[0:01] like to call this meeting to order.

[0:04] So, let's start with roll call.

[0:08] >> Council member Walter

[0:11] >> present.

[0:12] >> Council member Husco here. Council

[0:14] member Flynn

[0:16] >> present.

[0:16] >> Vice Mayor Huy.

[0:19] >> Mayor Taylor

[0:20] >> present.

[0:20] >> We have a quorum.

[0:21] >> Thank you. All right. The next item on

[0:24] the agenda is oral communication. So,

[0:26] this is an opportunity for the public to

[0:28] speak on anything that's not on

[0:30] tonight's agenda. So, if you're here to

[0:32] speak to the Hawthornes, this is not the

[0:35] time. But if there's anything else you

[0:37] want to speak to that's not the

[0:38] Hawthorne, this is the time. So, does

[0:41] anybody have any oral communications for

[0:42] the council?

[0:44] All right. So, with that, I will close

[0:46] oral communications and move to the

[0:48] regular agenda.

[0:50] So, Sarah, you have a staff report?

[0:56] » Yes. Good evening, town council. So I'm

[0:58] Sarah Kors, planning building director

[1:00] for the town of Prol Valley. I have a

[1:02] brief present walkthrough. You just give

[1:04] me one second to share my screen.

[1:25] » Perfect. Thank you. So, I'm here to

[1:28] provide information and receive

[1:30] direction on the potential future town

[1:31] work plan for the Hawthorne's area plan.

[1:34] So, I wanted to orient everyone to the

[1:36] area that we're talking about. We're

[1:37] talking about the Hawthorne's area,

[1:39] which is generally on the eastern side

[1:41] of the town of Portulla Valley.

[1:44] Zooming in, this property is located

[1:47] primarily near the intersection of

[1:48] Portola Road and Alpine Road.

[1:53] So, a bit of background on the

[1:55] Hawthorne's area plan and property. In

[1:57] 2011, it was gifted to Mid Peninsula

[1:59] Regional Open Space District or as we

[2:01] call it, Midpen. In 2021, there was a

[2:05] public access planning process that

[2:07] began. It was essentially the initiation

[2:09] of the Hawthorne's area plan. In June of

[2:12] 2023, there was a public access working

[2:14] group formed that we know of as POG.

[2:17] they were initiated to further

[2:20] analyze or work through access related

[2:23] to the site or the area. In October of

[2:26] 2024,

[2:28] AUGs recommendations were presented at a

[2:30] town council meeting here during a

[2:32] feedback session. And then lastly, in

[2:35] May of 2026, the Midpen board approved

[2:38] the Hawthorne's area plan action table

[2:40] and schematic parking designs as the

[2:42] basis for the project description to

[2:44] conduct SQA. So there are a few

[2:46] different nuances related to the

[2:47] schematic designs, but I just like to

[2:49] point out the two that uh are the

[2:51] primary designs that have been shown and

[2:54] approved by the board. So in general,

[2:57] the schematic designs include loop

[2:59] trails as well as a parking lot near

[3:02] Portal Road and Alpine Road. So some of

[3:05] the designs or schematic designs include

[3:07] access to the parking lot that's taken

[3:09] from an existing driveway. And another

[3:12] schematic design also shows access to

[3:14] the parking lot taken from Portal Road

[3:17] and Alpine Road near that intersection

[3:20] plan that has been discussed. Um when we

[3:22] talk about the Hawthorne's area plan,

[3:24] when we consider the Hawthorne's area

[3:26] plan as a project, as of right now, no

[3:29] permit applications have been submitted

[3:31] to the town. We are aware that Midpen is

[3:34] looking to start the SQA environmental

[3:36] review potentially 2027 and that the

[3:40] town would be a SQA responsible agency

[3:42] as well.

[3:44] So we're primarily here tonight partly

[3:46] because there have been a lot of

[3:47] different questions as well as interest

[3:49] related to Hawthorne's area and what is

[3:52] potential work that could be done

[3:53] related to uh this area and the work

[3:56] that Midpen has been doing. So staff did

[3:59] some initial look at what is work that

[4:02] staff could do and we'll present four

[4:05] just potential options that we initially

[4:07] would like to present to you tonight and

[4:09] have a discussion around those. And I'd

[4:11] like to just point out that these are

[4:13] just initial options. There would have

[4:15] to be additional scope and budget

[4:17] attached to these. So it's a high level

[4:19] consideration of potential staff work

[4:22] related to Hawthorne's area. So the

[4:24] first one is looking at potential SQA

[4:26] project engagement work. So this would

[4:28] include retaining environmental

[4:29] consultant to support staff and legal

[4:31] counsel as well as commenting on the

[4:33] notice of preparation and the draft or

[4:35] final EIR.

[4:37] The second thing related to this area

[4:40] and potential work would be the open

[4:41] space element and associated zoning

[4:44] regulations. So, as of now, the town is

[4:46] overdue for an update to the open space

[4:49] element. And as part of the open space

[4:51] element update, there could also be

[4:53] additional rules and regulations to look

[4:55] at, including adopting parking access or

[4:58] grading standards along with that.

[5:01] In addition to that, there could be an

[5:03] option of a negotiated agreement with

[5:05] Midpen. So, this could maybe be modeled

[5:07] on the 1980 Windy Hill Limited

[5:10] Development Agreement. And this

[5:12] agreement could look at more

[5:14] holistically studying parking across

[5:16] Windy Hill as well as the Hawthorne's

[5:18] area. So the midpen properties

[5:21] and lastly there could be work related

[5:23] to conservation easement enforcement. I

[5:25] will point out that the town has no

[5:27] standing to enforce the easement because

[5:30] it's not through the town. But there

[5:32] could be an opportunity where the

[5:33] Peninsula Open Space Trust or PUS P post

[5:36] sorry um could act or assign the rights.

[5:40] Okay. So those are the four main options

[5:42] when we're looking at that. Just want to

[5:44] call out the budget considerations with

[5:45] these actions. So right now there is no

[5:47] budget currently assigned for work

[5:49] related to the Hawthorne's area uh in

[5:51] the 2026 to 2027 fiscal year. And

[5:55] current work is limited uh you know

[5:58] considering what staff is doing right

[6:00] now. currently limited um until until

[6:02] additional budget author authorization

[6:04] is made and then based on tonight and

[6:07] council direction staff will return with

[6:09] the proposed scope of work budget and

[6:11] staffing needs. Well, so the

[6:14] consideration we're looking at is should

[6:16] staff pursue one of the four work plan

[6:19] areas and if there is consideration of

[6:23] like a priority preference of these four

[6:25] different areas that we discussed as

[6:27] well

[6:29] and that concludes my presentation.

[6:31] Thank you.

[6:33] >> Thank you Shar. Are there clarifying

[6:36] questions for Sarah?

[6:41] Anybody other side?

[6:43] >> I do.

[6:44] >> Okay, please go ahead.

[6:45] >> Um can you clarify the SQUA um option?

[6:50] Um

[6:52] for example, [clears throat]

[6:54] if we pursued that,

[6:57] can we there are certain points in time

[7:00] where the town can respond.

[7:03] Um would we need a SQA consultant for

[7:06] those or or is the town able to submit

[7:11] comments without a a specific SQA

[7:14] consultant.

[7:16] >> Might also look to our town manager as

[7:17] well to assist because I know she is

[7:19] very wellversed in the SQA process. Um

[7:21] but I believe there would be the ability

[7:22] to hire a consultant. Um but I'll I'll

[7:24] also have her provide a little bit more

[7:26] context as well.

[7:27] >> Yes. And with that, I also want to

[7:29] introduce our legal counsel for this

[7:30] item, Miss Mr. Bill Celigman.

[7:34] Fun fact about him, we go way back to

[7:36] the 90s. He's very esteemed. Um, our

[7:40] recommendation is that we would need to

[7:42] hire a consultant. This is a very

[7:44] specialized SQA document, very

[7:46] extensive, and the town would be best

[7:48] served by having a skilled consultant to

[7:50] assist us.

[7:56] » Other questions, Rebecca?

[8:04] » Great. Thank you, Judy. Yeah, I I think

[8:07] we got to take a step up to like orient

[8:10] me at least. Like this has been going on

[8:13] for a long time. There are five steps.

[8:15] We're at step number four. And I am a

[8:18] little confused how one can get to this

[8:20] point without our having input or

[8:25] conversations. We have had participation

[8:28] in meetings through the POG, but is this

[8:31] pretty typical process to get all the

[8:34] way to SQUA where frankly if we find out

[8:37] we have issues

[8:39] seems more costly. I'm curious about

[8:42] where the process

[8:46] who wants to take that [clears throat] I

[8:48] would just clarify the process so far. I

[8:50] mean it's been through MIDI pen pog and

[8:53] some of the work that they've done those

[8:54] have always been open meetings they do

[8:56] have a board the schematic designs were

[8:59] presented to the board so there's been

[9:00] opportunity if you look at from an

[9:03] individual community member perspective

[9:06] to attend and provide feedback and then

[9:09] there was also the 2024 presentation to

[9:11] town council where there was an initial

[9:14] presentation on the recommendations

[9:15] which I believe started to point to the

[9:18] uh development of the different

[9:20] alternatives, but I have to go back to

[9:22] that staff report specifically.

[9:24] >> Right. My question is different. It's is

[9:26] it typical that a town having a similar

[9:30] project in it gets to this point without

[9:34] having more substantive participation

[9:37] directly? Is that pretty typical?

[9:40] >> I would say it depends on the project

[9:44] specifically. I would be unsure for this

[9:46] type of project. Um I I you know

[9:50] speaking from experience most of our

[9:51] projects are single family homes or

[9:53] smaller development like that and our

[9:55] engagement really doesn't happen until

[9:57] it becomes an actual application.

[9:59] >> We encourage maybe pre-applications or

[10:02] discussions with for example our

[10:04] architectural and site control

[10:05] commission but there and those you know

[10:08] it's a different example. So I think

[10:10] this is a very unique project and

[10:12] circumstance for this town right now

[10:13] >> for for us. I understand that. Although

[10:15] we did have Windy Hill um a long time

[10:18] ago now. Um All right.

[10:24] I don't know if it's appropriate for me

[10:26] to ask Mr. Seligman

[10:29] since you have been in this space for a

[10:31] while to comment on that.

[10:37] » Assuming I'm answering the same

[10:38] question. Yes.

[10:45] How's this? Is that much better? Yeah, I

[10:47] can hear myself now. Okay.

[10:49] >> Uh yes. Uh you know, it it certainly

[10:53] varies from uh community to community.

[10:56] There's would be nothing to stop you

[10:58] from a legal standpoint from having

[11:00] input uh and engagement earlier in the

[11:02] process. Um but you know, that depends

[11:06] on resource allocation and the and uh

[11:09] the nature of your relationship.

[11:11] >> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. And um

[11:14] in terms of

[11:17] the four options,

[11:19] I mean the the general theme is I think

[11:23] what input can the town have into the

[11:26] project? Like like these are options

[11:29] because I want to make sure we're

[11:31] focused on what we're trying to solve

[11:32] for. And to me, the negotiated agreement

[11:37] presumes that is it really focused on

[11:40] the parking only like that's an issue we

[11:44] think we need to solve for and is it

[11:46] focused on that or cuz to me there's

[11:49] like SQA we might get into differences

[11:53] of opinion on sufficiency open space we

[11:56] can talk about regulation and zoning um

[11:59] conservation easement I get the point on

[12:02] it's we're not a party to it, but the

[12:04] negotiated agreement kind of presumes

[12:06] that there's something to negotiate. And

[12:08] I'm a little confused what that ask is.

