2028. But I just want
[15:47] to caution, we have not received any
[15:50] formal correspondence or statements from
[15:52] Midpen as to what they will be
[15:54] submitting or when. Can I just follow up
[15:57] because I think I have a slightly
[15:58] different angle on the same question
[16:00] which is we as a town
[16:03] have not yet been advised because we've
[16:07] only just appointed the town attorney
[16:10] for this set of issues um or the the
[16:14] interim whatever we want to call them.
[16:17] Uh Bill Sullivan has not had a chance to
[16:19] advise the council right now. So, you
[16:23] know, there's what MOSD thinks it needs
[16:27] and we have not yet come to a conclusion
[16:29] on what we need because we haven't had
[16:32] that advice um or a chance to explore
[16:35] that with our
[16:36] >> That's correct. That's well described.
[16:38] Yes.
[16:38] >> Thank you.
[16:42] » I I wanted to just clarify a little bit
[16:44] about Bill Sutherland not having
[16:46] provided us any advice. I got a report
[16:50] by email,
[16:52] a whole summary description. Is that not
[16:56] the background?
[16:57] >> If you're questioning my phrasing, my
[16:59] phrasing came about because
[17:02] a one-way transmission without an
[17:04] ability to engage and discuss isn't
[17:06] advice. It's a one-way transmission that
[17:09] needs followup. That's that's where my
[17:11] phrasing came from. I don't know if
[17:13] Darcy had different phrasing.
[17:15] >> Well, I'll just clarify for the council
[17:17] and public that there's not been a
[17:19] public
[17:20] distribution of information from Bill
[17:22] Seligman at this point. Nothing's been
[17:25] provided publicly.
[17:30] » Could I get further clarification on
[17:32] what the decision is we're making here?
[17:34] Um, if we decide to move ahead and
[17:37] appoint the subcommittee, that's yes or
[17:39] no. And then the finite assignment. Um,
[17:42] you gave us a list of things that the
[17:45] subcommittee is supposed to decide
[17:47] whether or not
[17:51] we that the subcommittee will work on
[17:53] these items. I'm just unclear on whether
[17:55] they're actually going to be working,
[17:57] for example, to draft a formal comment
[18:00] letter or is that something that I don't
[18:02] know the subcommittee is going to make a
[18:04] decision about whether that's important
[18:05] to do and then the staff would and
[18:07] attorney would then draft that formal
[18:10] comment letter. I'm just a little clear
[18:11] on unclear on how much
[18:13] >> it's the latter
[18:14] >> subcommittee will be doing. It's the
[18:16] latter that we're expecting the
[18:18] subcommittee to come back and say
[18:20] potentially we think that the council
[18:23] should draft a letter, but they're not
[18:25] going to draft that letter or submit
[18:28] that letter
[18:31] because the the idea is that they're
[18:33] going to come back at least that's this
[18:35] is my understanding is the subcommittee
[18:37] is going to come back and say, you know,
[18:38] here are our options for looking at this
[18:41] project and we the subcommittee
[18:44] recommend and to the council the
[18:46] following things that we think are
[18:48] probably the right path and then the
[18:50] council need to decide what path we want
[18:52] to take as a full council.
[18:54] >> But at this point, do we really need to
[18:56] give any additional feedback than these
[18:59] six items saying, you know, you should
[19:01] look at all these six items and decide
[19:03] if it's something to move forward with
[19:04] or should we be saying, oh, all right, now I think you should work on the
[19:09] form that you should maybe focus more on
[19:11] this comment letter. That's what I'm a
[19:13] little unclear of.
[19:14] >> Well, that's the discussion.
[19:16] >> I mean, I mean, I have some things to
[19:17] add to this list, for instance, that
[19:18] aren't on here.
[19:20] >> So,
[19:20] >> sort of to create a big list for them
[19:22] then to take away and decide whether to
[19:24] move forward with.
[19:25] >> Sure. Big is a relative term here, but
[19:27] yes.
[19:30] Anything on your side? Clarifying
[19:31] questions. We're not in discussion.
[19:33] >> Yeah, I have clarifying questions. No
[19:35] worries. Um
[19:37] so first of all does um does anyone know
[19:41] if Midpen wants to work with our
[19:43] subcommittee potential subcommittee?
[19:47] >> Uh
[19:49] clarifying question uh that is open is
[19:53] that has not been responded to as yet.
[19:57] >> So Midpen has not responded.
[19:59] >> Wait I I don't think the council's
[20:01] authorizing the sub committee to meet
[20:03] with Midpen. Right. But even even
[20:06] >> we could have that discussion.
[20:07] >> Well, it does say
[20:09] >> joint council and midpend board
[20:11] meetings, communic community
[20:13] communications like like and so I just
[20:16] want to clarify that this would only be
[20:18] a subcommittee from the portal of and
[20:20] not to talk to midpen or to talk to
[20:23] midpen.
[20:24] >> Well, I think like let's take number two
[20:26] just I can easily phrase it. They're not
[20:28] going to draft the letter. They're going
[20:29] to recommend that we draft a letter.
[20:31] They're not going to have joint planning
[20:33] meetings. They're going to recommend
[20:35] that we should have joint planning
[20:36] meetings.
[20:37] >> Okay.
[20:37] So, there there's no interaction
[20:40] between the subcommittee and midpen.
[20:42] It's they're going to go through and say
[20:44] here's what we think might be the right
[20:46] approach and then the council needs to
[20:47] decide how much we want to interact with
[20:49] midpen etc. Does that help?
[20:51] >> Yep, that does. So, um C, uh and could
[20:55] we I recognize that right now could the
[21:00] sub I mean right now we have
[21:01] extraordinarily limited staff
[21:05] so we don't have the staff to or the
[21:07] money to do this but in case in case
[21:10] there is money down the road um could we
[21:15] add for the subcommittee to potentially
[21:18] look at a parking management opportunity
[21:21] as Well, that because uh by having
[21:25] parking a parking management plan, it's
[21:27] a chess move
[21:30] which then you can point to Midpen and say
[21:34] this your parking plan doesn't match the
[21:37] town's parking plan and that's a
[21:40] problem. Could we potentially add
[21:43] another one?
[21:44] >> Yeah. So I think when we get to
[21:45] discussion that would be an example of
[21:47] something that we could add to the list
[21:49] that the subcommittee could
[21:50] >> Great. Okay, those are my questions.
[21:52] Thank you.
[21:53] >> Any other clarifiers?
[21:54] >> Is it possible to discuss the two
[21:57] questions together? Um because for me I
[22:01] don't know if I need a subcommittee
[22:03] until I've figured out
[22:05] whether any of those are, you know,
[22:09] something we should be engaging in at
[22:11] this moment. So I I I don't want to go
[22:15] sequentially myself, but if that's the
[22:18] way you need us to structure this, we
[22:21] can.
[22:23] >> No, you can you can have an alternative
[22:27] approach.
[22:28] >> Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[22:30] >> All right. Any more clarifying questions
[22:32] before I open it to public comment? All
[22:34] right. So with that, um I'm going to
[22:37] open up 5B to public comment. Who would
[22:40] like to speak in the
[22:43] What's up, man? Uh what's up is uh
[22:48] I'm not comfortable with having a
[22:50] conflicted council in in to issue public
[22:54] comment on this because uh because if I
[22:59] understand the concept of conflicted uh
[23:02] council it means that uh we're not
[23:05] speaking in we we are speaking directly
[23:08] to to uh to MRSD and
[23:13] through through council.
[23:15] >> May May I
[23:16] >> Yeah, please
[23:17] >> have a comment. This is recorded. It's
[23:20] public. There's no point in
[23:23] >> I mean she can go look at it. Her her
[23:25] colleagues who are working on it, I know
[23:27] Katherine isn't can look at it. I mean
[23:30] there there is body language. So I I
[23:32] defer to you Mary, but do think about
[23:35] >> Yeah,
[23:35] >> I will go with wherever you want to go
[23:37] on this.
