Often reflecting existing conditions.

The proposed full color future land use can be reviewed on the standard 2035.

Copies of the comprehensive plan may be reviewed as follows online at W.

Stanford CP.gov slash Stanford 2035 in the town club's office of the Gilman Center first floor, going on business others or in the land use floor, building this.

At the moment the name time and place, all of us interested will not spoken the post-public hearing.

The meeting places in hearing input we should check on this meeting.

Thank you.

And then we will move forward with hearing.

So again, if you are signed up to speak, please when you come up to speak, say your name clearly into the record.

And if you would like you can also communicate your address to the neighborhood in Stanford.

If you do have additional comment though, you're welcome to submit it in writing.

So this evening we will begin with a brief presentation of changes that have been made.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Elias Decker.

I am a planner at Sasaki.

We've been working with the city over the past year to draft the draft standard 2035 comprehensive plan for those of you who were in attendance in our last week's public hearing.

Tonight I'll just be sharing a few brief changes that we made over the last week in response to some of the feedback that we've gotten from a few different entities that Lindsay will go into a little bit more depth on shortly.

So we received feedback from the West Club, the Council of Government for this part of the state, generally in approval of the plan, but had a few specific comments on a few kind of items that they want to see changed.

So specifically, they were wondering about some of the software that the plan recommends that we use to craft a infrastructure strategy to make sure that any kind of planned growth in the city is aligned with its structure.

And so we think that specific change to the plan was to include some specific service providers.

We also, based on their comments, added an action to evaluate opportunities to use new resilience tools established by recent public acts 2533, such as resiliency improvements district.

So that's something that the city would take on to study to see if it was applicable to Stanford.

We've also adjusted some of the open space actions just to make them kind of more cohesive and kind of connected through citywide spaces.

And also based on comments from the Harvard Management Commission, we have updated some of the planning language to align with their updated coastal vision.

They'll be releasing shortly.

So in terms of some of the language that we've updated, strategy 10.1 now reads kind of to follow along with their updated coastal vision, ensuring that the harbor management area and protection of coastal and cultural resources continue to provide the harbor management commission and shelter shellfish commission with development proposals affecting the hardware management area for review common and recommendation in accordance with state and musical statutes.

And we've adjusted some of the language and the healthy kind of coastal resilience section based on their comments as well.

We also receive additional comments on the future land use from the downtown special services district, and so we've updated a future land use in the South End from the core category, the highest intensity land use to the mixed use three urban category based on their comments.

We've also addressed kind of a slight modification in the residential one intent text to allow for additional clarity to confirm that any uses that would be planned in those areas are as permitted right now by something regulation.

And that is the extent of some of the changes we've made over the past week.

Now I'll pass it to Lindsay to share some of the concepts that we've gotten from some of the entities that we've been sharing with them.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh in accordance with the general statutes of the state of Connecticut, uh this plan was referred to the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and uh we have to read the comments into the record.

Uh so I'll be doing that.

Uh dear board members, thank you for notifying this office at the draft City of Stanford 2025-2035 comprehensive plan.

Uh the Connecticut Coastal Management Act requires our office to review the draft for consistency with the policies and standards of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act, specifically CGS Section 22A-104E and the criteria of CGS Section 22A-102B.

The draft plan is visually appealing, easy to navigate, and contains many noteworthy sections that we support.

For example, the sustainability today section from pages 20 to 23 highlights the city's effort to invest in its environment, including the publication of its climate action plans and ongoing work for the for the coastal flood resiliency plan.

This section also outlines the city's intention to prioritize nature-based stormwater management through green infrastructure and to develop and enact the coastal flood resiliency plan.

This section states that the community identified controlling flooding with green infrastructure as a top priority.

We also strongly support language on page 48 that identifies flood risk as a factor the city will consider along with existing infrastructure and transit service when determining where land can accommodate development.

This is important as the plan shows that Stanford is expected to experience population growth faster than pure cities and development to accommodate such roles to proceed in a manager manner that is safe for the community.

The section titled A Healthy City further highlights the efforts the city intends to make to improve climate resilience, including upgrading both physical infrastructure and community networks to better adapt Stanford to its most pressing climate risks, including flooding and sea level rise.

Controlling flooding with green infrastructure is identified as a top priority.

Further, this section outlines Stanford's plan to implement the uplift resiliency overlay to minimize water runoff and reduce flood impacts from upland development and a coastal resiliency overlay zone within the coastal area to ensure that new development and redevelopment are elevated at least three feet above base flood elevation.

We support the incorporation of these tools as they are great and innovative opportunity to protect people and property from flood hazards and add requirements such as stormwater management and salt-tolerant landscaping as identified on page 97 to further reduce risks and adapt to climate impacts and rising sea level.

However, section 22A-92 V2F of the CCMA requires that municipal land use authorities to manage coastal hazard areas so as to ensure that development proceeds in a manner such that has hazards to life and property are minimized.

Elevate structures three feet higher than the base flood elevation is one approach to managing flood hazard area, but limiting high density residential development in flood-prone areas is a coastal management strategy that avoids impacts by not placing people in harm's way in the first place.

Again, we recognize that the plan does mention flood risk as a factor of determining where land can accommodate development, but we strongly recommend that any recommendations pertaining to high density residential development, such as ST 13.11 to revise building codes for flexibility by updating them to encourage reversible building design to allow easier conversion between commercial and residential uses.

Also include a caveat that stresses that residential development slash conversion should be limited to sites that are located outside of the coastal flood hazard areas, or it can provide dry egress for evacuations and access to emergency personnel.

We also note that unlike the current pre current previously approved master plan, the draft comprehensive plan does not include specific goals for the promotion of water dependent uses at waterfront sites or the protection of tidal wetlands or other sensitive coastal resources.

The current master plan includes sections that highlights goals such as protecting, handsing and promoting water dependent uses, protecting water-dependent industry, requiring public access in conjunction with non-water dependent uses, protecting coastal lands by conserving and enhancing natural coastal resources in the Stanford coastal management area, including beaches, rocky shorefronts, estuaries, and then embayments, shelf its concentration areas, tidal wetlands, intertidal flasts, coastal hazard areas, and other, and maintaining tidal wetlands in their natural state and emphasizing the value of tidal wetlands in the east side and west branched areas.

Therefore, we strongly recommend that the existing relevant policies, including policy 5C, Policy W 2.2, Policy 7E, 7F, 7N, and 7.0, all from the 2015 master plan.

The incorporated into the draft comprehensive plan, especially in sections that outline specific roles for protecting marine and upland ecosystems with specific actions to ensure that the protection of water dependent uses, including public access and sensitive coastal resources, continue to remain top priority.

One more paragraph.

Finally, although the draft comprehensive plan contains several coastal management related topics and issues, we note that the draft plan does not specifically reference the Connecticut Coastal Management Act as this CCMA is the basis for effective implementation of municipal coastal management and hardware management programs.

We recommend that the comprehensive plan include general language highlighting goals of the CCMA, specifically relating to three basic tenants for coastal management, protection of sensitive coastal resources and coastal water quality, proper management of coastal flood hazard areas to ensure that hazards to life and property are minimized, and promotion and protection of water dependent uses, including public access at waterfront sites.

This could be as simple as including a call-out box similar to a box included on page 22 describing the coastal flood resiliency plan.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

We hope these comments are helpful.

And just for the record, we also got comments from SHIPO and Westpower.

I do want to deeply appreciate all of you for taking time out to give public comment.

And also I want to note that this has also served as an opportunity for many members of the public not only to learn about the comprehensive plans, but also just about how planning and zoning and all of these things work in our community.

One of the most visible changes to the draft was the shifting of a significant portion of the area of the city that was designated as residential neighborhood coded as REST II into residential single family low density res one.

So that was the predominance of the comments that we received.

And if you have had a chance to come through the plan on pages 52 and 53, there are detailed descriptions of what is meant by each of the future land use categories with Res1 and Res 2 both noted as areas with minimal expected population growth.

There's also a map that indicates for the growth that is projected or estimated for the city based upon production that we receive data received from the state and based on the census and many other inputs.

That the most of that growth is meant to be directed to the areas most able to accommodate it, areas with lot of infrastructure, areas where there is existing density, areas where there's transit, and again, that areas that don't have those things are expected to experience minimal growth per the comments from deep areas that are flood grown or also areas that should not be growing in this city.

Just one note on growth, because one of the key questions that we've gotten many times is why why does why do we have to let the city grow at all?

First, as noted, uh the uh population growth projection that is in the comprehensive plans, which is a rate of about 1.2% per year.

Um it is not a goal, it is not a mandate, it is an estimate based upon many different uh pieces of data, you know, such as birthright, uh, birth rates, employment, migration between states, um, and all that comes together into an estimate.

And I'll note that the vast majority of those things we don't have direct control over.

And so our task in the comprehensive plan is to determine knowing that there will be some growth because Stanford is a wonderful dynamic place to figure out where the best places to direct that growth.

Um, and again, to emphasize then that the different land use categories, um the minimal growth areas will certainly experience much less than that 1.2% growth over here, um, whereas areas uh such as the mixed-use urban and mixed use core areas will experience the bulk of growth.

Um I'd like to take just a moment to um introduce our planning board members because um we've had um actually a number of new members join.

Um, and also I think it's equally important for you to understand the perspectives and connections to Stanford that each of us bring.

Um so I'll start.

Um my name's Jennifer Gonzano.

Uh I was um first uh appointed to the planning board a little over 10 years ago as a Democratic uh appointee under Matt Martin.

um introduce our planning board members um because um we've had um actually a number of new members join um and also i think it's so important for you to understand the uh perspectives and connections to standard that each of us right um so i'll start um my name's jenica uh i was um first uh appointed to the planning board a little over 10 years ago as a democratic uh appointee under man martin um in the past year i've shifted my political affiliation to the working family party which if you're not aware is kind of a cousin of the democratic party um kind of often with cross endorses uh candidates within primaries um i actually first um was encouraged to join the planning board because i came to the 2015 conference of plan hearing um and so uh we have some openings by all of you um if you are so inclined to consider joining uh one of our many uh these forest here and we have to get dedicated volunteers who represent that is the other thing um so i live in Lembrook um there uh I live I own a home home uh right near the train station um and that location just happens to be about four blocks from uh where my children's great grandparents raised uh their grandmother uh so it's really important to me that this community is a place that honors that past and it's gonna be a great place to continue to raise my kids um I will um hand it over to our other members to just elaborate on anything we feel like it's relevant for the public to know about you are research it's you think if we are because it's very difficult to hear that very so um these speakers are set up to be in this uh in this lovely thing here and in this podium um it is a far from ideal setup um and uh we will certainly keep that in mind as we enter into the capital budget even as we look at all the different proposals that will come before us to um improve the buildings and improve the money on there uh it's got to remain right over there and we have to have the visual right here yeah just to repeat that um so because this is a hybrid meeting uh we do actually have to keep the podium here um there's a camera here um and the mic is making up the audio that way so we're not able to move it from this but again less than ideal um and um unfortunately we're not able to have fancy video conferencing technical uh or audio in so we I would love for that to be better in the kitchen Alexandra all right is uh this is middle can you know you can people online will be able to hear it's really function yeah it's yeah okay uh my name is uh Louis and the planning board uh I joined the planning board uh late last year and uh I think you also um these people microphone in your chance yeah it's not even public micro okay you want to spend all the time on just getting this volume so I think I'm a US citizen about three years ago and other time I told myself I need to do something what is going to be in this community passing my wall I need to do something more security it's okay Robbie just got a move closer to it really good kiss it baby okay so I sent a letter to the mayor and said I want to join one of these boards and I was offered to just join the planning board that's why I'm here I really think it's an opportunity for me to participate in this whole community long-term development I don't have any of motivation to go there I'm an independent and uh it's been an interesting experience so far so look forward to that thank you good evening all

That's why I'm here.