[12:13] I think with that one, we're identifying

[12:15] if if there's work there, an agreement

[12:18] could be a solution depending on the

[12:21] desire or approach with the town. I

[12:24] think that's also what we're receiving

[12:25] feedback on is what what is the

[12:27] approach. But if there's

[12:29] >> concern of parking or parking not being

[12:31] studied holistically or looking at are

[12:34] there alternatives that that could be an

[12:37] approach from that lens is looking at an

[12:39] agreement and there's been a similar one

[12:41] done.

[12:41] >> Great. So, so I if I think about it

[12:43] right, you're we both want to comment on

[12:46] if that's something to look at and then

[12:47] we have the ability to inform you what

[12:50] we think that ought to focus on now or

[12:52] later. Like you're looking for both or

[12:54] are we limited to commenting on parking?

[12:58] >> I'm open to council's feedback on the

[13:01] direction.

[13:01] >> Super. Thank you. That's it.

[13:04] >> Thank you, Mary.

[13:08] » I'm fine. No questions. Great. Ellen,

[13:14] » thank you for this presentation. Um, so

[13:17] for clarification,

[13:19] um, for the four areas of town work,

[13:23] do we get to pick one? Do we get to pick

[13:27] multiple? Like, and obviously they'd

[13:30] cost more. Do we need to prioritize?

[13:33] Like

[13:36] » I mean the last slide there was kind of

[13:39] the two options. it was which one do you

[13:41] have a preference for to work on but

[13:42] also is there a priority and I if we

[13:46] can't come to a decision tonight I I

[13:48] think the followup is doing additional

[13:50] research on what would staff time be and

[13:52] what would the budget be and then that

[13:54] might provide clarity and something it

[13:57] might be difficult to decide exactly the

[13:59] budget but if we can have some general

[14:01] idea of the interest of uh like what

[14:04] council member Hasco brought up if if

[14:06] the interest is the agreement related to

[14:08] parking that we could consider what that

[14:10] would look like. The open space element

[14:12] is something the town should be doing

[14:15] eventually anyways and it would probably

[14:17] be good to also have a general idea of

[14:20] staff time and cost for that too, but it

[14:22] could also relate u to this area as

[14:25] well. Um and do we have any obviously

[14:28] SQUA probably being the most you know

[14:31] consultant being the most expensive. Um

[14:34] do we have any sense of what we think

[14:36] would be more expensive versus less

[14:38] expensive and uh you know as

[14:43] you know we're in a deficit. We know

[14:45] we're in a deficit um for open space

[14:49] element and zoning regs versus

[14:51] negotiated agreement.

[14:54] I don't have an opinion at the moment

[14:56] about the cost right now. So I I'm

[14:58] unsure and that would be something we'd

[14:59] have to look at.

[15:00] >> Okay. Um, and if we were to prioritize

[15:05] say negotiate agreement agreement based

[15:07] on um, uh,

[15:11] Council Member Hosco, um, we could still

[15:15] down the road weigh in on the SQA, I'm

[15:19] assuming, right?

[15:24] Well, we can always weigh in on SQA. I

[15:26] think what you're hearing us ask is

[15:27] should we scope this quite robustly in

[15:30] the sense of getting a consultant making

[15:32] sure we have adequate funding for legal

[15:34] review that would be a sort of you know

[15:37] from a small medium large that's what

[15:40] we're presenting tonight with those cons

[15:44] with that added um support is like an a

[15:47] large

[15:48] something scaled back would be simpler

[15:51] perhaps not um encompass all the

[15:56] concerns that we've heard from the

[15:57] community or may hear from council or

[15:58] the planning commission ultimately um

[16:01] but you could point us in a range of

[16:05] options and I would emphasize that SQA

[16:07] is the one where the the the work is

[16:10] starting right we know that the that the

[16:13] midpen board awarded the contract

[16:15] selected a consultant staff met with

[16:18] midpen staff this week and we were told

[16:20] that um the process is moving along but

[16:23] that they will not be issuing between

[16:25] what is considered the first step in the

[16:27] SQL process, which is a notice of

[16:29] preparation until 2027.

[16:32] But I would emphasize that if the town

[16:34] has to go and retain a consultant, we

[16:36] have to issue an RFP, select someone,

[16:39] and probably get a contract to you. So,

[16:41] it's a three or four month process. And

[16:44] that assumes you want to allocate the

[16:46] budget for it, too.

[16:48] So some things may take longer to

[16:49] onboard whereas an agreement that's I

[16:52] mean and the other thing with an

[16:53] agreement is it it requires the other

[16:54] party obviously to engage. So you could say explore that but it may

[17:00] not be viable depending on the other

[17:03] party involved. So I I suggest that you

[17:06] maybe look at prioritization here and

[17:08] give us some guidance in terms of

[17:11] robustness of it if you will because

[17:14] they're not mutually exclusive. We just

[17:16] need direction to

[17:19] uh to allow Sarah and her team to focus

[17:21] her efforts in the next month or two.

[17:24] >> Great. Thanks. Okay. Other question. Um

[17:27] in terms of the zoning open space

[17:29] element and zoning rags, right? Um

[17:32] obviously the Midpen Hawthorne site I

[17:35] believe remind me I think it's um single

[17:39] family residential zoning. Could you

[17:41] give me the actual zoning?

[17:46] So it was provided in the packet. I

[17:48] would have to pull it up in the packet.

[17:49] >> Okay.

[17:51] >> It's residential estate. So

[17:54] >> right,

[17:54] >> the

[17:56] conservation. Yeah. The zoning that is

[17:58] in place is the is what was in place

[17:59] when it was a owned by the Woods family

[18:01] and residential.

[18:03] >> Okay. And um if we were to open up the

[18:07] open space element and we would then

[18:11] update zoning for all open space I take it

[18:18] that would depend on the process for the

[18:20] open space element similar to how we're

[18:22] going through the housing element. It's

[18:23] an amendment but housing element you're

[18:25] looking at the land use and zoning and

[18:27] you know what does the town want and

[18:29] what is the vision down to how is it

[18:31] going to be implemented. So there could

[18:33] be an opportunity to consider how the

[18:36] Hawthorne's area fits within the overall

[18:38] town's kind of land use and zoning.

[18:40] >> Great. Okay, those are my questions.

[18:43] Thank you.

[18:45] >> Thank you, Helen.

[18:48] >> So I think my questions were mostly

[18:52] answered. Um I'm I guess I'm still

[18:54] trying to understand a little bit like

[18:55] on the SQA timeline the notice of

[18:57] preparation starts in 2027

[19:01] but I mean how long before there's

[19:04] actually something for us to comment on

[19:07] you know because you're saying a three

[19:08] or four month process I guess I'm trying

[19:09] to understand a little bit like when

[19:11] does that process have to start if we

[19:13] want to engage on SQA assuming that

[19:16] midpen's not going to do anything till

[19:18] 2027. I mean, is that if we start in

[19:20] January, by the time they get their

[19:22] stuff together, we'll sort of dovetail,

[19:24] or is it no, January 1, they're going to

[19:26] dump something, and if we hadn't started

[19:28] back in September or October, we're

[19:30] behind the eightball. So, I'm trying to

[19:32] understand that timing a little bit.

[19:34] >> It's the latter. So, they they could

[19:37] issue the NOP in January. They did not

[19:40] provide a date. They just told us it

[19:41] would be 2027. And yeah, we probably

[19:44] need 3 to four months to get ramped up.

[19:47] Now the notice of preparation is the

[19:48] first stage where they say we're going

[19:50] to be preparing an EIR. This is these

[19:52] are the areas we're going to study. Do

[19:55] you have any other things you want us to

[19:56] study? And you and so sometimes that's

[19:58] all a very preliminary exercise. We

[20:02] perhaps could do it without a lot of

[20:04] support. Um but it it could be an

[20:09] important step in the town's process to

[20:11] make sure that we assert what we want

[20:13] them to consider in the EIR. So it's a

[20:15] very each step in SQA is very important

[20:16] and the first step is important. So

[20:20] essentially we need direction now if you

[20:21] want us to pursue the SQA option. There

[20:23] may be other items that are less

[20:25] timesensitive but an important thing to

[20:28] note with our open space element and

[20:29] land use regulations that can take a

[20:31] long time as you as you've seen with the

[20:33] housing element and the safety element.

[20:35] Those those processes can take a long

[20:38] time and we would definitely have to

[20:39] hire consultants for those too.

[20:42] >> Right. Okay. And then my next one does

[20:44] lead into the open space element. Um,

[20:48] so does open does an open space element

[20:50] just deal with anything that's open

[20:52] space in the town regardless of its

[20:54] zoning or does it have to be zoned open

[20:56] space for the open space element to

[20:58] apply to it

[21:00] >> because this is all this is all re right now. So

[21:04] >> it applies to everything in the town

[21:06] that's open space. And right now we

[21:08] actually don't have a zoning that's open

[21:09] space. We have an uh inconsistent

[21:13] >> general plan and zoning. So the general

[21:16] plan is what you would start with and we

[21:18] do have properties that are designated

[21:20] as open space. And I would suggest we

[21:25] examine that designation and whether it

[21:27] should be applied to other properties.

[21:28] Um and then you would implement the

[21:32] general plan through a zoning code. and

[21:34] we would recommend that the they be

[21:36] tightened up so that they're vertically

[21:37] consistent because they're inconsistent

[21:39] now which doesn't conform to state law.

[21:42] Um but the open space element also deals

[21:45] with other factors. Um it deals with

[21:49] equity and um access to open space and

[21:53] parks. So it's a pretty broad element.

[21:56] >> I don't know if Bill has anything to

[21:57] add.

[21:59] >> No, nothing to add.

[22:01] >> Thank you. And just like you're

[22:03] suggesting there's a three or four month

[22:05] potential um process time for SQA.

[22:10] What do we think the process time is on

[22:12] the open space element roughly? Are we

[22:14] talking

[22:14] >> to get a consultant to scope it and get

[22:16] a consult on board or probably 3 to four

[22:19] months?

[22:20] >> Okay. And then the actual work is

[22:21] another three or four months.

[22:24] >> No, it's probably 12 to 18 months.

[22:26] >> Okay. to do an element like that because

[22:29] we also have to do SQA on our own land

[22:32] use plans. So that could be a long time.

[22:34] [clears throat]

[22:37] » And so is it is it realistic that we'd

[22:41] get an open space element done that

[22:43] would apply to this project or would

[22:46] this project be [clears throat] on a

[22:47] faster timeline and we wouldn't get it

[22:50] done before decisions were being made?

[22:54] It's possible they line just just line

[22:58] up.

[22:58] >> The sequel process for midpen could be

[23:01] about 12 months we think and then they

[23:04] would submit their permit applications

[23:06] to the town and that processing could be

[23:09] I don't know 3 6 n months.

[23:12] >> So then we're into 2028. So,

[23:15] I would advise if we want to do that, we

[23:18] should get some direction tonight so

[23:19] that we can at least start putting

[23:21] together like a scope of work and a

[23:23] budget to come back to you. Um,

[23:26] but ideally they line up,

[23:30] >> okay,

[23:30] >> and they're in effect,

[23:31] >> okay,

[23:33] >> for the project applications.

[23:37] >> So, Helen would like to ask another

[23:38] question, then I'll finish up mine.

[23:40] >> Thank you.

