Good evening, everyone.

Uh, this is Co-Chair uh Representative Tomas.

I'd like to call to order the land use urban redevelopment committee meeting.

Um it is Wednesday, October 22nd, 7 p.m.

Um can I have Christina?

Can you please do a roll call for me for committee members and any other ex-official members on this call?

Sure.

Thank you.

Representative Adams.

Representative Adams.

Okay, I know he's here.

We'll just circle back around.

Representative Campbell.

I'm here.

Representative Campbelly.

Present.

Representative de la Cruz.

Present.

Representative Grunberger.

Don't see yet.

Representative Kaczynski.

Present.

Representative Matheny.

Present.

Representative Mays is excused.

Um is Co-Chair Sherwood coming in a little late.

I'm here.

Oh, okay.

Co-Chair Sherwood, thank you.

Representative Somerville.

I'm here.

Can you hear me?

Yes, ma'am.

We can hear you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Co-Chair Tomas.

I'm here.

Can barely hear him.

Present.

And again, Representative Adams.

I think he might be having difficulty, but I know I heard him, he was here.

So we also have Representative Bulgar in attendance and Representative Strain.

And I also think Representative Cottrell is in the green room.

Can you let her in, please?

Sure.

Great, thank you.

Okay, so we have a quorum.

So the first item on our agenda this evening is LU31.043.

It's a review, uh widening of Garden Street between Henry Street and Dodge Street.

At this time, I would like to give uh Representative Della Cruz the floor to uh introduce this item that we've had numerous conversations about.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Chair Tomas.

Uh I understand uh Trend Rosenberg is on the call.

That's correct, sir.

That's all right.

Rosenberg, welcome back.

And I hope you're mending well.

I was aware of uh the reasons you could not attend uh some meetings.

So welcome back.

Oh appreciate that.

Uh the reason uh this item is filled on.

There are several unresolved issues based from the prior meetings we've had.

However, uh to boil it down to the three key issues in the interest of time.

I think that will serve our purpose.

The main issue, or one of the key issues, is whether us representative Sherwood raised questions, whether this MOU for the widening of Garden Street on other items was entered into legitimately because it appears to do an end run about the board of risk representatives' responsibilities to approve contracts of over 100,000 dollars.

And this is documented in the chairs.

Who is hosting this meeting tonight?

Oh hi, Christina.

Could you display the March 17 email to coach from the from the file summary?

Okay, one second.

Okay.

That is has is and has been in the false amount of record for quite a while.

This email documents why the Municipal Powers Act does not grant the mayor the authority to enter in this MOU and bypass the hundred thousand dollar approval requirement.

In fact the email, the municipal powers act grants such powers to the representatives.

Could you uh display the item again?

Disappear from the screen.

Is it still in front?

Hello, can you hear me?

Would you like me to share something else?

I have a message here saying my mic has been disabled.

Are you can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, so that's straight message from Teams.

Is the item still on the screen?

Is not on mine.

I still I'm still sharing the email to I see.

Okay, he just came back.

He disappeared for a while.

Virgil, it's on the screen.

It's on the screen.

Is there a particular section that you want to uh focus on?

Can we please stop talking if you're not recognized?

Thank you.

It's getting out of control.

We cannot listen to four different people talking.

Virgil, what are you trying to do, please?

Okay, I though I just wanted to make the uh committee aware of this memo that the municipal powers act does not grant the mayor the power to engage in this MOU and bypass a hundred thousand dollar responsibility of the board of reps.

And the uh law department also asserted that the charter also grants the mayor that power.

But if you look at the charter provisions that are in this memo, it does not is no such thing, but it grants those powers to the board of representation.

We can read the email, but in the interest of time uh we can't forgo that.

But in any event, the main the first critical issue is that the municipal powers act does not grant the mayor the power to enter this MOU and bypass the board of reps.

Refers to having entered into this agreement, this MOU, then an additional appropriation is required to fund the expenditure incurred incurred by this to be incurred by this MO by this MOU.

And the border the ordinance requires that reviewed by the corporation by corporation council.

And the corporation council has to stay within the limits of that appropriation.

However, no such appropriation existed.

And Christina, if you could display.

February seventeenth?

Yes.

And if you cross scroll to page five.

Oh you're correct.

It's February twenty-seventh.

Okay, hold on.

And what page would you like me to go to?

The bottom of page five.

Okay.

If you read the paragraph that begins at the bottom of page five, inasmuch as a memorandum of understanding and so on is a contract, and focus on that word is a contract, subject to the approval of the mayor and within the appropriation thereof, the corporation council shall have the power to compromise any claim by or against the city within the appropriation thereof.

So there had to be an appropriation for the three point seven million, three point seven seven five million, and such an appropriation did not exist.

Now in one response, corporation council says, and if you look at the third paragraph on page six, it says there is no contract for good or services involved here.

So we have in one case there is no contract, in another there is a contract to redo a road, which at the moment appears to be city money.

So in any event, the second key issue is now we have a contract, and what is the appropriation to pay for the three point seven seven million that this contract entails?

And the third issue is that if you go to page nine, please, Christina.

I can't look at it like this moment, but somewhere there is the statement that this uh MOU entails an easement that allows the developer to build a much larger building than it would otherwise be allowed.

The easement, and there is MOU, then provides an end run around the zoning regulations.

So like the MOU provides an end run around the board's responsibility.

It also provides an end run around the zoning regulations, and this easement would allow a much larger building on the otherwise employer, and that is the third issue.

So we have the lack of power to enter into the MOU.

We have bypassing the $100,000 the requirement for an additional appropriation to fund the $3.78 million, and we have an enrun around the zoning regulations through the issue of an easement.

So that are the three key issues that have been raised repeatedly along all our meetings, and I hope that we can get a satisfactory item uh answer to these uh to these issues this evening, and that's all I have as I mean provocatory for the moment.

I believe representative Adams is also on the call.

Um yes, I'm here.

Yeah.

Can I ask the chair?

Can I uh can I can I respond to uh to representative de la Cruz's comments, please?

Yes, uh Turney Rosenberg, you have the floor.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

Now, and again I have the utmost respect for representative de la Cruz.

Uh he's very conscientious.

I know he's trying to do his job, but with all due respect, uh, and and I'll go into it in detail.

I think there are some misunderstandings upon the the part of the representative de la Cruz.

First of all, and I've said this at the prior meeting meetings, representative Dela Cruz keeps stating that the Board of Representatives has authority to approve contracts for over 100,000.

That authority is under the purchasing ordinance.

The authority of the Board of Representatives to approve contracts over $100,000 are for purchases.

There's no purchase involved here.

Nothing is being purchased here.

So the principle that uh that representative Della Cruz is relying upon in stating that the board approves contracts over $100,000 and no approval was made here, doesn't hold water.

Again, there's no purchase made here, and the hundred thousand dollar figure for board of representatives approval applies only to purchases.

Okay.

And I think at the prior meeting, correct me if I mean correct, I believe either city engineer Lou Cassalo or the uh the former director of traffic engineering, Frank Batisse stated that there are no city funds being used here.

There are no funds coming out of the escrow account to you to be used on this project.

Okay.

Um Representative Dela Cruz speaks about the MOU providing for an easement, which is he claims an enron around the zoning regulations.

And again, with all due respect to Representative Dela Cruz and the members of the committee, whether or not there's a violation of the zoning recollection regulations, rather, is not within the purview of the Board of Representatives.

To the extent that that issue exists, and frankly, I don't know whether it does or it doesn't.

That's within the purview of the zoning board and the planning board, not the board of representatives.

And lastly, I want to make one observation.

The um I had asked that the chairpersons request the presence of attorney David Waters, who's the attorney for BLT, to be here tonight, because I think it's important that he address some of these issues.

I've tried to address them to the best of my ability, but and you also recall the uh the administration was unable to come up with the the third amendment to uh to the uh the agreement, and I think it's important that we get that in.

We have not been able to locate it, law department doesn't have it.

Uh Ben Barnes office looked for it, he doesn't have it.

Um I think it's important that that that document be produced, and I would ask, I would ask the uh the committee to pursue that by attorney waters.

And I want to state on the record.

I have asked attorney records, uh attorney uh waters uh several times to come to these meetings, and I have never received a single response from him.

So you know, I think he's in a position to answer some of these questions, and and I would respectfully request that either the chairperson's request uh request his attendance.

And thank you for listening to me.

Okay.

Hold on, please, Representative uh Della Cruz.

Uh thank you, Attorney Rosenberg.

Uh it will be, let's see, Representative Della Cruz and then uh Representative uh Adams.

You have the floor, Representative Della Cruz.

Thank you.

Representative Del Cruz, I uh before you before you begin, I I have a quick question for you regarding this item.

Um is there, you know, what is the end goal here for you?

Are you looking for some kind of vote?

Because we've we've we've discussed this item quite extensively, and it seems like we're repeating the same um uh questions and the replies are the same.

So we're we're just going in a circle here.

So I'm just trying to understand what is your end goal uh for this item.

Um that this is uh this is a review item, and there will be no no voting on it, and of course, our term is ending soon.

So I have my main goal is to alert actually representative Adams of first spot of this that there is this end run around uh the board of reps responsibilities that needs to be addressed at some point.

Now Brendan Rosenberg with great clarity even pointed out that is not only an end run around the board of reps, but it's also an end run around the purchasing ordinance because the arrangement is not carried under the purchasing ordinance.

So that's another concern that needs to be addressed at some point.

Uh checks and balances function.

I wasn't going to even bring up the fact that this whole matter is predicated on the requirements of amendment three to the uh interlocal agreement, and that no one can find the amendment three, and what does it say, and what does it commit the city to do?

I wasn't even going to bring that up.

But the fact that we have this matter here, and the key document which says what the city is required to do can't be located is something that you know should give us force.

So I, you know, I'm responding to representative uh Rosenburg's issue.

We are talking in circles.

The analysis of the municipal powers act is there for all of us to see, and it does not grant it grants.

Uh so with that, I yield for a moment.

I believe I uh I responded to uh General Rosenberg's three questions.

