All right.

Good afternoon.

This is a special meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

The purpose of which is for the Planning Board to conduct a page turn review of the draft comprehensive plan with the with the consultant and team talking through strategies and actions with the opportunity for planning board members to ask questions and have discussions amongst ourselves.

Present today, myself, Jennifer Gazeno, Chair, and Jeremy Linder and Bradley are present today.

We have other members who are on vacation, but this will be recorded for their listening as well as the public's listening pleasure.

So if we could go ahead and have our presenters introduce themselves for the record and we'll go from there.

Sounds good.

Eliza.

Hi everyone, I'm Eliza Decker, planner at Sasaki and member of the 2035 planning team.

So today we really just wanted to provide the planning board an opportunity to talk amongst yourselves, ask questions.

We'll go through page by page the plan.

Stopping and diving deeper where you guys want to.

So we'll start with the land use sections and then we'll move vision by vision.

Unless there are unless there are questions that you want to start with.

If there's if there's a different alternative, Jennifer, feel free to interrupt.

This will be a walkthrough of the draft that will be coming out in a couple of days, not the prior.

And I know that there's going to be a lot of overlap between the two, but we could do, we could do either.

So I did want to do the July draft, but we could do we could do the new one if if you think that would be a better idea, which I think there's certainly benefits to doing that.

Can I put it in the case?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think uh at least I didn't have the time to go through the new argument myself.

I think it came in warn eight or something like that.

Uh which it would certainly do in the next four-day dollars.

Uh, but I think it'll be really useful for us to focus on what has changed uh from the previous draft because it's a 168-page document and I'm sure you didn't change all of it on 168 pages, right?

And there was obviously no need to do that.

So uh maybe if you could focus our attention on the changes that has happened.

Uh to start with, and then of course, depending on the time, we can go through the other sections.

Yeah, I agree with Ravi.

I think that approach makes sense.

Um, you know, uh the land use section is the one that's had the most changes, and I also I think it is worthwhile to make sure that we're paying attention to the totality of it.

The um the comments we've been getting have been very narrowly focused on um a couple of sections and do want to make sure that there's awareness of the totality of what's in there.

Okay.

All right, so um let's get started with the land use section.

Um let's use the revised plan, Eliza.

Um we'll start with the land use section and really focus on the revisions.

Um and then it was my impression that the actions, you know, are thing in each of the vision sections are things that the the board did want to become more familiar with.

So we will focus on the ones areas where we responded to comments.

Um in addition to you know, further showing what's what's in the plan besides just what we've changed.

Um so Eliza, we can let's get stuve in.

Sounds good.

I know you were gonna pull up the document.

Oh, sure.

Yes.

Let me get the July.

So while Lancy's calling that up, um the kind of most substantive um changes that we've made is kind of noted um in kind of our overview of changes um that will be kind of coming out on the eighth.

Um really do center around the land use section.

Um we shared an update with um kind of the city and um public yesterday, just showing changes to the future land use map, um, especially kind of centered around some of the um lower density residential categories.

And then the updated um draft will also um have kind of a clearer look at what areas of the city have actually changed um in terms of kind of land use from the 2015 master plan.

So it's really easy to see um which areas that we're talking about in terms of kind of change of intent of land use.

Um so that's kind of where we can start and then move into some of the other sections.

Um do you want a page, Eliza?

Or should I go right to the land use map?

I think page 48 um is where that section starts.

Yeah, so um essentially what we've done.

Yeah, go ahead to to that one.

So we revised um the kind of future land use map that you'll see on the left um to most substantially change the kind of residential to residential neighborhood category.

Um another thing that we did is change the kind of coding of those residential zones.

They were previously into is it just mice clean moving around or I'm not able to okay.

I was zooming, I was zooming in to the area.

Okay, I just wanted to read.

Yeah.

I just wanted to lead more to sort of done there.

So okay, go ahead, please.

Yeah, yeah.

No, yeah.

So previously the two um kind of lower density residential categories were um termed R1 and R2.

Um we realized, you know, after kind of public comment that these were um too close to kind of the existing zoning terms, um, such as R5 or R6, and didn't want to, you know, kind of create any further confusion about the difference between future land use and zoning.

So we changed those category codes to res one and res two where Lindsay's cursor is.

Um and then we've also kind of updated a lot of the boundaries of that res two category to really clearly show the intent of where those kind of existing mix of single family residential with you know townhomes and duplexes are today.

Um just to show that um I guess previously the the kind of vision was to kind of kind of create like broader kind of neighborhood cohesion amongst um some of the future land use zones.

That is still the intent.

Um, but just based on you know public feedback, um, we refined this category substantively so that there's no kind of room for error um in terms of you know where this kind of like mix of different housing types would exist.

Um another thing that we did if you go to the next page, Lindsay.

Okay, good, is to clearly um show kind of intended future land uses.

This is something that um you know the planning board had mentioned during our August 12th meeting, um, as well as another column to the right of that that is kind of looking at expected population growth.

Um so obviously this is just kind of an expectation, but based on you know, kind of existing infrastructure and housing types and flood risk and that, um, there's now kind of like a clear tie to um you know expected growth over the next 10 years.

Um and future land uses um, you know, are you know can kind of go through a few of them.

So for example, the um, you know, the residential neighborhood category that we looked at um on the previous page um would have kind of a mix of future land use such as single family dwellings, two to four unit residences, small kind of neighborhood-oriented retailer services, um, and then you know, civic uses like library schools or public safety.

Um, whereas you know, downtown would have you know higher density multifamily housing, um, destination retail, major commercial office, um, and kind of uses um similar to that.

So it really um trying to be much more specific about the intent of the future land use and the actual uses within them, um, as well as ties to population growth, just noting that you know the highest um kind of intensity land use categories would be that mixed use urban and the mixed use core.

Um so basically, you know, Bullshead corridor, downtown and parts of South End would be kind of the most intense land use categories.

Um would be kind of the most intense land use categories.

And then if you go to the next page, Lindsay.

I did also just want if we have uh another map, and I want to offer this to the planning board that shows with hatching, um, the original draft of the comprehensive the comprehensive plan map and the current proposed map, and the hatching area shows land and that was um what used to be one category and was changed.

Most of those change are from Resi 2 to Res One.

Um, but there were a few odds and ends that that it's mostly res res two to res one.

Um is that something you guys would be interested in seeing?

That'd be helpful, yes.

Okay.

So let's so are we allowed to comment now or should we wait for the whole thing?

Please do, please do.

Okay, so Elisa, so first of all, thank you, right?

I think uh we appreciate what you're doing.

So I was comparing the text of the previous plan draft with this draft.

And I think many of those sensitive issues about increasing density and those kinds of words are now taken out from RS2.

So I think uh a lot of concern should be alleviated, maybe not 100%, but a lot of concern should be alleviated from what I see here.

I've got two comments.

Uh one is if you go to the next page.

Um so on the future land use on the RS2.

We talk about two to four unit residences and including duple triplexes and all that.

So yeah, one concern was by putting this kind of words in the uh in the plan the plan without any conditions attached to it, it could be misinterpreted in the future, right?