[23:41] Um for uh

[23:45] number four or the um

[23:49] in terms of doing a negotiated agreement

[23:52] if the other party is willing to deal

[23:54] with parking. Obviously we have parking

[23:57] issues

[23:59] in other places in town. Um

[24:04] sorry. [laughter]

[24:06] Um, so could is there should we

[24:12] potentially separate the negotiated

[24:14] agreement out with a parking management

[24:17] plan before trying to negotiate

[24:20] something

[24:21] if that makes any sense. I mean

[24:23] obviously our other sites with parking

[24:26] issues are not part of the Hawthorne

[24:28] situation.

[24:30] um but to do some sort of comprehensive

[24:34] parking plan so that then when we

[24:36] negotiate we know what we're aiming for

[24:39] if that makes sense.

[24:42] I think that could be an option and that

[24:44] I would assume could be part of that

[24:46] work plan option when we're talking

[24:48] about the NE negotiate agreement if

[24:50] there's something you want us to look

[24:52] into that it should include addressing a

[24:55] parking management plan or other

[24:56] elements and we can figure out what that

[24:58] might look like and come back to you.

[25:00] >> Great. Thank you.

[25:03] >> All right. So then my last question

[25:04] which is a follow up on the negotiated

[25:06] agreement. Is it reasonable if we say I

[25:10] mean to me a negotiate agreement is

[25:12] always a good thing because you talk to

[25:14] the other side and if they're willing to

[25:15] talk to you and you work stuff out that

[25:16] seems like always a better way than sort

[25:18] of battling it out. Um

[25:21] I guess my question is if we say oh

[25:24] we're interested in negotiating

[25:25] agreement will staff go and scope out

[25:29] what the possible kinds of negotiated

[25:31] agreements we might do are? Is that your

[25:34] thinking? Okay. So, we're not trying to

[25:37] figure out the terms of the negotiated

[25:40] agreement in broad strokes. We're just

[25:42] saying come back to us and tell us

[25:44] different ways you might be able to

[25:45] negotiate.

[25:46] >> Yes. I think that would be the goal of

[25:48] what could town's responsibility be in

[25:51] this um to enter an agreement.

[25:53] >> Okay. Great. All right.

[25:55] >> I have [laughter]

[25:58] follow.

[25:59] >> Okay. Please go ahead Jude.

[26:01] >> Okay. Uh two questions. One is do we

[26:05] have to do the whole open space element

[26:07] or could we look at regulations that are

[26:09] most pointed and where I'm going with

[26:11] this is we kind of have to be a little

[26:13] bit of a strike force given our

[26:15] budgetary constraints and I want to know

[26:18] how to think about that. Uh clearly it's

[26:20] better to do the whole nine yards for

[26:22] consistency and to avoid waste I think.

[26:25] But but if our time time is our enemy,

[26:29] what would we be able to do that's still

[26:32] profitable for us to be engaging in? And

[26:36] the second question while you're at it

[26:38] is

[26:39] on the open space piece.

[26:42] My understanding is that open space

[26:44] funding is not available for looking at

[26:48] the open space element and rags and

[26:50] things like that. If you could confirm

[26:51] that that would be helpful.

[26:55] » Thank you for that question. the so the

[26:59] timing and kind of taking out a piece I wouldn't really even consider it part

[27:04] of like the open space element but if

[27:07] I'm trying to think through if it would

[27:08] be updates to maybe zoning or

[27:10] regulations specifically if town council

[27:12] has a priority to update certain regul

[27:16] regulations for example I know we've

[27:18] already discussed the need to update

[27:19] objective design standards but maybe

[27:21] just for single family homes so that's a

[27:24] very specific kind of targeted approach

[27:26] if that's the priority to update our

[27:28] standards. And so with the other zoning,

[27:30] I think there could be an option that

[27:31] way. I I don't know what it look like

[27:35] when you're considering the element and

[27:37] other aspects. Um I I'd have to do more

[27:40] research on if if there I don't think

[27:42] you're asking there's a way to like

[27:43] start the open space element but then

[27:44] maybe fast forward and you're just

[27:47] saying

[27:47] >> but the the things that are possible for

[27:50] adjusting open space regulations I'm not

[27:53] sure exactly what they are but is there

[27:57] a piece of just line item regulations

[28:00] that we could consider instead of the

[28:02] whole nine yards taking 15 plus months

[28:07] >> I believe so I say, you know, if there's

[28:09] direction in alignment with the general

[28:11] plan and our overall plans and it's

[28:13] implementing our current plans because

[28:15] otherwise the updated open space element

[28:17] then

[28:18] >> regulations would be implementing the

[28:19] new element.

[28:20] >> Okay. Okay. I don't know that that's

[28:21] practical. I just needed to know. And

[28:23] then the the cost the funding for open

[28:26] space element that's not eligible for

[28:28] open space funds, right?

[28:32] >> I don't believe so, but I I'll double

[28:33] check.

[28:34] >> Okay.

[28:34] >> Yeah.

[28:35] >> Thanks.

[28:36] So my question actually is one of them

[28:38] is a followup on um Judith Judith's

[28:41] question. Um

[28:44] when we consider the open space element

[28:46] and more particularly the zoning

[28:48] regulations um and you mentioned a bunch

[28:51] in the um report things like could

[28:55] develop parking lot standards, could

[28:57] develop property access standards along

[29:00] scenic corridors, across trails, along

[29:02] major roadways. We could examine grading

[29:05] standards. I'm also aware that we don't

[29:07] have any kind of code written for

[29:11] developments of of this type. You know,

[29:14] we have it for municipal buildings. We

[29:16] have a single family, multif family, but

[29:17] we have nothing for a park or a open

[29:20] space. We have no development

[29:22] guidelines. So, if the town were to move

[29:25] forward with that those types of

[29:27] regulations, including a parking

[29:28] management plan type of thing, would

[29:31] that have an impact? Would would that

[29:34] have an impact on this development?

[29:35] Would we then be able to have a say on

[29:38] this development or not?

[29:42] >> The say would be ensuring that the

[29:44] project complies with those regulations.

[29:47] So, it would depend on the regulations

[29:49] and what the town would adopt. So,

[29:52] typically the regulations are, you know,

[29:54] there's an opportunity for flexibility

[29:57] potentially to accommodate different

[29:58] development types. So I mean but if

[30:00] there's standards that can be followed

[30:03] that that would apply to that site.

[30:06] >> So midpin would be required to

[30:09] >> if if they were adopted before the

[30:12] projects

[30:14] got through the permitting process I

[30:16] guess and just a very overall summary

[30:18] >> and they would not be submitting until

[30:21] after their squa correct.

[30:24] >> Yes. So they're they're

[30:25] >> presumably

[30:26] >> they have they're on their own timeline

[30:27] which yeah as we said SQL wouldn't start

[30:29] until 2027

[30:31] >> but we would need to have all those new

[30:34] >> zoning codes and and regulations in

[30:36] place before they submitted an

[30:38] application for planning. Is that my

[30:40] understanding correct?

[30:42] >> Essentially yeah because it would you

[30:43] know the application

[30:45] would adhere to the current standards

[30:49] >> and do you have any sense of a general

[30:50] cost for a SQA expert what what that

[30:52] would entail?

[30:54] No,

[30:54] >> I don't know. Off top my head.

[30:56] >> Okay.

[30:57] >> And then you had said you wanted us to

[30:59] provide you with priorities um for what

[31:02] staff would work on for the next couple

[31:04] of months? Um, I'm assuming that kind of

[31:07] maybe until the end of the year, but um,

[31:13] I guess my question is what budget do we

[31:15] have available and what kind of time are

[31:17] you anticipating to be able that's

[31:19] within our budget to be able to take on

[31:21] this extra little project over the next

[31:24] couple months? What do we have? I mean,

[31:26] you have maybe a few hours here and

[31:28] there. What What can actually be

[31:30] accomplished? Is it just coming back

[31:32] with scope and getting pricing for SQA

[31:34] experts or what what exactly do do you

[31:37] anticipate being able to accomplish in

[31:38] the next few months before you know

[31:41] before November per se?

[31:45] >> It would be coming back with the scope

[31:47] and budget and potential recommendations

[31:51] that there would maybe be trade-offs but

[31:54] we would do that full analysis of our

[31:56] budget because we haven't done that yet

[31:57] because there hasn't been direction

[31:59] provided to staff. So if we have

[32:01] direction, we can analyze what that

[32:03] scope is for staff, what is the budget,

[32:05] is it even feasible and let you guys

[32:07] know what would be feasible, what is the

[32:08] actual budget we can spend through that

[32:10] this year or starting, you know,

[32:12] January, I know, sorry, fiscal year is

[32:14] um June to July, but that that would be

[32:18] when we come back to you that we would

[32:20] be able to have that specific

[32:22] information hopefully numbers and have

[32:24] more of that kind of level of

[32:26] conversation. And do you feel that you

[32:28] have staff um bandwidth to be able to

[32:31] accomplish that in the next few months

[32:33] that what you just defined just defining

[32:35] scope and pricing?

[32:38] I

[32:39] >> mean this has been a request of town

[32:40] council. So we'll make the time to do

[32:43] this analysis but the other part of the

[32:47] conversation is staff time to work on

[32:50] what's decided. So that that would be

[32:52] that conversation as well of what would

[32:55] we be capable of doing or part of the

[32:57] budget is would it would we need to hire

[32:59] a consultant? Is there additional help

[33:01] that we would need to do this or is

[33:02] there trade-offs with other projects as

[33:04] well?

[33:04] >> Well, when you're talking about budget, and that's

[33:07] going to be spent in the next four

[33:08] months. Are you anticipating hiring

[33:11] making a recommendation to hire a

[33:12] consultant or you need a consultant in

[33:14] order to scope it out? I a little

[33:16] unclear where this when the money is

[33:17] being spent. I'm not sure if I said that

[33:20] the work would be done the next few

[33:21] months. I I think

[33:24] we need to identify what that work would

[33:26] be come back. Maybe that would take some

[33:29] time and then it would be aligning the

[33:32] schedule of that work. I'm not sure if

[33:34] it's related to the next few months.

[33:37] >> Okay. Okay. And then I guess my last

[33:39] question was just something that Darcy

[33:41] had mentioned saying that or or maybe

[33:43] you did that we have properties

[33:45] designated at open space in the general

[33:47] plan

[33:49] and where I'm confused is those

[33:52] properties are designated open space in

[33:53] the general plan but they are not

[33:56] there's no they're not zoned open space.

[33:58] Is that my understanding? Is that how it

[34:00] works or?

[34:03] >> Yeah, there is a bit of a discrepancy of

[34:05] what is visually shown on the plan

[34:07] versus the zoning. Um, and and that can

[34:10] happen, but we were just calling that

[34:12] out that there really isn't specific

[34:14] zoning for open space right now, even

[34:16] though the general plan kind of calls it

[34:17] out as a land use.

[34:19] >> And we have no verbiage, if you will, or

[34:22] no municipal code for open space. Is

[34:25] that correct? or we already do have and

[34:27] we just haven't put any properties into

[34:29] it.

[34:31] >> No, it doesn't exist right now. So, the

[34:34] properties are current for the zoning.

[34:37] >> Okay. Thank you.

[34:39] >> Thank you, Rebecca. All right. Um, so

[34:41] let me close this section out. The only

[34:43] thing I just want to make sure you guys

[34:44] will investigate also on the open space

[34:47] element whether we could fund it out of

[34:48] the open space fund.

[34:51] >> Okay. I I'm not looking for an answer.

[34:52] I'm just looking for you to to research

[34:54] the answer.

[34:56] Yeah, I think we answered that that it

[34:57] can't be taken out of the fund. Correct.

[35:00] Okay. We'll look into it.