And it's unfortunate that having asked any walters for the developer to come several times and not appear.

This also concern.

But I guess this would be a matter to be taken up on the 32nd board.

Uh I yield for the moment.

Thank you, uh, Chair.

Thank you, Representative Delacruz.

Uh Representative Adams, you have the floor filed by Representative Kaczynski.

Yeah, um, I I guess um to the attorney.

Um we're um we're talking about um charter C5-2023, you go down to the second column.

Originally the claim was four point four point um 324 million, and somehow the city agreed to deposit 3,975 million in the escrow account to uh please provide document support and validation.

Um the escrow account to fund the project for the benefit of the claim.

So the city entered into MOU to do the project and deposit 3.975.

That's not a contract.

Are you asking me uh yes?

Yes.

I didn't I didn't say it it wasn't a contract, I said it's not a contract under the purchasing ordinance.

And additionally, please bear in mind that the prior testimony from either engineering or traffic engineering is that no escrow funds are being used in connection with this project.

And that's one of the well, that's one of the reasons I wanted uh the the committee to uh to request the attendance of uh of attorney waters from BLT so that he could verify that none of the escrow funds are being used for the project.

Okay, but you but do you understand this the city on this MOU agree to deposit 3.975 million in an ESCO account?

Yes, sir.

So that's in the MOU.

So you're saying there's another MOU to say no funds was appropriated for this project?

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that there's a that these agreements provide the TIFF agreements provide for the city to place a certain amount in an escrow fund, and I'm further saying that the testament, the prior testimony from engineering has been that there are none of these escrow funds being used for this Gordon Street project.

Um back up a minute.

You say the key word.

What TIFF fund have you referring to?

This these funds here was based on a lawsuit claim that BLT said this money was his, and it was a 4.0 million dollars, and it's uh the city say it was, and it they agreed to 3.975.

Right, right.

But all of that arose from the TIFF agreement.

No, no, no, no, no, it didn't.

It was the difference.

It arose from a refinance of the bonds um from the TIFF agreement, but it was refinanced that that the city made 4.0 million dollars, and the argument was BOT said um that was their money, and they said, okay, then you gotta refinance it under your own authority because the city had a triple uh triple A rate rating, and that's why they got a favorable um rate, and that's why they was able to save money.

So it wasn't wasn't um the point of the TIFF if the Porter refinancing the remaining uh purchase of the TIFF and the city made money, but BOT uh was saying, oh, that money belonged to us, they said, No, then you refinance it on your own accord, and then see if you get the same rate as a triple eight city.

So it really got nothing to do with the TIFF except for the refinance.

With all due respect, I disagree, uh representative.

Okay.

Okay, so I mean, if if that was the TIFF, then the city would have nothing to do with it.

So the city don't approve the the money to go to Town Street or Commerce Um Commerce Road, or when they widen the part of um Pacific Street where they put an additional road in and made Pacific Street longer.

The city had nothing to do with that.

That that was all illustrated out out of the TIFF.

But when you come in to public city street, um that's where uh everything changes because discrete they they mostly work on with a great um widen the street, give the city the land, make a right turn land.

Most of the streets in their neighborhood was first time created.

So they be they belong to the the TIFF, but the city get to use them, but they never own them.

Um something like that.

But um, yeah, I mean, but there's definitely an agreement here uh for 3.97 million dollars in depositing the account in escrow to fund all the project, and the project was named.

Um I think it was Letlow Um Garden Woodland and the uh the bridge.

Okay, but it is a conversation we can have down the road.

I mean, uh okay, but again, again, representative I would stress that the testimony from engineering has been that none of these funds are being used for good for the Garden Street project.

Okay, but I I uh uh I'm um what we're gonna I'm gonna go back and get the comment because there was a balance when they finished let low they finished no when they finished woodland, we talk about the balance that was in the in that in that uh escrow account, and they say the remainder they use a portion of it to do started the bridge for the for the um mill river crossing of of uh of mill river.

Um, and the the ballast was going to be used for the road in a different conversation.

Um you're saying that is it's um there is no more money, but we we won't go back I didn't say there's no more money.

What I'm saying is that the MOU uh is with regard to a number of projects on which these funds have been used, and that no funds are being used for the Garden Street project, which is which is the testimony, and which again is why I asked the that the committee uh invite uh attorney waters to be here.

Okay, but verify that okay, but we we can go back to the record and then um from the recording and find out there was a balance, and that balance was supposed to be used by um the MOU and BLT was going to furnish the rest due to the fact because they wanted to exercise widen the road on their property, given the city the use of it.

I mean um that that was my understanding, but we'll go back through the tapes and then and get all the print out, and we'll have this conversation later.

But uh and again, and again, I would beseech the committee to to ask uh representative waters to attend these meetings.

You know, there are there's an awful lot of things he can clear up, whether or not any any of the escrow funds are being used for the project and and produce that third amendment that no one in the city uh appears to be able to locate.

Okay.

All right.

Um, so but yeah, all these um was all did uh in-house by um um no zoning board, no planning board, no board of finance, no border reps.

This was just done with um um the ex-mayor and the attorney and bill T.

That was that was the duration, but do we do anything like that in the city with any agreement?

I want to address a point that that uh was raised by representative Dela Cruz who who raised the municipal powers act, the authority of the board of representatives and the authority of the mayor.

And I want to point out the charter section C3 10 12 expressly gives the mayor the authority to enter into contracts, and again, this was not a contract for a purchase, so the hundred thousand dollar uh uh limit which applies to the purchasing ordinance, does not apply here.

There was no purchase, and no funds are being used for this project.

But it is is on the list.

It's uh I agree it's on the list.

For the project, um for the funds to be used on the project.

Now we get to the project and the money is there, so now there's a diversion saying, oh, we're not gonna use the money.

It's not a diversion.

The money was used for other projects.

What are the I mean, well, um uh uh um hold a minute.

If you go back and look at the project, what the MOU say, these the project that BLT must complete, and if any of these projects um go over what the anticipation cost is, it would be done on BLT um dime or cost at the owner court.

So it's an so BLT agreed to this.

So whether somebody spent all the money on the first roadward or the second rule, you sign an agreement that under this 3.975, you're gonna complete three rows and a bridge.

And if you spend all the money on the first roadward, you still obligated under the same guideline to complete Garden Street and the bridge.

Correct?

Yes, sir.

So my only point, my only point is that people keep uh uh some members of the committee on other occasions in the past have made the the contention that city funds are being used by this project on this project, and the testimony has been that none of these funds, none of the escrow funds are being used on this project.

And again, I would beseech the committee to to ask attorney waters to come to to the next meeting and verify that.

Okay, but I see where the confusion is.

The confusion is um um the city of Stanford refinanced the TIFF bonds and made 4.0 million dollars, and uh and Bill T says allows it.

City say no, it's our money, and we'll do whatever we please.

So that would have basically went into an escrow account, all went into general funds.

Bill T said we're gonna sue you if you go don't come into an MOU to do this project for us.

Now, obviously, if it's your money, you're not doing full project because you already uh incentive that this is your money.

Okay, but City of Stanford say no, it's not your money.

But if you want to get the money, these are the project we would like for you to do.

Okay, so now I'm gonna take the money, and I'm gonna get an MOU and I'm gonna put the money in escrow as you do these projects, you would be able to withdraw from that escrow.

And that's that's where we at now.

So if the MOU was in the air, the 3.9 million dollars was went into general funds.

You understand what I'm saying?

I mean, so what Mel Martin, the ex-mayor, agreed to, okay, we need to work done anyhow, and you can do it quicker.

Here's 3.9 million dollars, the projects I need to get done.

Can you do them within the scope of this 3.9 million dollars?

All right, they did let low, they did uh woodland, and it was having the bridge pre met pre-manufactory as they was going through.

Okay, so now we got the money for the road left, and now you're saying that okay, we're not going to use that money, so you guys don't have an obligation to even talk about this because now they're going to use those money.

No, that's not the MOU.

I mean, to do that, we need to make another contract or MOU saying that we're not going to use any more money, or I don't know how how do you get out of contract that you already signed, and say now we're not going to use it.

We still want to do the rule.

It doesn't require another contract.

BLT had the authority to devote whatever money was in the escrow count to whatever project uh is covered by the MOU, and that was within uh BLT's uh discretion.

The fact that the fact is, no none of the escrow money is being used on this project, and it's not a violation of the MOU for that for that state of affairs to exist, and there's no need to do another MOU.

Oh, so what you're saying is um so what the bank don't is is since they're not using the money, we don't have a say so in BLT, get uh widened city roads all by themselves.

No, no, no, no, I've never said that.

I've said from the outset that your authority, and frankly, with all due respect to the committee, your authority, the authority of the of the committee and the board is to rule on converting this the garden street from one way to two-way.

Okay, I've never questioned that.

I've never questioned it.

I've said from the outset that you have that authority, but my point is, and I've said this from the outset, that in all due respect again, is the limit of the committee and the board's authority on this issue.

Okay, all right.

Uh I see what you're saying.

Um I don't totally agree with that, but um, so okay, um I'll risk my case for now.

Maybe somebody else wanna um talk so I yield my time.

Thank you.

Well, I appreciate your answer.

Thank you, sir.

Representative Adams, uh, representative Kaczynski, you have the floor.

Thank you, coach.

And thank you, Counselor Rosenberg, for sort of yeoman's duty representing what should be really a handful of people with some fair and unfair burden falling on you.

Um first question, and I respect you you may not be able to answer this, is that so it fuss and o' the the civil engineering environment environmental engineering firm Fuso Neal conducted a phase one environmental N ESA environmental site assessment phase one and phase two on the property under discussion?

Um and the phase two identified um the presence of PCBs and and other toxic pollutants in the soil.

Um, so my question is given the um evidence of those PCBs and other toxins.

Um is there is it baked into the plans, the written plans to proceed to phase three and phase four.

Uh so the remediation and monitoring um phases of the ESA.

With all due respect, representative, I don't have knowledge on that area.

That would be a question for either the city engineer or for traffic engineering.

Um I appreciate I appreciate that you may not know that.