So, for example, two landowners could you know buy in buy their properties and build a triple X or something like that.

So, and I understand economically it may not be feasible and so on and so forth, but that there's a field.

So, should we qualify that two to four unit residences with some what shall I say?

It's not a blanket uh what shall I say?

It's not a blanket uh vision that everything is going to become a duplex or a triplex, but where appropriate or where suitable, right?

So maybe you should add some qualifications around that.

So to say that, hey guys, it's not a blank check for every you know, for every developer to go and knock down houses and build this, right?

Maybe near the transit station or near a commercial some some kind of uh qualification to that, maybe appropriate.

You may want to consider that.

That's the first first point.

The second point is, and you don't need to decide now.

I'm just giving you my thoughts.

Yeah, yeah, of course.

And the second point I have on the RS uh RES one, this AD use uh became uh concern as well, saying without any restriction on the lot size, uh without any restriction if you say we can build an ADU, then once again it leaves the door open for uh what shall I say, um uh unforeseen developments, right?

And I don't know when you say AD use, I know you have something in mind, but not everybody has the same vision, right?

So once again on the AD use, if you want to add uh some kind of uh qualification in terms of the area size or the minimum space or something so where where it up where it's appropriate and the land permits it and the town you know is okay with it, it's okay.

We can do that, but not a blanket permission that everybody can go and build the uh ADU.

So those would be my two comments on this chat.

But otherwise, I think uh thank you very much for taking the residence inputs.

Yeah, thanks for your comments.

Thanks.

Thanks, Ravi.

Um I do I do have a just two responses.

Um I think with this map that perhaps Eliza can bring up now, showing the hatching, um, you'll see it's it's quite as quite a big change.

And it was largely, you know, we kept the tenants of infrastructure, flood resilience, um uh as kind of like our basis for these land use categories, but we really focused in and emphasized uh kind of an exist the existing land uses in refining the residential neighborhood.

So the the current res two category is much more closely aligned with areas of existing two, three, and four family homes.

Um so that that should help, and it's a lot much more closely aligned with the zoning that allows for those types of houses.

ADUs ADUs and some type two two family housing units are allowed in certain areas as of right in our zoning district.

And what the plan recommends is further study to understand what changes might be good for Stanford.

So specifically with the ADU, um, there was a recommendation ADUs are allowed on all lots currently on all lots, 10,000 square feet or more.

There's certain size restrictions, setback restrictions, and the recommendation in the comp plan, maybe if we even go to it.

Um is to uh promote.

I think there's gonna be there's gonna be a little bit, but revise ADU regulations in accordance with the standards generally accepted by planning practitioners to encourage development of ADUs such and so and these what they say here are examples of what those best practices are.

So it's not that this master plan would remove all of the restrictions around ADUs in Stanford right now, but would prompt the land use bureau to consider maybe there are some things we can change in the ADU regulations that that would allow them to be a more effective um tool.

That's the no that's that's good.

And it's really hard for people to read into so much detail and you know, so they don't they misunderstand it.

But yeah, this is exactly what I meant.

And it's not a permission, like at some, even I read this in some maybe the previous document that ADUs are now allowed as a medical right or something like that.

And I got confused.

So we should clarify that, at least if not in this document in the public hearing, saying all we are saying is let us look at ADUs once more, right?

And bring best practices and then you know, improve what it means.

That's what we are saying.

We're not saying go and build ADUs, but everybody wants.

So that the communication has to come out clearly in the public meeting.

I do have a question, Jeremy, here.

Um with you know, revised ADU regulations in accordance with standards generally accepted by planning practices to encourage development.

I guess does that you know in reviewing that information, could there be a you know, I guess that may say that you know you only need 9,000 square feet or 8,000 square feet.

Is that that a plausible statement to to um you know if we are re-reviewing that?

Yes, that is a plausible statement.

And actually, some of the best practices you know, go a step further and say, you know, there should be no minimum lot size requirement.

Um, but we know that wouldn't work for Stanford.

So what we would do, what this would do would be to prompt further study.

So this if the department and if the administration decides to prioritize this action, the land use bureau, we likely would not have to hire a consultant team to do this, but we would research um ADU regulations across the country, um, along with best practices and uh understand what are generally kind of thought to be the best regulations around ADUs, what cities have had success, and we would um work to try and figure out what would be a reasonable uh change for Stanford.

Once that's determined, you know, there I'm sure there would be some meetings about it.

There would have to be a zoning text change application, which has a public hearing and is appealable as well.

Um, so just to say that there would be more study, it could say it the best practices could be no minimum lot size.

It could be no parking required, but the plan isn't recommending that, it's recommending looking into what Stanford could do to loosen the regulations a little bit.

So it's sort of as you said, that would be a zoning um decision or determination for that text change to the zoning for that.

Um that's right.

And with the medium term timeline, we're talking what five years, you know, four to six.

Okay.

Yeah.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well I don't want to spend too much of this kind of getting into the weeds of wording.

I think for this one in particular, I wonder if um it might be helpful just to minimize alarm to instead have the language after that kind of in the middle rather than saying like removing minimum lot size requirements and removing just to use the word like changing changing minimum lot size requirements, parking requirements at maximum allowable um because you know as you said the intention is to study and to look at best practices both you know um you know I I think we'd want to take another look right at the state statute.

I know that the um what we have in place in Stanford is more restrictive than the uh then the parameters that are recommended by our state legislature um and you know using that looking at um how this is panned out in other towns um so we may you know as you said Lindsay may end up you know um removing but we may also end up somewhere in the middle so I think just to um alleviate the concern that this is a mandate to just remove all of those things could be helpful.

And then the other is that um while I don't I don't think we necessarily need to like quote long sections of the zoning code within the comprehensive plan because that's not the intention.

I do think having like a footnote here or there just you know saying like refer to section in the zoning code for the current uh you know ADU regulations as of such and such date um because it's very clearly stated in the zoning code that it is already currently as of right with certain parameters in large lot areas of the city so um and so the question is should any of those parameters change around both the size restrictions as well as what areas of the city it is um allowed in sound good cool yeah thank you and just to be clear for our um zoning or for our planning remember since still relatively new Ravi and Jeremy just joined so any change like this yes it'd be a zoning action but this is the kind of thing that the planning board would review on referral before it went uh for final uh hearing and um deliberation by the zoning uh board so the land use bureau staff would draft it we would review it and then make a recommendation to the zoning board and that's going to be true of pretty much any change that would be um indicated by um the comprehensive plan so do you want to show the chat you are talking about the yeah yeah um a liza i don't have the the hatch do you have the hatch map near you do easy yeah yeah um teams is not let me share once again um if you security settings we had this issue at the last meeting you want to email it to me or if it's on the on the drive it up let me email it to you on see okay just that yeah you almost had it okay we're back we're there we go um okay finally worked um okay so this map sho is showing changes um from the first version of the draw feature land use map to the revised version that um was sent out yesterday um i realize in looking at this the hatching is a little bit small um until you zoom in so we can revise revise this a little bit and so that you can kind of see changes more clearly when you first look at it but um essentially what we have here is um areas where we've revised the land use um from kind of formally the residential two category to residential one um and so zooming in and kind of like going north to south um you'll see areas um you know in Springdale um Glenbrook Belltown Eastide Cove um and then Hubbard Heights um have been kind of changed from residential two to residential one um based on um kind of a number of different factors um primarily you know existing kind of residential look and feel um

And so zooming in and kind of like going north to south you'll see areas in Springdale, Glenbrook, Belltown, Eastside, Cove, and then Hubbard Heights have been kind of changed from residential two to residential one based on kind of a number of different factors.