I really think it's an opportunity for me to participate in this whole community long-term development.

I don't have any other multivation Google that I'm an independent.

And uh been very interesting experience so far.

So look all up the country.

Good evening all.

Jeremy Linder.

Uh I moved to Stanford in 2013.

I live uh on the border of downtown in Hubbard Heights.

My professional background is a product manager for a Connecticut-based general contractor and construction management firm.

What got me interested in coming to the planning board is uh my professional experience in background is uh very beneficial to the city in this aspect and hope I can serve you all well.

Thank you.

My name is Jill Levin.

I've been on the planning board for at least 12 years, always as an alternate.

Um I was a planner working for some cities in Texas, Connecticut, and California before I retired and joined this group.

Um I was a planner at San Diego for almost 25 years.

And so for that reason, I applied to uh I knew I had relevant experience.

And um other than that, uh I oh I live in uh on Oak Street in the Springdale community.

Um that's really all I have to say now, but uh listen with eager to hear your comments.

Thanks.

Good evening everyone.

My name is Chet Sallon.

It's uh my pleasure to be here with you tonight.

Can everybody hear me?

Okay, yeah.

Okay, yeah.

Uh it's the short listen.

Um I'm a relatively new member of the planning board.

Um just completed my first year.

Uh actively uh became a uh a member in August of last year.

The um I live in the uh Pepperge Road area.

Well uh I call it Center Stanford.

Um I was born and raised here in Stanford, graduate of UM High School when it was a high school.

Um, but had lived in Stanford for about 50 years until 2022 when my wife and I moved back to Stanford, she's also a graduate of Red Well, and um having moved back from California.

Um I'm an architect by training.

Spent my entire career in large-scale uh architectural work institutional.

Uh so the built environment uh and what we do with it and how we live and work in it is very important to me and is one of my passions.

So I like to bring those that perspective uh to the role here of planning um and uh to serve you as best I can.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I hope that that context of uh of the board is helpful to you.

Um you bring a range of experiences.

I realize that I neglected to note that like Bill, I'm also an urban planner with an AITP certification with the American Planning Association.

Um so uh as we open now public comment, I will remind you uh again instead of the beginning when you come to the microphone.

Uh please uh say your name clearly.

Um each uh person is to speak once for up to three minutes.

Um we'll be timing you back here as you run out of time.

You are welcome to uh submit further comment in uh writing.

Uh as was just uh kindly noted here.

Uh come up and basically kiss it because this microphone really needs you to be very close in order for it to uh take that pure sound.

Um again, if you testified on September 9th, we ask that you allow others to testify today so that we can hear as many perspectives as possible.

Uh, we have I believe about 17 people who emailed in to sign up in advance, and we have a number of people who signed up in person today, and so we'll be calling you uh in sequence to come up and testify.

All right, so we're gonna start with uh Diego Imrogno, followed by James Sarnell and then Anthony Martino.

So, Diego, if you want to come up to the mic.

I did I had a few chairs up here for folks who were on deck if you want to come and get ready.

We didn't expect to go first, but hang on again.

Yeah, wait, please.

Yes, everyone.

Can everybody hear me well?

Everybody hear me okay.

All right, hello everyone.

My name is Diego M.

Rodno.

I am a lifelong resident of Stanford, right on Champagne Avenue, 28 years my whole life, born and raised here, and I'm a member of the Carpenter's Local 326.

First and foremost, I'd like to say that I am for the adoption of this comprehensive plan for our city.

I would just like to urge, thank you.

I would just like to urge conscientiousness.

We all remember back in February of 2022 when a portion of the fifth floor patio deck at the Allure building on Pacific Street collapsed into the floor below.

That incident was a result of cheap and untrained labor due to the hiring of contractors who break the law and get away with tax fraud by paying their workers in cash, or in some cases, not even paying them at all.

That shameful incident is just one example of the consequences of going with the cheapest option.

I would in turn like to point out work that was done with pride and integrity, such as the Spectrum and Charter Buildings, as well as the new WWE headquarters, which catch the eyes of all those who pass by when driving on the I-95.

Or how about the new and amazing Stanford Hospital, which has and continues to receive awards for patient security and satisfaction, as well as workplace contentment and fulfillment.

These great buildings that line our city sky are results of organized labor with a unified workforce.

The work speaks for itself and for the commitment of the contractors who hire local, well-trained workers who are committed, sorry, that care about their city and take pride in their profession.

The recipe for success has been tried and tested.

By hiring union, we invest in the quality and stability of our infrastructure for generations to come.

The Carpenter's Local 326 offers our city not only quality work to be proud of, but also opportunity for our youth to have a career path in construction.

The West Hill Free Apprenticeship is a fairly new program in which students can learn our trade and earn a one-year credit towards a four-year apprenticeship after graduating high school.

I believe that this growing program, which has 65 participants in 2024 and another 68 participants this year, should be expanded to other high schools in Stanford so that the rest of our students could take advantage of a great opportunity to become contributing and outstanding members of our community.

In conclusion, an exceptional future for our great city is priceless.

Let us all learn from our mistakes as well as as well as our accomplishments, and together continue to build Stanford right.

Thank you.

James Sarnell, followed by Anthony Martino and Paul Brindak.

James, are you gonna say yes?

Hi, my name is Dr.

James Sardelli.

I'm a retired surgeon.

I was born in New York City, but I've lived in Stanford for the last 46 years.

My wife Judy was born in Stanford in the Cove area, and we have lived in West Dover for the last 36 years.

We do not want New York Stanford to become like New York City with all of this traffic overcrowding.

And also safety, somebody mentioned safety outside.

As a trauma surgeon, I saw many people that were injured with first warm day in spring.

Motorcycles came out.

We didn't call them motorcycles, we called them donor cycles because they became organ donors.

We want to put bicycles all over the place.

You're going to see more and more injuries and more and more unfortunately organ donors with this plan.

Now, when you look at the website of the planning board, it's online.

You can see that one of it is to prepare the master plan and also economic development.

There's supposed to be eight members on the board, and according to the website, there were six with two vacancies, but I understand somebody just stepped down.

I'm sure why.

Now, one of the six members who is the chair, her term expired in December of 2021.

Now you can look at the Stanford tax roles to see who pays taxes and where they live, etc.

And of the six members, or maybe it's only five now, only one owns a single family home.

The rest are either renters, live in a condo, a town home, or a large multi-complex unit.

So it's obvious to see why this planning board has failed the interest of many of the over 20,000 single family homeowners in this town.

The plan, which they said RES two, which they said, oh, that's okay, we're now making RS1 or whatever.

It still allows for cluster homes, accessory dwelling units, and even senior housing developments in your RES 1 zone.

This is unacceptable.

Start over and have more representatives of single family homeowners on this planning board and also single funding.

In the planning process as well, I don't want to see Stanford, West Dover, North Stanford, the Coles, and all the other single family neighborhoods turn into New York City.

I left Brooklyn and New York City for a reason.

The second role of the planning board is economic development.

So why are we turning all of these commercial buildings into apartments for our towners?

Thank you, James.

Your time is out.

We should be attracting businesses to give high paying jobs to our people.

Anthony Martino, Paul Brindjak, then Paula Waldman.

Thank you to the board for taking our uh words tonight.

I want to voice my opposition to the Stanford 2035 plan as it stands at this time.

As you are already aware, residents were opposed to the new designations that were assigned to certain neighborhoods, specifically the R2 land use category.

When we read the August 27th recommended change to the plan, we were very pleased with the hearing with hearing that the administration recognized residents' concerns and proposed to now preserve and protect single family neighborhoods, assumedly differentiating it from the original intentions of the plan.

We were happy to see a recommendation that was now clearly quote unquote clearly established that the single family neighborhoods remain protected and further demonstrate that the city can achieve its housing goals while preserving the zoning and stability of the areas.

End quote.

However, when we read the amended plan a few days later, it seemed to still include what are being called cottage clusters, references to senior housing, and in some cases a redefinition of ADUs, all still in single family neighborhoods.

The plan still seems to be offloading the responsibility of housing needs onto single family homeowners who should not have to sacrifice their neighborhoods to accommodate growth and development.

If you were to knock on the door, if you were to knock on the door of any single family homeowner in the affected neighborhoods and make them aware of this plan, not one would agree with the plan as it stands.

No one would want a plan that may incentivize a downward slide into increased density in their neighborhood, possibly pinning neighbor against neighbor, creating a domino effect, creating a possible scenario of homeowners bending the rules even further and effectively negating what we celebrate and what is stated in the plan as what makes Stanford neighborhoods so special.

This contradicts the stated intention of quote unquote enhancing neighborhood cohesion.

So then how are we protecting and preserving?

Why should taxpayer residents who follow the rules and take pride in their ownership be sacrificed?

Why would a why would a plan exclude those same stakeholders by seemingly acting on their behalf?

It is important that residents and taxpayers of Stanford trust their planning board, trust their zoning board, trust their government.

And of course, after that, to trust the rules are actually enforced.

You have a big responsibility.

This is an important plan, one that could change the character of this city forever.

It may not be reversible, it cannot be taken lightly.

As residents, we want to be assured that this change to RES 1 will truly maintain and protect single family neighborhoods as they are now.

We want to be assured the historic neighborhoods which have been nationally recognized and listed on the National Register of Historic Places or protected as they are now.

Please protect and preserve what has always made Stanford what it is a great place to live.

Thank you.

Hi everybody, Paul Brindack.

I'm on the board of the Cove Neighborhood Association.

It's good to see everybody tonight.

Thank you, uh board for hearing us.

And by the way, I truly believe that you want to do the right thing.

However, not having the input from the citizens of Stanford is not the right thing.

Every person that we went to, and we have over 2500 signatures, petitions, not agreeing with 2035 as it's written.

Virtually every person did not know about it.

How do you explain that?

The 25,000 impressions is fallacious.

That wasn't specified.

An impression is a click, period.

I can click it five times.

That's five impressions.

It's not unique impressions.

Of the 25, 16,000 were kids.

Guys, if you truly believe that that's the input from the citizens of Stanford, you do not deserve to be here.

I want to know, guys.

I do know from everybody here.

There's also a hundred people here.

There's 65 people online, and people online.

I'd like you to raise your hands.

For those people who actually have the input on the 2035 plan, raise your hands if you can put it to it.

I put it posted.

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Nine, ten.

I'll let you guys 1213.

Fine.

Okay, 13 out of how many here?

How many?

100?

150.

Okay.

Guys, that is not representative of the citizens of Stanford.

End of discussion.

You need to delay this to get the input from the citizens of Stanford.

Got it.

It's not in the state.

It's not represent who we are, what we feel.

Now, when you have our input, great.

Whatever it turns out to be fine.

I want to read lastly from the chairman to a lawyer who's on this team, if you will, contesting this.

And he is going back and forth with the chairman to try to negotiate something that's reasonable in terms of verbiage.

We're not negotiating that.

They sent an email on my compliance to me.

You know what?

That's irrelevant.

I'm going to read what he wrote based on what you wrote to him.

You could call it whatever you'd like.

She is trying to assure reassure us.

Two points.

Define large-scale changes at page 51 of the revised plan.

That's your time.

Thank you so much.

Hey guys, you hear that?

I cannot finish reading this to you.

Does anybody want to see your time?

Okay.

That is something we can do.

We don't see that.

Yes, you do.

It's absolutely done.

Why is it nothing here?

You're just making up the rules as you go.

It's not the way democracy works.

Do you want to hear what people have to say?

Do you just want to just create your own rules?

Let's read it.

Before you guys started, it was stated.

You have three minutes, and that's your time.

We're going to go with that.

We didn't stipulate whether you can see time or not.

You don't wrong.

Sir.

Sir, you're wrong.

You're wrong with someone else, but you're done.

All due respect.

No, you are not security person.