Uh to me, though, it is a legal issue, having done many many trend real estate transactions dealing with environmental issues.

This is always baked into contracts and agreements.

So, to the best of your knowledge, um the requirement to conduct the phase three and phase four in compliance with uh state and federal regulations, to the best of your knowledge is not embedded in those mous or contracts.

Is that correct?

Are you asking if it's if it's in the TIFF agreements?

In any any legal agreements that affect the uh pursuit of this project.

I'm not aware of that, but if if there is environmental contamination, the BLT certainly has a duty there to remediate the uh the contamination.

Well, they have two duties one to uh eliminate it, remove it, and two to monitor it.

But um, but yes, no, clearly they have the duty, but what I'm asking is it or is there anything stating in the documents as city is counterparty to to hold them accountable for that or require that?

I'm not I'm not aware of any such document, but uh uh I would imagine that that would be found in in some document.

Okay, you know, for one, uh you know, they wouldn't be able to get the excavation permits if there were if there's contaminated soil.

Well, there's lots of things that we could speculate about.

Um they shouldn't, I agree they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean that they but the fact that I'm curious to whether the city explicitly stated that as requirements in the terms.

Um and doesn't and sounds like you don't know, could be and I appreciate that it's you know, I'm not necessarily expecting you to know there's other parties that should be on the call to answer that.

Um so thank you.

Um so just to the to my fellow committee members and to the public at large, I mean, this is a rather significant issue.

Uh based on my reading of the Fuss and O'Neill report, there are significant PCBs and other toxins in the soil.

And um, you know, the South End already is as Representative Adams kind of clearly attest to, should he choose to.

Um, there are already another quality of life, uh length of life, expected life life expectancy issues, and so on and so forth in the South End.

And um not appropriately dealing with the um the toxins in the soil there.

It reminds me a little bit about the lead drinking pipes in Michigan.

But any case, it it needs to be addressed.

It's a serious material issue.

Um I just want to make a uh of another question and then a comment uh or comment and then question.

So to follow on with uh Virg Representative uh uh Virgil's comments, you know, the granting of this easement, I understand that's outside the purview of this committee.

We can approve the change of the street from one way to two-way, but this brings in many other issues.

And the group, I just want to state for the public record that should this uh plan be approved that that it been has been submitted to the conversion of the street from one way to two-way and the expansion of the street, the widening of the street.

You know, it's gonna really be one more sort of step in the degradation, the quality of the lived experience in Stanford.

You know, so basically what it's gonna do is going to move large structures right up or very close to the street.

So we're not gonna have what what has generally been termed as appropriate setbacks to create a sense of openness, a sense of space, and to avoid claustrophobic feelings and and and frankly, uh uh periods, daylight periods of long shadows or darkness and so on and so forth.

So that's clearly not in the interest of the quality of life for the residents of Stanford.

It also eliminates some form of green space, which is inconsistent with the um approved comprehensive plan.

So just uh make that note for the record.

Now, counselor uh Rosenberg, you know, it's been stated that none quote unquote, none of the escrow funds are being used for this project.

Okay, so if we if we accept that as true, and I don't necessarily accept that, but if we accepted that as true, do we have any proof that no relief is being given to BLT on other projects as a partial or full offset to the expense of this proposed project?

I have no knowledge as to that, representative.

Okay.

So just again, to my fellow committee members and the public at large, what would not be unusual to happen is in in in delicate situations such as this may be perceived as they say, okay, we won't use any funds for this project, but by the wink wink, will you give us relief on this other project?

And sometimes the answer is yes.

So people can look at you with a straight face and say, Yeah, no, no funds were used for this project.

Well, in fact, money is fungible, and sure, it wasn't technically used on this project, but it was moved over to another project.

So I would just ask further committees and groups that look at this to ask for a full accounting of this escrow fund.

Uh and and all payments, frankly, with BLT to see that all the that it all ties out and and that it all makes sense in and and it's consistent with the letter the spirit of the contracts and agreements that were uh put in place.

I guess lastly, uh I I'm just embarrassed by this entire process regarding this uh review.

We've had, I don't know, half dozen or more meetings on this, and strategically the the individuals who've been asked to come to the meetings from outside the committee have intermittently avoided coming to the meetings.

So we we end up with incomplete voices who could properly and knowledgeably respond to our legitimate queries.

It's it's disrespectful, it's shabby, and it speaks of corruption.

If if if your case is straightforward, if you're honest, then you show up and you explain your positions on each of the issues.

But what's but but the reality is is they haven't, even tonight.

Counselor Rosenberg has referenced uh attorney waters number of times, but there's others who who need to weigh in on these issues, and they're not here.

So it's just it's it's it's a waste of our time, it's a waste of the public's time, and and frankly, it's embarrassing.

Um in closing, I think this this is like an iceberg, right?

So this committee that's looking at the tip of the iceberg, which is the decision to approve the conversion of Garden Street from a this section of Garden Street from a one-way street to a two-way street that includes an expansion of it.

And that's our that's our purview as it relates to the issue.

But I think what we've all discovered, uh by Representative Adams, representative Dale Cruz, our co-chairs and many others, is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Underneath this is this much deeper and more complex and and and shadowy, if you will.

Um, reality behind this particular project.

Um, so I hope that the third 30 second board picks this up and continues in a very diligent fashion to really ferret uh the realities of uh what goes into this project and the consequences of this project.

With that, I yield my time.

Thank you, coach.

Thank you, uh, Representative Kaczynski.

Uh representative Adams, I see you you have your raised hand.

Uh you have the floor next, please.

Yes, I I guess um this might be um auto um rules of preview.

But tell me um uh if say for instance they widen the road, um who would own the land um after the rule rule will be widened?

Would the city own the land or will Bill T still own the land?

No, if the road is widened, the the city has a right of way that's that's 10 feet from the curb.

So we we would still we would own the road and we would own the that portion of the property that's between the road and the and and the curb 10 feet in toward the toward the building.

Okay, so I mean, so why wouldn't the city do like they normally do, just take the property and give them the use of the square footage, but city of Stanford owned the property?

I mean, because I mean if you basically want to use the square footage, you can't physically use a road to do anything with it because now it's a road.

You need the square footage to get more square footage built.

So why would the city not just eminent domain and be a flat fee?

We own the road, you got the right as long as you invited to use the square footage of the road that you donated this property to us um for your square footage, but foresee anything change, the city will always own the road in the square footage of the road.

I mean, so why wouldn't the city do something like that?

And that that would that would lock it down because I mean BLT have known to change their mind.

I mean, they good citizen, they're doing a good thing for the neighborhood.

But look what happened to um to the communication building when they built the garage for the train station, and then when they got a tenant, they kick everybody out.

Nobody can do anything.

So why wouldn't the city go about it the other way?

You need us, we don't need you.

You wanna we can eminent demand the land for zero dollars?

Um you can widen the road, you can use the square footage as long as you own the building.

If you sell it, your rights goes away, something like that.

So why wouldn't it do that?

I'm not sure that I understand your question.

I've told you that we own the road in 10 feet from the from the curb, the right-of-way is 10 feet from the curb.

So if you're putting it I I don't I don't think it's an issue.

It's an issue if if you're putting the city road on the 10 foot right-of-way.

That's the issue.

No, again, I think you're misunderstanding me.

We own the road and we own that property, which is between the road where the road meets the curb ten feet after that toward the building.

Okay.

All right.

Uh yeah, I like to say I like to see that in writing because normally BLT don't do that.

Bill Bill T do what they do with Town Street and Common Street.

They construct the road, they own the road.

City of Stanford got the use of that road.

So I'm looking at they passed behavior.

It would be the same thing going forward.

And I was saying, due to the fact that you got developed to change their mind, why would the city we we don't need the widened garden streak as it is now?

Not for the resident to live there, not for the business that it is.

So this sole um widened roadwood is for a developer.

So why not in the domain, the 10 foot right-of-way?

That become the city property.

That's in a contract, it's locked up.

It's locked down, and then the future representatives can look at it.

And then BLT, as long as you in business of owning that property, you have the right to use the square footage of that road that you gave to the city of Stanford.

If you sell it, there's look perhaps I'm not making myself clear.

There's no reason to take the the property within the right-of-way by eminent domain.

As a matter of law, we own that property to begin with.

Why would you say you would own the property from begin with if you're doing 10 feet from the sidewalk into the fence?

That's the that's what's called the municipal right of way.

And by state law, we own that we own the property.

All right.

Uh uh, okay.

Um we gonna have to research that one because I don't know no city.

I mean, we just eminent domain, a guy in house on Palace Street because of that, because the city took 10 feet from his front yard that didn't let his three family house have the proper square footage for the house to remain.

Okay, so that 10 feet was not within the right-of-way.

That was the fellow's property, it was not within the city right-of-way.

Okay, so if you know Garden Street, the 10 feet would not be in the right-of-way.

The 10 feet, you gotta tear the fence down and go 10 feet into 650 Garden Street property.

So if you know the property, you would have to tear down the fence and go 10 feet.

Now use that analysis, take that whole stoke analysis and transfer to Palace Street.

Exact same thing.

Sidewalk point of order.

What's the point of order?

I'm waiting to be recognized recognized, Representative Adams, and now that I am, I'll make my point of order.

Chair, this is a first of all, this is a back and forth between two people, which we're not supposed to be doing.

And it is turned into an education session between the attorney and representatives.

And it's this is this is this is not this is not constructive and it's dilatory to the matter.

I don't understand what the purpose of what the end purpose of this is.

It's it's going back and forth, and this committee has a very large agenda in front of us.

I I'm not you know, I'm I'm not sure why this is is continuing to be permitted in this fashion.

I'm asking that it be I'm asking that the back and forth be stopped in that we we we stick to the proper forum of one person speaks, then another person seeks the floor and speaks.

But we're not breaking in the rules, right?

There's representative Adams, please.

Uh thank you, Representative Bogart.

Uh I appreciate the uh uh the point of order.

Uh I I do recognize that this is uh not going the way it's supposed to be going.