[23:38] >> Okay. So you're
[23:38] >> I I just noticed that it has a sort of a
[23:41] queasy it has a little bit funny
[23:43] feeling.
[23:44] >> Okay. Well, I I doubt Katherine has a
[23:47] strong view,
[23:48] >> right?
[23:48] >> Certainly don't. And I'm I'm happy to
[23:50] step out for the conversation.
[23:52] >> And I think my sense is we're we're not
[23:54] going to ask Katherine for advice, but I
[23:56] don't mind her sitting here personally.
[23:58] >> I don't either. It depends on whether
[24:00] she's on,
[24:03] >> but it's going to be a on the public
[24:04] record. There's no confidence here. I
[24:06] mean it's a recorded anybody in the
[24:08] world can see this so there's no
[24:10] confidence here. I mean at least as I
[24:12] understand the question. So um this is
[24:15] in close session. So um anyway I I don't
[24:18] have a strong feeling
[24:20] one way or another. I mean what's the
[24:22] >> Katherine? Do you do you feel strongly?
[24:24] >> I I don't but I think um I'm a big pro
[24:27] I'm a big uh believer in optics and so I think it's best for me to step out and
[24:31] you just come find me. Yeah. We're ready
[24:33] to move on.
[24:33] >> Thank you.
[24:37] All right, with that I open up public
[24:40] comment. Who would like to speak?
[24:45] You can wait until she's fully out the
[24:48] door if you want.
[24:49] >> Okay, cool. Cool. Thank you, Catherine.
[24:53] Um, I'm very glad that we have reached
[24:55] this point. I have been patiently
[24:57] waiting for today and it's finally here.
[24:59] So, congratulations on getting this far
[25:03] uh around. I have uh two perspectives to
[25:07] offer. Um one is about the composition
[25:09] of the subcommittee. Several years ago,
[25:12] the finance committee um met and they
[25:17] appointed a single member subcommittee
[25:19] which at the time struck me as quite odd
[25:22] and unusual but proved its effectiveness
[25:26] um and merit. And that idea um occurred
[25:29] to me this week as I was looking at your
[25:32] agenda. Um remembering that Nidpen has
[25:36] thus far rebuffed all of our overures.
[25:39] Um that we are and we and that we are in
[25:43] very early days with our attorney. Um, I
[25:47] want to point out that in Judith Hesco,
[25:50] we have someone who speaks his language,
[25:53] thinks deductively
[25:55] while keeping the strategic in mind,
[25:58] keeps focused, keeps her eye focused on
[26:01] the clock, which will translate to a
[26:04] concern I've heard a couple of times
[26:05] tonight about cost management. So I
[26:08] think that for the at least this first
[26:10] step forward given we had six options up
[26:13] there and were I one of you I wouldn't
[26:16] have I wouldn't be able to deal with the
[26:18] matrix of options because I don't have
[26:21] the grounding information that you need
[26:23] and so what if we took the best next
[26:26] step forward with a single person I
[26:28] think it would be highly efficient and
[26:31] then come back to the council and decide
[26:33] whether a supplementary member to that
[26:36] uh subcommittee is valuable. or whether
[26:38] it's it's equally valuable to turn it
[26:41] over to the five of you. At least to me,
[26:44] that would be very grounding and I would
[26:47] like to see you um
[26:50] get the information that you need to
[26:52] make that decision going forward.
[26:54] separately. Um I before leaving the
[26:57] podium, I just want to call out a letter
[26:59] that you all received this afternoon um
[27:02] that I got wind of this afternoon and
[27:04] that that uh was posted by Nuna Cherello
[27:07] with help from the town staff of course
[27:10] and I thought it was really a turning
[27:13] point in the conversation. Um and I
[27:16] really look forward to talking
[27:18] strategically with you when that's
[27:20] what's on the agenda. uh because I was
[27:22] very enthused and I I hope you to were
[27:25] too for the pivot point that that that
[27:27] letter represents. Um so for those
[27:30] people in the audience that haven't had
[27:32] a chance to see it yet, um take time to
[27:35] read. Okay. Thanks so much.
[27:37] >> Thank you. And and it is in the public
[27:39] record.
[27:40] Anybody else in the schoolhouse?
[27:50] Uh, Linda, Linda Brothers. Um,
[27:54] it's a little difficult to know where to
[27:57] start here. As someone who practiced law
[28:00] in this area, I've done over dozens of
[28:02] projects that involved land litigation
[28:05] and public groups. I was part of a group
[28:09] that kept United Airlines flying. and I
[28:11] was part of the group that got uh New
[28:14] Orleans back in action after the after
[28:18] the Katrina. These are complicated
[28:21] issues, but I took one look at this
[28:24] after talking to some people about it,
[28:26] and there's a very clear legal approach
[28:28] that you could take right now that runs
[28:30] a significant chance of stopping this in
[28:32] the water. Uh, and uh, I don't really
[28:36] want to get into the technical details.
[28:38] I'm more comfortable with Katherine
[28:40] being absent, but uh because part of it
[28:43] involves a little bit of legal work. It
[28:45] should fit under the $10,000 that I
[28:48] think you guys have allowed. And it
[28:50] involves a a legal standard uh that
[28:53] involves an element of surprise. I don't
[28:55] want to go into it more, but it's a
[28:57] no-brainer. It's like the first thing
[28:59] that came to my mind. So, number one,
[29:02] you know, I think that you're missing a
[29:04] huge opportunity by not getting on it
[29:07] right away. It's the kind of thing that
[29:10] should cause midpin if they're well
[29:13] advised to stop or slow down on this
[29:16] project. Which brings me to your agenda
[29:18] item. Uh
[29:20] I think it's uh uh a big mistake to
[29:25] continue to study and study and study
[29:27] this document. First of all, since you
[29:29] are contemplating litigation because you
[29:30] have hired a lawyer, all these things
[29:32] that you say start to develop an
[29:34] administrative record that will be used
[29:37] and everything that you say that you're
[29:39] not well advised on that sounds really
[29:42] good for one reason or another may be
[29:45] the very thing that turns a lawsuit
[29:47] against you. It may just be in the small
[29:50] print in those documents. You know, we
[29:52] read thousands of pages a day, lawyers,
[29:54] and we see all those small print and and
[29:56] you know, I wouldn't presume to be a
[29:58] cardiac surgeon, Mary, but you know,
[30:00] it's it's really important. So, I think
[30:03] I'm not I would not be in favor of a
[30:05] more steady groups. I would be in favor
[30:07] of some really serious consideration of
[30:10] what your legal arsons are. The thing
[30:12] that I understand and know would work uh
[30:16] would happen very quickly, have to
[30:18] happen very quickly or you're going to
[30:19] lose the window. Um, I agree with
[30:21] Betsy's comment. Midpin has been here.
[30:24] They came to the planning commission.
[30:26] They came to the council. They didn't
[30:28] respond to any of our comments. They
[30:30] didn't respond in the moment. They
[30:32] didn't respond any other way. And I were
[30:34] I went to many of those working groups
[30:36] that they had because it's right in my
[30:38] neighborhood and they really didn't
[30:39] respond to those. So, I think uh the the
[30:43] final reason in all the work I always
[30:45] did, we almost always had a a local
[30:48] entity involved. Uh sometimes they were
[30:50] on our side, sometimes they weren't.
[30:52] Sometimes they were giving permits. Uh
[30:55] we would laugh at ourselves.
[30:58] We would laugh when we were in the room
[30:59] and the people on the other side were
[31:01] two elected members of a body because as
[31:04] much as you all love each other at some
[31:06] level.
[31:07] >> So Linda, I'd like to ask you to wrap it
[31:09] up.
[31:09] >> I'd like to finish my sentence if I
[31:10] could. you all will bring different
[31:13] things to the table and a well-advised
[31:15] party on the other side is going to that
[31:17] and they're going to splat splitting you
[31:19] apart and that's not in the town's best
[31:21] interest. Thank you for your attention.
[31:25] >> Thank you.
[31:27] >> Please.
