ll be adding additional cumulative impacts to that site that are going to be harmful to the existing land use uh the part the flip side of that that is hard for me as well is understanding that any other retail space that went in there would have a an existing impact on the traffic also with no recourse from the trail house facility and from the surrounding businesses as well so that's why i've been really struggling to figure out which way to go on this one uh i know it's customary to announce how you're going to vote i'm leaning towards denying the appeal for that purpose uh that an existing uh an additional type of retail could come in have that same traffic impact whether uh this council approved it or not but i will say i am struggling to meet the finding here on c so i will continue to listen to to the other council members as well mr tibbetz thank you mr mayor um yeah this has been an interesting uh appeal for us to follow over the last few months now um i struggle with it too because i as a member of this council i always want to create an environment that if somebody's going to take the time the energy and the money to invest in this city invest in this process that we create that we vet no matter how flawed it may be uh that there is a modicum of relative certainty that they have a good shot at at making it and what i really reviewed uh what uh matt thank you from from the trail house you gave to me to to review i think you gave it to a few of us up here on a lot of these these criteria you know to me a b and c uh the project actually meets that criteria in my opinion i differ with my friend and colleague mr rogers on on item c because when i read that and i think about the land use designation to me that's not a subjective designation that's a specific designation of zoning that's how i interpret it uh where i keep tripping up is very clearly on d um to me when i read density and intensity of the use being proposed including access utilities in the absence of physical constraints this is where my my support for um denying the appeal starts to to get tripped up um and it's for the reasons that that mr rogers stated i mean i think that the success of the trail houses they've kind of created their own problem over there and to me i'm trying to visualize what 338 new cars coming through uh is going to look like uh but ultimately when i think about it as well it's my understanding of the presentation and my research is correct it's really only one parking site outside that that would be essentially used the rest would be inside so i'm also not seeing a change from the current use that's very significant um so you know one thing that i will probably if sue i probably should have done this when i was reading the the motion but i would like um the trail house to have some form of recourse uh in the event that that parking does become an issue you know the applicants have said and i appreciate that of the applicants a lot uh that they are looking at off-site parking um it's it's unconventional for us to kind of tag on those requirements to a business but it seems like we're doing it i would probably feel more comfortable if we did it so that way uh there's really i think in my mind a little bit more of a guarantee that there isn't going to be parking wars over at the trail house um so is it possible for me to withdraw the motion as i have or just amend that we we require a lease to be in effect for the the conditional use permit to be valid uh yes you may withdraw your motion um i don't recall who seconded it or wasn't it mr allie so i i would like to do that if my seconder um is okay with that that's the motion i'm putting forward is to deny any appeal uh but to uh require that this employee lease parking be on the conditional use permit thank you and that was the uh agreement that mr kassen had agreed to earlier i believe so yes waiting there we go i learned the red light uh yes as read by mr os thank you then yes and and that's it for me thank you mayor okay so we're clear we have a motion yes if you could state the motion councilmember tibbetz sure so it's we've we've got all the resolution of the council part but i guess what i would be adding and i will also look to bill if you'd like i just read it into the record you can accept it okay as presented and volunteered by the applicant the applicant agrees as a condition of approval of project approval to secure and maintain six off-site parking spaces for employees or subject to approval by the director the allowance of equivalent measures i think that's satisfactory thank you as amended um actually i would recommend that you state the resolution title and indicate with the um suggested amendment sure i move a resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit for foxtent incorporated to operate a medic a medicinal and adult use cannabis retail dispensary and delivery business within an existing building located at 4036 munkum redrive assessors parcel number 013-284-012 file number c up 18-076 um as amended with the language of of mr rose if you'd read it for the record sure i'd be happy to read it and we actually have one additional recommended condition it's a clarification so the the condition related to the parking i'll reread it as presented and volunteered by the applicant the applicant agrees as a condition of project approval to secure and maintain six off-site parking spaces for employees or subject to approval by the director the allowance of equivalent measures the suggested clarification also has to do with a condition of approval of approval number two in your draft resolution that's referencing compliance with all conditions of approval identified in planning commission resolution number 11935 adopted on january 24th 2019 approving a conditional use permit for cannabis retail dispensary and delivery for medicinal and adult use except condition of approval number two shall reference august 2nd 2019 as the date of the plans referenced so there's a new set of plans and we want to make sure the date is correct i appreciate and accept that and i also waive for the reading of the text second okay we all have nodding heads here with my chair okay miss vice mayor thank you i appreciate all the work that has gone into this and i think i differ from my council members a little bit in that i i don't see a major priority issue on the parking the safety sure is is really important and i'm glad to know that there will be additional safety measures and i can think of multiple places where you enter you drive past to enter anyway i think that it's going to be fine i think that many big cities deal with issues like this and that this is part of us growing up we have a great need for revenue both from the trail house we have a great need for preschool spaces and i said my child to a preschool i would be very happy to send my child to your preschool if you can't have enough kids enroll in it i highly doubt that that's going to be a problem given how many kids we have waiting for preschool spaces we need to grow up as a city and part of that means that parking wars need to become passe and frankly we just spent a few hours on something that i think is part of our growing pains and i'm sorry for all of the heartburn that he gives everybody and i'm not unsympathetic to it but i do think that we need to to move forward cannabis is a tier two priority childcare is a tier two priority these are things that we care about and i weigh them carefully and the other thing that i weigh is that i think it's extremely unfair to ask a business to go through all of these steps and wait over a year to do this and then to deny it i'm going to defer to staff's recommendation and deny this this appeal thank you yeah for me going back to april you know when you said january of 2019 is when the planet commission voted 5-0 in support of this project um my hope was after april and it's worked with other projects you guys work it out because um my hope would have been it could have been a win-win in fact when i spoke with matt and glenn that's what i asked them do we see a win-win unfortunately they didn't see one but i think these two could be compatible um and i know mr roger is one of the comments you made when staffs talked about by right any another use could go in there would have more traffic than this because i don't have the concerns about the cannabis it's a legitimate retail establishment in the city san rosa and so i think staff we've done enough i'd be supporting what the motion is on so with that we have a motion and a second your votes please and the motion passes with five eyes mr roger's voting no so the appeal is denied so with that thank you all for your participation we'll take approximately a 20 minute recess for a meal break okay let's resume our city council meeting mr city manager report item 16.1 16.1 report resolution of the council of the city of santa rosa acknowledging receipt of a report made by the santa rosa fire chief regarding compliance with sections 131 for 6.2 and 131 for 6.3 of the california health in safety code ian heartage assistant