[35:02] >> Yeah, I would ask you to look into it

[35:03] because I know we talked about we can't

[35:05] use it on midpen project because it's

[35:07] not our project, but this is our

[35:09] element. So, it might be different and

[35:11] that's why I'm just asking you to

[35:12] research it.

[35:13] >> Perfect. Thank you. Yes, we will.

[35:14] >> Yeah, I appreciate that. Okay, so I'm

[35:16] going to close out the questions for

[35:18] Sarah and I'm going to open it up for

[35:20] public comment. Um, let me remind

[35:22] everybody that you have three minutes.

[35:23] There's a lot of people here. Um, and so

[35:26] I'm going to hold everybody pretty

[35:28] tightly to the three minutes. We've got

[35:30] some cards. Yes.

[35:33] >> Yes.

[35:34] >> Okay.

[35:35] >> So, why don't we start with the cards,

[35:37] then I'll ask for people who are in the

[35:40] room who didn't get a card, which is

[35:42] fine. You don't have to worry about

[35:43] getting a card. I'll I'll come back. Um,

[35:45] and then I'll go online. So, with that,

[35:48] >> yes, first is Robert Roberto Zera.

[35:52] Thank you.

[35:53] >> Welcome.

[35:54] >> Thank you very much. Good evening,

[35:56] members of the Portola Valley Town

[35:59] Council and staff. I'm Robera Sare,

[36:02] superintendent of Portola Valley School

[36:04] District. I'm speaking you speaking with

[36:08] you tonight on behalf of the PVSD board

[36:12] families and students to express our

[36:15] serious safety concerns regarding the

[36:17] Midpen Hawthorne area access plan

[36:20] proposals under consideration.

[36:23] Simply put, the options currently on the

[36:26] table are not acceptable to our district

[36:30] because they directly compromise the

[36:32] safety of our students of approximately

[36:35] 100 students who travel that route

[36:37] daily.

[36:39] As a school district, we are legally

[36:41] required to ensure the safety of our

[36:44] children traveling to and from school.

[36:47] Operating in loco parentus, we carry

[36:50] both a strict duty of care and a moral

[36:54] responsibility to protect these students

[36:57] every step of the way. As you may know,

[37:00] PBSD and the town co-und the afternoon

[37:05] crossing guard at Alpine and Pulla Road

[37:08] and for that we thank you for that

[37:09] partnership. Adding another crossing

[37:12] guard is neither possible, practical,

[37:15] nor economically feasible.

[37:18] I have commissioned an ad hoc committee

[37:21] of our schoolboard trustee to research

[37:23] this topic extensively

[37:26] and advocate directly on the behalf of

[37:29] our students and the PBSD community.

[37:32] Additionally, the district has consulted

[37:35] with a land use attorney and I've

[37:38] already shared their full legal report

[37:40] with the town manager to review. We want

[37:44] to solve this problem together.

[37:47] The district is fully committed to

[37:49] working in partnership with the town

[37:51] council to protect Portola Valley's

[37:53] children. As a side note, we always

[37:58] strive to be good neighbors. One way we

[38:01] actively support our community is by

[38:04] opening the Cordom Madera parking lot on

[38:06] weekends throughout the summer and after

[38:08] school hours

[38:11] for local trail users. That's an access

[38:14] point that we believe renders a new

[38:17] parking lot at Hawthorne's entirely

[38:19] unnecessary.

[38:21] Let's keep working together to find a

[38:24] solution that puts the safety of our

[38:26] children first. Thank you.

[38:33] >> Next is Bob Bower.

[38:36] >> Welcome, Bob.

[38:37] >> Thank you. Uh, thank you, council

[38:38] members. I'm Dr. Robert Bower. I'm a

[38:41] trustee of the school board on the ad

[38:43] hoc committee that superintendent has

[38:45] started. I'm here for two reasons. to

[38:47] tell you what our strategic intentions

[38:50] are and to stress the critical need for

[38:53] both of our agencies to take action now

[38:55] to resolve it without the implementation

[38:58] of options 9 or 10. As Superintendent

[39:01] Zer said, we conservatively estimate

[39:04] that 40% of the kids at CMS use the

[39:07] Alpine Trail every day, 180 days a year.

[39:11] That's 36,000

[39:13] student transitions across what would be

[39:16] a new road with traffic. That's

[39:18] unacceptable to the school board and we

[39:21] will take all necessary steps legally

[39:23] and otherwise in which to make sure that

[39:26] doesn't occur. Uh

[39:30] the other thing I need to tell you is

[39:31] that in your packet today as as I see

[39:33] it, there has been FAQs provided to you

[39:36] that seem to be identical to the ones

[39:38] that came out from MIDI pen. Those FAQs

[39:41] are incorrect at best and false in other

[39:45] cases. For example, it says that the

[39:48] school district was approached and asked

[39:51] to provide parking for the Hawthorne's

[39:53] property and that we declined. In fact,

[39:57] the superintendent agreed to that kind

[40:00] of a solution. Why the staff said that

[40:02] in FAQs, I don't know. There are other

[40:05] things in the FAQ also that I find to be

[40:07] misleading at best. like it's saying

[40:10] that continual interactions with the

[40:12] town have been part of this and the

[40:14] reason this is important is because they

[40:16] claim in the FAQs that post has approved

[40:20] the abregation frankly of the

[40:23] conservation easement and I find that

[40:26] highly unlikely especially if they

[40:28] understood that there are 36,000 student

[40:31] crossings that would be affected every

[40:33] day 180 days of so I want to emphasize

[40:37] to you today that we're prepared to use

[40:40] our resources to enforce the confer

[40:42] conservation easement which as you know

[40:45] is being violated for both development

[40:48] in the undeveloped portion of the

[40:51] property, the removal of trees and the

[40:53] grading. There's no reason at all for

[40:56] them to be having option 9 or 10 as

[40:58] being viable. And the only entity right

[41:01] now that has appropriate legal standing

[41:04] is post in which to do that. So this

[41:07] also involves post as I must say. So one

[41:10] thing that I'm asking for today is that

[41:12] just like we formed a committee at our

[41:15] meeting last Thursday on Hawthorne, I

[41:17] would love for the town to choose two

[41:20] members of the town council to be on a

[41:22] Hawthorne's committee and for us to work

[41:24] together like we did when Windy Hill

[41:26] open space was in front of the town many

[41:28] years ago. I've been in town over 50

[41:31] years so I know when these things

[41:32] happen. Let's do that again. when it

[41:34] comes to Hawthornes. And the reason that

[41:36] that's important is the town manager and

[41:39] our superintendent are working

[41:40] incredibly well together on this matter

[41:43] and want to collaborate. Let's do the

[41:46] same at the level of the elected

[41:47] official of our two agencies and our two

[41:50] agencies together are going to be

[41:51] stronger. We are prepared to use our

[41:53] legal resource and that'll be my final

[41:55] point. We will pay for the lawyers

[41:58] because we're prepared to pay for them

[41:59] on our own. Wouldn't it be better if

[42:01] those legal actions that we have that

[42:04] you have in front of you from the

[42:06] confidential memo that we shared with

[42:08] Darcy wouldn't be better for us? So,

[42:10] please consider forming a committee and

[42:13] forming a joint agency task force with

[42:15] the school district to address this

[42:17] issue. Thank you.

[42:23] » All right. I would say hold your

[42:24] applause, but I guess just keep keep the

[42:26] applause light. Um, who's next?

[42:28] >> Next is Leslie Crease.

[42:41] welcome.

[42:41] >> Hi. Um, hello town council. I'm Wesley

[42:45] Crease. Most of you know me. I live at

[42:48] One Winter Creek. I'm one of your

[42:50] neighbors. Um, and first of all, I'd

[42:52] like to say I really appreciate

[42:54] everything you do and I'm very grateful

[42:56] for you. Um, my concern with the

[42:59] Hawthores is a little bit higher level

[43:01] since I didn't know where this was going

[43:02] tonight. But there is a proverb. What's

[43:05] once done can easily cannot easily be

[43:08] undone. And once an action is taken, it

[43:11] cannot easily be undone. Mid Peninsula

[43:14] as an organization clearly understands

[43:16] its charters and its goals taking from

[43:19] well south of us through the peninsula

[43:21] and around the bay. Hawthorne's is just

[43:25] a stop between locations south of us and

[43:28] onward to Windy Hill and then someday

[43:31] Elm Miridora possibly to connect to

[43:34] Thornwood then to Teague Hill, Parisma

[43:36] Creek, Edgewood and on up the peninsula.

[43:40] Depending on what happens with

[43:41] Hawthornes, this could put a lot of

[43:43] pressure on Portola Valley and our

[43:45] roads, especially with our anticipated

[43:47] influx of new housing and new neighbors

[43:50] and the construction for that. We don't

[43:53] want to overwhelm our roads with

[43:54] traffic, threaten our ability um to

[43:57] evacuate in case of emergency or just

[44:00] enjoy a beautiful day in our town. So,

[44:02] I'm asking you, my town council,

[44:05] remember who you represent, and it's not

[44:08] Midpen. Midpen is very good and very

[44:11] well funded at representing itself. They

[44:14] have skills.

[44:16] um the folks who live here and will be

[44:20] impacted every ba every day going

[44:22] forward by the decisions the five of you

[44:25] make. Um your job as I see it is to help

[44:30] um us not to not to roll over for midpen

[44:33] which is a concern of mine and a desire

[44:36] to be friends with them. Um,

[44:40] we need to protect the quality the

[44:42] safety of our residents and the quality

[44:44] of our life. Especially for those of us

[44:46] who live near Hawthorne. If you live up

[44:49] in Westridge or up in Los Tranos

[44:51] possibly or in other parts of town, you

[44:54] won't be as impacted, but if you live

[44:56] near Hawthorne, the traffic is going to

[44:59] have a big impact on you. So I am asking

[45:02] you to go slowly and thoughtfully um and

[45:06] perhaps in an evolutionary fashion

[45:09] allowing midpen a minimal footprint um

[45:13] both in terms of parking and other

[45:15] aspects and then if things go well

[45:17] perhaps consider growth down the road

[45:20] because once something is done though

[45:22] you can't undo it. So let's grow them

[45:25] evol in an evolutionary fashion not all

[45:28] at once. And again, I thank you and I

[45:31] thank you all for running, too.

[45:33] >> Thank you, Lesman.

[45:36] >> All right, who's next?

[45:37] >> Next is Lana Norris.

[45:50] » Welcome.

[45:51] >> Good evening.

[45:53] Thank you for uh for this session and

[45:55] this opportunity to talk to you folks.

[45:57] Um, I submitted a letter and um, I'm

[46:01] assuming that you've had an opportunity

[46:03] to review it. So, I'm not going to go

[46:04] over anything that's in that letter. Um,

[46:07] I want to focus on once again the

[46:10] conservation easement. I have been

[46:11] spitting nickels about this conservation

[46:14] easement problem for years,

[46:17] literally years. You're well aware that

[46:21] every time anyone asks Mid Pen to tell

[46:24] us how specific proposals that they're

[46:27] making comply with the easements

[46:29] prohibitions, we don't get an answer.

[46:31] That's been going on for years. The

[46:34] frequently asked questions that were

[46:36] just put out by Mid Pan this month

[46:40] increased my concern because once again

[46:44] there are non-answers. There are artful

[46:47] evasions. There are misleading

[46:49] statements and I'm going to say they

[46:52] have to be intentional.

[46:54] They are intentional

[46:56] and that's wrong.