[31:33] » Hi, I'm Lana Norris. I live in Porta
[31:35] Valley Ranch. Um,
[31:38] >> I was really really pleased to see that
[31:40] uh we've hired an attorney. I have felt
[31:43] for a long time that it's the legal
[31:45] arena where things are going to get
[31:48] resolved and hopefully favorably to the
[31:51] town. I have for a long time been very very concerned about Midpan totally
[31:56] ignoring our town's values, its culture,
[32:00] uh its its concerns. Uh, and I'm going
[32:04] to give a little bit about my experience
[32:06] over the last couple of years that has
[32:08] led me to believe that Midpen's goal is
[32:12] access, access access, access access for
[32:14] the public and not carrying one wit
[32:17] about our community. They're they are
[32:21] planning overdevelopment.
[32:23] The parking lot is probably exhibit one
[32:27] of the overdevelopment.
[32:29] I have no experience with SQA. I have no
[32:31] experience with land use. I have no
[32:34] experience with any of that. I do have
[32:36] an experience, a lot of experience in
[32:39] contract law. I was an attorney. I
[32:41] practiced for 40 years. I have drafted,
[32:45] I have interpreted, I have enforced BOKU
[32:48] contracts. I knew Max Gutierrez really
[32:51] well. He was a colleague of mine, a
[32:53] friend of mine. Max Gutierrez is the
[32:56] attorney who represented Mr. Woods, the
[32:59] original owner of the Hawthors.
[33:02] It was Max Gutierrez who was making sure
[33:05] that Mr. Wood's desires would be carried
[33:08] out. I knew Max. I respected him. He was
[33:12] a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful man
[33:14] and attorney. And he would do everything
[33:17] to make sure that his client's wishes
[33:19] were protected. I will say now, it is
[33:22] absolutely clear to me that Mr. Wood's
[33:26] wishes are not being followed in what
[33:29] Mid Pen is planning on doing with the
[33:33] Hawthornes. As you know,
[33:37] Mr. Woods left the Hawthornes to Post
[33:41] Peninsula Open Space Trust originally.
[33:45] Okay. Then after some time, the property
[33:49] was transferred by post to midpen.
[33:52] Midpin has an absolute obligation
[33:55] to follow the terms of the conservation
[34:00] easement that Max Gutierre has drafted
[34:02] on behalf of Mr. Woods, the original
[34:05] granter of the property.
[34:08] The problem is not just mid pin. The
[34:12] problem is also post.
[34:16] Okay, post. And I'm speaking now
[34:20] probably to the attorney I presume is
[34:23] not here but the attorney we have hired
[34:26] because here's the problem.
[34:29] Midpen wants access as much as possible
[34:32] to the hawthors. When midpen wants to do
[34:35] something it goes to post because it's
[34:37] post who has the legal obligation to
[34:39] enforce the terms of the easement.
[34:43] Now, a few times post said no to a few
[34:45] things mid pen wanted to do. Most of the
[34:48] time
[34:48] >> I'm going to have to ask you to wrap it
[34:50] up. The times are seated.
[34:52] >> Uh, may I have your indulgence for just
[34:54] a bit more, please?
[34:56] >> Yes, we do try to keep them to three
[34:58] minutes though. So, if you can wrap it
[34:59] up, please.
[35:00] >> I will try to wrap it up. Okay. Let me
[35:03] tell you about post.
[35:06] I spent
[35:10] more time than I care to think trying to
[35:13] get post to tell me how what MidPen is
[35:16] doing complies with the easement. They
[35:17] never did. I scheduled an in-person
[35:20] meeting. Actually, it was by remote, but
[35:23] I tried to get in person with the
[35:24] president of Post and the attorney who
[35:27] advises Post. I asked them specifically
[35:30] how what Midpen is doing complies with
[35:32] the easement. They couldn't tell me. All
[35:34] I heard from Post attorney was well,
[35:38] it's for public access. That's the
[35:41] overriding concern. So what they are
[35:44] doing, what Post is doing is subsuming
[35:47] everything, everything, every
[35:49] consideration to more and more public
[35:52] access. Why are they doing that? I don't
[35:54] know. But it's illegal. They it is
[35:56] illegal what they're doing. They are not
[35:58] enforcing the easement. And our attorney
[36:02] needs to, I think, emphasize what post
[36:05] is not doing and not meeting its legal
[36:08] obligation. It's not just mid pen.
[36:10] >> Thank you.
[36:13] >> All right. Who's next?
[36:23] » Welcome.
[36:25] >> Hi there. Nancy Powella and I live on
[36:27] Canyon Drive
[36:29] and I've lived in town 46 years and I've
[36:32] been an attorney for 50 years. Um, and I
[36:36] joined with the my fellow council here
[36:38] and I have to say the level of arrogance
[36:42] that I've seen with MIDI pen is
[36:43] astounding. And for those of you who
[36:46] were also at the last um mid peninsula
[36:49] board meeting where I spoke and I even
[36:52] commented to the board on the level of
[36:54] arrogance that I thought they had. One
[36:56] of the concerns that I have is that I
[36:58] want to make sure that we try to follow
[37:01] an aggressive approach like the pre two
[37:04] previous speakers have suggested. I
[37:07] think right now Cortola Valley has just
[37:09] been sitting on the sidelines and Craig
[37:12] with all due deference to your speaking
[37:14] at that board meeting. You made it clear
[37:16] to the Midpen people. In fact, I believe
[37:19] your words were that the town wants to
[37:21] work with them. We're all going to be it
[37:23] was all a happy kumbaya thing. We are
[37:26] past happy kumbaya.
[37:29] And and to me, I mean, the question of,
[37:32] well, why is Mid Peninsula trying to
[37:35] promote this big parking lot and and
[37:38] ignoring all of the rule and all the
[37:40] guidelines of our town? To me, it's
[37:42] pretty simple. They miss the boat in
[37:45] setting up enough parking for mid for
[37:47] the Windy Hill open space. What they
[37:49] figure they can do is they can have this
[37:51] big parking lot. They can suggest to
[37:53] people they park there. They can walk
[37:55] along Alpine Road. They can divert into
[37:59] Sweet Springs Trail, loop around to Deer
[38:01] Path, connect around along Alpine Road,
[38:05] and voila, they have an even longer,
[38:07] lovelier loop than they thought they
[38:08] were going to have. So, to me, it's just
[38:11] um there it's an offiscation of looking
[38:15] to have a bigger windy open windy hill
[38:19] open space parking lot. So
[38:23] since the issue before us I believe is a
[38:26] subcommittee issue, what I'd like to
[38:28] suggest is that the subcommittee be
[38:30] composed of people who are open to
[38:33] looking at perhaps some the legal issues
[38:37] that have been suggested or even
[38:40] obliquely. And I think it needs to be
[38:43] someone who is willing to stand up to
[38:45] mid- peninsula open space. And perhaps
[38:48] we do a perhaps in the good guy bad guy
[38:52] framework. Craig can still be the good
[38:55] guy and be the nice guy who wants to
[38:57] talk and be kumbaya with mid peninsula
[39:00] open space. But I think we need someone
[39:02] who's going to be willing to stand up to
[39:04] mid peninsula and say we are not okay
[39:08] with you ignoring our values.
[39:11] ignoring ignoring the fact that they
[39:13] have acquired a residential parcel of
[39:16] property a residential parcel of
[39:18] property. They are not entitled to do a
[39:21] huge parking lot under that framework
[39:24] and I've run out of time. So
[39:26] >> thank you.
[39:29] Who's next? Please
[39:40] » welcome. Hi, I'm Leslie Crease. I live
[39:42] at One Winter Creek in the ranch. Um,
[39:46] and I'm here tonight because I'm very
[39:48] concerned about this council's strength,
[39:52] ability, and backbone to defend the
[39:53] ranch in this situation. We are a
[39:56] community of 200 and some homes, 200 and
[40:00] some voters and I'm really concerned
[40:02] that we are going to get run over by the
[40:05] Hawthorne because this group tends to
[40:08] come across as a group who is
[40:11] cooperative and wants to, you know, kind
[40:13] of sing Kumbaya with with Midpen. And
[40:16] Midpen, from what I've watched, does not
[40:20] particularly like you guys. They don't
[40:22] dislike you guys, but um they're out.