This is a lawyer speaking to you right now.

You are not, you don't know what you're referencing.

You can do the bank, you can do the stripes.

It doesn't mean what you're saying is correct.

Okay, you guys, just so you know, this is a law that you're making up as you go.

This is not a reason it is not Robert's rules.

Nobody else Thomas's room.

Okay, now that we've wasted three minutes.

This is from this is from my lawyer Michael Rapport, who's at all at the point.

He's a class action lawyer.

He's been working with a number of people, some of whom are in this room.

I have now received two emails from the field.

She's trying to reassure us.

You're welcome to read it for three minutes.

Who women?

You are you?

Because she just said 30 seconds, and now you're deciding to just change them.

Excuse me, listen to what the chairperson is saying.

Nice.

This is why we have a problem.

Listen.

Before this gets out of control, can we just listen to the email and then merge it?

Let's just listen to the email and then move on.

If somebody else would like to use their time, they would read it.

The reason why I'm reading this is so that number one, the board knows because this was not given to you this information, so that folks, citizens of Stanford know it, and so then it's read into the record.

I have received two emails from Benzino.

She's trying to reassure us two points.

Define large-scale changes at page 51 of the bias plan as 5% increase in current ADUs and cluster homes over the next 10 years.

So that's been specified.

Two remove zoning changes from page 82 of revised plan st 2.1.

So that's for the record.

What was discussed with our lawyer with the chairman, and now the board knows.

Thank you.

Just if I may clarify, so the text that you read is what was sent to me as a suggestion.

I did not agree to any changes, and also it is not even as the chair is not up to me solely to make changes to the plan.

So and then the letter that was attached to that.

I did I did send my initial response to the entire planning board.

Um it was just that the emails.

All right, so then Mary Ammon.

Good evening.

My name is Paul Waltman.

I live at one tenant older Sanford Road, and I have been a resident of Stanford for over 40 years.

Like many of you, I'm here because I wanted a different lifestyle to own a home, have a yard, race my family.

And I worked hard for that, just as many of you have.

No, uh, we don't need astro turf.

We don't need planner squeeze between asphalt or artificial landscaping, or like the jolly green giants that are on the wall between Burton Taylors and CBS.

We need real natural green space, the kind that makes Stanford special and livable.

I intended awfully and put some sorry.

And I have to tell you they were a waste of my time.

The people running them don't live here.

We were asked to write on sticky notes like school children.

And when I emailed my ambassadors, I never heard back.

Weeks later, when I've gone door to door, I found that most residents had no idea about the so-called master plan of 2035.

That is not community engagement.

Mayor Simmons, we need you to show up in person to listen to us directly and have real dialogue.

Instead, residents are being dismissed, they're put down as being NIMBEs.

But the truth is we are the people who live here.

We invested our savings.

We've taken care of our homes in our neighborhoods.

We're not against growth.

We're against reckless one-size-fits-all development.

We have to change Stanford forever.

What's wrong with protecting single-family neighborhoods?

With unchecked rules on setbacks, height, and ADUs, we're already seeing the cluster housing program and the unpredictable changes.

And these also call ACUs.

What are they?

A garage, a workshop, a coffee shop, a doctor's office.

That is not logical planning.

Our homes are our sanctuaries and our largest investments.

And yet we're told businesses can move in, they don't have to have parking requirements.

That's not fair.

The burden falls on the people who have already sacrificed a lot just to live here.

Stanford has changed before.

In the 1960s, the offices were built, the corporations still respected neighborhoods and the environment.

Today we know the developers just weren't renters and profits.

Why don't we purpose the vacant commercial properties into affordable housing conduct instead of destroying established communities?

And let's end the myth that taxes will go down.

Schools are struggling.

We deserve a better plan, one created with the citizens not imposed on us.

Where will you be Mayor Stevenson in 2035?

I say that again and another.

Laura Jordan, Mary Ann, Lyle Fischle.

Thank you very much.

Can everybody hear me?

Hey.

Hi, my name is Laura Jordan.

I'm the government community relations director for Stanford Health.

Good evening, board uh members, and hey everybody.

Um we are a nonprofit independent hospital.

Many of you I'm sure are familiar with us, the largest employer in Stanford.

And uh, we just wanted to comment briefly on two things.

I did submit um testimony, written testimony about a couple hours ago.

I just want to hit on two points briefly.

One is we do appreciate the uh hospital zone.

It has it provided us with the ability to build a new facility that has served us all so well.

So we appreciate that.

Thank you.

And then you're right.

This place and make people homeless.

I did not.

But I can't believe how you know how to make sure.

We did we did engage in a landslop with charter of communities at Rosalind.

Okay.

Thank you for your and the other point we want to make is that uh every three years under the Affordable Care Act, uh, we are required to do a survey of Stanford residents in terms of what their un their top unmet needs are.

And um, this is on our website.

We're going to be having a community conversation at Ferguson on um October 14th.

We did want to feel compelled to come and say that to the extent this plan is supportive of affordable housing.

We have no comment on where that would be, but in the appropriate places, um, that housing has for the second time uh arisen to a top concern uh raised by residents, including for the first time we hear a lot of seniors that feel that they cannot age in place.

So just wanted to point that out that our um survey, which is very comprehensive, um, has uh identified housing for the second time in six years as a top unmet need.

Thank you for your time.

All right, so we have Mary Ammon, Lyle Fischle, and then Carol Baer.

Carolyn.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Mary Angon.

I'm in the Felltown slash Glenbrook neighborhood.

I've lived here for 25 years.

So thank you for allowing me to speak this evening.

I'm here today to speak concerned regarding the 2035 master plan.

And more importantly, the need for downtown to recognize what has already happened in our neighborhoods over the past 10 years under the 2015 master plan.

Stanford's neighborhoods have experienced unchecked and unregulated development of multifamily housing and illegal apartments.

Single family homes have quietly been converted into multi-unit dwellings without oversight, leading to severe overcrowding.

These conversions bring with them excessive numbers of vehicles, often commercial vans and trucks that overwhelm narrow residential streets, making it on making it unsafe for both drivers and pedestrians.

To give you a clear example, in my own single family zone neighborhood, there is an illegal two-family dwelling.

In practice, however, it operates more like a boarding house.

At any given time, eight to ten vehicles are associated with the property.

These homes are too often owned by absentee landlords who have very little vested interest in Stanford beyond collective rent.

They make minimal improvements yet benefit from a property tax assessed that still lists the house as a single family residence.

An unfair burden shifted onto the rest of Stanford's taxpayers.

Before considering any further rezoning to expand multifamily housing, Stanford must take meaningful action to enforce zoning existing zoning laws and housing regulations.

Allowing this unmonitored and unplanned growth to continue will only worsen overcrowding, strain the infrastructure, and erode the quality of life in established neighborhoods.

The large turnout of residents at public hearings should be sending a clear message.

This is not sustainable and is not fair to those of us who pay taxes, follow the zoning rules, and invest in maintaining our homes and communities.

Before making sweep and zoning changes under the 2035 master plan, Stanford cannot continue to fix it later.

The time is to act exactly.

So hello, uh, some of you may have seen me on TV.

I've beencome the star.

But I don't know if I want to be a star.

Okay.

Anyway, Lyle Fishelle, president of the Code Neighborhood Association.

I love the Cove.

I grew up in the Cove.

Well, the Code of Artist brought the pond, Holly Pond.

Uh so really, this is my world, and we have beautiful beaches.

And we have access to the greatest city in the world, and the second greatest city in the world, Stanford.

This is the place we have to make the best of.

All right.

I remember growing up, some of you might remember growing up.

Um but you know, we brought up and down the streets and there were no cars.

Okay, we play, the kids would be out there, we'd be having a blast if somebody had a car outside of their house and we're having a party.

That was the only time you'd find a car on the street.

Now you can't find a deep parking space on the street.

And I have offered to the zoning people in town because I know there's a lot of zoning boards and things.

Come out on a Sunday in the winter and find a parking space.

And my accountant said we'll ban 50 bucks.

Okay, so um thank you all for that.

I don't know.

We need to fix what we have.

Because it is working.

So why are we saying let's think about what we're going to do in 2035 when what we said we were going to do back 10 years ago is not working.

I don't need to know if we need to make a change to our master plan, other than maybe a comma and a period and fix it.

Now we're an informational uh neighborhood association, and we've been out there letting people know, informing people.

We don't want this to be political.

We don't want this to be religious.

We want this to be the people, and they need to know, and I think we need to fix.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Carolyn and I live directly between the ridges off Cedar Heights.

In the past year, our city is in the process of approved 1,300 new corporate converted residences on Long Ridge Road, leaving only synchrony still occupied.

And on High Ridge Road, there are six corporate buildings all near the Merit Hub.

These easily could convert to another 1,200 apartments at the very minimum by as a bright zoning, which exists today.

The total potential for both ridges by my guest calls, 2500 minimum housing units.

All of the check boxes for a 15 minute city are there by the grocery store, by major highway.

But the question is, what are you doing to our roads?

Last year's zoning approved ADU cottages or apartments for residents to bring in a little extra rent, maybe for their in-laws, stated comfortably at 800 square feet, then they were quickly expanded to a thousand with on-site parking, minimum lot size, and a three percent limit.

Right now, my house is just above 1400 square feet of living space.

So an ADU permitted today of a thousand square feet would be equivalent to dropping another house on my half an acre, about two-thirds its size.

But now the draft calls for creating a study to adjust the ADU minimum lot size requirements, parking requirements, which puts those cars onto the street, allowable square footage, and increasing flexibility on height.

It calls for another study for road connectivity through, for example, closed neighborhoods, most likely to give read to the horrific traffic that this plan will bring forth by diverting all the cars onto the same roads that they will tend to be walkable and bikeable.

After the sewers were installed in my neighborhood, every time it rained, several city trucks had to come over and work on the pump station and turn on a very loud generator.

Today, Aquarians as an average family of four uses of 200 gallons of water a day.

For the most part, of the past five years, we have been run water restrictions and our reservoirs are low.

This is not low density, this is not preserving our single family neighborhoods.

Why on earth would you extend the AD use?

Just why?

Yesterday I read a social media post called MV Town, mayoral conference on yes in my backyard, which is a verbal tool to make those opposed to development feel shame and quiet down.

A perfect perfect time to dig or divide or insinuate that we do not vote the mothers.

Just as we're going through all the controversy that has the potential to crush us with unbearable density and the price us all out.

I live in the best neighborhood ever.

We have white, Hispanic, Black Ukrainian, Russian, Bulgarian, Syria, Sri Lankan, Italian Irish, Indian Iranian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and more.

And we work very hard for our backyards, and I hope that we can continue to enjoy them and each other without giving up our homes that we chose to live in.

We invested in, we worked off and by a plan not made with us and in our mind at all, and loading on new renters in and about for big big money for someone else, not us.

He did not live in our neighborhood, and it says, can you please hold off on sharing parts of it with certain people?

We would prefer that not be shared.

Thanks.

Jane, you're on the wrong screen.

Thank you.

Okay, can everyone hear me?

No.

Better?

Yes.

Okay.

Good evening to everyone.

My name is Shelley Michelson.

I'm a 40-year resident of the ridges area.

Um, this comprehensive plan is a smackdown on the residents of Stanford and a professional hit job by people who don't live here and won't suffer the consequences.

A crowd of loud voices is telling the planning board that they do not want increased density of any type or commercial businesses in their single family neighborhoods.

But our voices seem to be falling on deaf ears.

This process from start to finish has been carefully controlled with impressions masquerading as resident involvement.

School children's ideas were deemed more important than those of adult residents, and the plan is heavily slanted in favor of newcomers over existing residents.

The technical advisory team has been chosen from among those residents who would support an Alice in Wonderland social engineering experiment in which roads would be prioritized for cyclists, traffic calming measures will be imposed to make driving as difficult and time consuming as possible in an effort to cause people to abandon their cars.