So Representative uh Adams, please, if you have questions for Attorney Rosenberg, ask questions, and then he will answer questions.

Okay, we're not going back and forth.

Yeah, no, that was the question.

Uh and and then I was trying to for show him the similarity when he said that the city owned 10 feet right away from Garden Street property.

So I use a similarity of Garden Street, which put that not to be true, because the guy had house had to be taking because they took 10 feet of his house.

Representative Adams.

Um, with all due respect, uh I've heard this question and the answer from uh attorney Rosenberg, probably now at four separate meetings.

The same question, the same response.

He's basically saying that the right-of-way is owned by the city of Stanford, and that's 10 feet from the curved in.

That's his response to your question.

That's how he has answered your question.

Whether or not you agree with that, that is his answer.

Okay, all right, okay.

But I was just showing example that that can't be true, because if you went back to city history, um after 10 feet or 20 feet is taken in the square foot of the property that exists, don't have the square foot of land here not exist and have to be torn down.

So if you look at the history of what um the city does, uh it doesn't work that way.

Okay, all right.

Um, but I mean, I thought um if we have a discussion that's very fruitable in education, everybody, I don't see the problem.

But we we we've had this discussion four times with the same answered question four times.

I just I'm just telling you, and we have uh listen, uh attorney Rosenberg, attorney Rosenberg is is not uh is 100% right now as everyone knows.

So we're trying to keep this limited to in scope so that's poignant, and we're adding uh any additional information to this item, and I don't see that being done by these same questions uh over and over again.

All right, so I mean, so um uh motion um to re recommit back to uh steering.

Okay, so we have a motion on the floor to recommit this item to staring.

Uh representative Kaczynski.

Thank you, Chair.

Just very quickly, Representative Adams previous testimony stated that the reason for it is that BLT was requesting that their setback for their construction be based upon the existing property lines, not the new property line.

So it enabled them to build up right up essentially up against the street.

Um that was the previous testimony.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Duly noted, thank you.

Uh, we have a motion on the floor to recommit this item to staring.

Um, can we try to do this by we have a second?

Can we try to do this by thank you?

We can we try to do this by voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All right.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions?

This item is recommitted to staring.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Representative Rosenberg.

We appreciate you attending this meeting.

I know you're not at 100%.

Thank you, sir.

I probably appreciate your well wishes.

Okay, I shouldn't as well.

Thank you.

Okay, well, let's move on to item number two, LU 31.062.

It's a review of zoning regulations and enforcement of city ordinances and ML mixed use light industrial districts.

Um I'm actually not going to be taking this item up.

Uh, there are multiple departments dealing with this item.

There's some sensitive information and issues that uh that the city is dealing with.

So I am not gonna be taking this item up this evening.

I'm not sure if anyone has an issue with that.

Uh seeing none, we are going to move uh to item number three, which is LU 31.059.

It's a review of establishment at 36 Vine Road.

This was submitted by Representative Camp Breal and Sherwood.

Um Representative Kimperial, uh, you have the floor.

Representative Campo, you have the floor.

If you'd like to introduce this item, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Basically, uh, we had several members of uh people that lived at 36 Vine Road come to our public hearing and tell us, you know, various different things that were happening, bed bugs, uh poor air quality from from vents and dust that weren't cleaned, and a whole host of other things which are in the legislative record.

Um I think there were six or seven items that were confirmed by uh all the people that we had a town hall with, which were about 30 or 40 um residents from that building.

Uh we had Rick Smeriglio on our last meeting.

I don't know if he's in attendance this evening.

Um I did hear back from some of the residents after the town hall.

Uh Rick had said that there were multiple things looked at, but nothing really fixed.

The tenants said that uh seven or eight apartments were looked at and things were fixed.

Um, but there still still seems to be ongoing problems there.

Uh I'm not sure if there's a housing authority or someone that we could maybe get to look into this.

I think uh Chair Sherwood invited uh the Department of Health.

I'm not sure what they could add.

Um, I think at this point, the most important thing for that building is to have some kind of an oversight from the city, but also I think that they need to form uh a tenants committee.

Uh I'm just not sure who would be capable or want to take that on in that building.

Uh, but I think that that's something that would be important for them.

The people that that they dislike being in charge of the building are still in charge of the building, nothing's been done there.

Uh, and I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Campriel.

Um Coach Sherwood, would you like to add anything?

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay.

Um so I was very hopeful after well, let me just say this.

I give the residents there a lot of credit.

There um, they've been going through a lot, and um, they came to us for help, and we've the 31st Board of Representatives has um, I think done an excellent job at hearing constituents and trying to get to the bottom of issues.

And so when I signed on to this item with Representative Camporelli, I was very disturbed by what we had heard um a number of months back, the first month that we had somebody who lives there show up and and tell us about conditions.

And Representative Camporelli had done a ton of work on this.

She's spent hours of her life talking to residents there.

She went and had a forum there and spoke and heard the concerns of of citizens.

Um, I've had a number of conversations with some of them, the residents who live there.

Um, and frankly, I'm disturbed by what I heard.

And uh Representative Camporelli um, you know, had a lot of work, and she was able to um get in touch with Rick Smeriglio, who's on the board, I think he's the president of the board, and we had had a conference call with him before the last meeting.

Um her and I and him, and uh he acknowledged that the management company there uh is a problem, or that there's gonna be some sort of um parting of the ways between the current management company uh and bringing some other management company on.

Uh, he committed to that to me over the phone.

Um, and then he came to our committee meeting and said that in a public forum.

Since we last and I I honestly thought, okay, this is gonna get dealt with.

Um, and since the last time this committee took that item up, it turns out that that management company is not leaving, that what we were told by Mr.

Smeriglio is not what has come to fruition.

And um, you know, I look, we're at the end of our term.

I don't know exactly what we can do, except this for me is a plea to the administration that something needs to get done because the conditions there, um, I think there is some effort to address them, but this is a city-owned piece of property, and there are um there's a contract between the city and the entity that runs that property.

And I have serious concerns about, and I always have um uh I have concerns about the city's ability to enforce the contracts that they have with outside entities, and this is just another example where you have a public piece of property that is being used.

So it's we all own this piece of property, and we are letting a entity that is making some sort of money, even if it's a for a non-for-profit, but they're collecting revenue on our piece of public property in exchange for what we have a contract with this entity to give a benefit to those residents.

Okay, there's some like we're we're not just giving land for these people to for an entity to collect rents and make money, they're supposed to be operating a facility that gives greater access to various people of uh economic backgrounds, um, seniors and people who need special care, and um I don't believe that their end of the bargain is is being lived up to.

And I think that the city needs to be more on top of what is going on on our public pieces of property, even if we have contracted them out to be managed by other entities, and this is an example of that.

And so, while I don't believe that this committee can fix the bed bug problem or the dust problem or the way that management treats the residents that live there, I firmly believe that if the city was more engaged and had a more open conversation and honestly started looking further into the contract and approaching the management there, I think that things could change dramatically in a very um rapid fashion.

And so, my goal for this evening, and this doesn't have to be a long conversation, is to put pressure on the administration to to get on site to get the legal department really looking at our contract, and um try to try to get some changes to that property that benefit the residents that are there because the agreement is that the city has some sort of benefit for you know, essentially privatizing that piece of property or keeping the we own it, you know, we can't just go on that property, it's not a park, you know, and we're limiting access to the people of Stanford to that piece of property for some benefit for those residents who live there.

And um, I just don't think that that promise is being met.

And so I, you know, and that that's not to say that people haven't done work.

Um, I'm sure there's been conversations.

I think that this has been well brought out more into light.

Um, I know that the uh the I believe the health departments here, maybe social services.

I would like to hear from them if they can share anything that has gone on in the past few months that they've been involved with or any information they could give us.

Uh, but again, I just I I'm hoping that this puts enough pressure on um both sides uh of that contract to change things for the better for those residents who live there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Coach Shuard.

Uh uh uh representative temporal, you have something to add.

I I just wanted to add uh a few things.

Um, one, I just wanted to correct uh something small, but I think what Mr.

Smeriglio said was that he was not in a position to get rid of the management company at this time, but that he was going to make a move to get rid of uh this person named Karen that basically manages the building uh full time.

Um and I think a big part of this, because if you go to the property, the property to me, from just you know, on side of it, looks like the grounds are well maintained from the outside, everything looks fine.

And and you go in at least a couple of times I have gone in.

I haven't seen always dirty or anything like that.

Um, but they have had like many problems.

One of them is bed bugs on a chronic basis.

And I know that uh Carmen Hughes was trying to help with that around two years ago when I first got on the board.

Um we were both involved with a really horrendous bed bug situation and and trying to calm the the people that are living there down.

I think for the most part, there's a big problem with messaging there.

They feel very unheard by the current management.

They all have told me that this person, Karen replaced some years ago a social worker that managed the building.

And I think that that's really important in a building like this where you have um a lot of disabled um elderly people.

I think that it needs to be run or there needs to be a social worker uh on site to deal with their problems and just make them feel heard.

I think that that's a big problem.

And and I think it's really weighing on their mental health.

Like I we cannot discount how stressed a lot of these people are.

And some of the people on this call were present at the board of reps meeting when they saw, you know, one woman actually had to be carried out on a stretcher because she basically was having an anxiety attack, I think.

Um so I think a lot of this is is weighing on their mental health, and and that's not a good place um to be.

So that's it.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camperiel.

Um, I'd like to at this time invite uh Mrs.

Bishop Pullen uh, if you'd like to uh maybe say a couple of things and and maybe give some insight into some of the uh concerns that uh uh my fellow colleagues have mentioned.

Good evening, everyone.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Um so I uh we did respond um right after we did um become aware of the complaints that were brought to the board itself.

Um, and uh had some success with that, but um you have to uh understand how it works with us and me being able to write an order uh for um a violation of a public health housing code.

Um, and that has to be that we we receive a complaint, and it can be generally it is from the tenant, sometimes it can be on behalf of a tenant, uh someone Ms.

Pullham, we can't we can't hear you.

Christina, did we lose her?

Um I still see her on and her mic is on.