Primarily, you know, existing kind of residential look and feel and kind of neighborhood type and kind of concentrating this kind of existing mix of different housing types around transit stations, areas that are kind of easily accessed by major roads and qualities like that.

So the low section continues to be R2.

The yes, the brighter yellow section continues to be the residential two category.

And so to give an example, so you'll see here around kind of this Barrfield area in Glenbrook station, we have you know this neighborhood which was formerly residential to is now residential one.

But the area in the brighter yellow around kind of this village center around Glenbrook station is still residential to most of this area is by existing zoning standards, areas that are you know right now able to have and do have a number of different types of housing small multifamily single family homes so that's kind of the scope of the changes.

I think I think I personally I don't know what the members say but I think this is a more uh precise more accurate and more logical way to describe what you were trying to describe before.

Exactly yeah it's really about kind of clarifying intent um in the fact that um the not taking such a large area of the city um kind of clarifying exactly where we intend to do the certain feature land uses.

I'll agree with Ravi and I think you know just going into the Springdale area you know along Hope Street that's a logical area you know where there is a lot of you know mixed types of developments and in low rise buildings and in town homes currently.

I have um suggestion and then a question.

So I wonder for the res one like it is so the labeling of it is still um single family.

I wonder if framing it as like kind of low density detached might be sort of a broader descriptor that isn't specific that is that that doesn't echo the zoning code again to sort of differentiate.

It kind of describes a type of place rather than a zoning category.

So that that's one um and you know I think the description still remains the same that it's you know predominantly single family and the types that are compatible um with that with that low density setting.

The the question I have is um so it see my it seems like basically you kind of figured out which areas are currently zoned R7 and a half and just kind of pushed them over into res one and out of res two.

It was that the main methodology or like kind of what consideration was given to like the walk radius from major infrastructure because just again on first glance it does seem like in some areas like near the Glenbrook train station or near the Springdale train station there are areas that are within a 10 minute walk of the train station that have been pushed over into res one, which to me seems a little bit inconsistent with some of the general principles of the plan.

That's not to say that every single parcel that's within a 10 minute walk of all of those areas should you know become triplexes.

But you know if part of the purpose of the comprehensive plan is to look out 10 years and think about what are the areas where some change makes the most sense, which I think is also consistent with the comments we've been getting from the public um I I don't know that it necessarily makes sense to just kind of replicate our current zoning completely.

Yes.

So I can kind of speak a little bit to the process of updating and then Lindsay, feel free to jump in anywhere.

But um, yes, I think we did take a look at kind of the existing zoning and make sure um that you know, most of the areas that are zoned are seven and a half are th you know, single family areas are kind of in that, you know, the low density detached res one category.

Um there are areas, and we did want to make sure that um, you know, areas in that kind of like 10 minute walk radius by and large um have kind of this, you know, more like character of more variety.

Um so for example, you'll see in Glenbrook, you know, most of these um neighborhoods kind of, you know, looking to downtown and between downtown and Glenbrook have that kind of residential to future land use.

Um a little bit different for Springdale when you kind of get into some of these neighborhoods to the west of Hope Street.

Um, but we did make sure that kind of areas, you know, along major corridors like Hope Street and around the Metro North stations do have kind of that um, you know, neighborhood neighborhood center um feel.

Um, R7 and a half was a big was a big help in figuring out where we need to um where we needed to revise the R2, but we didn't change all R seven and a half to R1 there to Resi One because there were areas of that zoning district that did have more than single family homes and they were in locations that um appeared to be in in a good location, good proximity to either nearby commercial or or train station or nearby transit.

Um I'm looking at like Glenbrook station to the to the east of Glenbrook Station, you'll see there's that single family, the detached zone.

I think that comes part and parcel with trying to be more clear about where we do in refining like the the guardrails of this are this rese two category.

Um we did the revision because we found ourselves saying, no, that's not where we see duplexes going.

We we we see that being single family.

So it made sense to to pull it in.

And there are some instances where we do still see the existing land uses continue, even if they are like right near the station.

So I I know we looked at that area of Glenbrook station that's still near Res One and we made the determination that you know, res one is the way to go.

Um that's not to say this can't change in the future.

Um, the master plan is a living document and it can be revised.

The map and the plan itself can be revised over the next 10 years.

Um if if we feel the need that that this was a not the right determination, then we can change that.

Okay.

Um, and you know, certainly want to see what the comments are that come in through our upcoming public hearings as well.

Um, I think I just um and and it would be helpful to to the extent that it's easy to annotate to have a little bit more of that background on the determinations around the shifts.

Um because I again just kind of at first glance, it seems like there are some areas um that have shifted over to res one that are like very, very close to you know, existing employment centers, you know, large uh, you know, kind of commercial or like kind of neighborhood residential um areas.

And I, you know, I recognize that we can continue to, you know, over the next 10 years as a living document.

Um, and I sense that it's it's kind of all of this will be subject to additional public process, right?

If any zoning changes in the future, but I it feels like it is it makes more sense to be a little bit more inclusive at this stage, and then through the zoning process, the zoning feedback process to then do the further refinement.

Um, because again, just kind of based on my look, it feels like there are areas where it could make sense to have you know that slight shift from you know from R7 and a half into R6, where you could allow like two family detached instead of one family detached.

We're not here to mandate any of that for any specific parcel.

But you know, that the thing that we've that I've been hearing like for the last 10 years, every time there's a large residential anything that comes before us is gosh, wouldn't it be nice if we had more duplexes that people could own?

Yes, I 100% agree.

I live in a duplex that was built in, you know, it was built like 13 years ago at this point.

This doesn't happen very often.

And everyone keeps saying they want more of what I live in right now.

And I think the areas where it goes are in those spots where you can have that transition.

Right.

And so I'd I'd like to figure out how we leave open the possibility for gentle and subtle shifts.

Um, while still being very clear that, you know, for a lot of the neighborhoods, especially as you get further and further away from transit centers, employment centers, it doesn't make sense for that to change and that we should just keep it in a single family character.

Yeah, I I appreciate that.

And I think we we tried, we tried our our best to um to have to have shifts and transitions, appropriate shifts and transitions and um started out a little bigger trying to bring it back in.

I think you're identifying that in some places maybe we could have left our two a little bit more expansive.

Um I you know, I I agree, but I you know, I also I also you know, I've been hearing hearing feedback.

So yeah.

Yeah, um, I know that there's no way to get this perfect, right?

Um, and I think that uh yeah, we'll we'll see kind of what the additional um feedback is that that comes in.

It's just I think that some of the alternate critiques that I've been hearing is like we don't want a comprehensive plan that freezes our neighborhoods in amber.

That's not what you're supposed to do with a comprehensive plan, right?