fire marshal presenting thank you council members um this report comes on the heels of the ghost ship fire and the losses suffered there um it was the deadliest fire since the 2003 station fire and the deadliest fire in california since 1906 based on the losses of these of these high death rate fires the state has mandatory inspections that are required by all fire departments within the state of california and based on this requirement the senate with sb 1205 decided that we needed to have a mandatory reporting to our governing bodies on our services that we provide for those inspections this is that report this is the first year that the state has required agencies to provide this report we're reporting on the 2018 calendar year and we'll be back to you hopefully shortly after the new year with 2019 the reporting requirements are for all group e and group our occupancies as identified in the sb 1205 legislation a group e occupancy is a an educational occupancy for six or more through the 12th grade our occupancies that are state regulated are our one our twos which are hotels motels and apartments also mentioned in the state legislation are care facilities so all of those uh occupancies are provided in the staff report and the completion rate that we provided so in the city of san rosa we have 60 known e occupancies and we have 862 known group our occupancies in 2018 fire fire department staff completed 88 percent of our group ease within the calendar year the 12 months and 95 percent of our group ours january of the very next year we were at 97 and 99 percent completion and a couple straggling inspections were completed by uh may 31st of 2019 to complete out the 100 percent based on our our learnings of going through this exercise and providing you this report we're already making changes to the scheduling of those inspections so that we're front loading them a little further in the year at the beginning of the year so that we don't have those stragglers you know taking us over that 12 month period so that we will hopefully be able to report 100 percent within the calendar year for 2019 but if not certainly for 2020 do you have any questions council any questions see none do we have any cards mr all there is you have this um thank you a little resolution of the council seat of san rosa acknowledging receipt of a report made by the fire chief of the fire department regarding compliance with section 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the california health and safety code and wait for the read of the text second the motion is second any other comments all right your votes please and that results in six yeses thank you so much for the presentation thank you very much mr mcglenn item 16.2 16.2 report council vacancy appointment procedure and schedule sue gallagher city aterna and and dina manis acting city clerk presenting good evening mr mayor and council member i know members i know it's getting late so uh we are going to i'm going to outline our steps forward in light of our council vacancy as you know council member combs resigned from the council she announced that a couple of weeks ago and her resignation was effective on November 25th section 31 of our charter provides that the vacancy may be filled either by appointment by the council within 60 days of the vacancy or by the calling of a special election i'm going to walk through the various options and the various steps for each of those options for the special election pursuant to section 30 of our charter the special election is governed by the state elections code state elections code requires that a special election be held on a designated election day date those dates are the second tuesday in march the second tuesday in april or the second tuesday in november so those are the three choices it's actually the second tuesday after the first monday of each of those months but um so with that end the election has to be called at least 114 days in advance of the election given that the earliest election date that you could call would be the april 14th 2020 election the city clerk acting city clerk has spoken with the sonoma county registrar of voters um and has received an estimated cost of the that election the estimated cost is the range is between 180 almost 185 thousand to a little over 323 thousand the difference depends on whether there are any other items that go on to that ballot at this point there is there are no other items on the april 2020 ballots so the city at this point would be bearing the entire cost of that election to meet the deadline for an april election you this council would have to call the special election by december 22nd so if you are going to be inclined to go that direction we will ask that you give direction to staff to come back later in december probably december 17th to allow you to call that election your other option is to have the council itself appoint someone to fill the vacancy and that process is governed by a council policy number 00023 that council policy was originally enacted adopted by the council in 1988 and it had some clarifying amendments i think it was 2007 and 2013 but i did want to clarify that that policy has been in existence for some time and it sets forth a seven step process um you adopt a schedule you prepare the application form you close the application period and release the names of the applicants uh you prepare interview questions you hold the interviews you vote and then you formally appoint so step one um and my thought is unless there's an objection i will walk through all of the steps and then i'll come back and we'll go through the decision points that were where we need council action so step one is the adoption of um of the schedule and the council policy 00023 and i'll just refer to it as a policy going forward uh requires that the council uh adopt the appointment schedule at the earliest possible date and the schedule um has to include um sorry a schedule must set forth the time and the date for applications um the the application period when it opens when it closes the time and date for submission of interview questions by the public the public's going to have an opportunity to submit proposed questions and then finally the date for applicant interviews uh to take place at all at a at a public meeting and i would note that um well let me move to the next slide and then well i'll talk about that the six staff has suggested a schedule for the process and the proposal is that the application period would open at noon tomorrow uh that gives us an opportunity to make any adjustments to the application if you decide to uh to propose any revisions and then it would close two weeks later december 18th at five p.m we would look to have the public submission of proposed interview questions begin also tomorrow but at eight a.m. and run for 12 days closing monday december 16th at five p.m. and then we would propose that interviews take place in january january 7th um beginning at four p.m. and then continuing into january 8th if necessary um you're of course free to we'll we'll talk more but we'll be free to adjust those dates as you as you choose um i put up the calendar just to make it a little more visual in terms of what that means so concurrently the submission of public questions and concurrently submission of applications but the application period going a little bit longer the reason for that is is that um we are looking to have questions and the applications all together that week because in the following week we go into the holidays so um it's going to be give staff more time to work on and pulling that together and just to couple on that there still would be work happening on the holiday or on the holidays to get to a january 7th additional pushing of that date pushes us really quick you know we will not be able to meet at january 7th eighth deadline so i just want to emphasize that that that pushing those dates then causes a rolling effect and gets you closer to the date where you have to make a decision and just cause challenges with your january calendar yes and i and i want to make two two additional notes um one is that um what is the actual full time that you have the 60 days the 60 days and that would be for the final appointment of someone would be on january 24th so that's kind of the last day that you could act after that you would need to call for a special election i also want to note that under this schedule because the interviews are going to happen in early january you will have already missed the deadline for an april special election so if you want to try to leave your there's there's really no way for us to to do it to give you time to go through an appointment process and still give you time for the april election that means if you are unable to make a decision on an applicant and you have had the interviews in any time in in january you'll be looking at a november 2020 election which negates the need for a special election because you'd be having would be having the new district election at that time step two is the application form and