And if people did not want to take the bus, there's going to be a way to fix that.

Cars are here to stay, everyone.

Many ideas posited by the plan were totally outside of the city's control, rendering them completely useless.

The place for missing middle housing would have been in the corporate office park screened far away from surrounding single family neighborhoods, a missed opportunity for the land use boards.

And there is no solution in here for affordable housing.

To create an illusion of resident involvement, the plan created neighborhood ambassadors, long-term residents knowledgeable about the city who applied for turn down in favor of new residents and those who knew the city best well.

At least one ambassador did not even know he had been selected, and an incorrect phone number was given for him.

I was one of those applicants who was turned down.

The role of those ambassadors should have been to meet with neighbors, ascertain their input, and carry that forward to the consultants.

Instead, their role was to force feed the consultants' ideas down onto the neighborhood.

Previous master plans were much more of a collaboration between the planning board and the residents.

This time the planning board, in contravention of the dictates of our charter, did not really create the plan.

It seems to be a collaboration between the consultant and the land use bureau.

We need to start over.

Good evening, folks.

Okay, good evening, folks.

I stand before you here tonight to speak about the Stanford Comprehensive Plan.

While it was presented as a roadmap for the future, the truth is the plan was bought up a process, marked by deception and a lack of transparency.

You need members left in the dark.

And what should have been an open collaborative effort instead became a document built on distrust.

Like the way I like I'm also a professional planner.

At its core, the plan makes promises cannot reasonably keep.

In the area of transportation, it places an unrealistic burden on the idea of bicycles alone can solve our congestion and community challenges.

My bicycles may be part of a balanced system that are not a substitute for meaning investment, public transit, or practical solutions that max that match the realities of how people live and work in this region.

The plan also makes sweeping claims about providing affordable housing, but offers no credible plan to live on those promises.

Instead, of unstrategies to address costs, it relies on vague commitments that amount to little more than wishful thinking.

This raises community expectations while failing to grapple with the economic and structural realities that drive the housing crisis.

And perhaps most concerning, the plan does not take seriously protection of our neighborhoods.

At a time when local residents are asking for stability, the plan puts forward policies that risk eroding the very character and livability of our communities.

The absence of safeguards for neighborhoods for neighborhood integrity integrity demonstrates just how out of touch the process has become with the people it's supposed to serve.

In short, what could have been a genuine vision for our future has instead become a document riddled with false promises?

It was built on a floor process that rests on unrealistic assumptions and ignores the voices of those most directly affected.

For these reasons, I urge all of you not to accept this plan but to assist on a new approach, one that is honest, transparent, and accountable and to the people who call this community home.

Thank you.

I'd like to be should remember.

My name is Michael Larkin.

I am a mayoral candidate, but I'm here as a citizen.

I was born and raised in Stanford.

I lived in just about every neighborhood, and those I didn't live in.

I patrolled as an officer or sergeant with the Stanford Police Department.

First of all, I'd like to thank you all for volunteering, regardless of whether we agree on the issue or not.

And thank you for extending the time to gather more public input.

Please protect us from being steamrolled once again.

We are the ones that will have to live with the finalized plan long after Sasaki brings their gentrification roadshow to the next city or town.

What a great business model they have.

They sell virtually the same product over and over again to elected leaders all over the world from New Orleans to Ho Chi Mid City in Vietnam.

They sprinkle in a few local references to make it appear as if it was customized for our benefit.

Coincidentally, they always seem to come up with a plan that is a mirror image of the agenda of the elected official that hired them.

As a former detective, both public and private, I really believe in coincidences.

As one of my Irish grandmothers used to say, currents are for takes, Michael, but there are reasons for everything.

Many of the local residents around the U.S.

feel the same way that we do.

This is what I was told by our power courts at Delphin, Ohio, Lexington, Kentucky, and New Orleans when I spoke with them recently.

So Saki has devastated their towns also.

I just happened to serve in a report with gentlemen from those areas, and I was able to get direct input from.

Wow.

This is happening everywhere, folks.

We're just the latest victim.

Was such an expensive month-long study even necessary.

In our case, in our case, why was over 460,000 spent to create a plan that ignored or didn't even welcome our input?

I've been to three of Sasaki's presentations and seen firsthand where citizens were interrupted while trying to give input and were told that they would give input later on.

And later on never came as we were asked to put stickers on posters like school children.

Was the final recommendation a surprise to anyone?

No.

Think of how many roads we could have paid with 460,000.

460,000.

460,000 of our hard-earned money was wasted on Sasaki's sham study.

Do all elected officials waste their own hard-earned money as recklessly in their own households.

Thank you, Mike.

I think not.

Please continue to listen to the people who have to live with the results of this plan.

The same folks who were forced to pay for it as their tax work once again.

Sue Halburn.

No, Bonnie Margolis.

Oh right, Dan Lombardi.

Followed by Sue Halper and then Kenneth Gordon.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Dan Lombardi.

I live in Hubbard Heights.

I'm the president of the Hubbard Heights Association.

And just for those of you who don't know, we are a neighborhood of over 300 single-family homes that are part of a nationally recognized historic district.

We have quite an involved set of citizens that are very passionate about our neighborhood and preserving the historic nature of our neighborhood.

Many of them wrote letters to the board.

Many of them spoke to the board in defense of the historic preservation of our neighborhood.

So I want to thank them all for doing that.

And also let you know that we had over 230 signatures on a petition asking the board to move us from the R2 residential area previously into a single family.

The what is now called the Res One.

And we are happy to see that that change was made, and we applaud the planning board and Sasaki for doing that for us.

However, when you look at the Res 1 definitions, we are concerned that there are opportunities for multi-family housing in that res one district, including senior family, uh senior housing with bonus density, cluster housing, as well as ADUs.

We do not support that, and we asked that the RES One definition be redefined to be single family only, and not with those multi-families.

We put a lot of sticky notes on the wall about the historic character of our city and of our neighborhood, and not just ours, but also Rivona Woods, the historic South End.

Those are all really jewels that the city should embrace and should protect.

And we're glad that what some there was some on pages 90 and 91, there was some preservation language.

However, there was a removal of language that was in the last plan from 2015.

And I sent a note to the planning board.

Hopefully, you all saw it.

But um that language was really important in protecting and preserving historic neighborhoods.

So we asked that that kind of language be reinserted.

And I do have my time up.

Okay, I do have that language here.

I'm gonna hand it to the board.

Um I'm sorry, this this uh piece has been a little um didacted, but thank you.

And also last point about the historic.

I would love to see that letter from Shippo if that can be made public that you mentioned that the state historic preservation committee.

Thank you.

So we've got um Sue Halburn, then Kenneth Borden, and then Salvatore Zarola.

Hi, good evening, everyone.

My name is Sue Halpern, and I live in the South End.

Right.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

I moved to the South End in 1983 when Stanford's historic preservationist Renee Kahn and her team were working on the South End Inventory of Properties to apply for the National Register of Historic Places.

In 1986, 449 properties were designated on the National Register based on three areas of significance architecture, industry, and ethnic history.

The street grid, woodland cemetery, and the shoreline contribute to the South End's historic landscape.

However, listed on the National Register is not primarily as prime an honorary designation under the U.S.

Department of the Interior.

This designation does not prevent private owners from Waltering or demolishing their properties.

The process only 217 properties remain in the South End that still retain architectural integrity and significance.

Despite the demolition that has taken place over the past 40 years, whole blocks and clusters, the historic fabric remain.

The Allen Town Lock Factory built in 1869, and the Blython Starker typewriter factory built in 1895, both repurposed over the years, are still standing but neglected but are neglected, are in danger of demolition.

The 2014 master plan stressed prioritization of the preservation of Stanford's historic structures and districts.

There are currently five historic districts the most recent is covered heights in 2016.

HPAC the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission was created in 2012 and we're tasked with many duties including review of all demolition permits for all buildings over 50 years old but this 2014 master plan strategy and others have been unsuccessfully executed in many cases.

The proposed 2035 plan calls for celebrating Stanford's history by implementing a signage program and promoting inclusion in the cultural resources inventory.

Of the seven properties currently listed in the inventory six houses in the South End that were on the national register have been demolished this plan should offer more robust strategies to save Stanford's historic property preservation must be a priority retaining and investing in historic buildings and encouraging adaptive reuse should provide could provide much needed housing staff but would help retain a strong sense of identity in our neighborhoods thank you.

Okay.

And then Salvatore Zarella and then Fritz Cherry thank you for the opportunity to be heard and thank you for your service on the board my name's Ken Gordon and I live up on Hubbard Avenue my wife and I are some of the new kids on the block we've only been here a quarter century.

In enough to save time I would like to say that I support all of the comments in opposition to changes in zoning for single family and historic neighborhoods I also oppose any changes or disruptions to historic districts.

My neighbors have done very good job in explaining the particulars involved zoning and historic preservation they have made a solid case that should not be ignored allowing any type of cluster housing or specialized communities will ruin any single family community especially historic neighborhoods.

You should be working for the people of Stanford to preserve and improve the historic well designed and well built buildings with houses in our town once the buildings neighborhoods are destroyed they're gone forever don't change the rules and ruin the single family historic neighborhoods keep multifamily commercial and special use properties in their own currently occupied and appropriately zoned areas for safety health and quality of life for the people of Stanford the people who employ you or you are working for more accurately it is not the job of the government to be providing unique rights for any particular demographic and uh to reinforce previous speaker's point of view this is not our problem it is a national agenda it is a socialist agenda that has triple from Europe I would love to get into the fees with any of you who might be interested in the background.

History matters we as Americans of existence as a country we are rookies when it comes to world history the way things are going these days I think we're going to our terrible twos the short sightedness office we need to learn from the past and perverse preserve it to help us keep learning the short-sightedness of destroying historic neighborhoods is typically American with our quarterly outlooks and our 147 character attention spans this summer I had the opportunity to travel to a couple of places that revere their history Spain and the United Kingdom preserve and honor their history and their elders this 2035 plan seems to not care about either to any degree the city plan calls for low-income senior housing to be a priority it is typical government thinking to do that by deevaluating property in the existing neighborhoods full of seniors stealing our quality of life and our earned equity all to accommodate the alleged influx of new people that are not current stakeholders and that you do not represent we need to respect the past I have relatives who have gone to a college that existed before this country was founded never found never mind founded by the president lives in a house that was built in 1641 none of that will survive under the 2035 plan.

Houses made of kicky tacky.

Perhaps double buy mobile homes, or perhaps shipping container houses full of nothing but IKEA furniture.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Salvatore Sorella.

I'm as a resident of the Waterside and I've lived there for my entire life.

I've also a member of the TAC advisory committee.

For the 2035 Master Plan.

As a CAF member, I want to express my respect and admiration for the hard work and dedication of the land use bureau and urban planners.

I want to express my respect and operation for the hard work and dedication of the land use group and urban.

I will submit written comments separately to them.

So about Water Side.

The draft plan doesn't tell you anything about Waterside.

For general bracket, I'm not referring to page 41 of the 2015 25 2025 plan, which is our pretty our current plan.

The important points are Waterside is right next to I-95.

Which is now the busiest and one of the most congested highway corridors in the country.

That means a lot of air pollution.

Yeah.

Most water side residents live within one to two miles of I-95.

So it's a huge issue for us.

Those industries include only industry, asphalt processing plant, bar tech, previously known as Polycast, a major electrical power station, a school bus depot with over a hundred or more.

Vehicles, large fleet of other commercial cars, bands, and trucks.

Land use regulations are supposed supposed to create a separation of industry and residential uses.

But we don't have such separation.

Between 2000 and 2010, Waterside grew almost 20%, adding 1,000 new residences.

Another 500 residential units were built between 2010 and 2015.