So I don't know that this like a hundred percent freezes the city in amber, and obviously there's gonna be much higher intensity changes in you know, the downtown area or the areas that are like very close to that that are already zoned for you know higher density residential.

Um, even if they're gonna be by and large very, very minimal changes to a lot of these uh kind of outer ring neighborhoods.

Um I I don't necessarily want to um suggest in the plan that they're that we're not that nothing will change at all.

I think subject to public process, some people may want a little bit of change.

And I know that the this map doesn't preclude that, but a more restrictive version of this map right now makes um makes that those shifts more difficult.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I yeah, yeah, I definitely hear I hear your concern.

Um, zooming if we zoom out and look at you know the the portion of Stanford that's more than 50% in the res one category.

I I you know, I do hear those arguments from housing advocates that um that this plan has has not gone far enough.

Uh so I I definitely hear you on that.

And I I don't even mean like housing advocates, I mean people who are about my age who can't afford to buy a house and wish they could buy a town home, you know, five blocks from where I live, but they can't because the zoning is is you know, R7 and a half, even though it's a three minute walk to the train.

So again, like I I I don't want to kind of there are um uh I I just want to kind of ground this in like specific feedback that I know that has come through in the planned process over the past few months of specific people's lived experience and not being able to feeling like there isn't enough opportunity for again, like I think I I hear constantly from people who currently you know own homes and even people who have been who have raised a lot of concerns about this R1 and the R2 also are saying, you know, I want my kids to be able to buy a home in Stanford.

Where can they do that?

So I, you know, I think we need to figure out how do we answer that question in a way that again isn't disruptive, but does still allow for some change so that we can actualize what I understand to be a shared future of wanting more kind of smaller scale ownership opportunities, because a lot of what we already have in pipeline is rental, it's not ownership, and even a lot of what's in pipeline for ownership is you know, kind of mostly, you know, condo-ish and not this sort of neighborhood residential feel that it seems like a lot of people really like.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So Lindsay, uh, I see uh Elisa had to drop.

Yes, she did.

She did have to drop, but she's still coming back at three.

Um so can I ask in the when she's not uh till she comes back.

Can I ask uh unrelated question now, or should I hold off?

How do you want to proceed now?

Um we can keep proceeding as as we were going through the different sections.

Um, when the consultants are are gone, yeah, it's on us to do the plan.

So I am very in, you know, intimately aware of what's in this plan.

Happy to continue to go through it.

Um, but if you have a question, we can uh we can talk through that as well.

You can ask that's what we're here for, right?

Ask questions.

Yeah, so um so uh sorry, Jennifer, this is more free-fluing than we normally have.

Oh no, I think this is meant to be free flow.

It's meant to be free.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think I just made a lot of uh notes.

I just want to go through it if you don't mind.

So of course the main one was what we discussed now, the uh R S1 and RS2.

Uh there were a couple of other points, and um there was some, you know, I I think we highlighted in the previous meeting as well, the parking uh issues, right?

So in many parts of this document, uh the impression is conveyed that um the uh more than adequate parking uh in the city and therefore new developments kind of come up without any parking and so on.

I don't know if any change was made in the parking sec, you know, in that in that section transportation section for that.

Because at least my personal experience and many others have also told me that maybe a selected areas that is excessive parking, but uh it would be not correct to conclude that we have more than enough parking across the city.

So was any change made to that?

So the the excess parking conversation comes from the parking study that was approved in 20, I think it was 2024.

Um, and that's focused on the downtown.

Um, and that parking study stated that there was an excess number of available parking spaces strictly in the downtown because of all of the um parking garages and garages associated with offices and things like that.

Um so any uh any recommendations in here to completely eliminate the parking requirements are likely within the downtown.

And I wonder, I think actually some some uh let me let's let's let Luke hold on.

Luke, our transportation planner is on.

I'm gonna try and figure out how to figure out how to get him in.

Can you hi?

Yes, we can hear you.

Do you want to respond?

Can you respond to Robbie's question, please?

Sure thing.

Um are you referring to ST18 dot dot um dot six on page 122?

I I think so.

I don't unfortunately I don't have the page number written on my document, but we could be right, yeah.

Um so that's considered a limit, consider eliminating minimum parking requirements in the new developments in certain neighborhoods.

Yeah, so that that really stems from our our our parking study, um, which found that there are 12,000 uh garage spaces within our downtown.

Um and I think that uh 18.6 and 18.7 actually speak well to each other in terms of having shared parking agreement between residential buildings and commercial buildings too.

So we're maximizing the parking garages that are already there.

So I think I think the intention of that is really for the downtown area.

I don't think we were really looking to eliminate parking requirements and you know, areas where we know there are parking issues, right?

Coke, east side, west side, Glenbrook, Springdale.

It's really where we know we have the facilities that can support that.

Um that can um that were you know, we can look to eliminate uh parking requirements, which we recently did for a lots under I think 25,000 square feet, if I'm not mistaken.

Um, where again it's in you know certain distance of a parking garage, different facilities like that.

So um it's trying to be um thoughtful to the neighborhoods and their parking needs, and then um there's actually the parking requirements for new new development, you know, outside of you know downtown help relieve some of that pressure that we see on the off-street parking too, that maybe some of the older buildings don't have on on their site.

Yeah, you may want to consider moderating that by adding a few qualifiers.

I mean, if I read this the way it is written, I would never under understand what what is just mentioned now, right?

So you may want to vote for 18.6 and 18.7.

I and we know that one solution is not fitting for everything, right?

So there is different issues, and so yeah, there could be one building where there is a parking garage next door, like we just approved in the last planning board, the Lloyd's hotel, you know, they have a you know parking garage next door, that's fine.

Uh, but it may not be suitable everywhere.

So think about how to communicate that more clearly in 18.6 and 18.7, so the community is not misunderstanding that's a good idea.

I think Jeremy wants to say something.

Luke, I guess for for the 18.7, has the city facilitated any of these parking arrangements, you know, so far, um, you know, between you know existing, you know, office garages and in proposed or or you know, newly constructed residential.

Um to my knowledge between two private properties, no.

Um, it's usually with a city garage, uh more obviously we have a little more control.

I'm trying to think like uh one Atlantic Street, for instance, that's an office to residential conversion, they have X number of passes in the Summer Street Garage.

Uh I think the the Lloyd uh Robbie mentioned now that's an example.

Um it is our intention, we've actually started looking at it as to, and this is actually coming out of the parking study, one of the recommendations from the parking study, even using the same um consultant is how could we as a city make it as easy as possible for two private parties to speak to each other and work together?

Um, because we have these office buildings downtown, but we also have these residential buildings downtown.

So it's you know, if we're able to um help any sort of enabling way, whether it's you know, draft insurance requirements or draft agreements um where it could be satisfied for both um parties there, and we can try to facilitate again, that's the key, like facilitate, right?

Um that's something that we are actively working on.

So and you can also see the status here is new.

Um, so maybe we should define what these statuses are as like new is something we've not done before.

Um in the ADU strategy in action, it says expanded.

So that could allude to the idea that it's an expanded policy, something that we're already doing, but um even more of a reason to define what these statuses are.