[47:04] one. Okay. One problem, one inaccuracy,

[47:08] I'm going to have to speak quickly

[47:10] because the time is going is in their

[47:13] frequently asked questions where they

[47:16] say

[47:17] uh that they have had something like 40

[47:20] meetings etc outreach. They go into all

[47:23] these examples of their outreaches etc.

[47:27] And one of them, one of them was where

[47:31] they say they met with Pollola Valley

[47:33] Ranch residents in January of 2025.

[47:38] Okay. I was president at that meeting in

[47:41] January of 2025.

[47:43] Pull it was at Pulla Valley Ranch. We

[47:45] are the most directly affected group of

[47:48] people because we are contiguous to the

[47:51] Hawthors. We should have a huge voice in

[47:54] what is happening there. At that

[47:56] meeting, a group of us Pollola Valley

[47:59] residents submitted questions in writing

[48:02] to the Midpen representatives and we

[48:05] asked for answers and I will give just a

[48:07] couple of examples. Uh, we don't

[48:10] understand why Midpen is planning for

[48:11] such a large parking area. Please

[48:13] explain. No answer. We asked is it and

[48:17] Midpin's intention to use the Hawthorne

[48:19] as a hub? No answer. Uh, the We talked

[48:22] about the conferation easement. We asked

[48:25] uh that it clearly violates the

[48:27] easement. Has post or mid pen gotten a

[48:30] legal opinion about that? No answer.

[48:33] Those are just some of the answers we

[48:35] didn't get. So I have a specific request

[48:39] tonight and that is that the town use

[48:42] its weight and in influence and bring it

[48:45] to bear on mid pen and I would like the

[48:48] town to take a stand in writing to Mid

[48:51] Pen confronting them about their

[48:52] violations of the easement. And by

[48:54] violations I don't mean hostility but

[48:57] that we want we expect and we're

[48:58] entitled to these answers we've been

[49:00] trying to get for years and years and

[49:02] mid pen and post won't answer. And the

[49:05] same letter, I would submit the same

[49:07] letter should go to Post because Post

[49:09] and Mid Pen have this symbiotic

[49:12] relationship. And I'm going to call it

[49:14] what it is. It's conclusion. It's a It's

[49:18] >> Thank you. Thank you. I'm trying so

[49:21] hard. Oh, I have 28 seconds. Oh, good.

[49:24] >> Yeah. You're No, no, no. You're o you're

[49:25] over. You're I'm gonna have to ask

[49:26] >> Oh, I am. I'm sorry.

[49:27] >> This is You're 30 seconds over, so I'm

[49:29] gonna have to ask you this.

[49:31] >> Okay.

[49:31] >> Yeah. Do you have like one last comment

[49:33] and then wrap it? Can you just wrap up?

[49:35] >> Yeah, I'll wrap up really, really

[49:36] quickly. Um,

[49:38] Mo Post needs to know that its

[49:40] reputation and even its fundraising are

[49:43] at are being imperiled here. I used to

[49:46] support Post. I supported them

[49:48] financially. I supported them with with

[49:50] my efforts. I told Post that I was done

[49:53] with them after they refused to answer

[49:56] any one of my questions about how the

[49:59] easement violations could occur. Not one

[50:03] answer. And so I'd like those to go to

[50:05] post and to mid pan. Thank you.

[50:07] >> Okay. Thank you very much.

[50:10] >> Three minutes is tough.

[50:11] >> I I hear you.

[50:13] >> Necessary.

[50:14] >> But we have a lot lot of people I think

[50:15] they want to speak. So thank you.

[50:20] » Yeah.

[50:22] But but at the Supreme Court there are

[50:23] few people that want to speak. Um who

[50:27] who's next? Uh

[50:28] >> next is Linda Olsen. Linda

[50:36] » Veronica, could you say the next person

[50:37] after Linda?

[50:39] >> And then followed by Linda Brothers.

[50:41] >> Okay, great. Thanks.

[50:45] » Welcome.

[50:47] >> Thank you. Welcome.

[50:50] Good [clears throat] evening, everyone.

[50:51] Um, my name is Linda Olsen and I live at

[50:55] 27 Valley Oak in Portola Valley Ranch.

[50:59] Um, I have attended many Midpin meetings

[51:03] concerning the Hawthorne's project and I

[51:06] really feel that Midpin fell in love

[51:08] with their plan and they had a difficult

[51:10] time understanding concerns that were

[51:13] raised.

[51:15] Overall, I'm very concerned that the

[51:17] Hawthorne's project is being

[51:19] overdeveloped,

[51:21] excuse me, for this 79 acre mini

[51:24] boutique open space. I think for many

[51:27] visitors, it will be a oneanddone visit.

[51:30] It is just too small.

[51:33] As husband said previously, the proposed

[51:36] parking lot for 50 cars is ridiculous

[51:39] and it should not be a hub for Windy

[51:42] Hill. We believe that the proposed

[51:44] parking lot violates the conservation

[51:46] easement. may oppose connectors

[51:50] to sweet springs due to to fire noise

[51:54] and privacy issues. For Valley Ranch

[51:57] does not employ rangers to monitor the

[52:00] trails. We also oppose connectors to

[52:03] Valley Oak. Valley Oak is a street with

[52:06] a sidewalk. There is no Valley Oak

[52:08] trail. To connect to Upper Los Tranos

[52:11] Trail, you would have to walk in front

[52:14] of 20 homes. This is a neighborhood, not

[52:17] an open space. Finally, the Hawthorne's

[52:20] project is distinct from other open

[52:22] spaces and therefore should be

[52:24] considered in a different way. It is

[52:26] unique, a small property surrounded by

[52:29] residential and commercial buildings.

[52:32] As Leslie said, please be thoughtful as

[52:35] you proceed with this project. Thank

[52:37] you.

[52:38] >> Thank you.

[52:42] Who's after? Linda and And Linda, before

[52:45] you start, can I get a sense how many

[52:47] people in the room are still waiting to

[52:49] speak? Not that you've spoken. So, one,

[52:51] two, three, four. Okay. Um, and I've got

[52:55] a couple online. I just I need to make

[52:56] sure we get done in time so the council

[52:58] can have some discussion. So, um, Linda,

[53:00] please welcome.

[53:01] >> You start the clock. Would you like me

[53:03] to give you a minute or two on because I

[53:06] think

[53:06] >> No, indicate a lack of understanding.

[53:08] >> We're going to start the clock. We're a little too tight.

[53:11] >> Okay. I I know you have a lot to add,

[53:12] but we're a little too tight tonight.

[53:14] >> Well, there are some important points.

[53:17] >> Yeah, I'm not going to waste my time.

[53:19] Uh, as a chair of the planning

[53:22] commission, I've been working with the

[53:24] amazing new staff we have to make sure

[53:27] that we're applying all of our land use

[53:29] laws regularly and consistently across

[53:32] the town. Part of that has been looking

[53:35] for some of the um outstanding, if you

[53:39] will,

[53:40] in the sense of not dealt with um uh

[53:45] conditional use permits. And not too

[53:47] long ago, we came across the conditional

[53:50] use permit for the Windy Hill parking

[53:52] area on Ptorial Road. I did that in my

[53:56] job as chair, and now what I'm about to

[53:59] say, this permit has not yet come to the

[54:01] commission. But uh once the uh once we

[54:05] found the conditional use permit, I went

[54:06] out to that parking lot with some

[54:08] traffic experts and made a couple of

[54:11] observations. I think these are of

[54:13] direct interest to the Hawthorne's

[54:14] project. And quite frankly, I think it's

[54:16] work Midpin should have done. They have

[54:19] a parking problem for sure at Wendy

[54:22] Hill, but they have a peak problem. They

[54:24] do not have a problem all day long. The

[54:26] way you solve a peak problem is you

[54:28] regulate the lot. Why? and it's not in

[54:30] the permit that we have now. Are they

[54:33] not having patrollers, people out there

[54:36] patrolling it? Um, secondly, and that's

[54:39] really only on the weekends. Uh, and I I

[54:42] couldn't get more data, but I didn't in

[54:43] the time available to me either run

[54:45] cameras or drones. Um, the existing lot

[54:49] is 48 spaces. It's it's it's described

[54:52] as that with two spaces for handicap

[54:55] parking. However, the area could easily

[54:59] handle another 10 to 15, maybe even 20

[55:03] additional spaces if it was set out

[55:06] properly. It is a gravel lot. Um,

[55:09] however, there are techniques available

[55:11] for laying out parking areas, parking

[55:14] spaces in a gravel lot. So, um,

[55:17] obviously that solves part of the Windy

[55:20] Hill parking problem, if you will.

[55:23] Remember that Midpin has identified the

[55:26] Hawthorne's project as part of their

[55:28] Windy Hill preserve. So, it is pretty

[55:30] obvious that they intend, and I think

[55:32] they've said this in some of their

[55:33] documents, for people to park there, a

[55:35] walk along our town roads, either Alpine

[55:38] or Portola, to enter their parks. Uh

[55:41] they do have a sign directing overflow

[55:43] traffic to uh the town center, but

[55:46] again, they don't have anybody there

[55:47] patrolling it. Uh so additionally,

[55:51] Midpin owns the property immediately

[55:54] available to that parking lot. There's a

[55:56] overwide road that could easily be

[55:59] modified. And that parking lot,

[56:01] according to the experts I've talked to,

[56:04] with very little problem, could be

[56:05] revised to add uh 50 uh a total of 50

[56:09] more spaces. Um

[56:12] uh let's see, there's also existing

[56:15] problems with the dust. I don't usually

[56:17] write out my comments, but I want to

[56:19] digress for just a second. I see the

[56:21] time, Greg. Uh, I'm going to hold you to

[56:23] it.

[56:23] >> The uh I haven't gotten to the most

[56:25] important part. I'm going to read you

[56:26] part of the permit. Um,

[56:29] now I've lost my train of thought. Thank

[56:31] you very much. Uh, but anyway, the the

[56:33] existing lot has some serious problems

[56:36] with dust and I'm understanding that it

[56:39] is also has problems with uh uh

[56:43] robberies. So, the land use Linda, Linda, I'm Linda, we're 30 sec.

[56:49] Linda, we're 30 seconds over. I've got

[56:52] six people that want to talk and the

[56:53] council needs to. So, what I would ask

[56:55] is Linda,

[56:57] >> Linda, what I would ask is, can you

[56:59] could you send this in? Could you write

[57:01] this up? Send it to us.

[57:02] >> You've got it. I've already sent it to

[57:04] you.

[57:04] >> Okay. But I want to say is I found out

[57:06] today, even though you don't want me to

[57:08] say it, you can cut off the microphone

[57:09] if you want, that the town has agreed

[57:11] that we will now undertake the periodic

[57:13] review uh set forth in this permit. And

[57:17] hopefully this will be before the

[57:18] planning commission very soon.

[57:20] >> We'll look forward to it.

[57:21] >> I could read that to you if I

[57:24] >> Thank you. Who Who's next?

[57:31] Can we can we just line up the next four

[57:33] so that we can kind of get through it

[57:35] quickly? Thank you. Just keep everybody

[57:37] on tap so there's not even time.

[57:40] >> Hi, I'm Carter War. Uh I'm on the

[57:43] >> Y. Welcome, Carter.