I'm not hearing her.

No, neither have I miss Bishop Pullen.

Can can you hear me?

We cannot hear you.

Maybe she does connection to the internet.

Um I mean, I hear static, but I don't know.

No, she dropped off.

Let's see.

I thought I saw someone else on from the health department.

Now I don't see anyone.

Christina, do we have anyone else from oh uh Brima is on.

Go ahead.

You have the floor.

Right, everybody's here uh the director of environmental health and inspections.

I was gonna pick up for Judy left off.

I think she would just try to how we yes, I think she was trying to explain how we get complaints and how we respond to those complaints.

We have a reporting system, you have a platform where all the complaints come in.

So in order for us to initiate an inspection, the complaint has to be filed.

In terms of this bed book situation, yeah, we have a Bahada body, we worked on it before.

But in order to address the bed bug situation, a complaint has to come in.

We have to send an inspector in to collect a specimen.

The specimen has to be brought to the lab for identification to confirm that it's a bed bug.

Without that happening, we certainly cannot do anything in terms of responding to the bed bug situation.

And I have heard of the conditions that exist there, but we're not getting that many complaints about what exists in these units.

And additionally, what makes it more complicated is that because the tenants do not want to really make complaints or file complaints because they fear retaliation.

They don't want to give their names, they don't want to give a phone number, they don't want to give a unit number.

Without these three things, it's very challenging for us to just go and do an inspection because that's not how it works.

We have to have a legitimate reason to go into these units to investigate a complaint.

So without that, it's very challenging.

So and that's that's some of the challenges that we have in the past.

We have worked with management diligently to have uh management plan for bed books, which they have.

And as recent as July of 2025, they inspected 18 units for bed bug complaints.

Out of those 18 units, only one of them was positive for bed books, has active bed books.

So we are doing what we can on our end, but we need more collaboration with the residents to provide us with the details that I just mentioned.

If we get a name, if we get a contact information and a unit number and the nature of the complaint, certainly we will go there and investigate to make sure that it's a valid complaint.

If it is a valid complaint, you will issue orders for them to remedy the uh the violations.

But by that, definitely we are kind of limited to what we can do.

Okay, thank you for that.

Ums Bishop Pulling back on she was on momentarily and just disappeared.

Yeah, I did.

I just disappeared.

Can you hear me now?

I apologize.

I'm glad Director Job was there.

Yes, we can hear you.

Um I don't know if you want to add anything else.

I just heard the end of what he said, but the reason I had uh asked uh he the invited was just so that he could really explain from the environmental health point of view what um what happens and where we are with uh working with that building.

So I think he covered it.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um representative Kazinski, you have the floor.

Uh thank you, co-chair.

Uh, just two quick questions.

Um, the gentleman from environmental health stated that not getting that many complaints.

I'm just wondering if we could if he could unpack that.

Isn't one complaint enough?

I mean, if someone says, look, we have a case of bubonic plague here.

Wouldn't you respond to that?

Or whatever the public health concern is.

Uh, so I'd just like him to unpack that statement about not getting that many complaints and what that implies or does not imply in terms of the department's response.

And number two, this is a very specific question.

Is there a standard of service from receivable complaint to resolution?

I.e.

from the the day that a complaint is received, is there a standard in place for the department that they have X number of hours or X number of days to respond by investigation and then X number of days through resolution uh to that complaint.

That's just a question.

But now I yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Kaczynski.

Uh, I'm assuming that was directed to Mr.

Jelby.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, go ahead.

And thank you.

You have the floor.

Okay.

Thank you for that question.

Just for clarification, one complaint will make us come out and do an investigation.

That's not what I meant.

What I'm hearing is that there are so many, you know, public health issues within the building that was talked about.

And I'm not aware of those complaints coming in in that nature.

Like I'm not getting like 10 or 15 complaints in a day or week to go out and investigate.

But every single complaint that comes in the department, we treat it as important as if it was 10 or 15.

So we go out on those complaints and investigate them.

In terms of timeline, obviously, when we come, we do our best to investigate these complaints within 48 hours to 72 hours.

Because we have only 11 inspectors that are here in the health department trying to address 16 different programs for the city.

So again, sometimes it may be more than the three days, but we do our due diligence, make sure that we get through those complaints and address them accordingly.

Great.

Thank you for your uh um clear and honest uh answers thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Kaczynski, do you yield?

I yield, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Representative Campo, you have the floor.

We have information.

Yes, Representative Del Cruz.

Are you able to see my hand?

Uh I am not.

Uh you can you can take hold on take it.

Campoelle, please.

It shows up on my screen, but you do not see it.

I do not.

I see.

Well, then after Representative Camborino speaks, I'd like to speak if you would recognize me.

Definitely, thank you.

I will.

I I yield to to uh Representative De La Cruz, he can go first.

Uh okay, Representative Del Cruz, you have the floor.

Thank you, Representative Scambo Real.

Uh at the prior committee meeting.

That according to the lease agreement, the city has the right to intervene, and I may not be using the proper legal words for the maintenance aspect of the arrangement.

I believe, and if you saw the lady that came to us at the last Board of Reps meeting.

That was in such this in such distress because of the issues here.

I think we have reached a point that is beyond having conversations.

Uh to representative Sherwood point.

I believe the law department should look into all the legal uh conditions, the legal requirements, and actually intervene and actually have the city do what is required to be done, and not just have conversations about getting it done.

And perhaps it takes a resolution from this committee from the board to advocate to the city that the time for conversations is long past, and that we should actually that the city should actually take the responsibility, take the action to cure these problems.

And with that, I yield thank you for uh recognizing me.

Thank you, Representative Della Cruz.

Uh, representative Cabrial, you have the floor thank you.

I I just wanted to clarify uh a point because I thought um that Mr.

Uh Job just said there was only one bed bug complaint and that no bed bugs were found.

But for the past two years, I myself have received multiple calls regarding bed bugs in that building.

Um Carmen Hughes was uh very much involved with myself, Lou De Rubis was involved in trying to get one of the tenants out of his apartment because I guess I'm not gonna mention the person's name, but they thought that that person was like ground zero for the bed bugs, and I was getting calls from that person's next door neighbor, uh, the mother of that person.

Uh the the daughter of that person was saying that her mother was so badly bitten that if we didn't do something about it, you know, she was going to bring a lawsuit, and and there were all kinds of calls coming out of that building, and it wasn't just from one person uh claiming bed bugs.

And I know that they got in there and they were spraying different apartments.

Um they had they they were trying to get this one person who was ground zero out by any means possible.

Uh so I I'm just confused by by that statement.

And I and I believe Jody, uh sorry, Director Bishop, you sent us other complaints that had come in from the building for or other things.

Um, and I also wanted to confirm uh what the gentleman said about and and also director bishop said, I think Director Bishop said about people are really afraid of retaliation.

They say that, and more than one person said this uh when I was at the town hall with Representative Matheny, that you know, they were threatened by this woman Karen multiple times with eviction.

You know, she would write them up for different things and threaten to get them out if they were troublemakers.

Uh I I really think removing that person, if the management company just moves that person to another post and we get somebody that has a background or the management company, get somebody with a background in social services, uh things there will be better.

Um so that's the point the major point that I would like to bring up to the city that I think the person that's that's on a day-to-day basis in that building should have some kind of social work background.

Uh and I yield.

So if I can speak this is Ibrahim here, can I speak?

Um representative uh yeah, Mr.

Jovi, go ahead, please.

You have the floor.

Yeah, I just wanted to respond to the um the question because I did not say that we didn't have more than one bed book completely at that building.

Yes, that one she talked about was the major one that we had, and we issued an order, a violation order.

And the challenge was that the tenant wasn't allowing anybody to go into that unit.

We are kind of limited to what we can do.

We cannot force anybody to go in and do it, do extermination.

But that was the challenge that we had with that situation.

I am very familiar with the next door neighbor that she talked about.

I myself, I was there.

I met with that neighbor.

I spoke to her on the phone.

You wanted to go in there and to collect the samples and she refused.

She did not let us go into her mother's unit to take with the bed books to take it to the lab for testing.

And I said earlier without testing, we cannot confirm that there's a bedroom infection.

We must do the sampling force to confirm there's a bed book before we can order extermination.

And that's that's just a point of clarification.

I also believe you said if it's okay if I speak, um, Chair, um, that please go ahead.

We have had uh other bed bug complaints, but one uh the uh most recently um after that whole big ordeal was taken care of, um was only one confirmed case.

So as I said, people you know we'll we'll make complaints and everything has to be confirmed before um the order can be written.

Okay, thank you.

Um other questions.

Uh Representative Campriel, you have the floor I I just want to make sure that we're not like uh coming away from this thinking that the Department of Health has done anything wrong.

I I think the Department of Health is doing their due diligence here.

Um I really think it's uh a management issue and and also a mental health and a perception issue on the, you know, uh uh with this these people that are running it and the tenants.

Um so so just in in closing this item out because I'm sure we're we're coming to the end of this.

I just think that if there were a social worker in that building uh instead of the person Karen, that you know, a lot would change.

I think I I think there the the people's mental health is definitely being challenged.

I mean, I will tell you all that just being in that building, I was getting itchy for from people saying that they had bed bugs and and they were dealing with that stuff.

So can you imagine living in the building and and having to deal with that, you know, not once, twice, three, five times in a year.

I I just it's a lot.

And uh that's all I have to say about that, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Camperelle.

Uh, any other questions?

Uh yes.

Chair Tomas, I I would just say that I would um, you know, I would be willing to work on some solutions around this um with either uh members of this committee or and or the administration to um come up with some ideas.

I have some ideas that might work.

Um if if you know if it's feasible.

Okay, that would be uh that would be great.

Um I think that's basically what this uh committee would like and the board because when you you see these, you know, our residents come to us and um are so distraught that they almost can't even get the words out.

It's it's a little difficult to see.

So um that would be great if you can maybe put together some type of game plan on on how to how to maybe resolve some of these items that uh my colleagues have brought up.

Uh representative camperale, you have your your hand up again.

I was just gonna say that I'd be happy to partner with uh director bishop on that if if she needs my help.