Yeah, I think uh you know, I understand we had this traffic study and uh I'm not questioning the facts there, but certainly it is somewhat difficult to get parking during the busy times, even in downtown.

So just you know, just be sensitive to that.

Then the other two points I had.

Sorry if I'm talking too much.

Uh Jennifer just asked me to shut up.

I'll keep quite okay.

So keep going, man.

So, you know, there has to be an maybe Elisa should be around.

There has to be a way to assess the financial impact, you know, like for example, if you if you implement all the recommendations in the plan, what is the impact going to be on our property tax or our state, you know, our tax where does the Stanford town going to generate the resources?

How much how much extra financial burden will there be on the community?

Is it a way and I'm not expert in how to quantify that and is it a way to understand that?

Like, for example, if you do all this 50, you know, 70 or 80 recommendations, is there any financial impact that we should be worried about?

Uh I I don't know if there's actually a way to quantify that for a comprehensive plan.

I don't think that would be possible because these are all recommendations that over 10 years could I think the city will do some of these, maybe not all of them.

It's it's really up.

How are we supposed to predict what the city is going to do?

And um, you know, these are recommendations for further study.

Um that could go a number of different directions.

Um so depending on you know, whatever way there's there's over a hundred actions here.

So it could really go a number of different ways.

Um is there any other way to answer that question?

Like we don't think this is going to appreciably increase or it's going to increase or it's going to be neutral or it's very hard from a corporate background to approve any plan without any financial assessment.

You know, we don't normally do that.

So I mean I I think that um if I could chime in one, I I do think um there are some references to case studies in other places throughout, and I think that that's kind of going to be your best guide of other places that are similar in characteristics to Stanford, including other places here in Connecticut or you know, just over the line in Westchester, right?

Like what has been the impact of similar changes there is probably gonna be our best guide.

I don't know that it's within scope for the comprehensive plan to point out every single one of those.

Rather, when we're assessing whether or not to adopt a certain change or how to adopt it, that's kind of the time and place to do that finer grain analysis.

Um again, the the comprehensive plan doesn't say you have to do all of those things.

It's pointing out these are strategies and shifts that with follow-up regulatory action or with follow-up um, you know, capital improvements or whatever, you know, would then facilitate some change.

And I also just want to note that it's not just the city's action, it is also the actions of private actors, right?

Um, I think that it's one, I think there's a this very erroneous assumption that some people hold that you know, somehow the city is like telling people what to do with their land.

But you know, obviously like there are zoning categories that specify what you can do with it, but you know, I again to just use the example of where I am, I live in an R6 area, right?

So you could, if you meet all the parameters, put up a two like two family detached, but not everyone has done that.

There are still plenty of single family homes right around me.

So just because you've zoned something a certain way doesn't mean that in two years all of it is going to be developed to the maximum development rights because the individual people who own those properties need to make the decision whether or not they want to do that.

And that change that process for the vast majority of the city doesn't happen very quickly at all.

It happens more quickly in areas like downtown where there's the highest potential for return on investment because you can build those high high-rise things.

But um I think that's an that that's just going to be another piece that's really pretty impossible to project.

But again, we can look at our recent history and see in areas that you know have a certain uh designation, kind of what has been the pace of change over the past 10 years and use that to estimate.

Um but again, it's yeah, something like that.

But even a more higher level and higher level statement.

And for example, if 80% of these actions are driven by private investors, then obviously there is no burden directly on this on the on the city.

But for example, if you say, let us hire 10 resources to do this, or let's you know, build this bridge.

Or if you have those kinds of actions which the city has to take, they have to be somewhat grounded in reality because you know, residents will complain about increase in taxes and so on, right?

So just ask them to consider it.

I mean, if even if the answer is look, we don't know, we tried, but we cannot assess it, or something like that.

It's better than not considering it at all.

So maybe if not for the next week, at least by the time it comes to the planning board for a final vote, it may be useful to have some uh some insight into this.

Otherwise, I don't know whether we're asking the city to spend 100 million over the next 10 years or two million over the next 10 years.

It's it's a little bit hard to say, you know, without a financial linkage.

I don't know about you.

I don't know if if this makes sense, but under the the portion of the city of opportunity um with the strength and developer contribution via new uh bid model action, the st.1.11.

I don't know if that's sort of um may answer some of Ros Ravi's questions just with you know new policies for infrastructure investment and developer contributions for reducing some of that infrastructure burden on you know on the city for some of these developments.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Okay.

Um yeah, I think there are some things in the plan that could help like what Jeremy just pointed out that could help address your concern.

I do, I I understand, right?

developer contributions for reducing some of that infrastructure burden on you know on the city for some of these developments yeah yeah exactly okay could be um yeah I think there are some things in the plan that could help like what Jeremy just pointed out that could help address your concern I do I I understand right like if if the city did all of the things that the plan recommends um would we be massively in debt uh I get I get the question I don't I don't know if it's a reality that we should be planning for um but especially in um like strategy five I'm looking at um screen um improving operational coordination uh to streamline and accelerate infrastructure execution um one thing I really like in here um is this uh detailed infrastructure master plan to forecast infrastructure services based on population growth and climate predictions um so that's a recommendation it looks at kind of the pace of the pace of development in Stanford and um and the uh status of our infrastructure and um tries to to you know make a forecast on yeah our ability to handle it so um I think there are some things that kind of speak to uh speak to what you're talking about um but right we you haven't done it and we'll all continue to think about it and and bring it up with Eliza and um I think Lindsay the problem we have is this is a 10 year plan which is more of a vision document but the question I'm asking is you know very short term or medium term in terms of show me the dollars and so it's very hard to to link these two right I mean uh it's been very hard to say how any one of these initiatives over a period of time uh can be very specifically quantified it's very hard to do that but from a residence point of view the concern will be hey you know you're allowing all these developments developers are making a lot of money but the burden is on the city now in terms of increased uh sanit sanitation or schools and transport and you know and so what what what is the trade off how does it trade off for I'm I better off just saying look I don't want any development I'm happy with where I am or from economic perspective is it better to allow some development and generate additional revenues which can be reinvested in our community so it is there's a financial return here to the residents as well I mean otherwise it'll be a one-sided perception that yeah developers will come and do whatever they want and they'll be quite happy but what about increased carbon emissions or increased waste collection or traffic on the roads and who is going to pay for all that and you know so that that that question has to be somewhat answered.

Now the best best answer could be look if you do all this uh the not only the quality of life improves for us but financially we can see it right because all these influx of uh activity is going to bring additional revenue to the town which will be more than enough for us to pay for upgrades and you know and and therefore it's a good it's a good plan you know it's not a perfect plan but it's a good plan.

So that could be a way to sell it but more work needs to be done to quantify that and I I would certainly request the town at least in the final planning board meeting put some financial parameters around this otherwise in the execution of this you know what I mean otherwise it we'll be spending a lot of money and somebody will say the master plan was the cause of that you know that's it so just think about it you know I I am happy to think about this but the master plan has like the the debt limit for the city is the debt limit there's nothing that the comprehensive plan can suggest and recommend that would go above and beyond like that would nullify the debt limit.