Waraside was one of the neighborhoods that absorbed 83% of the city's growth between 2018 and 2022.

Last month, this board approved a project that will add 261 residential units on Bury Place, a block from where I live.

It's a massive 460,000 square foot apartment, apartment complex.

It's like dropping a huge hotel into a small family-oriented neighborhood.

Currently barely houses 300 modest-sized homes now.

So the Berry Place project will almost double our density overnight.

Um thank you very much.

I as a TAC advisor, since I haven't had time for the opportunity to submit my comments, I would like an additional three minutes.

If you'd be so kind to oblige.

We have to give every single I we have kind of went over this at the beginning when every person gets the three minutes.

And you're also emailing us.

I see no it's not seating time.

You can give them your comments and they can read read your comments into the record.

Um please thank you.

Yeah.

Does it really matter if she's reading it or reading it?

It shouldn't matter.

I mean, not this way in other public hearings.

Meeting.

Why don't we just get that one?

Do you want to read because do you want to read for another three minutes?

I don't care.

I think to read for another minutes.

Yes, I'm seeding my time.

What's your name?

Thank you very much.

And then we have to make all of the number of people who signed up the seat, and I'd like to keep to the order of the people who sign them to seek.

Are you arguing signed up to speak?

I'm signed up.

Yes.

Well, so when your turn comes, then you don't have any second.

I've also personal public with you throughout this time.

So that's why we call for someone to see their time and letting the person.

I've seen it done in other public meetings in this city.

So do you want to take up another 10 minutes arguing and debating, or let this proceed?

If you would like to be at this hearing, you need to follow the procedure that we have sent.

And do you see cover anything about seeking time?

Did you get an opinion from court counsel about that?

So specifically saying people seat time.

Go up there and finish.

If you're signed up to speak, when it's your turn, you go to that fair.

Yeah, you're like, I'm sorry.

She can read so that's what it can't be.

When it is her turn.

You're wasting time.

If you continue to be disrupted, you will be unisruptive.

Uh oh.

There's an argument there.

I will say this one more time.

If we're signed up to speak, we'll go in the order in which you have signed up.

They do not like to continue to have people coming out of the out of order.

Try to use this procedures in full time.

The procedure is that each person gets a reason.

She's seating his son, so he can just any idea time there's no rule written about for or against seating time, and done.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Fritz Cherie.

I just want to open up with uh a resident who had spoke last month.

Uh this resident just moved to Stanford, and she explained how she was able to find her dream home here in the city of Stanford.

She had to jump through hoops to get the uh permits approved and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to be able to move into that neighborhood and have the dream home.

Unfortunately, now, due to what's happening, the the reasoning she was told she had to pay all this money was because the density uh density issue in her neighborhood.

Well, lo and behold, this resident was now frustrated, scared, and angry because that same neighborhood is going to allow more density, and she is very confused as to why.

I wanted to reach out and start by saying to those residents who continue to come to these hearings to make your voices heard, continue to speak out.

Continue to take not make that testimony.

I use it every time, and I've got an over 500 signatures, and this is the time when individuals can come and act.

I remember my father moved here from Haiti 40 years ago, and working at a dry cleaner was able to purchase his property, and honestly, he passed away, but he wouldn't even know what this city is about today.

He wouldn't even recognize the city.

I was born and raised in this city, and uh I don't plan on going anywhere.

But one thing I can tell each and every person that is here, the same way that you're able to see changes come quickly to this plan, I can assure you those changes will uh be permanent after November 4th.

So to be clear, the best way to stop this plan is to ensure that you're electing individuals that hear you that are about collaboration that are about having individuals come and and and really be part of the process.

So if you do not vote, it's no number four.

LinkedIn the plan, that will be perfect.

Members of the planning board and the zoning board are appointed by the mayor.

So if you want to see changes there, changes must come to the administration.

Yes, I am a candidate and I am running for mayor, but again, the only way to stop this plan is to inch you take it how you want.

The only way to stop this plan is to ensure that there is a new administration that is elected on November 4th.

Continue to speak out or make sure your voice is heard on election day.

We've got Christina strain, Zachary Overholzer, and then Becky Hammond.

Good evening.

Can you guys all hear me?

No, no.

Can you bring the mic?

I'm the board representative for the district seven Glenbrook.

I lived in my house for the last 33 years.

Um I am currently speaking out against the plan.

Um my question to the planning board is how much is all this gonna cost when it's all said and done?

Um, I think that most well, I think that some of the new projects proposed, such as the new additional biking lanes and more connected walking paths, are commendable.

I think that it's more important to fix and maintain the existing infrastructure, not add to more debt, not add more density.

The roads and sidewalks in my neighborhood are beyond terror are beyond, are in terrible shape, and I have not seen any indication that they will be repaired in the near future.

We have asked repeatedly over the years to repay Lawn Avenue because it is a disaster, and it still hasn't been done.

I um I would like to feel safe driving on the city streets and walking in my on my neighborhood side.

The authors of this plan stated that traffic is down from prior years and also stated that there will be fewer students.

However, with an even greater increase in population, how can that possibly be?

Is there a contingency?

If there's an influx of students, many school buildings have been not been properly maintained and still need work, and the city is building two new schools, which require city funding.

The cost of education for our students is increasing, and it seems a bit reckless to think the educational system will not be impacted by a larger city population.

Furthermore, with an increase in the number of residents, comes an increased need for garbage disposal safety and emergency services.

Everything is more expensive these days in general, including the cost of garbage and recycling collection and disposal.

It continues to rise as tonnage increases with the influx of new units, and it will be exponentially and it will exponentially rise as more and more units are added.

The increased density will also put a strain on fire, police, and emergency services.

And I don't know if everybody knows this, but there are five repeat five ambulances that serve the city of Stanford every day.

That's it.

That's it.

Five.

So during the week, the density increases two-fold because of all the commuters that come in to Stanford.

Just remember that revive.

Scarcely a day goes by when I when I don't hear sirens at least three times a day.

More likely the taxpayers will put the bill if the city wants to remain safe to live in.

Zachary Oberholzer, Becky Hammond, and then Dave Adams.

Hello, my name is Zach Oberholzer.

I am a renter, and I was on the TAC for the comprehensive plan.

So the question before the city is not if we will grow, but how and to set the table, I just like to point out some facts.

If you go on Zillow right now, there are 26 single family homes for sale for less than 800,000.

If you look at Condos, multifamily duplexes, town homes, there are 58 of those units.

Even combined, that is not enough housing for the city.

We do not have starter homes in the city.

We need to build new ones.

And the starter homes of tomorrow will not look like the starter homes of yesterday because we don't have land to continue sprawling out.

60% of the city lives in multifamily housing, and 80% of our land is zoned for single family homes.

100%.

60% with multiple.

80% of the land is zoned for single homes.

No, the map says here says 60%.

That's that's the future land use category.

The zoning dictates the use.

Under this comprehensive plan, we're going from like 80% to like 78%, 77%.

If you read the comprehensive plan, it calls for infill housing development near bus stations, transit centers, and pre-existing walkable entities, which to me is where we should be building housing.

We don't want to be building over sprawl because that creates more traffic, which everyone hates.

It also means you have to build longer bikes, more roads, etc.

We have an interesting example of a city that has not changed over the last 50 years, and that is Greenwich.

Their population has literally not changed over the last 50 years.

If we do not find ways to build more housing, we will become like Greenwich.

We'll become expensive, we'll become exclusionary, and we will still have traffic.

Like I don't think anyone will drive through Greenwich and think they don't have track.

Um the theme of this comprehensive plan is freedom and flexibility.

It is to create a more flexible zoning code so that people can build their lives as they need to.

That is the freedom to commute, not buy cars.

There are estimates for how expensive it is to simply own a car that are around five to ten thousand dollars a year simply to keep a car running.

So that is that is a large burden based.

It gives you the freedom and flexibility to do that.

If you don't want to build an ADU, don't build one.

Um also want to say it's the freedoms for our children to move around the city.

You want to be interrupted like this multiple times.

You can prompt it several times.

And we have allowed several other partner, even after the time has gone off, just finish their remarks.

I'll just finish my remark in 10 seconds.

I only never accomplish it.

It is unkind and unfair to interrupt other people while they are speaking.

Something that is stuck with me from previous town meeting is a west side resident discussing her children taking the bus home from school.

It takes her children 90 minutes to get home by bus.

That is time they could be using on homework, other activities, literally anything.

The longest bike ride in the city is 90 minutes.

So the shame our children cannot bike safely for the city, and this time is just Dave Adams and Rolling Hotting.

Becky Hammond, Dave Attens, and Ronald Nyman.

Thank you.

I live in Bell Town in a single family district.

I'm against the 2035 comprehensive plan.

I have three concerns.

My first one is as a board event member.

I'm the only board of app member here, and it's quite concerning that I have to be the vote then, the only two vote.

But we have students leaving.

We lost 175 kindergarteners this fall.

That means siblings included will be up to 600.

We have families leaving Stanford, they're catching wind of what's coming.

We have generational families very concerned.

Busting concerns will be a major issue.

Systems are going to break down.

Where are the kids going to go to schools?

That last example about the bus is true.

Safety is an issue.

Who is going to pay for all this when we have this issues at schools?

So where is the data to back up your information?

Schools have been totally left off.

Secondly, I'm from Belltown.

Already there are five illegal apartments on my street.

Three illegal businesses.

Parking is horrendous.

Safety is a concern.

Where is the data taking this into consideration?

And last and probably most important that you need to know is the public.

The chair, Jennifer Gazzino, who has and it had an expired seat, was not recommended by the board of refs with a vote of 2514, but was re-given a chance to reapply by Mayor Simmons.

Ms.

Gasino now belongs to the working family party.

Which is a hardcore Marxist organization.

Closely aligned with the Democratic Socialist Bernie Saunders and Duran is a Mandami.

So we now have one Marxist, three Democrats, one resigned quickly last week.

So we have one Marxist, two Democrats, one Republican, and one unaffiliated member.

That means we have five votes, voters to sway.

Can it be done?

Democracy should be about keeping our individual property and neighborhoods, not allowing it to be grabbed up by developers or allowing our mayor via appointed leaders to overwhelm our city systems.

I want a limited government, not a government who tells me and my neighbors how to live.

Thank you.

So I was just asked to make a comment about the recently resigned uh planning board member.

Um the planning board's vice chair Jay Tepper resigned uh about a week ago.

Um he had been uh thinking about resigning for months.

Um he has been on the board for 30 plus years.

Um so it it did not have to do with the plan.

It was it was his time, and he was ready to um to put it in.

So we should put it back out there.

Okay, so Dave Adams and then Ronald Nyman and then Jack Bullet.

Uh, if it's uh permissible to the chair, I would like to reserve my time until the end of comment here.

It's the order where I specifically signed that that order over there, and you signed up an email and I waited until just before two o'clock to do so.

And then there was a written uh sign-up sheet, which if you look on number 75.

Okay, so if it is no, if you're going to testify later, that is mine.

So please send us.

I'm actually trying to help you.

So what I'm trying to say is people that are here now.

We are not a mob.

We are not gonna sit here and and you know go after Keith or or Sean or whoever else is in here.

Jeff for Godzino is the chair.

This is her meeting.

That is it.

No more jumping out of turn, no more.

I mean, you low clapping here and there or whatever.

Great, but no more interrupting speakers while they're up here, whether you agree with them or you don't.

Do not argue with the chair, do not argue with anyone.

That's all I'm saying.

Thank you very much.

Okay, okay.

Uh okay, Ron Nyman, Jack Bullock, Maria Wallman.

All right, all right, maybe.

Good evening.

My name is Ronald Nyman.

I'm a 26-year resident of Stanford.

I live in East Japan.

I come before you tonight to compliment on the latest draft of the Stanford Planning Board's 2035 Comprehensive Plan.