[57:45] >> Hi, I live at 260 Willerbrook Drive. I

[57:48] I'm I'm here to, you know, help you

[57:50] understand what I think the first step,

[57:53] you know, should be, you know, rather

[57:54] than hiring consultants is use, you

[57:56] know, your your current legal, you know,

[57:58] council to remind Midpen of what the

[58:02] real process is in Porto Valley on

[58:04] properties, you know, that are not zoned

[58:07] for the use that they intend to use it

[58:09] for. Uh the open space use is not an

[58:12] allowed use, you know, in the RE zoning

[58:15] district. there isn't any need, you

[58:17] know, for the town to spend money on on

[58:19] the open space element at this time. Uh

[58:23] the town was originally, you know,

[58:25] founded on the and didn't zone

[58:28] properties, you know, for specific uses

[58:32] uh to provide the town with the

[58:34] opportunity to conditionally approve and

[58:37] conditionally manage those properties

[58:40] for special uses. It's a reason that,

[58:42] you know, Midpen, you know, has, you

[58:44] know, an open, you know, has a a

[58:46] conditional use permit, you know, for

[58:48] Windy Hill. Now, I don't think it's, you

[58:51] know, prudent to spend money, you know,

[58:53] on proactive work other than to remind

[58:57] Midben, you know, that the town does

[58:59] have the legal obligation to review, you

[59:01] know, their use under the current

[59:03] zoning,

[59:05] uh, and to deal with that zoning unless

[59:08] Medpan intends to change the zoning. And

[59:11] at that point they can pay the bill you

[59:14] know for the open space element and the

[59:16] reasonzoning

[59:18] uh use permit process gives the town the

[59:21] opportunity you know to enforce the

[59:23] conservation easement you know a andor

[59:25] apply you know subjective you know

[59:28] design criteria you know to protect you

[59:31] know the the portions of the property

[59:32] that I think we're all concerned about

[59:34] you know including you know uh you know

[59:37] the access ways uh and the uh the the

[59:41] face of the hill that faces down towards

[59:44] uh you know Alpine Road. There are

[59:47] there's plenty in the existing zoning

[59:49] ordinance, you know, to control this and

[59:52] reminding them that that those

[59:54] applications should be in in place, you

[59:58] know, prior to them reviewing SQA. SQL

[1:00:02] should be the last thing, you know, uh

[1:00:04] and should be reviewed by the planning

[1:00:06] commission, you know, rather than, you

[1:00:08] know, having them do that in in a

[1:00:11] in-house. They're just like any other

[1:00:13] property owner in town. They shouldn't

[1:00:16] be, you know, given any special

[1:00:17] dispensation

[1:00:19] uh unless they're going to provide

[1:00:20] things to the town that, you know, were

[1:00:23] not already being provided.

[1:00:26] >> Thank you.

[1:00:30] Welcome.

[1:00:31] >> Thank you. I'm Charles Moroni, 25 Coyote

[1:00:34] Hill. I sent you a note about some of

[1:00:36] our previous work at Bola Valley Ranch.

[1:00:39] Um, we originally opposed these issues

[1:00:42] at the ranch, had over 200 people sign a

[1:00:45] petition, over a 100 homes expressing

[1:00:48] the same concerns you've heard tonight.

[1:00:50] So, I'm not going to retalk those. Um,

[1:00:54] but I will point out that at the last

[1:00:57] midpen meeting, and I think Mr. Mayor,

[1:00:59] you were there, um, they decided to go

[1:01:02] ahead with SQA and part of the choice

[1:01:05] that was given to the midpen board was,

[1:01:08] oh, we can go to the town council and we

[1:01:11] can negotiate some of these issues that

[1:01:14] we're all discussing here tonight. And

[1:01:17] they said, no, we're not going to do

[1:01:20] that because we've done that once

[1:01:22] before. something with the same property

[1:01:25] I think in the um the historic area on

[1:01:28] the other side. I'm not aware of it, but

[1:01:30] they said, you know, we did that once.

[1:01:32] We waste a lot of time. We're not going

[1:01:33] to do this again. We're going to do SQA.

[1:01:36] We're going to throw it over the

[1:01:38] transom, let them chew on it, and then

[1:01:41] they can get back to us. So, if you're

[1:01:43] moving towards a negotiated settlement,

[1:01:45] at least I think you need to keep that

[1:01:47] in mind because I don't think there's

[1:01:49] going to be negotiated settlement. Thank

[1:01:51] you.

[1:01:51] >> Great. Thank you. Who's next?

[1:01:57] » Welcome.

[1:01:58] >> Thank you, uh, town council. Um, I'm

[1:02:01] going to speed ahead. I have my remarks

[1:02:04] hopefully sent around. I want to throw

[1:02:06] my support, my straw vote in favor of

[1:02:09] the areas three and four, that's

[1:02:12] engaging midpen and engaging post as

[1:02:14] soon as we possibly can. to illustrate

[1:02:17] why it is high time to ask post to join

[1:02:20] us at the table. They have a legal

[1:02:23] obligation to represent the terms of the

[1:02:25] existing conservation easement. And to

[1:02:28] bring home why, let's turn to the

[1:02:31] midpen's frequently asked questions

[1:02:33] number three on agenda page seven. The

[1:02:37] question reads, does the conservation

[1:02:39] easement need to be altered to implement

[1:02:41] public access at the Hawthorne's

[1:02:44] property? The answer is longer, but I

[1:02:46] will dive into a couple of pieces.

[1:02:48] Midpen's response draws from the

[1:02:50] conservation ement section 6 I, where

[1:02:54] the conservation easement states

[1:02:56] construction of a limited staging area

[1:02:59] around the perimeter of the improved

[1:03:01] portion as necessary to facilitate

[1:03:04] public access. Clear enough? Two

[1:03:07] sentences later, Nidpen adds that their,

[1:03:11] and this is quote, proposed parking lot

[1:03:13] options are located along the perimeter

[1:03:16] of the improved portion. That statement

[1:03:20] is 1/2 true and one half not. As roughly

[1:03:24] half the proposed lots 9 and 10 are

[1:03:27] located in the unimproved portion, that

[1:03:30] requires a correction for the record.

[1:03:33] Secondly, the conservation easement was

[1:03:35] explicit about what is permitted.

[1:03:39] Quote, a staging area around the

[1:03:42] perimeter of the improved portion,

[1:03:44] though Midpen says, quote, the

[1:03:47] conservation easement does not state

[1:03:50] that the staging areas should be located

[1:03:54] within the improved portion.

[1:03:57] To understand this, context helps. I'm

[1:04:01] referring now to this map as you all can

[1:04:05] see out there. It's shows the improved

[1:04:07] and unimproved portions of of the entire

[1:04:11] parcel. The improved portion is 42 plus

[1:04:15] acres. So around the perimeter of the

[1:04:19] improved portion covers a substantial

[1:04:22] circumference of the land area.

[1:04:25] stretching that interpretation of what

[1:04:28] around means and what permitted means to

[1:04:32] justify that the easement actually

[1:04:34] affords development opportunities in the

[1:04:37] unimproved portion runs contrary to the

[1:04:40] plain language of the easement. It's

[1:04:43] going to be a challenge for post to

[1:04:45] defend that position if as midpen has

[1:04:48] represented them they are unwilling to

[1:04:50] alter the conservation easement. We need

[1:04:53] to make that point and to hear directly

[1:04:55] from them. That is the lone specific

[1:04:58] example my allocated time allows for. If

[1:05:02] and when you want to call on me to get

[1:05:04] more ideas, please do. Thank you.

[1:05:06] >> Thank you. Right. Who's next? Let's keep moving.

[1:05:13] » Hi, my name is Nona Cherryello and I'd

[1:05:15] like to speak as an individual rather

[1:05:17] than as a committee member tonight. I'd

[1:05:20] like to make four recommendations.

[1:05:22] One, stay focused on three priorities.

[1:05:26] Public safety, environmental protection,

[1:05:29] and public access. In that order, Mid

[1:05:32] Pen keeps saying no public access

[1:05:35] without parking. Portullah Valley needs

[1:05:38] to say no parking without public safety

[1:05:41] and environmental protection. That's it.

[1:05:45] Two, evaluate legal means to challenge

[1:05:48] Mid Pen's interpretation of the

[1:05:50] Hawthorne's conservation easement. I

[1:05:52] won't say more about that. It's already

[1:05:54] been discussed.

[1:05:56] Three, proactively evaluate conflicts

[1:06:00] between the Hawthorne's area plan and

[1:06:02] Portrola Valley ordinances.

[1:06:05] The town should proactively calculate

[1:06:08] the cut and fill of the parking

[1:06:10] schematics.

[1:06:11] To that number, add the cut and fill for

[1:06:14] the Hawthorne's trails that will be

[1:06:16] multi-use by hikers, dogs on leash,

[1:06:20] equestrians, and bicycles.

[1:06:22] With that constellation of users, the

[1:06:25] standard is a trail width of 10 ft at

[1:06:28] minimum, more if it is heavily used. If

[1:06:31] Midpen doesn't think there will be

[1:06:33] enough use to require a trail width of

[1:06:36] 10 to 14 ft, then there won't be enough

[1:06:39] use to justify a parking lot with 50

[1:06:42] spaces.

[1:06:44] The amount of cut and fill can be

[1:06:46] calculated now and it's a critical

[1:06:49] number for compliance with both the

[1:06:51] conservation easement and for Portoella

[1:06:54] Valley's municipal code.

[1:06:56] Four, don't get drowned by Mid Pen's

[1:07:00] documentation.

[1:07:02] The volume of documents about

[1:07:04] Hawthorne's is daunting and it's conf

[1:07:07] causing snafoos even for Midpen.

[1:07:12] Midpen's written preface for the board's

[1:07:14] review of the action plan stated that

[1:07:18] the planning and natural resource

[1:07:19] committee quote collectively reviewed

[1:07:23] each section of the action table and

[1:07:26] identified missing data needed

[1:07:28] clarifications, typographic errors,

[1:07:31] formatting problems, and numbering

[1:07:34] issues to address. End quote. That

[1:07:38] statement alone tells you that they know

[1:07:40] they have a lot to sort out. They still

[1:07:44] do. The action table that the board was

[1:07:47] asked to approve and did approve stated

[1:07:50] that the internal loop trail would be

[1:07:52] multi-use whereas the maps show,

[1:07:55] including the maps you just saw and the

[1:07:57] maps that Sarah showed, those maps show

[1:07:59] that instead the multi-use trail is the

[1:08:02] primary loop trail.

[1:08:05] My point is that sorting through MIDI

[1:08:07] pen's mountain iterated documents needs

[1:08:11] a lot of eyes. Town committees,

[1:08:14] residents, and AI can help with that. We

[1:08:18] have been studying the Hawthors for

[1:08:21] seven years and we are not done yet.

[1:08:24] Please call on us. Thank you.

[1:08:26] >> Thank you. Anybody else in the

[1:08:28] schoolhouse? All right, let me go to

[1:08:30] Dave Cardinal.

[1:08:34] Great. Hi, thanks. Um, first of all, I I

[1:08:38] love the tool set presentation uh that

[1:08:41] was given by the staff. I think those

[1:08:43] are our tools and they're in our tool

[1:08:46] box. And I think what you're

[1:08:48] increasingly hearing tonight maybe is

[1:08:51] that it's not time to pick a tool. Maybe

[1:08:54] it's time to decide what we want. Um,

[1:08:58] from what I can see roughly, there's

[1:09:01] maybe four big issues. The size of the

[1:09:04] parking lot, the location of the parking

[1:09:06] lot having to do with retaining walls,

[1:09:09] where the exit is, and whether there's a

[1:09:11] trail connection, and maybe there's

[1:09:13] more, but you know, if we knew what we

[1:09:16] wanted on those four, I think we could

[1:09:19] um go forward. And I dovetail that into

[1:09:23] what Carter said, which is like him. I

[1:09:27] don't think it's like fine, let's spend

[1:09:30] four months making up our mind what we

[1:09:32] want. It's not nothing's going to

[1:09:35] happen. And I don't know that anything

[1:09:38] we spend money on in the next four

[1:09:40] months is going to change anything. So I

[1:09:43] think we need to get our act together

[1:09:45] and decide what's important to us. And

[1:09:48] then we can figure out, can we

[1:09:50] negotiate? Do we sue? Do we do squa? I

[1:09:53] don't know. Whatever. But um until then,

[1:09:56] if we don't know what we want, it's hard

[1:09:57] to know how to get there. Thank you.