[40:25] They understand their mission and their
[40:27] goal is to build their park and not to
[40:30] worry about our residents. That's you
[40:32] guys. And I'm worried about the ranch
[40:35] getting run over from hikers on sweet
[40:38] springs to people, you know, on trails
[40:42] to dog doodoo in my yard to people with
[40:47] kids jumping in the creek in my yard. I
[40:49] cannot fence off my yard. Um, I cannot
[40:52] do anything to keep people who let their
[40:55] dogs through in my yard. I found people
[40:58] with kids,
[41:04] right? And um they're like, "Why should
[41:07] we get out of your creek? It's public
[41:09] land, your piece of the creek." Um, I
[41:13] worry that this team is not going to
[41:16] support us, not going to back us up, and
[41:19] not going to protect us. Anyways,
[41:23] thank you.
[41:24] >> Thank you.
[41:27] >> Anybody else in the schoolhouse? Yep.
[41:29] Please.
[41:37] » Welcome. Thank you. Um, my name is
[41:40] Charles Moroni. I live in Portola Valley
[41:42] Ranch. Um, I'm not an attorney, so I
[41:45] can't give you any legal advice. I've
[41:47] been going to these POG meetings for or
[41:50] the first Midpen meetings for five
[41:52] years. Um I live adjacent to the
[41:55] Hawthornes
[41:56] and have been talking to Midpin board,
[42:00] their POG, all the right people, all
[42:03] their managers for the last five years.
[42:06] They don't respond to anything. No
[42:08] suggestion, no, hey, this doesn't look
[42:12] reasonable.
[42:14] Something that's not reasonable that
[42:16] they started from the very beginning was
[42:18] the insistent on a 50 to 75 par car
[42:21] parking lot. And if you look at our
[42:25] adjacent um uh open spaces, Rostadero
[42:30] and Windy Hill, they both have
[42:33] approximately 40 to 50 car parking lots.
[42:37] They both attract
[42:39] 180,000 visitors per year.
[42:43] So now you're talking about something
[42:45] that is 65 acres, has a mile and a half
[42:48] of trails, and you want to put the same
[42:51] size parking lot there. I've mentioned
[42:54] this multiple times, and the response is
[42:58] no parking lot, no project.
[43:02] So that's what you're dealing with from
[43:05] midpen. It's sort of a passive
[43:07] aggressive bully. So they have a vision.
[43:10] I don't know what's motivating them for
[43:12] that vision. It may be what someone has
[43:14] already mentioned, but um it's really
[43:18] not what they're planning is not really
[43:20] in the best interest of Valley. If you
[43:23] look at our general plan from many years
[43:26] ago, there are trails that go through
[43:28] and then connect to Sweet Springs and
[43:30] other places.
[43:32] They used that and said, "Hey, the town
[43:34] has already agreed to this, so we should
[43:37] attach our trails to these trails." That
[43:41] was when there that if you look at that
[43:43] document, there was one house on that
[43:46] property and the concept was to allow
[43:49] open space. There was also a plan to
[43:53] have other residential houses built
[43:55] there that the Woods had gotten approved
[43:57] when I moved in. something like h a
[44:00] dozen homes, right? There's a big
[44:02] difference between a dozen people living
[44:05] in their homes utilizing all the trails
[44:08] and 180 thou 180,000 visitors per year.
[44:14] So that's the concern. That's why when
[44:17] they wouldn't listen to me at all, we
[44:19] went to the neighbors. We got
[44:23] 195 signatures from uh Portola Valley
[44:27] Ranch residents. We've got one over 100
[44:31] of the 200 homes participated in that um
[44:36] petition to say, "Hey, we don't want the
[44:38] connections to our trails. We don't want
[44:41] a 50 car parking lot next to us." That's
[44:44] never been the plan. that at least got
[44:47] their attention, but obviously they've
[44:49] continued to move through. So I I I
[44:52] think that's that gives you a vision of
[44:54] what you're dealing with or what your
[44:55] subcommittee is going to deal with. And
[44:57] I think at the end you're going to say,
[44:59] "Oh, they don't want to work with us,
[45:01] right? So I don't know what the
[45:02] alternative is after that, but I don't I
[45:06] think you're going to get a passive
[45:07] aggressive response is like, well, we'll
[45:09] move through. We'll finish SQA and then
[45:11] we'll come back to you." So thank you.
[45:14] >> Thank you. Anybody
[45:17] else in the schoolhouse?
[45:20] All right. Seeing no no other hands in
[45:24] the schoolhouse, let's go online. Ed,
[45:27] you're up.
[45:33] » Welcome, Ed.
[45:34] >> Hi. Yeah. Can you hear me? I'm using my
[45:37] phone and I'm not familiar with Zoom on
[45:39] the phone.
[45:41] >> Can you hear me?
[45:42] >> We can.
[45:43] >> Very good. Um, yeah, I was expecting
[45:45] this to be a little more of a practical
[45:47] discussion meeting uh rather than the
[45:50] legal discussion. Notwithstanding, I
[45:53] will certainly echo the comments I've
[45:55] had and experience I've had in the um
[45:59] difficulty and challenging communication
[46:00] we've had with getting any of uh the
[46:03] concerns or preferences
[46:06] um or local knowledge shared with Mid
[46:08] Pen or any feedback from them. Um so I'm
[46:11] definitely echoing uh what the prior
[46:13] speakers have said. What I will say is
[46:16] that in any further consideration
[46:19] um both the access to the site and the
[46:21] influence the sphere of influence on the
[46:23] remaining neighboring parts of Pongal
[46:26] Valley do have to be considered in terms
[46:28] of safety and so any working group that
[46:31] is established or is not um should
[46:33] include a very strong consideration of
[46:35] public safety and traffic safety. Um
[46:38] that's really my comment. Thank you.
[46:41] >> Thank you, Ed.
[46:43] Dave Cardinal.
[46:47] » Sure. Thanks. Um, I was kind of
[46:50] surprised by the tone this whole thing
[46:52] took. Um, for starters, I was hoping we
[46:56] had a town where not everything had to
[46:58] be a lawsuit. But um going back to the issue at hand um our general plan
[47:06] says that the reason we get to be
[47:08] special and not have all the things high
[47:13] density housing is because we are
[47:16] sharing our resources and the Hawthornes
[47:20] is a resource and people want to come
[47:24] there and it has a lot of acres and um I
[47:28] don't think we get well I hope we don't
[47:31] get to just say go away um leave us
[47:35] alone so that leaves us in into what's a
[47:39] responsible plan now I think from what
[47:43] I've been to lots of meetings I think we
[47:46] pull valley have what in curling has
[47:48] called the hammer and that they can't do
[47:51] anything without permits so I don't
[47:54] think we have to be I don't
[47:59] nashing of teeth about things. We can
[48:02] decide what we think is right. Um I
[48:06] believe their phase one plan is 30
[48:09] spaces for parking. I also believe the
[48:12] ASC has strongly recommended it be over
[48:15] by Los Tranos
[48:17] um for a variety of reasons. I think we
[48:20] can if those are both true and we can uh
[48:25] have the hammer. We should just like
[48:28] chill and negotiate those and put the
[48:32] parking at whatever size we think it
[48:34] needs to be wherever we think it needs
[48:37] to be. And um I don't know, you know,
[48:40] mid pen is a megalith and all that, but
[48:43] at the end of the day, we can hold firm
[48:47] and just say here's what we want and
[48:50] that's what a subcommittee or a lawyer
[48:53] or whatever could do. I don't um
[48:58] I don't think it's super complicated. I
[49:00] do think the connection to portal of a
[49:03] ranch is complicated because some people
[49:05] want it, some people don't. Um, the
[49:08] exact scale of the parking is
[49:10] complicated, but I'm pretty sure it
[49:12] could start small. I don't I think
[49:14] they've already scaled it back for a
[49:16] phase one. Um, and just say what we
[49:19] want. I mean, just spit it out and say,
[49:21] "We want you to be here or there or
[49:24] whatever." And I think we just don't
[49:27] approve the project unless they do what
[49:30] we want. Um, but we need to do something
[49:34] in keeping with the charter because
[49:36] people want to come here and experience
[49:38] our wonderful world and that's part of
[49:40] why we're who we are. So, thank you.