Great.

Okay.

Um so at this time I don't see any other questions, any hands.

Um what is the appetite on this item for our uh committee?

My hand is up.

I would uh represent Del Cruz.

Uh like I said before, I did not see it, so go ahead.

You have the four.

Uh thank you.

I would like to make a motion to recommit this item.

Okay, we have a motion to recommit this item.

Is there a second?

Second.

Uh we have a second.

Uh let's take this by voice vote.

Uh, everyone in uh uh in favor of recommitting this item to steering, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Uh anyone opposed.

Any abstentions?

Okay, this item will be recommitted to staring.

Uh thank you, uh, Director Bishop Pullen and Mr.

Adjovi, appreciate you taking the time this evening to come and uh meet with uh us uh at the land use committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, have a good night.

Okay, at this time we'll we're gonna be taking up item number four, which is uh LU 31.060 or to review administration's plans to relocate the lines and science factory out of Courtland Avenue in accordance with resolution 4392.

Um I'd like to give the floor to Representative Dela Cruz to um introduce this uh item.

Uh thank you, Chair Colombs.

Uh during the uh discussion of placing a branch of the library in Corland Park.

It came to be known that the park had been donated to the city, and the deed donating the park contained a deed restriction that it was to be used as a park and for no other purpose.

Well uh the lines and science factory is not a purpose that I'm sure the donor had anticipated, and it clearly violates the intents of the donor.

And even with uh that consideration to have a factory in what should be a public park is just totally inconsistent even with the latest uh parks assessment study of the city that the park is intended for other uh purposes, and uh this clearly violates not only the intentions of the donor, but it also violates section 47-2 overnectic state statutes that says that it shall be used for the intent and meaning of the grantor and to no other use whatever.

So given that I think the city has a responsibility to return the park to its purpose uh respect the donors in state in intents on the state statute and arrange to have the lines and fact factory lines and science factory relocated.

So I was hoping that uh invitees from the city would then in accordance with a resolution that was passed uh by the board.

Uh indicates what are they planning to do uh to uh relocate the factor now from the city is a mayor design as an invitee.

Did was anyone uh designated by the administration?

Uh should Della Cruz um let me just uh Christina is there anyone on from the administration?

No, I do not see anyone.

Well, there you go, uh Representative Delacruz.

You you you just got your answer.

There is no one.

Okay.

I had indicated that normally uh director of operations would be the one to respond to this kind of things.

Was there any effort to reach him?

Uh Christina, that you know.

Um Representative La Cruz, no, I'm not aware of the I see, because when I noticed that mayors design, I did point out that it would be usually direct working on us.

Uh so I don't know what happened then.

In that case.

Well, um, excuse me, Representative De La Cruz, and um co-chair Tomas.

I did see um Deputy Director Carpenzano on earlier, but I no longer see her on, so I'm not sure if she was supposed to be the designee.

I also saw her, Christina.

I don't see her on any any longer.

How do you do I well uh Chair Tomas?

I yield for now.

Perhaps there are others that want to speak.

And after that, perhaps the item should be recommitted, since there was no one, there is no one here to speak to it.

Okay, thank you, Representative Cruz.

Uh, does anyone else uh on uh on this committee or any ex-official members have anything to say on this uh item?

Okay, seeing none.

Um I'm sorry, uh co-chair.

Um I just think that this reiterate or reinforces the importance of properly zoning or lands that are designated as parklands but are not necessarily zoned as parkland.

I mean, this has been uh before this particular committee.

Um it was rejected by uh Jennifer Godzino's uh um planning uh board um our initiative to pursue such uh such act uh activity, but again, I think it's critical that we in this board and the and the and the forthcoming board push very hard to appropriately zone our park lands as parklands, and as everyone on this committee knows, and many members of the public know that there's a significant portion of what is called our parks in the city of Stanford that are not technically zoned as parklands with that yield my title.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Representative Kaczynski.

I actually agree with you wholeheartedly on that.

Um, is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?

Okay, seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

I make a motion to recommit.

Second second.

Thank you.

Um so we have a motion on the floor to re and a second to recommit LU 31.060.

Um everyone in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Aye.

Anyone abstaining?

That motion passes to recommit.

Okay.

Um next item is LU31.055.

It's a review of the 2035 comprehensive plan.

Um, I know that we had invited uh Miss Lindsay Cohen.

Um, I was made aware uh by uh board staff that she basically replied no to our invitation uh without any further um information.

Um so I'm assuming uh our tail end of our board um doesn't really mean much, I guess, to the administration.

I'm not sure.

Uh it's just very uh disheartening that a lot of these uh uh members from the administration uh would not come before uh our final uh meetings uh on this board, the 31st board.

Um so at this point may I speak?

Uh Representative Del Cruz, go ahead, you have the floor.

Yes, I'm so sorry.

Uh my hand is stuck at my end, but you don't see it at your end.

No worries, you have the floor.

Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate what you were saying that uh it seems to be a pattern of administration invitees refusing to attend meetings without any explanation.

I know that there is a provision in the charter that gives the board the board the power to compel testimony.

I hate to have to resort to that.

Perhaps on the 30 second board.

We should pick this up.

Representative, please mute your mic.

That's what Mill was saying something.

Yes, we didn't.

Please mute your mic.

Go ahead, Miss Representative Cruz, sorry about that.

That's okay.

I think this is uh an issue that the 30th 30 second board needs to pay attention to.

It's almost a way of uh what is the word uh uh nullifying our function.

So without yield thank you.

Thank you, Representative Cruz.

Any other comments?

Uh seeing none, I will take a motion.

If there is anyone that's willing to understand motion of uh representative coach Sherwood.

Um I just want to say that I think it's a closing remark after this committee has spent so many hours on um the master plan, and mostly 90% of the time that we spent on the master plan was listening to our own constituents begging this city government to create a master plan that enhanced their quality of life instead of deteriorated it, that enhanced their communities instead of deteriorating them.

Um and I just I think that the fact that the land use bureau and other members of the administration who are invited for this item not showing up is just a microcosm of the macrocosm, where there has been a lot of fanfare about how much how much contact the city uh that the city government has made with residents to get their feedback.

I can't see me, but I'm making air quotes with my hand.

Um they call it touch points, they've touched uh thousands of people and they incorporated their ideas.

I have to say that I am so utterly disappointed in the way this master plan was handled, and uh you know, this is my last land use meeting.

I've been I've been on this committee for eight years, and I entered city government and I entered this committee eight years ago with this firm hypothesis that this city is far, far far too influenced by uh large-scale commercial development and all of the uh enterprise that goes around uh uh that takes part in that, whether it's law firms or construction companies, and I am so much more convinced today than I was eight years ago that this city is ultimately, in my opinion, run not for the people who reside here, but for a small group of people who are making a tremendous amount of benefit at the expense of everybody who calls this fantastic city their home, and the idea that we passed a master plan with this kind of cheerleading um cheerleading, let's call it uh uh uh press release type idea that it was inclusive and everybody's thoughts were involved when it is so blatantly obvious that the residents of this city do not did not, I don't want to say don't feel heard because feeling a feeling away is a concept, it's a perception.

I am positive because I've read every page of that master plan that the ideas and values that the re the residents of this city what they hold in their heart for what they want the future of the city, that is not enshrined in that document, and that is a failure of city government.

That's a failure of us, not us as this committee, but as a part of city government, I'm ashamed of that document, and so I cannot.

I'm sorry, there's nobody here to listen to this, but I couldn't not raise my hand and just wait how thoroughly disappointed, although expected I am with this process, because I do not believe that that document does what state statute requires it to do.

Protect people communities, you know, and that is not what we are now living under for the next 10 years.

And to me, that is such a failure, and I even though I had no part in it, and I tried my hardest to be a part of taking the document so that it actually protected residents of the city and made a promise to the residents of the city for the next 10 years that the city was going to use our most precious resource uh in a way that was beneficial to all of us, it failed.

And um I I just want to say I'm sorry to the residents of the city.

I know that other people involved directly, whether it's the planning board, the administration land youth bureau, uh, they're obviously not going to say sorry, they're waving compounds and saying this is the best thing ever.

But if you talk to the average person in the city, they don't feel that way, and they're the average person's right.

And for this administration to continuously just wave a flag and say, we did the bad, look how this amazing thing we produced, and ignore the vast amount of public sentiment and and and the feeling, it's not a feeling, and the fact that that document does not represent what the residents of the city want is a travesty.

And I'm so sad that that happened while I was in city government, and I reject all of it, and I want that on the record.

Uh, thank you, uh, Mr.

Chair.

I I yield.

Uh, thank you, Coach Sherwood.

Um, Representative Kaczynski, you have the floor.

Thank you, uh, Coach.

First of all, I just want to thank uh President Sherwood for extraordinary efforts that she's put forth on this issue for all the residents of Stanford.

I think there are those of us kind of you know on the on this committee and on the board of reps and others that are members of the public that are very engaged with the public discourse that are witness to the to the phenomenal effort and and I'm sure communally collectively think so highly of President Sherwood for her efforts as a true champion of the residents.

Um, and to follow on about what's enshrined and what's not enshrined in the comprehensive plan, what clearly is so that there's obvious uh important and pretend potentially illegal omissions uh in the in the plan, but what's clearly enshrined in the document is strategic ambiguity, and it this concept of strategic ambiguity is that uh to use language that can legally be interpreted in multiple fashions, and why that becomes particularly dangerous is that when you have two uh boards that will make decisions on specific items in light of the comprehensive plan, they will use that strategic ambiguity to determine their outcomes and and and and to avoid uh conflict or resistance to to what their agenda actually is, and I hate to say it, but I don't think we've seen anything yet as in terms of what's about to come uh as a result of this plan.

Um what is personally for me very sad is that this plan, you know, clearly was it was a highly managed process with a preordained outcome.

So the city is is benefits from very active neighborhood um associations.

Um I happen to where I live is a Chapan Point Association within my district, there's uh Cove Neighborhood Association, as well as actually many other sort of sub-associations, Hubbard Heights Association, so on and so forth.