[1:10:01] >> Thank you.

[1:10:03] So, we have a Zoom user hand up. Maybe

[1:10:06] Dana

[1:10:12] » need to unmute.

[1:10:13] >> Yes, it's Dana. Unmute, Dana. Yes. Hi.

[1:10:17] >> We got you.

[1:10:18] >> All right. Thank you. Um I I was glad to

[1:10:21] see Linda Brothers in the audience

[1:10:23] because Linda is a high-end squa

[1:10:26] attorney and she's chair of the planning

[1:10:29] commission. So, if anybody on the staff

[1:10:31] needs to talk to a squa expert, talk to

[1:10:35] Linda and it'll save us some money.

[1:10:37] Number one. Um, and then for her uh her

[1:10:42] comments, Windy Hill, I've been asking

[1:10:44] the town for decades to have the cup of

[1:10:48] the Windy Hill parking lot changed. They

[1:10:52] could put another 15 cars in there. The

[1:10:55] other point I really want to make and I

[1:10:57] feel strongly about this is that the

[1:10:59] open space element must is going to be

[1:11:02] changed. There must be a committee of

[1:11:05] residents. Unlike what happened with the

[1:11:08] safety element, I think anytime we touch

[1:11:11] our constitution, there needs to be a

[1:11:14] committee of residents weighing in on it

[1:11:17] all the time. Thank you.

[1:11:20] >> Thank you.

[1:11:22] >> Rita, you're up next.

[1:11:26] » Thank you for taking my comment. I think

[1:11:29] it's important to review our current

[1:11:31] ordinances. The planning commission

[1:11:33] meeting for next week has already been

[1:11:36] cancelled. You know, we have not had an

[1:11:38] easy consistent relationship with MIDI

[1:11:40] pen over this particular project and

[1:11:43] it's costing our town our own rights.

[1:11:46] Let's have the competent planning

[1:11:48] commission review these materials so

[1:11:51] that we can get back on tracks to our

[1:11:53] rights for the continued enjoyment of

[1:11:56] our beautiful town by its residents for

[1:11:58] the reasons we chose this town over

[1:12:01] others to live and raise our families.

[1:12:04] You know, there's things that we can do.

[1:12:06] We can have the planning commission

[1:12:07] review the current situation. And two,

[1:12:10] if needed, make a subgroup of residents

[1:12:13] that have been holding the brain trust

[1:12:15] of this issue cuz it seems that that's

[1:12:17] the issue with mid pen. Uh there they

[1:12:20] want to cry that we're inconsistent

[1:12:22] because of staff changes and council

[1:12:24] changes. But you know what? There's lots

[1:12:26] of other people in our town, including

[1:12:28] past council people and and past

[1:12:31] employees that uh have held that brain

[1:12:34] trust if uh the current people in church

[1:12:37] uh cannot remember. and to use our

[1:12:40] ordinances.

[1:12:41] When I built my house, Pollola Valley

[1:12:43] had no problem at all to remind me of

[1:12:47] different laws and rules and current

[1:12:50] ordinances. Let's hold the outside

[1:12:53] organizations that are building in this

[1:12:56] town to those same high levels so that

[1:12:59] we can be safe, have low fire danger,

[1:13:03] and be able to drive through our streets

[1:13:07] safely.

[1:13:09] and not have to look at glare from 50

[1:13:11] cars when we're going to Robert's

[1:13:13] Market. Thank you very much.

[1:13:16] >> Thank you. All right. Anybody else in

[1:13:19] the schoolhouse?

[1:13:21] I don't see anybody else online, so I'm

[1:13:23] going to close public comment. Thank you

[1:13:26] all. Um all your public comments and

[1:13:28] extremely useful. I'm I'm going to bring

[1:13:30] it back to the council. We have 15

[1:13:33] minutes. We have five council members.

[1:13:35] Um so I think we have a choice here.

[1:13:37] either people can be brief and we can

[1:13:39] start staff on this process or we can

[1:13:41] continue this site.

[1:13:43] So, do people feel like they can be

[1:13:45] brief? Because I think the goal here is

[1:13:47] to give staff some initial input and we

[1:13:50] can revisit this, but if you don't feel

[1:13:52] like that's sufficient, then we could

[1:13:55] continue it. So, can I just get a rough

[1:13:58] sense for people feel like they can stay

[1:14:00] in their three minutes?

[1:14:03] Just a yes or a no just before we start.

[1:14:05] If this is going to be one and done, I I

[1:14:07] think I'm gonna It's coming back. If we

[1:14:11] give you direction,

[1:14:13] it's coming back. And at that point, we

[1:14:15] can dive into nuance. It's we clearly

[1:14:18] don't have time tonight

[1:14:19] >> and and that's my expectation is we're

[1:14:21] giving very highlevel direction to staff

[1:14:23] tonight and then they're going to come

[1:14:25] back and then we can start getting into

[1:14:27] detail. But that that's the only reason

[1:14:29] I would suggest that we could get it

[1:14:30] done in the time. So

[1:14:32] >> I would just suggest that we zoom

[1:14:34] through all five of us and say what our

[1:14:36] higher goal is first and then if there's

[1:14:39] a little bit more time we can go into

[1:14:41] kind of picking the whatever but

[1:14:43] sticking with a really what is our goal?

[1:14:47] >> And I would say that will take me more

[1:14:50] time.

[1:14:51] >> Okay. [laughter]

[1:14:52] >> Well, um shall we give it a try versus?

[1:14:56] All right. So let's give it a try. All

[1:14:57] right. Who who would like to go first?

[1:14:59] Um we now have like 12 minutes. Can we

[1:15:02] set the timer, please?

[1:15:03] >> Uh,

[1:15:04] >> I'm sorry.

[1:15:05] >> No, we're not.

[1:15:06] >> What?

[1:15:07] >> She wants to set the timer on us.

[1:15:08] >> No, no, no, no. This the council doesn't

[1:15:10] get a timer, but I'm just asking council

[1:15:12] members to be respectful of the time.

[1:15:15] >> So, yeah. No, it's that's fine. So, no,

[1:15:16] we don't need a timer. So, who would

[1:15:18] like to go first? May

[1:15:19] >> I would like to go first because I gave

[1:15:20] my time in the beginning.

[1:15:22] >> I wanted to hear the public comment,

[1:15:24] which was excellent and very much

[1:15:25] appreciated. Uh I I think that

[1:15:30] speed is of the essence with this and

[1:15:32] I've been saying that for the last six

[1:15:34] months. Uh I think that we have to get a

[1:15:38] memorandum of understanding with bid pen

[1:15:41] now and I think we can do that before

[1:15:44] December. I don't think it has to be

[1:15:46] expensive. Uh I don't think it has to

[1:15:49] take a lot of staff time. I think um

[1:15:53] that would be my first thing my first

[1:15:56] point of action. Uh I think the

[1:15:59] conservation easement enforcement is

[1:16:01] something that all of the residents of

[1:16:04] Warola Valley are going to be much more

[1:16:05] effective than the town government is

[1:16:07] going to be uh at uh at pressuring uh

[1:16:12] post to honor its conservation easements

[1:16:15] in the ways that we find are meaningful.

[1:16:18] We as donors to uh the Peninsula Open

[1:16:20] Space Trust trust that they will protect

[1:16:24] their cover their their conservation

[1:16:26] easements. It's not the duty of the town

[1:16:29] council to to remind them of that duty.

[1:16:31] So I would say strongly I support number

[1:16:35] three. Um I am unaware of what the role

[1:16:39] would be in that of for the town but I u

[1:16:42] the structure that I would like to see

[1:16:45] would involve one or two members from

[1:16:47] the town council perhaps one member from

[1:16:50] the one or two members from the school

[1:16:53] board and one or two members from the uh

[1:16:57] from the MOSD board or maybe just one.

[1:17:01] Um, and uh, I'd like to see that get

[1:17:04] started before the end of the year.

[1:17:08] >> And just just to clarify, you're what

[1:17:12] we're calling number three is some kind

[1:17:14] of negotiated settlement.

[1:17:15] >> It's called negotiated agreement between

[1:17:17] the town and the midpen.

[1:17:18] >> I just we talked about different I just

[1:17:20] want to make sure we

[1:17:21] >> Great. Okay. Who wants to be next? And

[1:17:23] again, please try to keep it brief. You

[1:17:25] have 10 minutes.

[1:17:26] >> 10 minutes.

[1:17:27] >> I'm happy to go last. Others can go.

[1:17:29] Okay, Rebecca three.

[1:17:32] >> Okay. Um, so I I was just going to just

[1:17:34] state my goal and my goal is to

[1:17:36] dramatically reduce the impact on the

[1:17:40] site um in terms of the two per the two

[1:17:44] immense parking lots and to find

[1:17:46] alternatives for those park for the

[1:17:48] parking if that's really the that seems

[1:17:50] to be the biggest issue just eliminating

[1:17:52] those two huge parking lots and finding

[1:17:53] alternatives. I think there's a way to

[1:17:55] study that. And so that would fall under

[1:17:57] number two, the zoning regulations. Um,

[1:18:01] and you know, I I think we can uh

[1:18:05] present a way of of alternatives to

[1:18:08] midpen for finding other parking. So

[1:18:09] there's a lot of parking that could be

[1:18:11] found. Um, I do think we need to keep a

[1:18:14] positive relationship with Midpen. So, I

[1:18:16] would be in favor of some type of

[1:18:18] committee or group that would approach

[1:18:19] and the staff as well that would

[1:18:21] approach Midpin and try to come up with

[1:18:23] some type of of potential settlement. I think it's,

[1:18:27] you know, perhaps a fool's errand, but I

[1:18:29] do think we need to continue

[1:18:30] communication with them. Um,

[1:18:34] let's see. Uh, conservation easement. I

[1:18:37] think we should be sending a note to

[1:18:39] post to get clarification on the

[1:18:41] conservation easement. That's number

[1:18:42] four. And then in terms of squa, I would

[1:18:45] just want to know it have a very small

[1:18:49] uh study to say whether or not that

[1:18:51] would prove fruitful. If we can work

[1:18:53] with the with the um school board to

[1:18:56] help provide funding for that, then that

[1:18:58] would be something also to pursue. So

[1:19:00] I'm falling on all four unfortunately.

[1:19:03] >> Great. Thank you, Ellen.

[1:19:07] Um [clears throat]

[1:19:08] so um similar to Rebecca actually um

[1:19:12] reducing the impact of the parking while

[1:19:15] keeping our kids safe and you know

[1:19:18] pedestrians along that route. Um

[1:19:22] so but I'm going to swap because I'm

[1:19:26] going to say negotiated agreement with

[1:19:28] Midpin by studying parking. Um, so I'm I'm putting number three first, but

[1:19:37] I would like to see a parking study

[1:19:40] done.