[49:44] >> Thank you, Dave. All right. Anyone else
[49:47] online?
[49:49] One last call. Anybody else in the
[49:51] schoolhouse? All right. I'm going to
[49:53] close public comment.
[50:18] I might like to go first.
[50:20] >> All right, Mary, why don't you go first?
[50:23] >> That way, maybe I'll get two bites at
[50:25] the at the cake.
[50:27] >> How are you going to get a second one?
[50:28] This is it.
[50:29] >> I'm just telling you, I'll be as good as
[50:31] I can be. Uh, and I don't have a three
[50:33] minute limit.
[50:35] Uh I have been the leazison to MRSD for
[50:38] the last 18 months. I've taken this
[50:42] responsibility extremely ser
[50:49] » still off trying to make connection with
[50:54] uh with MROD in in many many ways uh
[50:58] including attending including bringing u
[51:01] multiple uh
[51:04] board members to the site including um
[51:08] writing letters asking for uh feedback
[51:10] back asking for specific information. Uh
[51:14] and uh of course they and I visited all
[51:18] the sites. I certainly heard all the
[51:21] stories that we've heard thus far. Um
[51:25] and including the story of um
[51:30] we two things there's no project if we
[51:32] don't have pro of parking and two uh we
[51:37] will not reconsider the historic uh
[51:40] project. So the position of MRST has
[51:44] very been clearly been from the very
[51:46] beginning that the Hawthorne's
[51:48] of historic district was not on the
[51:50] table for this conversation or for
[51:54] any foreseeable time from their point of
[51:56] view. So um that has led to considerable
[52:01] amount of frustration. The current
[52:04] status for me what my ask was uh is I
[52:09] have asked how many what their standard
[52:11] is for number of miles of trails per
[52:13] parking space. Uh and I'm still waiting
[52:16] for that number. I thought that was a
[52:19] reasonable number to ask and I I'm
[52:22] seeing shaking of heads and I don't know
[52:24] which of uh which of these are incorrect
[52:27] but uh I feel that I have done both the
[52:32] uh nice guy thing and I've been uh
[52:35] strong when I thought I needed to be
[52:36] strong with them. Uh and I've always
[52:39] only spoken as an individual. Um my uh
[52:44] hope is it first of all I think there's
[52:47] two things about this. Uh I was assigned
[52:49] to be the lison. I was honored and
[52:52] excited about it. I could have gone back
[52:56] and said and so what does it mean to be
[52:58] the lison and how hard do I have to
[53:00] work? uh and I uh would say that going
[53:04] forward the less on MSD needs to have a
[53:07] very specific limits to their authority
[53:10] and interest and not they have any
[53:13] authority but to the the an
[53:16] understanding of what the time
[53:17] commitment is is uh and what uh what
[53:23] they can do in the setting where all the
[53:25] meetings conflict the town council
[53:27] meeting. Um
[53:29] so that's one thing that I would ask. I have uh a specific ask that I have
[53:37] thought of over today actually which is
[53:40] that um
[53:44] that the leison
[53:46] uh continue as such and it could be me
[53:49] or it could be someone else but that
[53:51] there would be an agreement or request
[53:54] to MRSD that that person be allowed to
[53:57] meet weekly
[53:59] uh with MRSD and would report by monthly
[54:03] to the council as to what kind of
[54:08] information is coming coming back and uh
[54:13] that would make this job doable. Now,
[54:17] it's not something that I would have
[54:19] designed myself and I don't believe I've
[54:22] done that, but I've been darn close to
[54:24] it. Uh although I haven't reported back
[54:27] to the council uh but I try at least
[54:31] weekly to make a contact at MOSC.
[54:34] >> So So Mary, is this a
[54:36] >> comment?
[54:37] >> Well, right, but is this a you're making
[54:39] recommendation that the subcom
[54:41] >> I'm trying to inform you as a
[54:43] >> I understand, but I'm trying to keep
[54:45] this on the agenda item. So is this a
[54:48] proposal for the ad hoc committee to
[54:50] consider?
[54:51] >> I think this is just information. In my
[54:53] estimation, this is information that you
[54:55] need to have on making the decision
[54:58] about whether we need to have a
[55:00] subcommittee or not and whether there's
[55:02] room for a subcommittee to operate in
[55:04] this context.
[55:06] I personally believe that and I could be
[55:10] dissuaded by I'm looking forward to
[55:12] hearing all the comments of uh the rest
[55:15] of the uh committee the uh council but
[55:19] um
[55:21] I pretty much feel like it's not time
[55:24] for a
[55:26] subcommittee
[55:29] that isn't any help but I do think
[55:31] there's a t it's a time for us to have a
[55:34] clear mandate as to what the llays on is
[55:36] supposed to be getting out of MSD and
[55:39] that needs to be communicated to MSD.
[55:43] >> Okay.
[55:45] So,
[55:46] >> so what I think I'm hearing net netted
[55:48] out is you're not in favor of creating a
[55:50] so
[55:51] >> I'm not at this point because we're
[55:53] talking about a threemonth uh basically
[55:56] it's just going to stall us. We're not
[55:58] going to be able to do any of the big action things that we're talking
[56:04] about because we're we're not going to
[56:06] even return for till three months, which
[56:08] is the thing that happens. Nothing
[56:10] happens for three months. Um you get I'm
[56:13] talking about every two weeks you're
[56:15] going to hear back from the Lison what's
[56:17] happening when do we need a subcommittee
[56:20] now? Do we need to do have an action?
[56:22] But right now there's there's no there's
[56:25] nothing happening. We haven't gotten any
[56:27] of the basic communication lines set
[56:30] yet.
[56:32] >> Okay. Thank you. Who would like to go
[56:34] next?
[56:39] » How about you?
[56:45] » Um
[56:47] I actually have a question of staff
[56:49] first. Um and I know we were supposed to
[56:52] but
[56:53] >> Oh, good. Um, Darcy, I need to ask. So,
[56:56] for instance, if we requested a joint
[56:59] council and midpin board meeting, um, if
[57:02] we wanted to write a letter, it would
[57:05] not need to go through a subcommittee.
[57:07] Is that correct? Or
[57:11] I don't think you could request that as
[57:15] part of this agenda item because this
[57:18] agenda item is just to create this
[57:20] subcommittee.
[57:20] >> But I meant for down the line. down the
[57:23] line
[57:23] >> we can do it without a subcommittee
[57:25] right once it was
[57:26] >> agenda. So as you know there is a
[57:29] process for a council member to request
[57:31] through the town manager that an item be
[57:34] agendaized. That's essentially how we
[57:36] got here tonight. There's also the
[57:38] colleagues memo and for those of you who
[57:40] need a little more clarification that's
[57:41] an adopted resolution of the town
[57:43] council that lays out how a town council
[57:45] member can request an agenda item. So
[57:48] again, how we got here tonight, that
[57:51] would be an alternative
[57:53] to request, for example, that specific
[57:56] item that be on the agenda and then the
[57:58] council gave direction to
[58:01] tackle that discrete item. This item
[58:04] came about because there were lots of
[58:06] ideas out there and so agendaizing kind
[58:08] of each one of these separately or kind
[58:10] of in a group might be challenging.
[58:13] >> Okay, thank you.
[58:15] Um
[58:17] okay so a couple of things um I will go
[58:20] back to
[58:22] um I'm not you know I am concerned that
[58:27] what we can do it um you know I want to
[58:31] build good fences with our neighbors
[58:33] right um and our neighbors are mid pen
[58:37] however that said you know their annual
[58:40] budget last year was $94 million
[58:44] and um and you know
[58:47] 10 times plus what our annual budget is.