These are associations that are engaged on a daily lived experience basis with the residents, and the the development of this plan literally ignore, actually not just ignored, but shuffled to the side and and didn't listen to any of those points of view and perspectives that so richly represent the interest of the residents of the city of Stanford.

But this was purposeful, this wasn't an accident, this was an intent of the of the of the very prescribed process by which this plan was developed.

Um again, very sadly one could observe the output of this plan say that this was plan is really guided to pursue personal goals of certain elected officials that are in direct opposition to the communal goals.

So why would you subvert the public good for your private well-being or your private advancement based upon your own personal agenda?

That's rather disturbing.

But yet that's what we have.

Certainly, everyone can vote in November is registered.

And I hope that whether you're a Democrat, independent, an affiliated Republican, that you express your your support for this destructive comprehensive plan in the way that you vote uh using your option here.

So with that, I yield my time and again thank you to President Sherwood for incredible effort on this issue.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Kaczynski.

Uh Representative Camp Real, did you have your full your hand up?

I did, but I I realize that the I had questions for the planning board, but they're not here just because I I really maybe there's somebody on the call that that can answer the questions that I have, but um, so one of the things that I've heard.

No one from the administration, uh, Representative Camp Real here.

No one.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

So then I'll just email my questions, I guess.

Okay, great.

Um, any other questions, comments?

I have my hand up.

Okay, Representative Cruz, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to reiterate Representative Sherwood's this appointment with the way how this whole process was handled.

She was named or she was listed in the steering committee, and that was just window dressing.

There was no opportunity to really see how these uh process were worked out.

Uh, our various public hearings, people commented that their so-called community ambassadors never contacted them.

So, what was the role of the community ambassador?

I filled out an application to be a community ambassador for my district.

And it was even I didn't even receive a response after twice following up.

So that is testament to how this whole process was kind of a preordained result.

And the process was just window dressing to give some substance to the pre-ordained result.

Uh thank you.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Della Cruz.

Uh, I don't see any other hands.

Um, I mean, I guess at this time, since this has already passed and it's going in into motion, uh I'm tempted to just do a report made unless there's any objections to that.

Uh I don't see any, so uh let's do a report made on item number five LU 31.055.

Oh, representative Cottrell.

Yes.

Um, so I see that you guys are making motions to recommit things to steering our board is over, so I'm not understanding theoretically.

Um, you know, our board is over on November 5th, why these items are being recommitted to steering.

If the next board chooses to take up these items again, they can, they absolutely can.

But if someone could explain that to me, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

Representative Sherwood, you have your hand up.

Is that in to answer that question?

Yes, it is.

Yes, it is.

Okay, go ahead.

Um, uh thank you, Representative Cotrell for bringing up this issue.

Um, it is totally appropriate for this board to make suggestions to the next board on things that we feel uh are still open-ended or not complete, it would be up to the steering committee of 32nd Board of Representatives to decide whether or not to put those items on the agenda.

It would be up to the steering committee of 32nd Board of Representatives to decide whether or not to put those items on the agenda.

But um we on the 31st board, we recommitted items.

Uh uh, and then on the 31st Board of Representatives for steering committee, those items showed up, and the steering committee and the chairs of the committees um decided on which ones to take up or which ones not to.

So if this body feels that there is something left open-ended, and we want that board to consider it.

Um, there is nothing wrong with that.

Certainly, there are items that have been carried over from the 30th board.

For example, the air quality issue on public safety is just one example I can come up with.

So I don't think there's anything wrong with uh signaling to the next board that there is something else that we thought they should look at.

Um so there's there's nothing procedurally wrong with it, and uh, thank you for your question.

Thank you, Mr.

Wood.

Uh hold on, Representative Cruz.

I'll I'll note you in a minute.

Uh okay.

Uh Representative Del Cruz, you have the floor.

Yes, I just wanted to draw on another example.

For example, the West Main Street Bridge was carried over from the 29th board.

So the 30th board.

To the 31st board.

And as it stands, I hope it would have been carried to the 32nd board.

So that's one item that's been carried out of multiple boards.

Thank you, Representative La Cruz.

Okay, so we have a report made on LU 31.055.

Um next item is uh item number six, LU31.063.

It's a resolution waiving the requirements of section 23-3.

Of the code of ordinances in order to name the legislative board of office as the Annie M.

Somerville Board Office at the Stanford Government Center.

This was uh originally on LR 31.073.

Uh this time I will like uh Representative Cotrell to do an introduction of this item, please.

Sure.

Um, so for those who have been on this board for the entirety of the four years, um, you know that we waived the requirement that a person be deceased uh for more than six months um to rename um a park.

Um Chestnut Hill Park is now um Susan Abel Park at Chestnut Hill.

We did that before six months had passed um after her death, but you don't you can name something after a living person, you just have to wave um the requirements in the city ordinance.

You have to waive them with good cause.

Um the requirement that a person be deceased for six months or more.

Um so just to give a little bit of background.

Umerville, um, when she completes her term of service, which will end on November 30th of this year, she will have served as a city representative for 48 years.

She was uh elected in November of 197.

Um began her term of service or first term of service on December 1st, 197.

She has served for 38 years in leadership on our board.

She served for 38 consecutive years as clerk from 1979 until 2017.

Um she was president of the Yearwood Center, president of the Yearwood Center Women's Club.

She was on the urban part of the urban redevelopment.

No, sorry.

She's part of the old town hall redevelopment agency.

She's been on many different boards throughout the city that have had an impact on the city of Stanford.

She has won newer numerous leadership awards for her service throughout the years.

Some of them are in uh one of these resolutions.

Um the resolution to name rename the office after her has a handful of the leadership awards that she's won, but there are more.

I basically just chose a handful to give an example of how she's contributed to the city.

Um, but she's been a part of a lot of different things.

Again, 48 years, she's the longest serving um representative that has ever served on the board of representatives.

Our second longest serving member is John Zelinski, and our third longest serving member is John Bakutes.

But she um is going to become well, she already is our longest serving member.

Um, and she will have completed 48 years of service.

And I think it's good to honor people while they are alive, while they are still with us.

Um that is why I would like to rename the board office after um Miss Somerville Representative Somerville, former clerk Somerville.

Um, she's still alive, um, kind of like as an outgoing parting um sort of thank you for her many, many years of public service.

I've only been on the board for eight years.

I cannot imagine adding another 40 years of service um to my record.

So that is my reason for these two items.

One is waiving the requirement um waiving the six-month requirement, and the other basically asked to rename the board office after her, and I modeled these after the procedurally what we did with Susan Abel.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, uh, Representative Cottrell for that introduction.

Um, I see uh Representative Patterson followed by Representative Campbell.

You have the floor, Representative Patterson.

Oh, thank you very much.

Um I have been the partner of Representative Somerville for 10 years, and we have had no one who has been in leadership as long as she has the clerk and also as the member of the steering committee.

Um all of that.

So I just want to say that I think it's important to recognize her for the leadership and for the uh just the uh being the uh record of continuity um of this board.

Uh she is the uh for most of us, she's served at the conscience to remind us sometimes when we fall short of certain expectations.

I have to tell you, uh in the whole time that I've worked with her.

Um I respect her, she's always been a lady, and I very much hope that this committee will unanimously vote to support both of these resolutions.

I yield my time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Representative Patterson.

Uh, Representative Campbell, you have the floor.

Thank you.

I just wanted to say that I wholeheartedly support the waiving of the the uh requirement, as well as um bestowing this resolution for representative Somerville.

She reminds me of the late Harry Reid, I believe his first name was Harry.

He was a United States Senator that knew all of the inner workings of how to pass bills and deal with resolutions and all of those types of things, and as a lay person, I remember hearing her sometimes help the president of various boards uh figure out how to get around the situation.

Her mind was just so full of uh knowledge about various battles they had went through together.

Um, as a young person on this board, I have so enjoyed humbling myself to listen to her.

So I think that she is certainly deserving as a tremendous lioness in politics here in Connecticut and in Stanford, and I certainly will be voting for this.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Representative Campbell.

Uh Representative Campoell, you have the floor, followed by Representative Sherwood.

Thank you, Chair.

And it feels like 20.

And so the fact that this woman has served this city for 47 years.

I mean, I I know there's some members of the public listening, but to be on this board is a lot of work and a lot of heartache.

And uh you you you really don't get anything back personally, other than the fact that you you do some good in this world, and Annie Somerville has one of the biggest hearts of any human I have ever met, and she is strong, like someone just said, like a lion, and I think that's the perfect uh way to describe her.

Um she meets people's rudeness and indignation with kindness and love at every single turn.

Um she is an inspiration and a kind heart, and she deserves every honor that we could possibly give her, and so I will vote in support of this with my whole part, and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Campbell.

Uh, Representative Sherwood, Coach Chair Sherwood, you have the floor followed by Representative Walston.

Thank you, um, Chair Thomas.

I just I want to echo everything that Representative Cofrell and Patterson and Um Campbell and Camporelli have said, and I also you know there's a lot, there's a lot of things, there's a lot of really wonderful things about Representative Somerville.

Um that I think a lot of us could say, but one thing that I want to say is that I have known Representative Somerville in eight years to come to the table on really difficult issues, and she comes with an open mind and an open heart, and I firmly believe that every vote she takes, she is always taken to represent the residents of downtown.

And so I live on I live on the east side, and the east side has changed a lot.

I've lived here my whole life, but there is no district in this city that has changed more, that has faced more challenges that has you know really represented um some of the the biggest issues in the city than downtown, and to represent that district and do it in the way that she has for as long as she has so stunning to me, and you know, representative um Coutrell said, you know, I've served eight years, and Representative Cotrell and I came on at the same time.

I can't imagine serving another 40.

Like the amount of work and love and heart and bravery and dedication it takes to do something like that, and not just do it, but do it to always care and to always show up.

Representative Somerville is at so many meetings, she's on the committee that she's not on, she's engaged, she asks questions, she cares.

I I admire this woman with every being of with every ounce of my soul, and I just think this is just a small thing that we could do.