staff has prepared the application forms city clerk has prepared that and that is in among the materials with the staff report the policy requires that the application include three questions a statement of your background statement of qualifications and a statement of why you wish to be appointed the application also according to the policy has to include a nomination form that has valid signatures of at least 20 registered voters from san aroza i will note that the policy allows voters to sign more than one nomination form so it's not and not exclusive now the application also must be accompanied by the completed form 700 the statement of economic interest and then the council can provide additional questions if if they would like again the suggested application form is attached to the staff report includes all all of the elements of the policy and it also includes eight additional questions it was thought that those additional questions do provide you some helpful information when you evaluate the candidates and those actual those eight questions mirror those that were used in the application in 2013 the most recent vacancy just on that except for the one we added about districts because in 13 there was not districts that's that's correct and we asked about districts we included the district questions simply up up at the top that you identify your address and and identify also that the district in which you live that's really just for your information councilmember combs was an at-large councilmember her position remains an at-large position so an applicant can come from anywhere in the city step three the disclosure of applications the step three is really when the application period ends no information can be released before the application period closes once the application period closes though then the applications become public and the identity of the applicants will be released and and the applications themselves will be available for review at the clerk's office step four is developing the interview questions pursuant and there's two pieces to this first is questions are submitted by the public and then we'll get to part b is the advanced questions that the council can can draft the questions that the policy requires that you allow the public to submit proposed interview questions those again we were having those submissions done concurrently with the application period following closure of the application period then those proposed questions are forwarded to all of the council members and all of the canny council member may at their discretion use any of those questions during the interview itself the other piece of questions for applicants is that the council by motion may choose to present questions additional questions to the applicant in advance of the interviews again there are already the three policy questions and then the eight additional questions in the application itself application form itself but you may choose choose to present additional questions to applicants in advance and you may choose to have the applicants either answer those questions in writing prior to the interview or to simply provide a verbal response during the interviews those questions the mayor may appoint an ad hoc to put those questions together or you can allow all of the council members to suggest questions we then moved to step five which is the council interview itself those interviews take place in a public meeting each applicants interviewed separately each applicant is given the opportunity to make a brief opening statement excuse me and and to respond to any advanced questions if advanced questions have been given and if they haven't already been answered in writing after that opening piece each council member then has the opportunity to question the applicant and the policy the way the policy is written is on any subject he or she feels is relevant to that applicants qualifications so it's quite broad that all be getting being given though there there are and i will caution the legal questions there are restrictions i will at that time when we get close to the interviews i know you all know those but i'll send a reminder as to areas that you should not delve into and given kind of that broad opening the policy does provide that the council may by a majority vote place either eight or both a time limit on each interview or limit the number of questions that each council member asks after the interviews are completed we go through a voting procedure it is by through a process of elimination in the first round each council member shall vote for three applicants although the policy allows council members the council may allow for four votes per council member if there are more than 10 applicants at each round those applicants receiving one vote or less are eliminated and in each subsequent round the council members vote for one fewer applicant than in the prior round until each council member is only voting once in that final round the applicant that receives four votes shall be appointed to the vacancy step seven is the appointment and the policy says that the council by resolution may appoint the applicant that receives four more votes in the final round if no applicant receives four votes then the council may adopt such other procedures as it deems appropriate for the appointment so the policy is wide open at that point of how you might go about selecting someone and again if no appointment is is made within the 60 days that is by January 24th then a special election must be called but again at that point special election would be in November and of no particular use the other the final two notes that i would make is that the successor will serve for the duration of council member combs's term and that term ends in December 2020 and again i had already mentioned that hers is in that large position so anyone from anywhere in the city can be can submit an application and can be selected so before i go to the recommendation what i'd like to do is to the recommendation is simply to approve for the council by motion to approve the procedure and schedule fulfilling the city council vacancy created by the resignation of council member julie combs i'll note now go back and go through each of the decision points i'm happy to answer any questions before i do that dealing before we do that mr rogers yes a couple of questions one hypothetically in the event that we did an appointment and we're not able to then come up with somebody by the 60 days is it required that that name still go on the ballot for November because my understanding is that the date that we would certify the election from November would be the date that that seat is disappearing anyway yes it would be my opinion that we would not need to place names on the November ballot to fill the vacancy given that the November ballot will that that seat will no longer exist at the time of the once the election is certified okay and then just from a procedural standpoint for the process of voting for a replacement does the ordinance say that the council shall vote for three or may vote for three the policy you know let me um because we have when we do appointments and we do it through this process of elimination there have been times where council members choose to only vote for one or two and i'm wondering what the ordinance actually says yeah the the um and again it's a council policy rather than the ordinance but um it says each council member shall vote for three applicants okay thank you sure um were you there questions yeah miss washman so correct me if i'm wrong has there ever been an instance in which the vacancy has not been filled not that i'm aware of not in those the the three that i'm aware of they were all they were filled for some reason i thought there might have been one that wasn't filled yeah um there may have been one in the past but i not to my knowledge okay can we one of the options in terms of limiting the questions was not this one but i'm wondering if we can do it can we limit the amount of time each council member has instead of the amount of questions uh yes i i don't see any reason that you could not do that to my mind that might be a little bit more realistic and moving through the process right one of the difficulties in that is um i i guess the council member would have uh could ask as many questions as they could get answers from the applicant and the applicant may go on longer than the time period grant and we would it be possible to advise the applicant that they have that much time with that particular council member certainly yeah and would the council member be able to cede their time those are all decisions those are it more quickly yeah those are all decisions that the council can decide um also should the if the mayor determines to appoint an ad hoc for development of the the advanced questions that ad hoc could also be the council could delegate these questions also to the ad hoc so two different thank you two different paths any other mr tivitz thank you i wanted to follow up on um vice mayor phleming's question