Although there are a number of issues I have with this plan, and we should focus on one, its intent.

I've read over the 2035 plan numerous times and have attempted to understand its intent.

I know that the planning board will state that the document is not binding, it is not law and the like.

But words count, they can impact how we plan our futures.

So let us look at these words.

However, over recent years, these words have been used by many to promote a political agenda to reshape our government, our schools, and how we relate to each other.

On the last point, they endorse a vision where preordained racial outcomes are sought in housing, education, and other opportunities.

And unfortunately, this preordained vision is found throughout this document.

You don't have to believe me, just read it.

But more importantly, let's look at the words of one of the members of this planning board regarding accessory dwelling units, ADUs.

And I quote, normalizing accessory dwelling units are fundamental to desegregating our state so that more towns welcome the presence and investment of people of color in their communities and schools.

These words belong to Jennifer Godzeno, the chair of the planning board, whose term supposedly expired at the end of 2021, but for some reason is still sitting on the this board at the indulgence of Mayor Simmons.

I would like to ask Ms.

Scott Zeno where there are segregationist policies in this state or in this city.

I live and work in Stanford every day, and I surely don't see evidence of such policies, either de facto or de jour.

And response to this Godzano's own words about ADU solving segregation.

Does opposition to ADUs in res one and res two housing mean that one supports segregation?

As a realtor, racial outcomes and housing violate both federal and state housing acts, which give all.

And I mean all an opportunity to purchase a home and share in the American dream.

And in addition, attempts to implement DEI policies in education, housing, and other areas of American life have been or are being found to violate our constitution.

Although this plan nowhere patently states that it wants to pre-ordain racial outcomes in housing, it can be found in its intent and the prior words of the chair of this board.

Plain and simple housing opportunities are for all full stop.

If it is Miss Godzeno's concern that people from minority communities have better operations should have better opportunities to purchase higher price housing, then I suggest she look at supporting initiatives to make Stanford schools the best in Fairfield County students.

My memory is still good.

My name is John Bullock, and I too am a resident of the Howard Heights section of town.

I just want to state plain and simple.

I'm maintaining it.

It's not easy.

We want to keep the nature of that community as it is, a historical nationally recognized area.

Keep my neighborhood the way it is.

No cluster housing, no ABUs, no multiple housing.

Please just leave us the way we are.

I see the rest of my time.

Yep, then Joseph Maker and Thomas Lombardo.

Is Maria Wallman here?

Okay, moving on to Joseph Maker.

Then Thomas Lombardo.

Nate Walman.

We will get to the people on video after the folks who are in person.

I think Christina Strain is also then signed up to speak.

She's going to speak here.

I know I just want to make sure this is her.

25 seconds.

Yeah, sir.

All right.

So please go ahead.

Thank you all.

My name is Joseph Maker.

I am Stanford-born, Glenbrook raised, and the Glenbrook residents.

I uh appeared tonight to oppose the adoption of the plan and ask that this board to deny adoption.

Among other reasons, one, it unfairly targets Glenbrook for overcrowding of land and undue concentration of population via multifamily developments.

It makes a false premise by stating that Lembrick station area is dominated by single family homes.

22%.

That's false.

There are plenty of double-decker homes all up and down Limerick Road, multifamily housing, townhouses, condominiums, apartment buildings, all within the train station area.

And they use a 22% figure for single family homes, but when you add up all the numbers, their numbers of multifamily uses, they are over 32%.

So the multi-family use already outweighs the presence of the single family use in that area.

So there's plenty of multi-family housing in Glenbrook.

And I notice there's a conflict that this plant seems to dry between multi-family housing and single family housing.

And maybe it might be due to the influx over the past several years of many persons that have entered the country and therefore this city illegal.

Your position, your public trust that you have to shoulder is owed to the citizen residence only to the citizens, the residents.

And it's all to the good.

Ridiculous.

Mobility equity.

It pits drivers of cars versus non-drivers of cars.

That is a Marxist paradigm.

Very un-American.

It's not ready to find time.

And Michael Field.

So Thomas.

I have that role years ago.

And Madam Chairman, I do not envy you.

And worst one we ever have to deal with stuff.

So this is something else.

I can tell you the farmers well that I have is well over 100 years old standard or peggy well with standard protections, uh the same as a uh a septic system.

If clusters and if what was described as a cottage cluster, but really not defined beyond that.

If that comes to pass in North Stanford and fails, uh we were told a few years back that it would cost between 500 and 600 million dollars to bring sewers to the 5,000 households.

Uh I can think of a lot of schools and a lot of public buildings that can be built with that one.

Um an issue with the uh uh neighborhood center, the mixed use presently on Hybrid Road.

There's a filling station built in 1954 zoning, and there are stores and our office between that filling station and the Stanford Historical Society built in 1964.

That could become something a great deal larger than what it was intended to be and has been defined always as a non-conforming use.

The longbridge we have chimney corners built in the late 70s and early 80s, the opposite side of the street where Mrs.

Now used to have her uh school bus.

Um that uh that also falls into this new category.

Uh there's a nursery on Erskine Road, another filming station, and on all Long Ridge Road, you have La Rosa's Market.

Uh Rokas Market was initially the uh Schofield Market back 1926, a couple of years before I was born.

Um we uh we were concerned about the neighborhood workshops and what is going on there.

We never heard from our four neighborhood uh ambassadors, two of whom were in their 80s and two of them are in their 30s.

That's a big mixture of people who weren't included.

I'll send written comments in on the items that I uh didn't include, but I want to leave with one remark.

Some people here remember Julius Willenski, who was mayor from 69 to 73, and he told us Stanford does not owe the world a place to live.

All right, so Frosty.

Okay, um, and then uh Michael Field and then Kevin Tallis.

Hello everyone, my name is Frosty Blakesley.

I'm here with my husband Robert.

We live in Glenbrook neighborhood for 38 years and we love it because many single family homes are there.

We're very lucky to live there because the whole street is just nice little single family homes.

We all have yards and everybody's just loved it there.

Um like Glen Brook because the peaceful neighborhood neighborhood with single family homes.

My other concern is traffic.

How can Stanford's bumpy charcoal congested streets handle more traffic and speeding is out of control?

A small example is Hope Street in Glenbrook, which we live in between of is a speedway all the time.

Fast cars going right up and down, up and down.

And it happens on all streets.

It's just driving crazy.

Anyway, uh, how can we presently keep our streets safer?

This traffic issue will get worse with more um condos, various housing complexes, businesses.

So how will we ever make our streets safer?

Um, like people have said before, there's um no parking.

There's traffic congestion, people parking where they shouldn't park more apartments and more cars, and it just takes from forever to get from one end of 10 to the other.

So thank you.

Michael Fields, Kevin Talas, Debbie Corsello.

Is Michael Field here Kevin Tellez?

Kevin.

So after Kevin is Debbie Corsello and then Kathy Klinger.

Good evening, my name is Kevin.

I live on the east side.

What concerns me is that there's a lot of speeding on these main.

Like I don't know, like fast and furious, maybe.

But like it's true, it's true.

If you see those cars and on that hill, there's always accidents, there's always crash.

I always see pieces of cars on the hill.

No, it's true.

I mean, only see pieces of cars on the hill if I go, if I go to McDonald's, if I go to Red Rooster, obviously those pieces of cars there, and I always hear crashes.

I always hear, you know, those bikes be down.

And also, and also I don't I feel unsafe because whenever I crossed the done surgils or I see, you know, those cars don't don't don't care about people that are crossing the street and those yellow lights that they put on these main don't help a lot because like I was a yellow light and anyways they they just drive by or like speed down anyways.

They don't they don't care about the yellow lights.

Well what these main needs is traffic lights because and and speeding enforcement because yeah, because like those cars like I and I'm and I see some kids you know go come from the Roger School out there and I and and I see like I that those kids cross the street and and I get concerned and my mom gets concerned too whenever I go to McDonald's or anywhere like around East Maine.

Also I have a second thought too.

Um recently Norwalk just um restructured their their bus system.

So I was thinking and Bridgeport also restructured their buses some years ago, and and Stanford needs their buses and restructured because I've been using buses since I was a kid.

So like the buses always are late and then we have we have to wait an hour and then sometimes when you're on the bus, it breaks down and they're and they're and they're reusing the old buses because the new buses that they have the the breakdown too it's true what Stanford needs is is a is a bus restructuring is the bus system restructure because like normal fit might be if you want more people to come and the and the plan says too that that wants you know to help mobility and make people use you know buses and trains so then so the key is that the the Stanford bus system needs to be restructured just like normal did once ago Debbie Corsello I hear the people have already said with on my mind I know these uh services of this uh followed by Frank Di Costanzo and Melanie Keely Melanie good evening, thank you for having me.

I hope you can hear me.

Um I'm speaking as an individual, but I am a member of the Springdale Neighborhood Association and my board members are against development um in single family neighborhoods, and the only person that I think that would benefit would be the developer because they have my yeah the next thing the next few comments are my own.

I I absolutely deplored the process that went into making the comprehensive plan.

It was insulting to put post-its on boards.

I spoke with some of the representatives about needing discussion, summation, and it was like I spoke to nobody, you know, which which you know makes me appreciate the opportunity to talk to you folks, but I guess my question is what do you do with what you're hearing?

And will you make that thing?

You know, we really that's one of the biggest problems in this process, the lack of transparency.

Just a few other comments.

Um can we please slow down on these ugly horrible big buildings?

I don't know who they're housing, but they don't represent them for they represent Manhattan, and I don't think we need to lose our identity.

The other thing that really concerned me is we need affordable housing for people who work here who are not making 100,000 plus a year.

I mean we need it and we also need opportunities for home ownership for low-income working families.

And if we devoted that much time in the comprehensive plan to affordable housing, we'd be better off.

And then the the thing that the other thing that really upsets me.

She lives in Miami, 10 blocks from the ocean, and she got her flood insurance bill.

And it was $60,000 for a year.

So the point is we are on the water.

This is a national problem.

Let us not act like it's VAR's problem or you know, where is the national planning to support families that are facing this crisis who can't afford the rise in insurance and it will affect us?

So you know we've got to be, you know, we have to think ahead.

We just can't think about today.

Thank you so much, so Frank De Costanzo, Melanie Healy, and then Al Scrida.

Scritta?

Frank De Costanzo.

Melanie Healy, followed by Al Scrida and Laura Formanette.

Hello, hello.

And thank you guys for taking the time for the important thing.

I have just a couple, well, one main question regarding the um the plan, and that is uh in terms of increasing housing.

How many uh proposed development?

Just get closer.

Let's get closer.

It's gotta be close to you.

Speak anyway.

Thank you.

How many of the buildings that are going to go up or have gone up have been made for ownership opportunity?

And if you could enter that in, I believe it's none.

And I do think that if there were a focus on building these buildings for the benefit of people that are going to move to and contribute to the community, you would find that we have space for affordable housing because it would tilt the market in that direction.

So I would say that and I would say that um I'm very proud of all of the residents in Stanford for voicing their concerns.

It makes me very happy to live here and be a part of such a vigorous verbal and um caring community.

I also do want to say that the last meeting that I spoke at and um many of these residents spoke at did seem to um shift Carolyn Simmons and her administration in the direction of scaling back parts of the plan that bothered people and I want to say thank you for that and I hope that you continue to work with the residents and um and continue to make Stanford special wild growth.

Being said, I also want to say that I do think that there are parts of the plan that are admirable.

I like the idea of bike lanes, I like the idea of walkability in cities.

I think that that would be healthier for everybody, and um and I think that you should as a board and as an administration pay close attention to what the people in this room are saying because I think that the people in the room are what makes Stanford great.

And if you wanted to presume to leave that, Laura Formanek.

And then Charlotte Kane.

Alright, sure.

If anybody has this contact info and can reach out, that would be super.

Laura Formanette.

Charlotte Kane.