[1:19:41] um like that would be a priority for me

[1:19:44] so that we could actually point to it

[1:19:47] when we are working with all parties

[1:19:51] about what are what are our hopeful

[1:19:53] solutions like what are possibilities

[1:19:56] and we don't have that technical

[1:19:58] analysis at this point. Um

[1:20:02] along with you know along with parking

[1:20:05] management often comes pedestrian

[1:20:08] management as well because of the safety

[1:20:11] around parking um that helps with uh

[1:20:15] pedestrian

[1:20:17] um

[1:20:19] uh and pedestrian access. So, um, and

[1:20:23] then I would, um, you know, I would love

[1:20:26] to update our open space element with

[1:20:28] our zoning regulations,

[1:20:30] but my understanding,

[1:20:34] um, Carter, respectfully,

[1:20:36] is because it's another public agency

[1:20:39] that is the property owner that they

[1:20:41] have certain rights.

[1:20:44] um kind of like when the school

[1:20:45] district, you know, that they were able

[1:20:48] to build without having to go through

[1:20:50] our permitting process, right? Um so

[1:20:54] it's, you know, that you, you know, the

[1:20:56] school district needed an encroachment

[1:20:58] permit when they, you know, crossed

[1:21:02] public land to get to Alpine Road kind

[1:21:04] of idea. And that's a sim a similar

[1:21:06] situation that we're in. Um, so I'm

[1:21:10] worried about going for the o, you know,

[1:21:12] updating an open space element and

[1:21:14] zoning rags and doing that all and then

[1:21:17] not ha not it it won't make a difference

[1:21:20] because it's a public agency who has

[1:21:22] their own jurisdictional rights. Um

[1:21:27] uh in terms of the conservation easement

[1:21:29] enforcement again we don't have

[1:21:31] jurisdictional

[1:21:33] oversight because it's a public agency

[1:21:35] and they have enforcement in terms of

[1:21:38] post post and midpen have an ex you know

[1:21:42] long history together of working

[1:21:43] together and providing public access to their land. So um I'm I would you

[1:21:51] know so scratching my head over that

[1:21:54] one. I don't think we can really do much

[1:21:56] unfortunately is I'm I'm just

[1:21:58] pessimistic. Um but I do think that SQA

[1:22:02] actually um I personally think that we

[1:22:05] could weigh in and have comments and

[1:22:06] that by law then they have to respond to

[1:22:09] them. They can say that they have

[1:22:11] responded to them and that they um don't

[1:22:15] um and that they have met the spirit of

[1:22:17] the law in their responses. Right? So,

[1:22:20] um, and that's again why I would look at

[1:22:23] the negotiated agreement to hopefully

[1:22:25] find solutions for everyone, but and

[1:22:27] first step to do a parking management so

[1:22:30] that

[1:22:31] um, know what we're aiming for when we

[1:22:33] look at the options on the table with

[1:22:35] parking management. Thank you,

[1:22:38] >> Judith.

[1:22:39] >> Sure. Um, clearly there's a lot of

[1:22:42] community concern. The community is

[1:22:44] engaged in this issue and it should be.

[1:22:47] Um, we're a small town. this is a a

[1:22:50] property that's near space that everyone

[1:22:52] visits. Um I think given that level of

[1:22:58] community concern, we ought to ask staff

[1:23:01] for option number five, which is what conversation subcommittees

[1:23:08] uh outreach to our current committees

[1:23:11] can help us all understand

[1:23:14] and pull together a more cohesive view

[1:23:17] of this. It's hard to react peace meal

[1:23:20] for me. Um, and I don't think tonight

[1:23:25] like this isn't a oneanddone thing. This

[1:23:28] is going to be a continual topic over

[1:23:30] the next year, two years, three years.

[1:23:33] And it you can't undo it, right? So, I I

[1:23:37] do take that very seriously. But if

[1:23:40] staff could come back and and think how

[1:23:42] can we use cor committees and

[1:23:43] commissions um the other random things

[1:23:48] um that I'll just mention quickly um the

[1:23:51] school districts offer to collaborate

[1:23:54] that's a conversation. I don't quite

[1:23:57] understand the proposal on around

[1:23:58] attorneys fees sharing because we got to

[1:24:01] have ours and our council. So that's a

[1:24:05] thing to follow up on. I don't need the

[1:24:06] answer now. Um,

[1:24:10] I would deprioritize the conservation

[1:24:13] easement based on everything I've heard.

[1:24:14] Unless a miracle occurs and somebody has

[1:24:17] standing here, uh, fool's errand is not

[1:24:19] going to get us anywhere. Um,

[1:24:22] do uh the cup idea with Windy Hill, if

[1:24:27] that can be part of a more general

[1:24:29] solution, I'd look at that. Um, it's

[1:24:32] clearly scope creep, but it might be

[1:24:35] relevant scope creep if we end up having

[1:24:37] conversations that identify common

[1:24:40] things we're solving for. and um you

[1:24:44] know theou by the end of the year I

[1:24:47] don't think that's achievable just bec

[1:24:49] like I think that forming a committee to

[1:24:52] have specific

[1:24:54] like focus great but thinking we're

[1:24:57] going to get to a negotiation we don't

[1:24:59] even know the other party's willing to

[1:25:01] negotiate and might suspect they aren't

[1:25:03] is not really going to happen and I

[1:25:06] wouldn't go into a negotiated agreement

[1:25:07] until we know what we want through the

[1:25:09] through this conversation so that's All

[1:25:11] right.

[1:25:13] >> Thank you. All right. I've asked

[1:25:14] everybody to brief. I will be brief as

[1:25:16] well. Um I would focus on public safety.

[1:25:20] I think we should investigate um the

[1:25:23] zoning and C cup CUP issues so that we

[1:25:25] understand kind of, if you will, what

[1:25:27] our rights are and what's how this is

[1:25:29] likely to go down at the end. Um I'm in

[1:25:32] favor of us forming a subcommittee. I

[1:25:34] think having a subcommittee to council,

[1:25:36] I proposed this before. I'm still in

[1:25:38] favor of it. Um and I think we could

[1:25:39] work with the school district. I think

[1:25:41] we can also work with our various

[1:25:42] committee town. Um once we gather all

[1:25:46] that information then I think it might

[1:25:47] be time to consider a negotiated

[1:25:50] agreement but I I think at this point we

[1:25:52] have no idea what we would be

[1:25:53] negotiating. So I wouldn't have staff

[1:25:55] put time into that now other than start

[1:25:58] gathering information so we have

[1:25:59] something to negotiate. Um so I I think

[1:26:02] that's that's where I stand. So Sarah,

[1:26:04] do you feel like you have enough

[1:26:06] information to get you started or do you

[1:26:08] want to schedule more time?

[1:26:14] » Thank you for that feedback. Uh I think

[1:26:16] there is a lot of different ideas on the

[1:26:19] approach. I'm not sure if I hear a

[1:26:21] priority per se. So it could warrant

[1:26:25] additional conversation or another

[1:26:28] option. I I don't want to help propose a

[1:26:30] subcommittee, but if there's more

[1:26:32] conversations on the side that need to

[1:26:33] happen to then provide staff direction,

[1:26:35] I don't know if that's like a

[1:26:36] subcommittee task. Um, okay. I mean,

[1:26:39] leave it to you guys if you would like

[1:26:41] to discuss this more. Um,

[1:26:43] >> yeah. No, I think you should get

[1:26:44] started. I think you because I don't

[1:26:46] think you heard us say you should go out

[1:26:48] and hire SQA consultant immediately. I

[1:26:50] don't think you heard us say you should

[1:26:51] start working on open space element

[1:26:53] immediately. Um, I didn't hear that from

[1:26:55] any of the council members. So, I think

[1:26:57] that those can come later. No,

[1:27:00] >> I think Rebecca had it. And and I just

[1:27:02] want to clarify, we should never be in a

[1:27:04] SQL process without our own consultant

[1:27:06] or a lawyer. Like, I do not want to get

[1:27:08] into it. So, I would support that. Just

[1:27:09] to be clear on that one piece, an open

[1:27:11] space element.

[1:27:13] I would get there, but I I'd like to

[1:27:16] scope that out. Sorry.

[1:27:17] >> Yep.

[1:27:19] >> So, and I think conservation easement,

[1:27:21] it was sort of mixed. Mary's comment was

[1:27:23] more about, you know, donors probably

[1:27:26] have more leverage with posts than we

[1:27:27] do. Um, so, so I think you do have some

[1:27:30] direction. Again, the point I was trying

[1:27:32] to make is I think there's still a lot

[1:27:34] of information you collect on what kind

[1:27:38] of cup, you know, if they if they showed

[1:27:40] up with all this done, what would what

[1:27:42] would our next steps be? And right now,

[1:27:45] I don't know what they are. I I don't

[1:27:46] really what what it is that we could ask

[1:27:48] of them. And what I'd hate to do, and

[1:27:51] this is what I tried when I talked to

[1:27:52] them, is I hate for us to get all the

[1:27:54] way to the end of this process and then

[1:27:55] for have this fail, which is what

[1:27:57] happened when we were trying to do stuff

[1:27:58] at the historic stuff because they kind

[1:28:00] of pushed and then at the end we

[1:28:02] couldn't make it work. And I think that

[1:28:04] would be unfortunate and a lot of money

[1:28:06] spent. But hopefully that's enough to

[1:28:08] get you started. And if it's not, then

[1:28:11] I'm sure the town manager would be happy

[1:28:12] to schedule more time.

[1:28:14] >> Great.

[1:28:15] >> Can can I ask a process question? Is it

[1:28:17] possible to go ahead and set up a

[1:28:20] subcommittee to investigate the school's

[1:28:23] offer and uh the school's offer?

[1:28:27] >> Not tonight since it's not on the

[1:28:28] agenda.

[1:28:29] >> Okay.

[1:28:31] >> Can I also ask is it possible to have

[1:28:34] some sort of a preliminary kind of you

[1:28:37] go through what we've said and then you

[1:28:39] come back with your questions and we

[1:28:40] schedule another sort of session like

[1:28:42] this. you know, not do a full-on

[1:28:45] scoping, but just kind of go through it

[1:28:47] and kind of, I don't know, evaluate what

[1:28:50] we've said and try to kind of come up

[1:28:51] with more focused items that we could

[1:28:54] consider or something as opposed to

[1:28:56] coming back in two, three months with a

[1:28:57] big huge scope and costing and all that.

[1:29:02] >> I think that's maybe the general

[1:29:04] question or what I've heard so far is to

[1:29:07] do a bit more of that extra step. So

[1:29:09] maybe it's not focusing on one but I

[1:29:11] think I have a general idea related to

[1:29:12] SQA especially opportunities with

[1:29:15] agreement and then if there's a

[1:29:16] potential cost associated we'll bring it

[1:29:18] back or as much information as we can or

[1:29:21] if I have additional questions I think

[1:29:22] that makes sense but um given what I've

[1:29:25] heard there there is some direction for

[1:29:27] that.

[1:29:27] >> Yeah and I think I hear a request to

[1:29:30] bring back an item to form a

[1:29:32] subcommittee. I think that subcommittee

[1:29:34] could work with the school district,

[1:29:36] work with any MOSD identified member and

[1:29:40] probably has value looking at the

[1:29:41] negotiated agree that is typically

[1:29:45] >> something that a council subcommittee

[1:29:47] might focus on.

[1:29:49] >> Great. Thank you.

[1:29:50] >> All right. So, with that, I'd like to

[1:29:51] adjourn this meeting. I would accept a

[1:29:53] motion.

[1:29:54] >> I move to adjourn.

[1:29:56] >> We have a second.

[1:29:57] >> Second.

[1:29:58] >> All in favor say I. I. All right. This

[1:30:01] meeting is adjourned. Thank you.

[1:30:03] 701. We sort of closed it pretty close.

08-26-2026 Town Council Special Meeting

Transcript