[58:51] Um they are a large
[58:54] uh open space agency. I appreciate them.
[58:58] They do a lot of good work. Um but their
[59:01] mission is to provide open space access
[59:05] to to
[59:07] the you know to the anyone and everyone.
[59:11] Um, and I will also say that along with
[59:14] that, when I've talked to them about
[59:15] parking situations,
[59:18] they are all about driving
[59:21] like having big parking lots to provide
[59:25] free access. Um, and that, you know, um,
[59:29] and I have appreciated that, but also
[59:32] have been concerned by that stance. Um, so should you know
[59:38] and then the idea of the Los Tranco side
[59:42] which I thought seemed reasonable. My
[59:44] understanding is the Los Tranco side to
[59:46] do an access point at that is unsafe
[59:49] because of sight lines. Um, so how do we
[59:53] make this work with the town and with
[59:56] Midpin and what pressure points can we
[59:59] potentially apply? Right? Obviously
[1:00:02] litigation is one of them which um and
[1:00:06] then we would go to litigation that we
[1:00:08] don't have much money and we'd probably
[1:00:10] end up at the same point right if we do
[1:00:14] go to litigation potentially. Um so that
[1:00:18] concerns me also because of our limited
[1:00:20] financial
[1:00:22] um
[1:00:24] uh u situation.
[1:00:28] So, you know, obviously I would prefer
[1:00:30] something like a, you know, to do a
[1:00:33] formal letter to them to do a a the soft
[1:00:38] or um
[1:00:40] uh joint board meetings. I'd really, as
[1:00:44] you I keep beating a dead horse at this
[1:00:47] point. I'd really like a parking master
[1:00:50] plan because then what in my experience
[1:00:52] in dealing with mid pen is when there is
[1:00:55] something in print that you can point to
[1:00:57] that says this does not match this your
[1:01:01] idea. Um
[1:01:04] so so because you know I personally want
[1:01:08] a park a parking master plan. So, I'm
[1:01:11] not in I'm not in favor of an ad hoc
[1:01:14] committee because I think that we could
[1:01:16] do this just um the council can work on
[1:01:20] these areas without an ad hoc committee
[1:01:23] personally. So, that's my opinion. Thank
[1:01:25] you.
[1:01:26] >> Thank you, Helen.
[1:01:28] Rebecca.
[1:01:29] >> Um so, I've taken a bunch of notes while
[1:01:32] I've been listening to everybody's
[1:01:33] comments and thank you for coming to
[1:01:36] provide them. Um,
[1:01:39] I I guess I tend to agree a little bit
[1:01:41] with Helen in her last comment about the
[1:01:45] need and the necessity for a
[1:01:48] subcommittee to go away and explore
[1:01:50] these six options plus a few more um and
[1:01:53] then come back.
[1:01:56] >> Oh, what did you say? I said I agree
[1:01:58] with what Helen just said that the idea
[1:02:02] of having a subcommittee to go to one or
[1:02:04] two people from our group of five to go
[1:02:06] away and spend two to three months
[1:02:08] talking about whether or not we should
[1:02:09] move forward with these six plus three
[1:02:11] or four more items to me doesn't make
[1:02:14] that much sense. We're not talking about
[1:02:17] huge numbers of things. I mean, it seems
[1:02:19] like the five of us could just agendaize
[1:02:21] this um for the next meeting or whenever
[1:02:24] we have time on our agenda and talk
[1:02:26] about what we think the next steps might
[1:02:28] be. I've heard a lot of people saying
[1:02:31] that M uh MRS OSD has been very
[1:02:34] difficult to work with. They are huge um
[1:02:38] Goliath, if you will. they have a ton of
[1:02:40] public money. Um,
[1:02:43] and that it's difficult to get them to
[1:02:47] um,
[1:02:48] communicate with or to to listen um,
[1:02:53] >> answer questions, right? I mean, I
[1:02:56] haven't had that experience personally.
[1:02:58] I mean, I I have had um, discussions
[1:03:01] with some of the board members and
[1:03:04] they've been pretty open to things, but
[1:03:05] that was on other projects. So,
[1:03:07] >> so Rebecca, I'm just going to ask. We
[1:03:09] have less than 15 minutes to wrap this
[1:03:11] item up. Judith need to speak and I need
[1:03:13] to speak. So,
[1:03:15] >> how come I'm always the one that gets
[1:03:16] cut off?
[1:03:17] >> Because it's now 13 minutes till
[1:03:19] >> you should have said that, you know, two
[1:03:21] minutes, five minutes ago when Helen and
[1:03:23] Mary were talking.
[1:03:24] >> Okay. So, Rebecca, I thought I heard you
[1:03:25] say that you weren't in favor of this.
[1:03:28] And so, if you're not in favor of it,
[1:03:29] then I think we can move on because you
[1:03:33] sort of stated your position. So, I
[1:03:34] mean, finish up, but just understand
[1:03:36] that we're we're getting close to
[1:03:37] running out of time.
[1:03:39] >> Um, well, let me rethink my my thoughts
[1:03:43] since you interrupted. Um,
[1:03:50] I I think the subcommittee raises
[1:03:52] problems in the fact that we have a
[1:03:54] liaison, we have an alternate liaison,
[1:03:57] and now we're talking about adding
[1:03:59] having an subcommittee that may or may
[1:04:01] not include those two individuals. So
[1:04:03] now we're talking about possibility of
[1:04:04] having four out of the five of us being
[1:04:07] somehow already involved with midpen. So
[1:04:09] in that respect, I don't um I I would
[1:04:12] say no. I'd say agendaize this as an
[1:04:16] item to come back and talk about it. I
[1:04:18] do want to mention one thing is I'm a
[1:04:20] little concerned about um Commissioner
[1:04:22] Brother's comments about there being an
[1:04:24] urgency in terms of our legal options.
[1:04:28] And so I think we need to understand
[1:04:33] What needs to happen for us to consider
[1:04:35] these options? Does the does Linda need
[1:04:38] to sit with the town staff and this town
[1:04:42] attorney to kind of discuss that to see
[1:04:45] what these are? Whether it is an option
[1:04:46] for us to discuss or you know what is
[1:04:49] the next steps for for kind of providing
[1:04:53] some urgency outside of our discussion
[1:04:56] on these items. So that's kind of one of
[1:04:59] my comments.
[1:05:02] Um,
[1:05:05] yeah. I mean, that's where I'm not in
[1:05:06] favor of it to be honest. I am in favor
[1:05:08] of
[1:05:10] come back to us.
[1:05:14] » Thank you, Judith.
[1:05:17] >> Okay. Um,
[1:05:19] preliminary comments. Um, this is
[1:05:21] extremely complicated given that we're
[1:05:24] getting out of the box on our own legal
[1:05:26] advice for the town and don't know
[1:05:29] exactly where that's going to lead. Um,
[1:05:32] this is a complex negotiation and I view
[1:05:35] it as a negotiation because they are our
[1:05:38] neighbors and they will impact us. Um,
[1:05:41] you have the woods intent, you have
[1:05:43] post, you have MOSD, you have many
[1:05:46] documents and and authorities with with
[1:05:49] which the town may be able to create
[1:05:52] leverage, but we do not know what they
[1:05:53] are yet. So I and I take the comment
[1:05:58] that every single thing we say in public
[1:06:00] right now is going to come right back at
[1:06:02] us if we're unwise in letting the scope
[1:06:05] of these discussions get ahead of our
[1:06:08] knowledge base right now. So for me it
[1:06:12] boils down to taking time to better
[1:06:15] define what do we want. The open space
[1:06:17] committee has has done a lot of work on
[1:06:20] concerns of what we don't want and we've
[1:06:23] got some thoughts on what we do want.