is does the charter require us to govern with seven or is governing with six an option governing it with six is an option the um charter does i i'm going to look at the exact language um yes if the the the way the charter reads is that if the council fails to fill a vacant council vacancy within 60 days after it occurs the council shall then call a special election so you're technically under the charter required to call the special election but again it would be and it would be an exercise in futility um if it wasn't done before uh December 22nd so but it sounds like your interpretation would be the spirit of the charter is that we need to fill so i think this the spirit of the charter is that the vacancy should be filled um but there is not a requirement and if um if you are unsuccessful uh then you would be operating as a sixth member council for uh there for the almost a full year okay and i think the essential question that the the city attorney is going to go back to is what path are you choosing and so the intent is to fill the particular path are you going to call special election because you still do have time to call special election for april or are you going to proceed down a path of of soliciting for replacement that appointment process would effectively cancel out a special election in april but i think the intent is to fulfill to try to fill the seat you're going to have that critical question in front of you in a second about that initial pathway and that's what i was can we yes let's let's ask the first question are there any questions about it because i think this is what we have to decide to do a special election or an interview process are there any questions for the city attorney on what the special election i would ask the council at this point to make that decision that choice of whether and you can do that by motion and a vote whether you wish to proceed by way of calling a special election in which case we'll come back december 17th with that item or if you want to move forward with the appointment process mr. Rogers i have you having this item you ready to make a motion yeah i will uh don't have it in front of me i will make a motion that the council uh follow this the staff recommendation and pursue an appointment of our uh replacing our council member second we have a motion and a second any additional comments your votes then please in that passes with six eyes thank you for that reminder uh do we have any cards on that item okay dwayne duit no dwayne susan lamont she spoke earlier so all the public comment all right with that do you want to go through the other steps or do you want me to share with my thoughts um either way well let me just give some thoughts to my colleagues with the appointment by council it is my intent to um name an ad hoc committee to actually um select the questions that we would be posing to any of the applicants or candidates um so actually i could just name it now right in the point it since we're going in this direction yes you may so the um my ad hoc committee would be myself the vice mayor and council member soyer and our intent will be to select the questions and i would also offer the the time frames as to to your question earlier not knowing how many applicants we have i i think once we given the timeline that you shared earlier after the date of all the applications we'll know how many applicants there are we'll have an idea of the questions from the public and then our ad hoc committee will make some suggestions for a motion vote for the council is that the way yes that sounds that sounds appropriate um let me go back though because we do have to do a couple of motions one is for the uh suggested schedule um again what we are proposing i'll actually put it to the calendar is to open the application period and the period to submit for the public to submit questions open that tomorrow uh december 4th um 8 a.m. for submission of questions and noon for submission of or for um uh yes to open the application period at noon tomorrow and then to close a period for submission of public questions on the 16th monday and then to close the application period on the 18th and then we would be you would be in a position would be in a position to pull the materials together for you to be able to have an ad hoc committee meeting before christmas so so i do want to ask a clarifying point mr. mayor are you saying that you would have a meeting with the council to ratify the decisions or are you asking this sub the ad hoc to make those determinations because there's not currently a meeting scheduled before the 7th and 8th i would like to do whatever's consistent with our council policy and so if the ad hoc can make those that would be my intent that the the three of us would make those yes the ad hoc um the ad hoc under the policy the ad hoc can uh draft the questions to be answered uh in advance either in advance in writing or at the interview and i would ask that the council um this evening affirm that the ad hoc may also address the issue of the time limits for the interviews themselves time limits or limits on the number of questions but i think the first step will be is this schedule and then to have the interviews on january 7th is this schedule acceptable to council or are there any changes can i make a brief suggestion regarding the question opening period can we align that for noon tomorrow instead of 8am in the efforts to put an online portal available yes for the middle of those questions thank you mr rogers and just as a question for the city manager right along those lines is staff prepared if the council does approve of the application tonight is staff prepared to have that up on the website and available by noon um i believe that is the case yes great thank you would you like to make a motion yeah i will first the schedules yeah i will also make a motion to accept the proposed schedule opening the application process as well as the question process tomorrow december 4th at noon and closing the public comments or the public questions portion on monday the 16th and closing the application period on wednesday the 18th of december and and having the interviews on january 7th beginning january 7th correct and beginning the interviews on january 7th and completing them whenever we're done very good and just to clarify that that was a 5 p.m closing for those on those dates correct close of business for the city hall and mr did you second that okay we'll motion a second any additional comment your votes please and that passes unanimously very good the next step is the application form and so we'd ask if you are comfortable or desire any changes to the application form that was attached to the staff report mr rogers yeah i see no additional changes that i would make so i will move for the council to adopt the proposed application form yep everything is consistent with what we've done so far second we have motion to second any additional comments your votes please then motion whoa rump roll maybe one of the requirements to be that you can use this the system and that passes unanimously and in terms of the advanced questions um the mayor has indicated uh that he will appoint and has appointed the ad hoc committee to draft the advance questions i'm not sure though whether we've had the council as a whole the policy requires a council as a whole to decide whether or not advanced questions will be posed and whether those questions should be responded to in writing or at the interviews verbally if you would like to um refer that question those two questions also to the ad hoc you may do that i think i'll make a motion uh that the ad hoc create questions uh that the applicant has the opportunity to respond to verbally in the interviews uh as a advance heads up for them and that the council members would still retain the ability to ask any pertinent question that they need at the january seventh meeting second any additional questions that's already with the time limits portion for the ad hoc authority be a second separate motion yeah okay any other questions okay your votes please and that passes unanimously and so now the delegation to the ad hoc of the decision to place a time limit or the limit on the number of questions asked and the proposal has been to to have that delegated to the ad hoc as well mr rogers i'm thinking about what the motion will be uh i move that the council have an opportunity to weigh in uh at the start of that process on whether or not we need a time limit second yeah discussion if i can start with what process what the the start of the interview process so that we have as a body of six have a discussion about whether or not we need to have a time limit rather than it just coming out from the ad hoc without input from other council members mr tibet thank you mayor the reason why like it is a concept is it allows us to kind of take stock and how many applicants we have and then make a time assessment in that moment whereas if i'm sitting on the council and not the ad hoc i would have concerns if the ad hoc said we're going to allow 10 minutes