We're not gonna spend more money than we have just because the master plan says all of these things would be great.

I'm thinking of uh I'm thinking of a positive I understand uh we have a limit of no but I'm thinking of a positive benefit you know that's all think about it very hard I understand I'm sorry I could probably send an email on this before I uh it's that's what we're here for this is this is all good I'm you know wanting to this the point of this is to have a discussion understand questions talk it out yeah um I wonder um I know that on the land use spirit website there is an FAQ um that's not only about the comprehensive plan specifically but also general FAQ about development and impacts of it how it impacts the tax base how it impacts water infrastructure a lot of those questions had actually been answered there um and I wonder um if uh kind of what additional clarity could be helpful after kind of taking a look at that um around um you know I mean there it does cite you know overall the positive um impact of development in you know being able to cut um keep up with the infrastructure investments that we've been making with the safe debt limit that we have so Jennifer sorry I have not seen that FAQ and some if you could send it to me I'll be happy to but you know for example the question will be asked okay in the last five years we've had so much development

Um, and I wonder um if uh kind of what additional clarity could be helpful after kind of taking a look at that um around um, you know, I mean, there it does cite, you know, overall the positive um impact of development in you know, being able to cut um keep up with the infrastructure investments that we've been making with the safe debt limit that we have.

So Jennifer, sorry, I have not seen that FAQ and some if you could send it to me, I'll be happy to.

But you know, for example, the question will be asked, okay.

In the last five years, we've had so much development.

Right?

As it resulted in financial benefit to the residents as our tax bill gone down, or an answer could be maybe it has not gone up gone up as much as it should have, because we've been able to moderate.

And that is a very good proof of uh you know, proof of the concept, right?

So uh I think there's a way to answer this question, uh, if not the next meeting, meeting two meetings down the line, and we should do it.

We owe it to the residents to prove it, you know, prove it to them, you know.

But if you send me that link, I'll certainly go through it and see the answer.

Sure, yeah, Lindsay, if you could send that around to everyone, because you know, I mean, it's these are general questions that need to be always answered, Ravi.

I agree.

And I I hear your intention to be able to um more clearly frame what are the upsides of things, right?

Correct.

Exactly.

Um I you know, I I um the yeah, I don't have the text right in front of me, but again, the uh the you know, kind of prevailing uh knowledge that the planning board has been operating off of is that the growth in the grand list, right?

The taxable properties, um, that the pace of growth that we've had has, as you've just said, kept uh helped to reduce the pace of acceleration of taxation versus places that have stayed very much the same.

I'm sure you've heard stories of many suburbs um, you know, in this region who, you know, the cost of schooling just goes up and up and up, even though there's not actually any growth in population, right?

Um, and so you have the same people with the same body of uh with the same tax base having to, you know, support slight accelerations and cost over time because things just cost more over time.

Whereas here in Stanford, you know, we know that we have enough stormwater infrastructure right now.

We have um, and and that again, like the growth in the grand list has enabled uh for the city to expand without you know, kind of undue burden on the overall infrastructure.

Um the the only other thing I want to add actually, Ravi, along the lines of what you're saying about the the cost benefit is that I know that in um you know we're also preparing for the capital budget season, which is about to start.

Um, and I know that in the next in the this this iteration, one that there is an intention to make sure that there's they're kind of clear statements for proposed projects of how it aligns with the comprehensive plan.

Um, which you know, could you could be specific strategies that are in there or sort of um, you know, how it it feeds into different tenets and values.

But also there's um, you know, we haven't had up until now a clear section that's asking for the various departments to specify kind of the ROI, right?

And you know, we've all been we all asked that question a million times in the last capital budget cycle, because it's a good question, right?

Even if this costs money, but it's an energy efficiency project, what do we recruit 10 years from now by doing that?

And so there's going to be a more specific section.

Um I was told ROIs, I was told I should not talk about ROI in the public public space as I as much as I do in the corporate space, but I think I think we should do that, right?

Uh and link it up.

So and then last point, yeah, sorry, last last point last.

I think the question is will be asked, and there was so many feedback as well.

Why do we need so many uh apartments?

Why do we need so much development?

And I think we should hit, you know, we should answer it very clearly and openly, right?

It's nothing, nothing.

So if in the last two years we have approved, I'm just making it up, 3,000 apartments.

And in the next 10 years, we expect our population to increase from what about 130 to 160 or whatever was mentioned.

Is not the pipeline of the existing development adequate to handle that increased population.

Or we think more development is required.

I mean, that somebody's going to ask that question.

I sense it is not enough.

I sense that.

I I don't have facts, but if the population increases by 30% over 10 years, I think what we have today on the ground and on the pipeline may not be enough.

But somebody has to factually answer that question, right?

If you go from 100 to exact numbers in the document, it's 130 to was uh with about 1200 per year added um over the next 10 years.

Yeah, it's it's starting with 130,000 now.

I remember that, but I forget where they said it'll again, 160 if you remember right.

But whatever the number is, right?

So if you take the current pipeline of projects, and let us say it is thousand apartments that we have today, it to be built.

So that means we need another 4,000 new apartments, 5,000 new apartments over the next 10 years.

And therefore, some changes in our the way we use our land makes sense.

And this is a document that tries to explain how do we do that while addressing other elements as well, you know.

So somehow that otherwise this will be a contentious issue.

People will say our infrastructure is not enough, you don't have enough roads and we don't have parking, and uh maybe as an introduction, the consultant should answer that.

Rabbi, I think that I think that makes a lot of sense to make that framing clearer.

Um, Lindsay, actually, are you able to show I know there's been a revision to the um to the to the section where it kind of talks about the um the the expected population growth.

Um and again, I'm um to say I in general not gonna reply to the comments that have been coming through, but it were there's not projected increase to 260,000.

That is not I think so that was a mishearing.

Um so here is the actual page that has um a projection of about 1.2% uh increase um in population.

And that, you know, there is a little bit more explanation now of kind of where those projections come from.

You know, I mean, as I remember as an urban planner, like I think within the first couple weeks of school, we were we we were given instructions on how do you do a population projection?

What are the different inputs that go into that?

There's birth rate, there is you know the economic uh condition of the community, and that there are just a lot of factors that we don't necessarily have um direct control over, but we can forecast um based on you know the best available data that we have in order to figure out, you know, if it's going to be about this much growth, then you know, how do we plan to channel it to the best places for them for minimal impact, right?

Um and you know, who knows, you know, the economy could tank, you know, maybe, or maybe our you know, neighbors in Greenwich and Darien will suddenly start building a lot more housing, like who knows, right?

So there are a lot of things that could change uh the current conditions, but this um population projection is just based on recent trends and based on the best data that we have about future trends.

This is kind of what we should try to plan for, right?

Um the other thing I wanted to add in is that um I think I think that we know we've talked a lot about increasing the number of units just to accommodate um population growth.