[1:06:25] What are our um leverage points? What are our legal points of of
[1:06:30] leverage? Even if you don't assert them,
[1:06:33] you you should know what they are before
[1:06:35] you engage in discussions with somebody
[1:06:38] else so you you don't waste time among
[1:06:41] other things. Um, and then how do we set
[1:06:44] up the best discussion with MOSD today?
[1:06:49] I can't say that forming a subcommittee
[1:06:51] is going to help. I think a lot of the
[1:06:53] comments that have gone on before make
[1:06:56] sense to me. Um, I want to I think we
[1:06:59] should come back. Um, I think the
[1:07:02] liaison should continue that role.
[1:07:04] There's no reason to disrupt it. I would
[1:07:06] caution that um being careful with what
[1:07:10] we say until we are well advised legally
[1:07:14] is critical. So we have to be very
[1:07:17] disciplined. Um so I would not form the
[1:07:20] subcommittee right now. I would once the
[1:07:23] council in whatever way it does gets
[1:07:25] their bearings on their legal rights
[1:07:28] visav that um uh parcel. Um, and I don't
[1:07:34] want it to take forever. We should
[1:07:37] reconvene and discuss because these are
[1:07:39] good ideas. They're just premature and I
[1:07:43] can't support them yet because I just
[1:07:45] feel like I'm supporting a a concept,
[1:07:49] not a strategy. So, I would wait on it
[1:07:53] myself.
[1:07:55] >> Thank you.
[1:07:57] Um so in listening both public comments
[1:08:00] and my fellow council members
[1:08:04] I actually still think the subcommittee
[1:08:06] is important to gather information and
[1:08:08] put it in a form that we can understand
[1:08:10] it. Um I not happy with two or three
[1:08:13] month that takes too long. I would like
[1:08:15] it to happen sooner than later. Um but I
[1:08:17] think it's important if we're going to
[1:08:19] move thought if we're going to move
[1:08:20] forward that we do it thoughtfully. And
[1:08:22] if we're going to do it thoughtfully, I
[1:08:24] think we need to gather the right kind
[1:08:26] of information. And one of the places I
[1:08:28] would start is we had a town manager
[1:08:31] committee that was working indirectly
[1:08:33] with the POG and they have a lot of
[1:08:36] correspondence that go back and forth
[1:08:38] with questions. We've got, you know,
[1:08:40] letters from the trails committee. We
[1:08:42] have letters from the open space
[1:08:43] committee. So I guess my hope was that
[1:08:46] we would have a subcommittee that would
[1:08:47] help sort of bring those things
[1:08:49] together.
[1:08:50] Come up with it. So that's one piece.
[1:08:53] Come up with some timelines to really
[1:08:55] understand when are the important times
[1:08:57] that we need to weigh in. One of them
[1:08:59] may be Linda's point about you know
[1:09:01] there's an urgency. So maybe we need to
[1:09:03] do something with staff. then there's
[1:09:05] going to be some other sort of periods
[1:09:07] where we're going to need to make sure
[1:09:08] that if we're going to weigh in that we're there and sort of um dealing
[1:09:13] with it. The next one is, you know, what
[1:09:16] is post responsibility? Really
[1:09:17] understanding, you know, to that
[1:09:19] question, you know, what should Post be
[1:09:21] doing and should they really be
[1:09:22] enforcing this easement? Um I think some
[1:09:25] of us feel like maybe they're not. Um
[1:09:27] and then the last public comment I heard
[1:09:28] was, you know, should we consider what
[1:09:30] are the public safety concerns and
[1:09:32] getting those things
[1:09:34] put together in a more coherent package
[1:09:37] so that it could come to the council and
[1:09:39] we could have an informed discussion. I
[1:09:41] think it's important. I'm a little
[1:09:43] hardressed to see how that's going to
[1:09:46] happen by just us meeting and and
[1:09:48] chatting about it at the DAS. I I don't
[1:09:50] find that to potentially be a very
[1:09:53] successful. So I I think I'm hearing
[1:09:55] four nos and one yes, but but it still
[1:09:58] doesn't feel like the right answer to
[1:10:00] >> um
[1:10:01] so how do we get there? Um, we've done 2
[1:10:05] by two by one consults with experts
[1:10:07] before. I think we do that with the
[1:10:09] council members. I have a number of
[1:10:11] questions. I'm sure everybody else does
[1:10:14] so we can get our own thoughts clarified
[1:10:18] before we come together. If we do not
[1:10:20] understand the legal framework, you
[1:10:23] reaching out and you're publicly talking
[1:10:25] with all these people. Getting
[1:10:26] information is one thing, but frankly, I
[1:10:28] feel like I've gotten information
[1:10:30] overload and I've been paying attention
[1:10:32] and I have a decent amount of feeling.
[1:10:34] That's that's why I'm not sure that
[1:10:37] effort is really worth it. And to
[1:10:39] Rebecca's point, I think four out of
[1:10:42] five of us being already engaged is
[1:10:45] probably unwise at this point. I would
[1:10:47] probably be open to it once I have the
[1:10:50] ability to consult and get a better
[1:10:52] understanding of the legal parameters
[1:10:54] we're dealing with and you know I would
[1:10:57] ask that attorney to give us a sense of
[1:11:01] you know what's appropriate public
[1:11:02] comment what where to be watching on
[1:11:05] your public comment um people need to be
[1:11:07] reminded of that and I would benefit
[1:11:10] from that from him so that's the reason
[1:11:13] um I'm not saying never I just think
[1:11:15] right now it's Not right.
[1:11:17] >> Okay. And I actually wasn't Can I
[1:11:19] actually finish my com?
[1:11:20] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:11:21] >> No, that's all right. I I just, you
[1:11:22] know, No, no, it it happens. Um, so so I
[1:11:26] think there's some other important
[1:11:27] things here. I
[1:11:28] >> I think making sure that we follow the
[1:11:32] general plan and Midpen follows the
[1:11:33] general plan. I think it's important.
[1:11:35] >> I think I think what I'm hearing from
[1:11:37] you is understanding, you know, kind of
[1:11:39] what our legal leverage is with Midpen.
[1:11:42] you know, like if if we're going to go
[1:11:44] forward, you know, what approvals do
[1:11:45] they need from us? What are those
[1:11:47] situations? Um, so I think I appreciate
[1:11:51] all that. I also think that there are
[1:11:52] neighbors and I that's the other thing
[1:11:53] for us to remember. So I think that
[1:11:57] working hopefully with them, but I I
[1:11:59] mean I listen, I talked to them. I felt
[1:12:02] like they didn't really give my
[1:12:04] conversation much, but that's the way
[1:12:06] you still work with your neighbors. You
[1:12:07] don't just decide that you're going to
[1:12:09] attack them. You still try to work with
[1:12:11] them. That doesn't mean that you just
[1:12:12] say, "Oh, well, if you don't want to do
[1:12:13] what I want, I'm not going to do it."
[1:12:16] You can, we can press them. And I think
[1:12:17] we actually have a lot of leverage to
[1:12:19] press them. So, I'm comfortable. If we
[1:12:23] don't want to do the subcommittee now,
[1:12:25] I'm I think Judith, what I heard you say
[1:12:28] is when you say get your bearings, this
[1:12:30] is mostly legal bearings. Is that
[1:12:32] correct?
[1:12:34] >> Right now, yes. because I have been
[1:12:36] following it and I' I have a good sense
[1:12:39] um of you know the more social um impact
[1:12:44] issues the town is facing which aren't
[1:12:46] legal but they're important
[1:12:47] considerations for our residents.
[1:12:50] >> Okay. So, I mean, I guess from my point
[1:12:52] of view, I'd be comfortable if that we
[1:12:54] did that, but I'm still looking for
[1:12:57] pulling all the things that we have, you
[1:12:59] know, everything we got from the town
[1:13:00] manager, everything we've gotten from
[1:13:02] open space, get them in one place so we
[1:13:04] as a council can look at it in a
[1:13:06] consistent, informed manner. I think
[1:13:07] that that in my mind is critical. So,
[1:13:09] maybe this isn't the time, but I'm a
[1:13:12] little worried that we're going to get
[1:13:13] our legal bearings and then we're not
[1:13:14] going to do anything more and it'll be
[1:13:16] September or October before we actually
[1:13:19] >> get to it. Well, that's I don't know. I
[1:13:21] think we're saying that there's more
[1:13:23] urgency. So, I don't know. It it doesn't
[1:13:25] feel quite right to me, but I I think I
[1:13:27] get the the gist.