I mean Representative Somerville has done so much and given so like 48 years of her life is just uh unbelievable um gift, she's a gift to us, Representative Somerville.

You are a gift.

Thank you so much for the work that you have done for this is and we are so I am so honored to have served with you for the last eight years.

I think the world of you, I really do.

And um, I just want to say obviously I'm in support of waiving this, it's an absolute no-brainer, and uh I want to thank Representative Patterson and Representative Cotrell for making sure that this ended up on the agenda.

Um, and I know how much both of them love Representative Somerville.

Uh Representative Somerville.

Stanford loves you.

Thank you for your work, and this is just a small token in exchange for all the things that you have done for us.

You're a wonderful, wonderful person, and I'm honored to have served beside you, and I yield the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you, Coach Sherwood.

Um, let's see, Representative Walston, you have the floor.

Hello, Representative Somerville.

This is yours truly.

Your accolades, that's for getting tonight from everyone from their heart to your heart, my heart to your heart.

I kind of uh want to take this a little bit further.

If we could, I know that she's retiring.

I was wondering if we could give her the title of emeritus.

Um whereas you know, if she wanted, I don't know if if something could be made up, if she only wanted to whereas she could still have access to our meetings, but she you know, she's not she won't be a representative, but she'll be under the title of emeritus, and you know, she would still be able to possibly engage or possibly vote, but she has another title.

I don't know if that could be done, and that's only if she if she would accept that from the board if we could get that done to the chair.

Is that a question for the chair?

Yeah, can anybody answer?

If we could, you know, she's no longer a rep, and but yet still she could still be emeritus, she could still have access to to the emails that you know she could still have access to our meetings and possibly give her comments or you know.

I mean, I honestly don't know how to even answer that.

I don't know if uh co-chair sure would would have any any insight on that.

Um I'm not city attorney, but unfortunately of the city of Stanford grants the right of elected officials to participate uh as members in these meetings.

Um, and so I don't unless there was some sort of charter change, and I'm I'm not a lawyer.

I don't know how that would be possible.

Um so I I agree with representative um uh representative Walton's sentiment, like I would love representative Somerville to still be involved in city government with such a valuable set.

Um, but I don't know of any way that she would kind of be able to be concerned as officious her work for a room, obviously because the charter doesn't explicitly allow it.

So I hope that answers your question, Representative Walton, and I totally agree with your sentiment, although I don't know that I don't think it's possible.

Thank you.

Could we run could we run this past the lawyer?

Could we run this past the lawyer?

I mean, I'm sure you can send an email to the uh legal department and ask your question.

Okay, all right.

I yield, thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Um other comments.

Okay, seeing none.

Um let's uh let's vote on LU 31.

That's oh actually, uh, is there a motion on the floor?

I'll understand a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so motion to approve and multiple seconds.

Um so everyone in favor of uh passing this uh uh waiving the requirements, please say aye.

Aye, anyone opposed?

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions that passes unanimously?

Um, so these uh we're moving on to item number seven, which is a sister of this LU 31.064 resolution naming the board office as the Annie M.

Somerville Board Office at the Stanford Government Center originally LR 31.074.

Is there any questions or comments on this?

Seeing none, um entertain a motion.

Motion to approve secret.

Okay, so motion to approve and multiple seconds.

So let's take this for a vote.

All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Any abstentions.

This uh resolution passes unanimously.

Uh thank you, everyone.

Uh representative Somerville, would you like to say any anything?

Wow.

Um I would I would love to say uh good afternoon uh to everyone.

I am overwhelmed.

I'm glad I'm sitting down.

I want to say uh keep doing the work that you do, keep being who you are.

And the one quit the one thing I asked a lot of uh of you that I hear tonight at the sound of my voice.

Let's keep agreeing and disagreeing to agree, and let's keep loving each other and try to do the best we can for this beautiful city, wonderful city, great city, Stanford, Connecticut.

I plan to be around for a while, and I will be coming to meetings unless I get bored out.

But thank you so much for the kindness.

It's one of the biggest Yahoos I've ever had in life.

So I really appreciate it.

Not just where it's from my heart.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Representative Summer.

Uh obviously, we all love you uh and we think highly of you.

So we're looking forward to passing this at the full board meeting.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh that brings us to our last item.

Um it's LU 31.058.

It's an ordinance for publication.

Uh forming a conservation commission in the city of Stanford.

So I mean, I want to just say a couple of things before we we take this item up.

Um, I just want to let the board know that logistically, there is no way to pass this ordinance on our board.

Um I got there's no way to get um this ordinance or ordinance, even if we even if we unanimously approve this ordinance and it goes and it goes to the full board and that approves it.

We we won't have time to hear about have a public hearing on this.

So this ultimately is in my opinion.

Um kind of a honestly a waste of time, and and and I'm taking into consideration my colleagues' time on this on this uh on this committee because ultimately what will happen is the 30 second board will need to review this, which is their right, and they're gonna make any changes they see fit.

So, whatever we do here, um it's it's basically moot.

Um, the other question I have is uh Christina.

Are you you're still with us, correct?

Yes.

Okay, is there anyone from legal on?

You got all the information point of information.

I don't have any that I see.

Hold on a second, please.

What's what's that, Christina?

No, I do not see anyone on from legal.

Okay, uh, Representative Campbell, uh, you have a point of information.

Knowing all that you just said is true, I told legal they didn't have to be on this call because we likely would just be recommitting this.

Okay, so I just uh that's I just wanted to see what was your what was the end goal to putting this on, and basically your your end goal is to just recommit this for the next board, correct?

Right.

I mean, I was trying to have the ordinance done on time in order last month for us to be able to vote on it and pass it with this board, but um the legal department needed more time with it because it's it's a complicated ordinance that affects other boards and commissions, so they needed to have some time to do their due diligence, and as I think you might have seen it, the ordinance was sent to the board today.

Yeah, 20 minutes before the yeah, so you guys didn't have time to she actually sent it to me two days ago, but I just didn't get time to review it, and so then you guys didn't get time to review it.

So there's really not a conversation to be had, and I just told her not to come on the call.

So I I'll I'd like to make a motion to recommit this.

Okay, great.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um so we have a motion on the board to recommit.

Do we have a second?

Yes, second.

Okay, so we have a motion to recommit uh LU 31.058.

Uh, everyone in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Anyone opposed?

Aye.

Any abstentions?

Uh seeing none.

That uh item will be recommitted to steering.

Um, and that uh can concludes our our uh evening.

But I I just like before anyone everyone gets off this meeting.

I just wanna basically just take a moment to extend my my sincere gratitude to um my co-chair uh co-chair Sherwood and uh each member of this board um you know for your hard work and dedication over the past uh four years.

Um you know, we've tackled some some very complex issues, some very uh some very uh stressful issues.

Um we've uh we've engaged with the in my opinion, and I agree with Representative uh co-chair co-chair Sherwood's uh comment earlier.

We we we definitely engaged with our constituents and gave them a platform to to voice their opinions and concerns uh through this committee, which I'm super proud of.

Um I I deeply appreciate the time and effort that each of you has given to this committee, because I know we've had some long crazy meetings.

Um so I just wanted to thank every everyone.

Um and uh I I definitely respect each one of you um for all your teamwork and uh and hard work um you know that we've done in in land use.

So I'm hoping that uh the 30 second board, uh, whoever chairs this committee, who's ever on this committee continues to listen to the residents of the city of Stanford, um, and and and make this uh a forum where their concerns can be you know uh voiced uh and not uh you know block their efforts to to get um some of their concerns into the uh ears of uh the administration or any other departments in our in our shitty government.

Um I see so I just wanted to say thank you very much to everyone for your hard work these past four years.

Um coach Sherwood, um you have the floor.

Thank you, uh Chair Tomas.

Can you hear me?

Sometimes I think these headphones don't work.

Yeah, yes, we could hear you.

Okay, great.

Um, so I I just uh I want to echo the comments that co-chair Tomas said, and I I want to thank the 31st Board of Representatives and in particular the members of this committee.

I have again I kind of alluded to this earlier in my comments this evening, but I think how the city uses our land is besides the residents of the city, our land is the most um precious resource we have, and how we use it is the defining factor of quality of life and how this city treats its residents and uh the environment.

And I can confidently say that the 31st Board of Representatives Land Use Committee has in my opinion been one of the bravest committees to ever be on on the board of representatives.

We have taken on so many meaningful issues between text changes and zoning applications and um I mean the if you go back and look at our agenda, we have tackled some of the toughest, most passionate issues, and uh I don't know disrespect to any previous boards.

I think that this committee has been a shining beacon for residents of this city to be able to express themselves to be heard, and I think every single one of you should be proud of yourselves for all the work and passion and love you've poured into uh into the topic of land use because it is just so important.

And um, I would be remiss if I didn't mention um, you know, I everybody knows me and Carmine is the co-chairs, but this committee actually had a chair um named Bradley Michelson, who in the beginning of the 31st board was uh tremendous voice for the people and so intelligent, smart as a whip.

And um, you know, Tom Kaczynski, who's sitting in his stead has been a tremendous addition to this committee.

Um, but I wanna I want to thank publicly, I want to thank Bradley for the tremendous amount of work he did.

Um I also want to thank Representative Steve Steven Garst um who also served on this committee uh before his departure a few years ago.

And um, I want to thank Representative Camporelli who took over for him.

And um the 32nd Board of Representatives has a gigantic hole to fill, and I hope that they take the duty of um being watchdogs and being oversight on land use uh as seriously as uh this board and this committee has because it makes a huge difference.

Um I just want to thank you all, and especially to you, uh Coachair Tomas, because I publicly I'll just say it.

I'm super busy, I'm terrible with email, and you have just been uh amazing with this committee and keeping up on the emails and just keeping me up to date on everything, and I can't thank you enough.

Uh so with that I yield.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Representative Coach Sherwood.

And and with this, I close the last meeting of the land use and redevelopment committee of the 31st board.

Um, everyone have a beautiful great night.

Be safe, and uh we'll see you later.

Thank you all for the time.

Thank you.

Good night.

Good night.

Good night.