for every applicant and we have four applicants because i just want to make sure that the council has enough time to ask questions and the applicant has enough time to respond mr soror thank you that was my con i figured that's where you were going that it would be dependent on the uh reality of how many applicants we had correct be able to make an informed decision yeah not that i don't trust the ad hoc news vice mayor what would you think about um the council weighing in and the ad hoc making a recommendation on based on a couple of different scenarios of different uh applicant pool sizes i think that that's appropriate okay and i could include that in the motion if if the city attorney would prefer yes i one the one comment that i would make from a staff perspective is that if we are going to um as you have affirmed um have the interviews on january seventh um it would be helpful in scheduling the interviews to be able to tell people when their interview slot is which we can't do if we don't know until that day how long each interview will be i recognize entirely that the length of the interviews will may depend in in significant part on the number of applications that are received so if you received i think last time maybe there were 14 applicants 17 applicants you're going to have a shorter period than if you only have four um and perhaps the council could simply give some guidance to the ad hoc tonight um because we won't have another full council meeting before the application period is closed on the 18th you know other options i mean you know what i guess some of the other options would be we could just tell everybody to arrive at you know at four o'clock and that we'll go through them as as we go through them and let them know what the order is going to be we could hold a special meeting to um have you decide um uh the time limits let me amend my motion okay so i will move to allow the ad hoc to make that determination about the timing uh my suggestion would be though that if a time limit is imposed it's a time limit per council member to ask questions not an overall time limit on the individual interview i want to make sure when i'm done grilling somebody that other council members have time left to do this thing right and i understand i i think we understand that but i think we also want to make sure there's flexibility so that we can actually schedule folks so i'm a little concerned about overall time limit i think to your point having equity is that where you're striving at equity in the questions and the response times right since i haven't heard a second on that yet let me just provide a little information about my thoughts on this i see there's a variety of different opportunities for each candidate you know having done dozens if not hundreds of interviews you know an opening comment we'll probably have some i can see again this is without talking with my colleagues on the ad hoc but a series of questions that we ask the same ones for each and then each council member will get depend upon the time you get five minutes you get you know ask whatever you want from that frame in mind wrap around closing comments and time frame so for me i mean i want us to have as much information as we need to make the best possible decision the reality is if we have 17 you start working that out i know i some people so let's give them an hour that's 17 hours interviews if it's like last time so i know for me as a member of the ad hoc my interest is i think to meet all of our expectations we all have that same time frame whatever questions you want to ask but you're going to go i think at some point we have to say you got five minutes every council member has five minutes right and i'm fine with that so miss vice mayor did you have any comments or yeah i i'm with you um mr roger's about wanting to provide um you know some amount of of fairness i mean tons of all the fairness in it my concern is that if we if we don't put a limit on it that's firm we can't schedule and then staff can't prepare and then if we have 30 applicants you know that we're just gonna it's gonna be a train wreck and i and i get that my perspective is that we have an obligation to get it right not get it fast and so i don't want arbitrarily put a limit on it that doesn't allow us to actually get the answers we need to have the public be informed all of us up here went through lengthy campaigns where the public was able to ask questions was able to get responses that they wanted and we'll be filling this position with somebody who has the same authority in voting that the rest of us have without any type of vetting so what i don't want to do is limit it in a way that hinders our ability to actually ascertain somebody's ability to do the job and i think that that's that's understood and appreciated mr tivitz thank you yeah that that was the point i wanted to make i really i appreciate that you know staff you're being sensitive to these applicants time but the the fact of the matter is for me to sit up here you got to go through a process and and if that means that you got to sit through 10 other people going through you know what their answers are then then you got to do that i don't want us to artificially as chris said limit ourselves and our ability to procure the answers on behalf of the public that the public as we all know is going to expect us to ask and determine so you know my position on this whole thing is is if we are supposed to basically make this decision on behalf of the public let's allow ourselves the time to do that now i trust ultimately that the ad hoc is going to make good time determinations but i would feel more comfortable that the ad hoc bring back a recommendation based on the number of of applicants that there are but ultimately the council votes to set the time i again i don't foresee this being the case where the ad hoc would come back and say well we have 17 applicants we're determining 10 minutes for each person if that were the case i would say well wait a minute i i want to ask at least 10 minutes worth of questions of this person and and i think the public is expecting that of of me and all of us up here so i just want to that day be able to make that final determination as a council because time is going to be important because of the information also i i really appreciate the processes we go through in interviewing people up in the mayor's conference room but i mean if this is going to resemble anything like that i will be completely dissatisfied with the process of putting somebody up here yes the the process does have to take place in open session and and and certainly the council wants to have sufficient time to to ask questions of each applicant so certainly so any other comments you're at your mr shawyer no i'm not on this item i'm on this piece so mr rogers could you state your motion let's see if we get a second so the motion is for the ad hoc to uh go off and bring us a recommendation uh at the at the commencement of the actual interviews on whether or not a time restriction is warranted uh and what that time restriction would be the council would then adopt or deny that recommendation okay is there a second to that i'll second that so my first question would be so you're suggesting that conversation would happen on january 7th it'd be the the first item that we would do before we begin the interviews right on january 7th correct okay mr i swear would it be acceptable if we share our recommendation with staff or is it even legal legal for us to share our recommend i can wait um is it would it be legal for us to share our recommendation with staff the subcommittee recommendation on link prior to that meeting so that in an attempt to and of course the council can override it and say no we don't like that and we want to do something different for the motion on the floor but can we go ahead and share it like let's say we say it's 45 minutes per candidate can we share it with you so you can attempt to schedule the candidates and the staff time and then if it gets overridden well that's what happens a campaign is you know time consuming and not very pretty uh yes we would um we would anticipate that you would share that with staff in order to help us even schedule yes schedule our own time but also applicants at least give a sense of of timing um but yes you could come you could come in on the 7th and and and make different decisions um and i may get i may get slugged by the um by the city manager but i mean the other option is that you have you you have a special meeting at some point after that the applications are all here um but we need to set that meeting if we're going to do that we need to set that meeting tonight and everyone has to commit to participating in that meeting tonight so that that's the problem that we're running on a very thin calendar here so it's not it's not an issue about that executing that staff will make it available but we need to get it locked down tonight so if we're going to have a special meeting we should schedule that special meeting this evening my sense my sense