[1:13:29] >> I I have a comment. Um I feel like
[1:13:30] Craig, what you're asking for the
[1:13:32] subcommittee to do is different what we
[1:13:34] are being asked to talk about to form
[1:13:36] the subcom. I mean, my impression was
[1:13:38] that the subcommittee was going to go
[1:13:40] away and decide what the 10 five items
[1:13:42] that we think that that they want to
[1:13:44] recommend that the committee work on
[1:13:46] that the town council work on. And
[1:13:49] you're saying that you want the
[1:13:50] subcommittee to have a task of actually
[1:13:52] collecting all this information and
[1:13:53] putting it into one place and kind of
[1:13:55] creating a timeline and understanding
[1:13:57] where the important points are so that
[1:13:59] we know where there's urgency. That to
[1:14:01] me are two different things. So
[1:14:02] >> well I I think the
[1:14:04] >> scope is different but I think you bring
[1:14:06] that stuff together and then I would
[1:14:08] hope the subcommittee would say we look
[1:14:10] through this stuff here's our
[1:14:11] recommendation based on the information
[1:14:13] that we have of a way to move forward.
[1:14:16] the subcommittee is not in a position to
[1:14:18] make this decision. At most, it's going
[1:14:20] to recommend and yeah, I would expect
[1:14:22] them to give us the data and also give
[1:14:25] us an opinion. We don't have to take
[1:14:27] that opinion as a full counsel. So, so I
[1:14:30] guess I see both
[1:14:31] >> that's much more indepth than what my
[1:14:34] understanding is of what the
[1:14:36] subcommittee. So I don't have an issue
[1:14:38] actually with having the subcommittee go
[1:14:39] into that kind of depth and actually
[1:14:41] collect more information that you're
[1:14:44] saying, but I don't think it's useful to
[1:14:46] have a subcommittee just say, "Oh, let's
[1:14:47] come back. I think, you know, the top
[1:14:49] things we recommend is the letter and
[1:14:51] the the open space committee and the
[1:14:54] legal option." I mean, that to me is not
[1:14:56] useful. But if the subcommittee's job
[1:14:58] was to go and collect all this
[1:14:59] information and make sure it's all
[1:15:01] contained and observed and and evaluated
[1:15:04] and reviewed, you know, that I would be
[1:15:06] okay with. It's a bigger job than
[1:15:10] >> Yeah. No, I mean there was no discussion
[1:15:14] until 10 minutes ago of this collection
[1:15:17] of information.
[1:15:19] I mean, I'm not sure how that how would
[1:15:21] a subcommittee make a recommendation to
[1:15:22] the council on what we should do if they
[1:15:25] don't do some research. So, to me,
[1:15:27] research is implied in gathering the
[1:15:29] information.
[1:15:31] >> Um,
[1:15:31] >> so in the back in the back, if I could
[1:15:33] just ask you guys because we can hear
[1:15:35] you up here. So, just we're almost done
[1:15:37] with this. Thank you. No, no, no
[1:15:38] worries.
[1:15:38] >> So, I mean, but let me just go back.
[1:15:42] Obviously, staff capacity is limited,
[1:15:44] but
[1:15:46] who where where does where do these
[1:15:51] correspondents live? I'm assuming in our
[1:15:53] archives, right?
[1:15:56] >> So, they live with the committees. So,
[1:15:59] we have open space, we have BPTs, um we
[1:16:02] have people in the town who were on like
[1:16:05] this ad, you know, the the town manager
[1:16:07] committee advising the POG. We have
[1:16:09] those people in town. they have that
[1:16:11] information. So I mean both in our
[1:16:13] archives and you know we have the
[1:16:16] resources here in the town to gather
[1:16:18] that and that was my only point is I
[1:16:19] just feel like we should be starting on
[1:16:21] that process because otherwise it's
[1:16:23] going to be November before we start
[1:16:26] thinking about it and that that was my
[1:16:27] concern.
[1:16:28] Well, I actually I mean Rebecca and I
[1:16:31] were elected after the last time Midpin
[1:16:34] presented and uh so like I am definitely
[1:16:40] feeling not up to speed. So I would
[1:16:43] appreciate that more background
[1:16:45] actually.
[1:16:47] So I don't know if a subcommittee would
[1:16:50] want to do that background research
[1:16:53] >> or if it's neat with Darcy. I I I just
[1:16:56] asked that question.
[1:17:00] » I think it depends on what the council's
[1:17:03] interest is. But I'll just advise you
[1:17:05] that the subcommittee needs to have a
[1:17:07] clearly defined task or tasks. That was
[1:17:09] the goal of this list. This is just
[1:17:11] ideas. But if there was a subcommittee
[1:17:14] for example to research
[1:17:16] past
[1:17:18] uh it sounds like town manager committee
[1:17:20] conversations
[1:17:21] meetings notes and gather that
[1:17:24] information together they could and then
[1:17:26] that I would envision that that that
[1:17:28] subcommittee would then come and present
[1:17:30] that back to the town council at a
[1:17:32] future meeting. So if the town council
[1:17:34] believes that that information would be
[1:17:36] helpful that could be the scope of the
[1:17:38] subcommittee.
[1:17:41] Personally, I feel like the most
[1:17:42] important thing is to explore our legal
[1:17:43] options with our our newly hired town
[1:17:45] attorney or the project attorney. I
[1:17:48] mean, that that's for me what I feel
[1:17:50] like is most important. But
[1:17:53] >> I don't know where that task lives.
[1:17:59] And and I should add that that should be
[1:18:01] not a public task. That should be a
[1:18:04] private task.
[1:18:05] >> Is it possible for me to call the vote?
[1:18:10] Can I make a motion? Are
[1:18:12] >> you sure you can make a motion?
[1:18:14] >> I mean, we we're definitely pressed for
[1:18:16] time and uh it seems that uh it the idea
[1:18:21] of doing a subcommittee
[1:18:24] I'd like to make a motion that uh we do
[1:18:28] not at this time make a subcommittee.
[1:18:31] I also would like him make a motion as
[1:18:34] part of that that the leazison be uh
[1:18:38] tasked to give a report every two weeks
[1:18:42] to the council.
[1:18:47] » Okay. Is there a second?
[1:18:50] >> I would second that.
[1:18:51] >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. All
[1:18:54] in favor?
[1:18:56] >> I
[1:18:59] >> Okay. Those opposed? Nay.
[1:19:02] >> Oh,
[1:19:04] I'm an I'm an I.
[1:19:06] >> Okay. So, passes four to one.
[1:19:11] >> All right. So, I think that closes up
[1:19:13] 5B.
[1:19:14] >> Does it though? Can I just say I my
[1:19:17] direction here, my takeway is that I
[1:19:18] will agendaize a future item and I will
[1:19:20] coordinate two by two by one meetings
[1:19:23] with outside council Bill Celigman. I I
[1:19:26] don't know when this will come back.
[1:19:28] July is
[1:19:30] we're working on July agendas now. So I
[1:19:32] will bring it back for a more robust
[1:19:35] discussion and then you can provide
[1:19:37] direction to me if onto which items that
[1:19:40] you would want me to work on.
[1:19:42] >> Now u the the idea of being able to get
[1:19:44] on the agenda for my report. How does
[1:19:47] that happen?
[1:19:48] >> I think that comes under subcommittee
[1:19:50] leaison reports. Okay.
[1:19:52] >> Thank you.
[1:19:54] Okay. Thank you. With that, I'm going to
[1:19:56] adjourn the special meeting. Thank you
[1:19:58] everyone.