Carolyn Woodcock.

Woodruff.

Woodruff, sorry.

Alright, after Carolyn is Sean Casey and then Cynthia Bowser.

Thank you.

I'm a 27-year resident of Stanford, Connecticut.

I moved here from New York City.

I lived in Queens, in the Bronx, and in Manhattan.

I came here because it was a safe city.

I felt it was a well-banded city.

I felt that people come to you.

They were nice.

I felt part of this community.

I no longer feel that way.

I don't feel it's safe.

I don't feel it's kind.

I feel that people are edgy.

People aren't happy.

I think that I have some questions, and thank you for your service.

But where are the plans?

Where's the infrastructure here?

What's gonna happen in 2035?

Um there are engineering plans for all this growth?

Because right now, as I see it, the growth has been substantial.

Every every corner of downtown Stanford is a new building going up.

There's 250 apartments, there's 300 apartments, there's a 500 apartments, there's 800 apartments going up on Longridge Road, the Mosaic senior living spend are going up.

Where are the sewers?

I'm sorry.

I'm just asking like really realistic questions here.

My taxes have gone up substantially in North Stanford, but I don't get any benefit from my taxes.

I pay for everything out of pocket in North Stanford.

So my question is, where are the schools?

Where are all of these people's children going to go to school in Stanford?

Because we don't have enough schools right now.

We need more infrastructure here.

We need to make this a better, happier community.

Um, because I think there's gonna be an influx of people wanting to come here from New York City, and we have to be ready for that.

And I don't think that this plan is really well thought out, and no offense to you, but I think we need to have an engineering plan in place because the fact that there's so much concern about the uh environment in the South End, I think that speaks volumes about what happened with the 2015 place.

I really do.

And protect you know, one of the reasons I came here too was it was charming to go to Hubbard Heights, to go to North Stanford, to go down to Japan.

Those were communities that had charm and and the feeling of New England.

Don't take that away, please.

Thank you.

I'm facing uh Cynthia Bowser and then Mary Uber.

Hello.

My name is Sean Casey, and I live across the street.

I was born in Stanford.

We've heard that a lot today.

I guess that means my opinion is worth more than yours.

The comprehensive plan has a lot of great ideas, which unfortunately I won't be able to cover at least few minutes.

I'll quickly say that I love the infrastructure suggestions to make our city safer for the disabled, children, cyclists, scooters, skateboarders, and anyone not inside a car.

Stanford is a diverse community.

One in six of our neighbors aren't citizens.

One in three are immigrants.

I won't even guess how many of you here today weren't born in Stanford.

About half of households make less than 100,000.

Roughly 10% are under the poverty level.

How many speakers today work a minimum wage job?

More than a quarter of Stanford is under 25.

Third of residents are between 25 and 45.

60% are under 45 and 85% under 65.

Half of residents under 38.

But how many here can say they even remember being that age?

Majority of residents rent.

But how many renters have we heard from today?

I rent.

Of course, those with secure house won't spend their time advocating for those trying to find a place to live.

Who here has never moved in their life?

Who here can say that they were born and have lived in the same home their entire life?

It's okay for things to change.

The world is always changing.

But New York City is not going away anytime soon.

Stanford is prosperous because of New York City, not despite it.

Those foreigners of Stanford aren't evil.

It's likely you were once a foreigner.

Stanford is changing whether you like it or not.

The question is whether we'll shape its growth in a positive way for future generations who aren't represented here today.

Or whether it'll be a disfigured growth, bursting at the scenes, trying to breathe.

We shouldn't shape the future of our city on this privileged minority.

Right now, the majority of Stanford is busy working, tending to their kids, and living their living their life.

I'm very sorry you have to deal with this.

Have a good day.

Okay, uh Cynthia Bowser, Mary Uva, and then Renee.

Sean, good evening.

Good evening, everybody.

Good evening.

City of Stanford.

I've lived here all my life.

I've lived on the West all my life.

And I made a big mistake in 1986 when I listened to my dad and bought his house.

So I've been in a nightmare since April 15th, 1986.

But nevertheless, Stanford is a great place to live.

Stanford is not an equitable place to live.

A lot of what has been discussed today, we've been going through that on the West side ever since urban redevelopment.

We need equitable opportunities and to be listened to.

And what this plan has not done.

It has not demonstrated that you listened to the people who are here, who have invested and staying here.

We are a welcoming community.

But we need equity and we need transparency.

Children on the West have been burdened by a bus since 1965, which is not provided equitable educational opportunities.

I'd like Stanford to look at it.

How many kids have ended up in the criminal justice system due to the failure of the Stanford Post School system?

I understand that it's many a month going on in this city about homelessness.

There's still homeless people in my community.

And I don't think I should call the police on them.

There are people who have substance abuse issues.

The police is not the right.

So let us now say that we are going to make a commitment and develop a family that takes into the considerations of the people who live here before you give considerations to those who don't.

And now man, I do remember being 30 years.

And I'll tell you what I also think.

I remember when Stanford was a manufacturing car.

I remember when people lived in salvable village and it was a wonderful place to live.

No one talks about the economic downturns that happened in the city, especially to those who were most vulnerable.

I remember eminent domain.

And if you look at the family store, the person admitted that they didn't give people fair market value.

My God, my father's sister died because she didn't receive equitable money for her property and had to work as an old woman and had a stroke and had to die a miserable death.

Let me tell you something.

This world is a horrible place.

No one should be murdered.

No one should be taken advantage of.

But this 2035 plan isn't a lot of work.

And we need the thing that was taken from us on the West side.

We need a good elementary school over there to educate our children.

Our children buy them help us, 90 minutes a day.

Thank you for walking school, making a free school program for your infant sister or brother.

Anything there.

You need to support working people so yes, they can want to go.

If they want to go live in the Smith, they can go live in the city.

If they want to live on Big Road or Watermill World, they can go because they've gotten the education to compete as a poor kid.

All you need is an education and big quick water.

And let me tell you something.

Renee Vidy.

And then Stephanie Barrera.

My name is Mary Uva.

I'm a resident of Japan for 25 years.

I ceded my time on behalf of Salvatore Zarella from Waterside, and so I shall continue his comments.

I believe he left off talking about all of the overdensity that has happened in Waterside over the last 20 years.

So I will continue.

The master plan says residential growth should be an area supported by public transit and walkable amenities.

Waterside doesn't have public transit or groceries or schools, yet Waterside has already seen more growth than almost any other part of the city.

Every new unit added for cars and trucks and our streets.

The planning team knows this is really good for our health.

I quote from the plan.

Neighborhoods exposed to more pollution like Westside, Waterside and South End have an 11-year lower life expectancy.

That should be the headline.

If you overlay the city's demographic maps on the land use maps, you'll see our lower income neighborhoods, our black and Hispanic communities are the hardest hit.

The master plan is supposed to be a vision of what residents want for our city in 2035.

Residents repeatedly ask the planning team to prioritize community health, address air quality and pollution, increase and maintain open space with trees and nature-based infrastructure.

A core vision of the plan is to healthy city, but this draft doesn't get us there.

The res two land use designation doesn't reduce traffic or promote backyards or vegetable gardens or green spaces, and it doesn't support the family lifestyle waterside residents want.

The plan also doesn't address resident pleas for more green spaces, trees, and none from vegetation.

Part of the map tells the story, quote, no significant change.

I believe we can do better.

With that in mind, I'm asking you to vote no and send this draft back to the planning team.

When you do, I hope you'll instruct them to hold in-person meetings with each community to present the plan, explain its impact, and document comments and questions.

I hope you will also seek direct input from the TAC members.

As a resident of Waterside, here's what I would like in the plan.

Elimination of the Bundable Residential Res1 and Res 2 land use designations, restoration of the residential district designations in the current master plan, protection of Waterside's existing R10, 7.5 and R6 zones, conversion of our R5 zones to R6, and prohibition of any density greater than R6 on all future land use conversions in Waterside over the next 10 years.

Reduction in the size of our industrial energy zones and strategic increase in green spaces to create vegetation brought us with I-95 and separation of her residential and industrial areas.

It's covered in trees and vegetation, not asphalt and astroturf.

Okay, thank you so much.

Stephanie Barrera.

Okay.

So I've lived here for 40 years.

I've lived in Hubbard Heights.

I've lived in Cove, and I currently live somewhere, I think it's divided between downtown and Strongbury Hill, basically.

I'm not sure.

My observations are based on what I see.

I trained as a cultural anthropologist.

And so this is a huge cultural issue, this whole thing.

And I also have two disabilities.

So most people I know who go to Laurel House, for example, or the study center, don't have transportation and they rely on public transportation.

And they walk.

I find it to be very frightening because the traffic goes too fast.

When I walk up Grove Street, Grove Street is not wide enough, the sidewalk to accommodate two people going up the hill for the high school.

Because the cars are going like 50 miles per hour.

Okay.

And that's dangerous, obviously.

You know, I I came to the first meeting, and safety was heroes.

And I really didn't like his tone.

It was very condescending.

And I resent that as a person, just as a person.

And you know, I don't think you went to Laurel House or the Du Bois Center to talk to people there who really do walk or take the bus or both.

I know someone who goes to both of those places who got hit by a car about separate Hurisco.

Okay.

So it's a real problem.

And my I I grew up partially in Greenwich.

And I I look around.

I I look and I watch what's going on.

In Greenwich when you cross in the street, when you hit that crosswalk thing, pedestrians walk in all directions, and traffic is stopped in all directions.

They walk in one way across the street, but traffic is stopped in all four directions.

And I propose that we do that here in Stamford.

It's going to make drivers even more angry, unfortunately.

And people drive like man's.

I mean it's just a shame, and I hope that you will go and get the input of people with disabilities and people who are poor because they deserve to hear their voices heard too.

Thank you.

Jeffrey Gats and then Patricia Romano.

Is Jeffrey Gass here?

Patricia Romano.

Okay, followed by Mike Rapa.

Thank you for you know, hosting this meeting.

I feel like when you buy a home in a town or a city, you almost sign a contract informally with where you live.

Do you expect it in some ways to stay the same?

You've got to realize things do change, and the fact that we're here having this conversation means that you hopefully don't have a voice.

We need housing.

What it should be means is my street's sort of a semi-dead end.

There's like a driveway from a building behind it.

But if this plan goes through, my street with eight houses on it has they're about 0.1 acres per shop.

So we're like little houses.

We're considered a starter home kind of community.

And should this go through my neighbor across the street, I'm not telling you where it's not buys his house.

He has a double lot.

Absolutely.

Can now have a triplex on it, meaning you know, seven, eight cars, maybe in their yard, like they have to put parking there.

So when you say yes, we need more housing, it needs a pencil.

It doesn't need a face brush, isn't it?

It needs a pencil drawing where you want to put apartment buildings, where you want to put these cottages, and saying, let's just change the neighborhood and make it easier.

The young man who's talking about, oh, you don't care about people under 38.

He's not realizing people under 38 might want to buy a home too.

They don't all want to live in apartments for the rest of their life.

And it's not starter homes that are going to be available.

It's going to be developers.

They're the ones who will benefit the most from this.

People wanting a starter home, they're gonna be priced out of the market.

Developers can if they know they can put two units on a single lot, they will pay over market value for that house.

That's what we're fighting against.

It's not being prejudiced about this person or the other.

It's about saying we need to be a community so we can make a plan together.

Um and I'm big supporter, my kids have to go to that school you were talking about before, and if that section did have always like and the so people to cross the street there by the phones, like the nine and those other major intersections, things like that need to be part of the master plan because it is so dangerous.

I can't let the kids onto their even if it's like we can't model because they can't start.

Um so uh if I don't want these middle class neighborhoods being kind of a oh, let's just put the multi-residential units there because they're not gonna fight back against it.

We're gonna fight back against it.

We want this to be done with a pen ball.