Um I think something that perhaps is a little bit underappreciated and and could use a little bit more explanation in this in this plan um is that you know, there the sizes of households, um, like the average size of a household has shrunk significantly, um, not just in Stanford, but across the country over um the last decade or so, and some of that is because right you have um you know uh they're you know, they're smaller average family sizes, but also you know, you have a lot more households where you know you just have a couple of uh seniors uh who are um you know aging in place and they like they would like to downsize into a unit that is smaller, and so do we have an adequate supply of um of units to also allow for those lifestyle um and living choice trends so that people can have housing that matches their needs, um, not just it it's not just about accommodating growth of people who don't currently live here, it's also about offering more choices for people who are already here so they can stay here.

So that 152 is on probably on the lower side, maybe because that is what he's talking about population growth.

The phenomenon you're talking about that existing population may need more dwelling units is is not included in that.

Right.

So this projection is a population projection, it's not a housing unit projection.

And the number of units is going to depend again upon, you know, what is allowed, right, for us to build based on the zoning code, but also what are the um what are the market trends and demand, right?

So you know, I I know a lot of times over the years we've had development proposals that have come before us, and um, you know, it seems like there's an awfully high number of like one bedroom units, for example, right?

You would think there should be more demand for bigger units, but there is actually just very high demand for those one bedroom units because there are just a lot of small households in this city.

So, you know, not everybody wants or needs a four-bedroom house.

Um, a lot of people do, and so we have plenty of those as well.

Um, I think maybe some um some kind of uh projections to explain why we need the developments is probably advisable to have, if not in the document, at least in the presentation to the public.

You know, that's my uh that question will certainly be asked.

Yeah, I mean, I think both.

I think it should I think it it could be explained a little bit more clearly in the plan and also could be made you know more explicit in the presentation to the public.

Um because I you know, I think a lot of these um a lot of these shifts and trends are either counterintuitive or not necessarily very well known, right?

Like it's sort of an intuitive narrative that all of the population growth is all of these people invading from New York.

But you know, for one, some of those invaders actually grew up here and then they went to school and then they came back six years later and they want to buy a house and they can't, right?

Um, but then also right there these trends of like how household sizes are shifting and changing.

Um I think we know kind of anecdotally, we all know people who are in that situation, but thinking about that as a broader trend across the city isn't always necessarily as clear.

So then last point, sorry, I keep saying last point, but I keep uh raising it.

So Jennifer, this is for us for the planning board to discuss.

I know we are given enough time for the town to residents to look at the planning document, the master plan document and a lot of inputs.

But now we are making some changes.

And I think some I think there was a letter from many residents saying, hey, the changes were uh officially published today or tomorrow or yesterday, and then the public board meeting is on the eighth.

Uh we may not have enough time to review the new, the revised uh document.

So can you give us more time kind of stuff?

And uh without spoiling anybody's calendar, agenda, schedule without dramatically changing anything.

I'm just wondering, because we got the eighth.

Uh sorry, the ninth is it, the ninth, the 16th, and then the 30th is the last is the date the planning board approves the plan.

But is it possible to move one of these dates, either the ninth or the 16th to the 23rd, for example?

I mean, look, we want everybody to be happy with the plan.

Everybody had full time to give their inputs and we don't want a section of the community to say, hey, you gave us only two days to look at the revised plan.

You know, that'll create the wrong atmosphere.

So my request is if you want to consider either moving the ninth meeting, the public meeting to the 16th, and then the 16th to the 23rd, or if that is too difficult at short notice, move the 16 to the 23rd.

So everybody is the got some more time to look at the new document that we are published, which I think is a much better document than what was originally there.

Um so Ravi, I want to note one just logistical thing that I I know you missed the last um meeting.

So we did so the 23rd, we actually cannot have a meeting of the planning board because it falls during one of the Jewish holidays, and um one of our members does observe uh and so just have and so that was how we landed on the 30th to be the date that we um that we are expected to um deliberate and vote on it.

Um, I think if we get to that point, like there's nothing stopping us from pushing it out further if we're just not clear on where we are, right?

You know, we've certainly continued hearings on to other dates.

Um, and so um, right.

So it's it's there's nobody who's compelling us we have to approve it on the 30th.

But just let me clarify.

Let me clarify.

I didn't, I was not talking about our our meetings.

Our meetings are fine, right?

I'm the planning board meetings are fine.

I'm talking about the public hearings, which are set up for uh 9th and 16th.

And the question was given the document itself is published today or tomorrow, whenever that's being published.

Does the public have enough time within 24 hours to read the revised document and be ready for the public meeting on the ninth?

And pros and cons.

I spoke to you know Lindsay.

But I'm saying just to avoid the noise and feeling that people are not listening to somebody, you know, could we move the ninth to the 16th or at least move the 16th to the 23rd so that there's one more week for the residents to communicate?

That's all.

This is just my thought, but I leave it to vote to do it.

Okay.

Well, so again, we we can't have a public hearing on the 23rd because of the conflict with the Jewish holidays.

Um the um I I think that there are two things to consider here, right?

One is what are what's kind of what are the multiple ways in which we can make sure that the public is more informed about what's in it and what has shifted, right?

And my sense is that some people will comb through and read all of this, right?

And some people actually would benefit from being able to listen in on the 9th or the 16th to hear the presentation about what has changed uh since the initial draft was uh released in July.

So I think that there's an opportunity for um folks who don't have the time to sit down and read the whole thing to have those changes explained to them in a way that's a bit more concise.

I think the other thing to consider is right, what is the, you know, what has changed, what magnitude has changed, and how is it responded to the public feedback that we've heard so far?

I think that we can agree that there's been a pretty significant change at this point to the that res two um designation in the map.

That was the main thing that we heard feedback on.

And again, we we won't make every single resident of the city happy, but I I do think that that change alone has responded quite significantly to the feedback that we've gotten so far.

And so um I again, I I would like to we have the hearings to you know get additional feedback, but I I don't anticipate at this point, based on the feedback we've gotten in the past month and what the revisions have been, that there's going to be such significant distance between the public feedback and what's in the plan that there's a need for a you know, some you know, more weeks of processing.

Does that does that make sense?

No, it I'm fine with it.

I'm just saying, you know, the residents seem to have some reservations, but if that can be handled on the 9th and everybody is happy more or less, right?

Um I I'm quite okay with it.

I'm just disappointed that people would sense that we are not giving them enough time to communicate, you know.

That's probably a wrong perception.

I mean, this process has been going on for some time and uh there have been multiple uh you know, I've been used to communicate.

But if uh extend extending it by a week makes people happy, it's fine.

You know, no, no, nothing lost.

Right.

Alancy, you're saying something, you are on mute.

No, okay.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

And that comes to the end of my checklist.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, uh Ravi, I think what you're saying about you know, you're in, you know, how the plan process has unfolded and some of the um some of the perceptions and feedback we're getting.

I mean, our job as the planning board is to figure out how do we balance um, how do we balance all of those things, right?

Um, because we know that there were um there were thousands of inputs that happened over the past year and we've been getting dozens of comments in the past month, and we have to figure out how do we balance all of that to determine a process that's going to be um that's going to be fair and that works logistically.

Um not that this should completely um preclude further extending this process, but again, if October is going to be completely taken, all of the Tuesdays are going to be taken up by Capitol uh plan uh presentations.

And so if we wanted to extend this process beyond September, um, because again, if we we if we can't have a public hearing on the 23rd, then we kind of end up you know bumping all of the dominoes down another week or two.