is this is that the subcommittee is going to go to great length to do whatever we think is going to be acceptable and highly reasonable to the council and i really hope that we don't need a special meeting in that what we you know it's like when your mom says which half of the cookie you want and one sibling gets to break it in half another one gets to pick i mean so i'm hopeful that we take that philosophy that if we screw it up you know we're going to be greatly inconveniencing ourselves and staff but i would still urge that if this is going to be the the measures that we that we schedule a special meeting and then we could relax that's suspend that special meeting because we didn't need it i would rather approach it from that reason that i worded the uh motion the way that i did is i'm not interested in having a special meeting i just want to provide some level of assurance for council members that your input will be heard uh and i like i said i trust the ad hoc to make a good decision but i also want us to just approve it uh whether we're going to do a time limit or not at that point based on their recommendation not in a special meeting and i believe so just with the time less the way's been laid out either the 19th or 20th or maybe the 23rd of december would be the ad hoc's meeting the ad hoc at the conclusion of that meeting by then we'd have all the questions and we'd know how many applicants the ad hoc could do a vote and do the recommendation staff could act on that recommendation with the understanding that on january 7th members of the entire council can say that doesn't work for us we're going to change it that's way i was correct mr alvarez as a point of reference what process was used last time was forest timing part pardon the last time we went through this process with the vacancy what process was used forest timing of the interviews there was a time limit and i don't recall i don't know if the city clerk recalls i mean the question to me is what is the ideal amount of time to get the information that we need from from the applicants so that the community can hear them because it it seems to me that it's a little bit of a disservice when you're saying that if we only had four well gee i wish i had more than 10 minutes 10 minutes seems a little bit short to me for from my perspective but if you have 20 uh you're going to shorten it down right so i think you can miss something by shortening things down arbitrarily you know because you may have a really solid candidate out there that you weren't even less questions of because we only had sorry we only have 10 minutes for a view but if you there's only four of you we could ask you a question for 20 minutes and got a lot more made a better decision uh this is a very important decision so i think we need to have some kind of a framework to work with and they should know to put themselves in a frame of mind okay how long am i going to be standing up here answering different questions that don't have to be work on brevity or not so i think it's it's it's relevant to see what we did the last time in the previous council vacancy appointment they had 15 minute interviews scheduled and they ran relatively on time i think by the end of the evening there was a little bit of back and forth some interviews ran shorter some ran a little bit longer but they originally scheduled it in 15 minute increments yeah i was surprised when i heard that too mr rogers uh from a process standpoint so will each of these interviews be scheduled in a way where the public comment is on each individual interview or will it be an aggregate at the end i hadn't thought that through but i would say it's going to be at the aggregate at the end okay uh if i could make a suggestion i know we're we're still laying out the process let's try to provide a public comment opportunity up front and then one at the end if that's the way that we're going to go um because i could also see if we have 30 applicants uh and say it's 10 hours of interviews i don't know i could see the public uh not feeling heard if they don't have an opportunity to weigh in for 10 hours and just my feedback from the mayor perspective i'd be very open to having it both pre and post and that would be certainly be obviously permissible so and the the public would have had the opportunity to have reviewed the applications the written applications so they would also have that basis for making comment for clarification oh sorry um for clarification on that point for guarding the public comment in the event that the application or the interviews roll into the second day would that be also on the second day at the beginning of that interview period and at the end of that my intent would be let's say it's item 15.1 public comment before we know because we know it's going to be interviews and when we're at the end of we've heard done all the interviews whether it's four days later or the same day and we'll have another public comment at the conclusion of those because i mean for me the reason behind that if you're going to make comment you want to hear everyone's and that might be as long as it takes for what i've been hearing here so with that let's call the question and could you restate your motion and then we'll the motion is for the ad hoc to bring a recommendation to the full council at the beginning of the item on january 7th uh with a recommendation on whether or not to impose a time limit and what the time limit might look like for approval of the council second okay we for the comments your votes please and that passes with five i's one no uh mr alvarez voting no m city attorney do we have more questions that we need to answer not at this time this these that gets us going on the process and once the interviews take place there'll be some more decision points obviously but for this evening i think we have the direction that we need all right thank you very much for that thank you mr sire this would be the time for for me to complicate things somewhat sorry about that um there there were some lessons learned at least one that i remember from the last process of interviews and selections and that was that the council members or the the applicants had an opportunity while sitting in the in the in this chamber to hear the questions and to see the responses of the council members to those questions to get a flavor of exactly what the where the council members were going um my my request would be that the applicants be sequestered um somewhere outside of this this chamber and that they'd be requested not to they can't i mean we can't force them i don't think we can even force them out of the chamber um but that of course could weigh in on how we make our decisions about those individuals but i think it's unfair uh in in the spirit of parody to you know rarely do you have a room full of applicants and every applicant gets to hear the questions submitted to the first one and and along down the line so um how do we and there may be who i don't know there may even be another couple of recommendations that might come down um from our experience in the past that we might want to put before the council for a decision how might that happen if they if they so we could we could do on what we could do the one i just mentioned potentially this evening but what if there are other recommendations that that came before the subcommittee ad hoc you would need to schedule a special meeting because if you look at the timetables that you've approved you're not going to get the the subcommittee ad hoc it's not going to get to look at the questions because we're going to need to compile the questions the closing date is the 16th the closing date of the application period is the 18th there's no council member so there's no formal council meeting scheduled between then and the 7th so if you have questions that you want to vet for the full body to vet you're going to need to schedule a meeting of the council before and give us time to then respond to that instruction so you're looking to schedule an additional meeting at some point in the calendar between the the 18th and the 7th and i would just remind the council that i think that this is a little different than the last time because unfortunately the way the calendar is falling is this is happening in the midst of the holiday season and so we need some prep time to be able to respond to changes so i just that's why i was saying if we're going to go that route council member i would be highly advising the council to set that meeting if we don't need the meeting then we can always release everybody but for planning purposes i'm going to if you if your desire is to have a full meeting of the council to run through some scenarios we're going to need to schedule that this evening unless we just left it at that one issue that could be considered this evening as one of the requirements of our candidates if you want to have that conversation tonight and flush that out yes but you're not going to be able to see the the issue seems to be a lot about how many applicants you have how we would how many