Um, either it means that we're adding special meetings in October on top of every Tuesday, every single Tuesday in October having uh a meeting to do the capital budget, or we're punting the football all the way out to November, December because of the holidays, it kind of gets dragged out, right?

We have we have election day on the 5th, we have um Veterans Day on the 11th.

Um, and so it just becomes more logistically challenging.

It's not impossible.

Um, but and also we're almost a year out from the um from the date that we were supposed to have this to the state.

holidays it kind of gets dragged out right we have we have election day on the fifth we have um veterans day on the 11th um and so it just becomes more logistically challenging it's not impossible um but and also we're almost a year out from the um from the date that we were supposed to have this to the state so um and I do also I want to you know to reiterate some of the conversation that um I can't remember if it was just correspondence or if we discussed this at last uh at the last meeting um you know recognition that there is um you know we've we've traditionally as a planning board made sure to avoid election day um late the main you know kind of municipal election day or you know um presidential gubernatorial et cetera um we're aware that there is also a primary on September 9th a few a handful of districts have contested primaries there is also early voting now though which is great I'm glad that the state has extended that and so there's an entire for there's an entire week um for people to be able to um vote and you know our hearing starts at 6 30 so there's most of the day um as well in order to go vote before um that hearing begins I think there's ample opportunity uh for people to be able to exercise uh their vote and still be able to participate um we're our hearing is gonna go until nine o'clock correct Lindsay on the ninth so you could still go vote at 7 45 before the polls close and still come and speak um Robbie do you have any other thoughts on the um or or Jeremy any other thoughts on kind of the process and the timing thus far right um Lindsay I know there are there were a few um you know based on the the preview that was put out about kind of the some of the changes that were made there were um a few others to highlight we want to keep going through those let's see I have to jump at three o'clock okay I could I can try to stay on and just won't have my camera on and just listen in but I I will not be able to be in front of a uh a computer here.

Okay.

Understood um it was there were there particular parts that you wanted to make sure were um you know kind of went over no I think you know the the map was was the large one and I think is is you know you've alluded to and in Ravi and as we've we've discussed um you know there's been significant changes to that which I think uh you know should you know give us some good you know feedback to a lot of the comments we have received um yeah and and I think the the narrative that we got of some of those larger changes was helpful as well great thank you um I don't know I don't know if we can I don't know if we can continue the public meeting without a quorum correct yes um yes and so that would be yeah I don't think we can continue the public meeting without a quorum and I don't know if a quorum includes listening in so just kind of stating that there um so we might have to end at end at three o'clock um let's see I'm going through um we did get comments about um adding a conservation commission um and separating that out from the environmental protection board um that is something that we are we have incorporated um and into the healthy section uh let's um uh that's was uh response to public comment as well as our EPB director um separate conservation commissions are uh much more effective and can um focus on actual conservation work as opposed to what we currently have which is a conservation commission inside environmental protection bureau um and the way it's been working is that EPB is so um the board is so consumed with the coastal site plan applications that they don't have the time for a conservation for the conservation work so having a established conservation commission um will help um with our conservation work uh let's see some others let's see that's comments sorry i'm going between like the the summary of comments that I sent you guys okay um Lindsay if I can I also just want to make sure we're clear on what the public process is going to be so it's it's a two part public hearing right because we know that not everybody is available on all the days so the presentation will be made on the 9th and the presentation will be

be is so um the board is so consumed with the coastal site plan applications that they don't have the time for a conservation for the conservation work so having a established conservation commission um will help um with our conservation work uh let's see some others let's see that's kind of comments i'm going between like the the summary of comments that i sent you guys okay um lindsay if i can i also just want to make sure we're clear on what the public process is gonna be so it's it's a two part public hearing right because we know that not everybody is available on all the days so the presentation will be made on the 9th and the presentation will be made on the 16th and so there's one venue for people to um be able to join virtually on the 9th and then there's a venue for people to be able to join in person on the 16th and that typically our hearing rules are that once you testify once in the same hearing that then we're gonna be deferring to um other speakers to speak and then we will uh the intention is to close the hearing on the 16th deliberate on the 30th but you know it is certainly always at our option if we feel like we need more feedback as a planning board to continue the hearing to another date.

Do people register to speak or how do we know how many people are going to come to those meetings and how many people allow the time to ask a question I don't know the three of us is good enough or six of us or nine of us any control on that?

I mean we want everybody to speak but I'm just trying to see how logistically it works.

Yeah so the instructions that have been issued is that people um can uh they have the option to register in advance by emailing uh Leslie um and also you know typically the practice at the in-person hearings that we had prior to COVID was that also you could like when you arrived you could also have the option to um to sign up we had a physical sign up sheet there and so um I would uh presume that in the digital setting as well you can still even if you didn't pre-register to speak you can also put in uh the request and be added to the queue to speak um and that you know we have rules about you know uh you know the three minute speaking limit per speaker um and then we just kind of go until um we're gonna go until nine for the meeting on the ninth um I don't believe we've published a specific end time uh for the 16th um but you know we can we can determine if there's a specific time knowing that you know we have to go to work the next day and uh um figure out like you know logically feasibly um what makes sense and again we'll have to see what the volume of comment is um we know again that a lot of the changes a lot of the feedback we've gotten so far I think um the changes to the plan so far have responded to those pretty well so we may not get a lot of comments or we might get a ton of comments and we'll just have to see um I uh yeah I honestly I can't really add much more detail than that I uh wish I could figure out how many people were coming to the meeting in advance but uh even on the 12th I we had no idea how many people were actually going to be in person at the meeting um we just have to plan for accommodating as many folks as possible so and everybody will get a chance to speak one time or the other right like yes and planned people signing up they will get a they will get a chance to speak yes um I think it's also worth you know this was noted that you know people can submit written comment as well they don't have to speak in order for their comment to be entered to the public record and to be considered we're gonna you know we're gonna get a packet um that's collated by uh by Leslie that will have all of the public comments that we've received and you know kind of sorting them into buckets in terms of um you know what what is in support and what what is uh uh you know an objection or critique or something that needs to be changed about the plan um so you know I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with 500 comments but uh to you know they might not all be spoken comments um and again I think if we get to the 16th and you know it gets to be 1130 and there are still 200 people who want to speak and have a viewpoint that is significantly different from the other viewpoints that have been expressed over the past you know couple of hearings then we can we'll reassess right there's nothing that's forcing us to cut off public discussion in a way that's going to be unsatisfying but based on prior experience the timeline that we have right now seems to meet uh you know the way that we've approached this in the past yeah um Jeremy I know you need to hop off so um yeah so Lindsay will go ahead and close the special meeting since we no longer have quorum all right good practice all right well thank you all it was definitely helpful to be able to have this conversation thank you all right great have a good day by everyone

Yeah.

Um Jeremy, I know you need to hop off.

So um, yes.

So Lindsay, we'll go ahead and close the special meeting since we no longer have quorum.

All right.

Good practice.

All right.

Well, thank you all.

It was definitely helpful to be able to have this conversation.

Thank you.

All right, great.

Have a good day.

Bye, everyone.

Bye.