we would sequester that starts to get into it if you're getting into the the numbers that we're floating getting 17 applicants and figuring how you sequester 17 applicants that's going to be depending on how long the question period goes that that is you may want to start earlier in the day not later in the day so that you're starting at not what we're scheduling right now which is 4 p.m. to start because we were you know part of the proposal on that was to make it a regular council meeting making sure people were available if they had work commitments so that we could start working into that conversation but again i'm not sure how to answer that question because we're not we don't have all those variables and we won't have those variables until the closing of the application period if i can just make a comment because i i have some of the same concerns because i don't think it's fair to the first candidate versus the 10th candidate and i think and i'd be interested in hearing my colleagues think or you say we're asking each candidate not to listen to any of the other candidates interviews and a question that i would be you know maybe during my time i would ask did you listen we asked you not to do it did you listen it's almost like being on jury duty where judges say you know don't listen listen or read any newspaper they don't sequester on 24 7 unless the most significant cases but i would think that would be a legitimate because i have that expectation because i don't think it's i share your concern mr. Sawyer and even just putting a question like that we're asking you not to do it we should have room available somewhere on this you know city parking lot somewhere where we can have a person should they have no other options but then that'd be a question i'd be more than happy to ask did you listen mr. Tibbets thank you mr. mayor you know i i hope we don't need it but i'm thinking out of an abundance of caution we should set a special meeting date and if the ad hoc feels confident that we don't need it then we don't need it but so what i'd like to do is i'm going to make a motion you all can vote it down of course but shan what what day is would you recommend you all need to check your calendars that's that's what i would recommend doing right now because i again knowing what the lead time is i mean we're talking either the probably the 30th or the 31st to hold a special meeting because i'm hearing some really great concerns here and i and i share them and i definitely share an esto's concern about uh having enough time to to really vet these candidates i i just don't want this to be a rush process and so i i would suggest maybe if there's if i see nodding heads well the the other option is to push it later into january um but that means that the stuff you've scheduled to handle in january will have to be postponed i guess i would ask the council if there's any interest in a special meeting i i offer my support for one should it be needed miss leming i have a couple of questions one is is it possible if we were to push it a week to do the stuff that we're going to do the next week earlier or is it already noticed no we we have consultants that are flying in on the 14th so the 14th wouldn't be permissible we would have to really look at the calendar and make it further determination and we'd have to come back on the 17th with proposed the second set of proposed dates because i can't do that on the fly my other question was for mr soyer you said that there were a problem was a problem that candidates heard the answers that people gave to them before and i was wondering just we've all been candidates before and we all hear the answers and it's all kind of random you know it's the pick of the draw you know you know we we ran together and you know you get asked the same question than i get asked it and then may our sweat home gets asked it i mean you know we adjust our answers based on what we hear and that's part of life as a candidate i think part of what what makes me concerned about it is that it's it is there are some similarities but this is an interview process it's there it is not um it's not quite the same um i think it's one thing that we could change and i if if we can i mean i can't nothing else is flooding into my head about you know that would perhaps necessitate an extra meeting or a special meeting but that one piece um i think it immediately advantages the last person and disadvantages the first person and i and so that that alone makes me a little bit concerned that there's an either there's a lack of parity there that that seems obvious to me and i i understand where you're coming from but just one of those things that we could change that i think will make the process a little more fair when i i was going to i'm sorry i was going to suggest that if the council if that is a concern of a majority of the council is it you give us that direction that you would like us to explore what the options are and be ready on ready on the seventh um we would we will have rolled that out earlier but if you want to just give us direction as to do the best we can in terms of the strongest sequestration method that we can you know that's feasible and practical we can go ahead and pursue that i can then do the legal research that confirms what um you know what what rights do the applicants have to be in the room um what is our ability to exclude people um and and act on that but you will have given us the direction and your preference as to what you'd like to see would you need that in the form of a motion a motion would be great so i'll just move that we um direct staff to research the concept of sequestration and um and provide us a a response to that on the seventh of the of january second and and i would uh it's my understanding that if you give us that direction you would be liking that you would appreciate us to be implementing that as of the seventh because we would need to let applicants know in advance um so if that's part of the motion as well it would be second prior prior knowledge prior um and notification miss viceroy did you second that one you did uh any additional comments on that motion with that your votes please and that passes unanimously thank you mr soya any other surprises no no i'd like to move that that you adjourn the meeting after you have the quite done let's not get there um madam city attorney are there any other items uh on this topic no i think we have all the direction we need at this point okay thank you okay then we'll go to item 18 we had the final map um do we have any other public comments on non-agenda items we do have a card for two uh first up thomas ells followed by alice crown wow it's this i thought this was a marathon i think the next one uh in the interviews that's going to be a marathon um not to be contrarian or contankerous uh but to correct the record and and clear the air a little bit about um community action network at the board of supervisors um there was quite a bit of discussion before the actual hearing uh on the trail issue and it was a professor at dr carillon apple the uh infirm and uh handicap weak individual uh who made a verbal protest and and was asked at the beginning of the meeting to to leave and the sheriff did not escort her out uh so she protested at the beginning of the board of supervisors meeting in which there was a great change of heart uh evidenced by the board of supervisors which they recognized their responsibility to the homeless in light of the settlement uh but i would point out that the county's comments uh as reported in the newspaper uh at that time were we have been doing this all along according to the settlement that uh regarding the closure the court case venucci versus county so uh the point being is that they said they have been doing those very same things that they're required to do by the settlement all along from before so from their standpoint there was no change and neither was there any change necessarily uh in that board meeting although there did seem to be a change of heart and and it was dr carillon apple who was who was escorted or asked to leave so it wasn't there wasn't a big riot it's just dr apple thank you alex kron okay sorry to keep you here for another three minutes for you late um i came here tonight i have printed out seven copies one for this uh city cleric as well one for each of you have eight letters um from congress to the fcc since our last study session of last year and i think you'll you'll see that the message is pretty consistent that the fcc's excuse me for me sorry um i just thought it would be nice to have your attention um okay sorry um i apologize the fcc's current safety standards for radio frequency microwave radiation are way outdated and they do not protect um the american people and the numbers probably don't mean anything to you but the power density that they allow are 10 million microwatts per square meter and the the signal strength is 61 volts per meter 61 000 volts per meter that's the the level where it starts to heat you up and it's been well established and peer-reviewed relevant scientific studies that biological harm happens at levels much much lower than this okay i just want to say that to me verizon has been very deceitful from the beginning of this they've advertised these as these small low powered cell phone towers the reality is is that the radios and the antennas on those poles are the exact same equipment that they put on the large macro towers you see they have just retrofitted them to fit on a pole underneath that antenna cylinder on top are three antennas that go 120 degrees in each direction and those are the same antennas you see on the side of the freeway the reality is is the energy of rf radiation when you're standing at the ground by these towers is actually higher than macro towers and putting these in residential zones and next to schools people are being exposed constantly and they are not up front about that they're also not up front about the reason they're putting these in okay they say things like emergency 911 calls they really like to play on that and that is not the reason they're putting these up okay that data mining in artificial intelligence and 5g is what verizon is putting their eggs in that basket okay and they are data is the new oil and these things are collecting data they're not here to provide us with better cell phone coverage in voice data to my understanding that voice data anyways runs on two and three g frequencies that's seven eight hundred megahertz these towers are using four g four g lt frequencies this is video data so they're putting these up so people can stream currently stream videos faster from the street from their home we already have wi-fi we really don't need these things and it's really a real estate and power grab for verizon they try to get as many polls as they could as easily as they could for future technology so i asked you please not to do the easy thing so please not to do the right thing for our citizens thank you thank you nothing else on agenda median journey


What's going on everyone Sam here with late in sports cards We are ripping 20 22 Bowman chrome baseball light eight box break number five random team style Here's a look again at your random results As always you can find these on the website on the results tab as well as the Lincoln chat. Good luck everyone. Let's do it Got one more break of this after then a chrome case and that'll do it for the night So we will end a little bit late. I do apologize, but Just what happens. Well you play Jay rod rookie little Watson mini diamonds Marcello Meyer nice one there on the Bowman ascensions short print Gold Oscar Coloss nice seven out of fifty on the first congrats White Sox Chris W Big time hit there. We'll get that magged and Errol Vera Base Shane boss to 199 mini diamond Andrew Mendez for the brew crew base Purple say as a zoo key to 250 nice one there. Congrats Cubs Ellie Daylock Roots many times Get it out of here. That's Stephen Kwan. Just $2.99 Magenta for the Guardians and will it fan it It was a base true Baker mini diamonds first I like Thomas the 199 for the diamond becks Samuels of all off for the Padres nice one there.  It's so funny. Oh my god, Zeke Otovar. It's a one ninety-nine I Think you hear us for the Rangers.   Yeah, I know those six like I know Lane doesn't play I don't think Lane's ever played MC Rumors are compost. All right, so Paul does. Yeah. All right, so you have me you Paul Caleb Don Rich for sure Matt Manning on the variation to 499 Like that is for sure everybody of those guys Maybe Clubs did he yeah, so Matt is not what Walmart said, but I'll tell you what The three-wood strokes Daria look at Daria Rafael Devers the one for let's go Daria There's my boy and Nick York many done. Let's go Dolphins Yeah, we can probably we could definitely get eight of us. Oh, yeah Blake probably I mean never would but it sounds cool. It'd be fun. It's a fun thought I got new clubs and I'm doesn't matter. I'm still trash. Yeah, same here But then sir Guzman to 499. I'll still go out there. Have a good time No, you left right when we were gonna do our redemption. Yeah, I know. Yeah all that Simon build up and you leave Had it oh, there's no doubt and we'll also look like a crater and hit it from all the divots divots And I'll Paul coming into our chat demanding that we save all of the styrofoam Well, I can tell you to play with Don Jose Miranda 299 you play with Don You're not winning the long drive competition now sees our freedom shooting it out of a ak.  Oh, Kyle did see the redemption card. Oh, it's not didn't react. Oh, man. Oh reaction Yeah, that's uh, Sean was super proud of that. Yeah, by the way Yeah, my game is a short then your quaver Yeah, I'm like an odd mid iron guy. That's right. That's where I struggle. Yeah my short game's like Eloy Jimenez to 199 My short game's pretty strong. Yeah You were in a war zone match. Oh, come on What are you three? Jordan Walker What days can you play Paul? No, what days are Paul? I Refractor Joey Gallo to 499 Trash game Louis St. Helicunia Just the rectangle brick ones. Yeah. No, that's what we're talking about Paul Demanding demanding all 1v1 you joshua. They'll smoke me but in what and uh Tomorrow we're afraid to ladies jordan come come over to the fortnight side And we'll play Green Dory Lorenzo to 99 nice one there for the ash droves. All right box five What are you three? Paul came into our chat and said literally threatened me and Sean's life if we didn't save the uh The rectangle cubes that's ridiculous rubber his cell. Yeah, yeah, I agree with that Shimmer Michael Hernandez. It's like I played golf in high school. I hated it man I hated every minute of it because you know, you know what the issue with that is like you're not playing against your opponent Royce Lewis to 199 And denser guzman You're playing against like your teammates to move up like in uh in the ranks and it's so it's like you're completely alone Basically, that's what that sports all about. Yeah, right now 100% Didn't touch a cold Really? Yeah Simmer down children George Kirby the 499 West cap I know I forgot the chrome dust is gonna be the styrofoam pieces gonna be what gets us base What do you say? Blue yosuar Garcia. It's uh 150 on the true blue. There you go, uh, candler wilfred varis What do you say?  I can stick it. I just take that out of here, dude All servers go Let's go chat magenta to 199 Uh pete lanta There's jr. Perez for the eights sgs I've played on I think pretty much all the disney courses. Really? Yeah, my buddy worked for disney and we got over 25 bucks a piece And they are they are Christine courses Jayrod rookie really really nice And mini diamonds harry ford. Oh, that's right. You have the mats doing this. I forgot Kyle nice Matt Olson to 199 Royce marquantana, that's pretty sick. Yeah, it's absolutely beautiful. Many golf count pretty dope at the windmill Three What the heck wants to grown man stuff here rickardo cabrera first the 499 and then we've got uh, george valera That's true. You haven't called me Caleb yet, joshua. I have not seen the new series either On netflix mini golf is for three year olds mini golf's fun, man.  Back to the kid's table for you. Oh Carl Carl That shot's fired I'm listening on nope. That's sac vine He's really in a mood tonight. I know something's wrong with Carl I think that's you. No, it's directly to you. It's not me That's pita lanzo another one. There you go, Kyle. Just signed to 150 It's because I got styrofoam all over me right now because I'm holding on to cubes So somebody can wander their cards up 199 is joey gallo It's like warming colding freezing alarm. Oh, that's it, dude. I'm out of here It's like we're in minnesota right now with four feet of snow straw that camels back This is Many golf's fun, man. Come on tray. Sweeney mini diamonds. Can you bring your driver? Probably Purple Gavin sheets the 250 need a driver to put he probably would help to get it there Probably help. Yeah Mini golf course you're pulling out of a ping driver Mini diamonds, Henry Davis Ridiculous They're everywhere churro color in the last box jaren diran refractor to 499 and alex the hasis Yeah, exactly Just says ridiculous base asbestos It's chrome bus part two here Sean's missed the box like four times. No, you're holding it in. Yeah. No This is that one time Four times Missing one time shouldn't have missed the dent Let me keep an eye on you.  Get that mag for you. It's another one right there and reckley first giants Purple jr. Perez to 250 for the ace Michael Hernandez HR won't return your calls. Yeah, we have the two of you on a permanent block list O'Neil Cruz rookie Both SG and Kyle are both on the black list. Yandri Rojas for the Padres Little Cruz That is Mike trout canary yellow 60 out of 75 nice one there for the angels Shohei and trout color in this now. That's fair. Don't blame you Rossman Verdugo and base that'll do for the break guys. Got a couple right here CJ Abrams on the black white uh, mini diamond parallel and then a gold oscar colos first Nice one there to 50. I'll do it for the break guys. Thanks again for the fill next up one more eight boxer of this