Uh and funny thing with huge properties, many, many acres, very rich people in Stanford.

We're not putting triplexes in their front yards.

Like, let's just be more rational about where we put these buildings, uh, so we can grow in a slow, you know, reasonable way.

Uh, and we trust that you all will uh look at this and consider revisions that will make this a real reasonable growth for Stanford.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We do have to ask the folks.

I know you want to go last.

We do have to ask the folks online if they want to speak as well.

So at least do it.

We do that.

All right.

Mike Papa, go ahead.

Uh good evening.

Uh well, thank you very much for um inviting me for this, and uh maybe there's an architect who here uh uh you know the question is that uh we have to understand to keep in mind that we live in a democracy.

Okay, so democracy means people participation.

We each one of us has certain kind of skills, the one I bring into the into the process.

If we don't do that, then you guys have a hard time because you're gonna not be police.

So everybody's everybody here say beautiful things, but mostly criticis.

I want to say for sure that I'm not for or against this plan because I don't know anything about it.

The only thing I know that there is such a lack of democracy because if people don't show up at the meetings, you know, I am one of them that show up at every meeting, and there's no meeting.

Now everybody show up because uh they want to play politics, maybe they want to go against the mayor or the mayors.

I don't know what it is, but the question is that because it's we have to participate in this process because China is 100 years ahead of us when it comes to clean energy because they're working like a team.

We over there war to like fighting one another because things just cannot go up.

I for one I'm gonna sign up, but I'm gonna expect a climate change.

I mean, I climbed change, they're glad to link here.

So I sign up for climate change.

We're only wondering whether once we never have anything one time.

The mayor they're beautiful jobs with buy soils and everything is on the epicord, anyway, but then I'll accept the participation.

The same thing with the apply a couple times, like my friend over here with the kind of thing, they're never even say whether they're receiving my things off.

There's one thing I can say about this administration is the fact that they're they are allergic to people, they just wanted to do beautiful things themselves.

But you need to be an extraordinary human being to sexy without the help of the people, we got the skills of each one of us.

Without the skills, you're not gonna do anything.

You're gonna love you're gonna fail miserably because you cannot measure the complexity of the issues that we have.

Transportation or clean out the environment, uh economics, uh boards and all that kind of stuff.

We needed the participation of each one of us to come out with their own individual scale, and you have to listen to put this thing together and be able to come up with the solution because we are not you know democracy but economic and things getting worse.

Both sides are probably gonna they fight so much for the three minutes that we speak to find that God you cannot talk with uh on the meeting, something that you spoke.

There's so much restriction right now.

I'm talking to you.

Why don't we have a two-way just get two-way conversations here?

Yeah, that would be a very good thing.

Just put away a conversation.

So here what I'm saying makes sense or not.

Otherwise, we're not gonna we've gonna be out of business.

We are taking advantage by the Chinese as a Japanese.

Thank you.

All right.

Um so folks who are um attendees who are on in.

Okay, Amber Johnson's doing the right thing.

Uh if you want to speak and you're on Microsoft Teams, uh, please use the raise hand function.

Uh it's a little hand between people and view.

Um, so first we have Amber Johnston.

Excuse me, can you guys please pipe down?

Excuse me.

Thank you.

All right, Amber Johnson, you can go ahead, followed by Nate Wallman.

Uh okay, uh Amber, can you give it a try?

Yes.

Um, are you able to hear me?

Hello, I'm okay.

Great, Amber, we can hear you.

Okay, excellent.

Um, I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and I'm not going to speak to the plan itself as I feel that that has been covered extensively by neighbors either in person at prior meetings uh tonight or via their written statements.

Um I guess my biggest issue with this whole process was the lack of transparency in attempts at public outreach.

Um, I I was very surprised when I found out uh about this via my neighborhood association and not through the ambassador.

Um when I tried to figure out who the ambassador was, as many of us know, the link to find your ambassadors on the city's webpage was broken for weeks on end.

I to this day, I still don't know who my ambassador is.

What we do know is that there are ambassadors who didn't know that they were ambassadors, at least one until February, when according to I guess the schedule, most of that initial plan would have been drafted already.

I think that that was scheduled to end in July.

Um, and this just seems in such contrast to the mayor's initial statement from October of 2023 that input and feedback from stakeholders and residents are vital to this process, and we look forward to as many residents as possible participating in that community engagement.

To me, this very much seems to have slipped under the radar.

Um, and I I don't know if it was just intentions that didn't pan out.

Um, but it's been a real disappointment uh to be finding out about this through I'm glad our neighborhood associations exist and that they could point us in the direction of this document.

A lot of my neighbors are still unaware that this this is a thing.

Um, and with regard, I I was wondering did I miss something in the paper?

But it would seem that the Stanford Advocate only had two articles about this prior to the document's release.

The first one was in January of 2024.

In the closing, this is like the third item on items coming up in the year ahead, and it was discussions about the comprehensive plan are sure to be lively, which begs the question as to why the Stanford Advocate did not cover the release of this plan.

I mean, if this is the guiding document for our city for the next 10 years, you would think that our community paper would have an interest in making sure that we are all aware of what's going on.

And I it's it's been a disappointment, and I think that we are hearing tonight is a lot of folks who are disappointed that it feels like their voices were not solicited, that their opinions were uh disregarded or avoided altogether, and that this was going to be a surprise that they found out about when there was you know a notice of a zoning change in uh on a flyer on their neighbor's lawn in a couple of years from now.

So I do hope that all involved in in the crafting and release of this, take a real hard look because I do think that the public trust that you've lost in this process is palpable when you actually speak to the folks out there.

Thank you.

All right, next is Nay Wallman.

Nate, you can unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Uh, this is me.

Um, against approval of the draft plan.

I've been a Stanford resident since the 1950s, and my wife and I live in the cove in a 170-year-old home.

First, um, I'd like us to focus our strategies to reduce congestion on Cove Road and Seaside Avenue.

Certainly, there's no room for additional housing there.

Certainly, there's no room for additional housing there, but transportation is extremely congested and dangerous, particularly for pedestrians and for bicyclists.

Secondly, I'd like to focus on one portion of the of the draft plan.

I read through it, and on page 143, we state that there that we will be removing requirements for ADUs, including minimum lot size, parking, and maximum square footage.

Removal of ADU requirements represents an aggressive change that developers will seize upon to drive new revenue.

We should clarify the permissive language on page 143 to explain that ADU requirements will not be removed, rather that regs will be revised in accordance with general standards.

ADUs require capital, and ADUs might develop our tax base, but ADUs will demand a return on capital.

In general, ADUs will increase congestion and parking demand.

And ADUs require regulation in context of the existing neighborhood density.

Removal of ADU requirements would lead to overdevelopment and erosion of our tax base.

Those that can leave Stamford will eventually leave.

And potential new residents with choices will relocate elsewhere.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nate.

Sheila Barney, you can unmute yourself.

Alex, you're up next.

You're still on mute.

Oh, there should okay.

Alex, um, why don't you try and give it a shot and unmute yourself?

Hello, everyone.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you, Alex.

Jim Moore, you're up next.

Go ahead.

Good evening, everyone.

Uh it's been a long night, so I'll keep my comments pretty brief here.

Uh, my name's Alex Mass Smith.

Uh, I live in downtown Stanford.

Uh, noticing that uh downtown Stanford, despite being one of the largest population areas in the city, seems to be a little bit unrepresented uh in this meeting.

So I'll just give my quick thoughts here.

Uh I'm focused uh on the downtown section, that's where I live, so I'll speak on those elements right now.

Um, I think that they're really well documented, provide a really strong vision for the future.

Uh they make the streets safer, uh expand housing options downtown, keep our city uh welcoming to everyone.

Uh, I think they're doing a great job uh just making uh downtown more walkable, uh, expanding transit access, and then uh just making it uh a really great city that that uh everyone enjoys and uh is is welcoming to everyone.

So uh I'm in favor of at least the downtown sections of the plan.

Uh I think that uh those sections are well documented.

And uh yeah, as I uh mentioned a little bit on the open houses that I went to.

Uh I think that it's a really great so uh great step forward and uh uh yeah, shows really bold leadership and uh yes, I'm in favor of all those sections.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alex.

All right, Jim.

You can unmute yourself.

Um, anybody wishing to speak on Microsoft Teams?

Uh please raise your hand or press star six if you're on the phone to raise your hand.

Uh and Jim, uh, you can unmute yourself and sorry.

Hello, uh Jim Moore.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Very good.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Uh, my name is Jim Moore.

I've lived on Rock Ridge Lane in North Stanford for the past 55 years.

I'm against the Stanford Comprehensive Plan as it is written today.

I'll try to be brief on my comments, objections.

Uh, the latest revision that was put out a few weeks ago, the planning board changed the definition of the MU-1 usage to include two to four-story multifamily dwellings.

As North Stanford has several MU-1 areas defined for local neighborhood businesses, I object to the inclusion of two to four-story multifamily homes as it contradicts both the planning board and the mayor's commitment to North Stanford will remain single family zoned.

I recommend that you remove this two to four story multifamily dwelling uh condition from the MU1 definition, or at least as it applies to North Stanford.

Additionally, the revision also made a change to the boundary of the MU1 uh district along Long Ridge Road north of the Merritt Parkway.

The previous northern boundary was at the north end of 1086 Long Ridge Road, which houses an art gallery and a recently a real estate firm.

To the south, there are a bunch of uh neighborhood businesses like the Legro Piano, Carvell Ice Cream, Lakeside Diner, Town and Country, Mishmash, Hair Salon, Real Estate, all very popular local businesses for the neighborhood.

But I do object to the extension of this MU1 boundary as the properties that are included in this extension are at least 75% wetlands, and they are unbuildable given building setbacks and septic issues.

Also, coupled with the two to four story multifamily dwellings previously mentioned, this would be completely inconsistent with the single family adjacent neighborhood.

I should also point out that uh that uh there are no sidewalks or anything associated with this area, which you require as part of an MU1 definition.

Uh okay.

Finally, uh two more items.

Um to object to the elimination of the ADU restrictions.

I think some other people have mentioned that.

The existing 800 square foot lot requirements, owner occupied off-street parking, all should be retained as they are today.

Off-street parking is already out of control in many areas, presenting many safety issues and car to cars and pedestrians.

Cottage clusters should also be removed as they further destroy the single family neighborhood.

And against and is against the single uh the mayor's commitment.

Uh last, I want to object to the AC use in single family districts.

Oh, this is not okay.

Well, this does not apply to North Stanford.

Um I think that the it is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood to put commercial businesses, the traffic will contribute to decline of those neighborhoods.

I hope you incorporate these changes in your next revision.

Thank you.

All right.

Anyone else on the chat?

Any attendees which to raise their hand?

Or press star six.

Uh and we don't have anybody else signed up to speak except for Dave Adams.

Uh, you spoke at the September 9th meeting.

Right, but I have an email from Leslie Cat that she said that we can speak at the end.

Leslie is an administrator, she is not the chair.

She said that we could speak at both meetings as long as we waited for the people that hadn't had the opportunity to speak first.

I don't know what she thought.

She was saying that.

Well, I think you said it.

She is not the chair of the planning board, nor is she staffed to the planning board.

She's your personal charge.

I believe I believe you that she said she just doesn't have the authority to say that.

And then I wanted to turn in, please for the attention.

Dave Adams, do you want to speak?

Sure.

Okay.

So you have three minutes.

You've met me before.

Um North Stanford.

Uh on Cliff Market.

Uh I am someone who uh moved into town about 10 years ago.

Uh so I am um a transplant somewhere.

I came from uh, well, I don't start a lot.

I can't lake, I was in my planes, I was apparent.

The point is that uh it's not just people that were born here that want to protect this place, it's also people who have moved here.

And I've spent the last 10 years of my life fighting for the people in the firm and the people that don't have voices that are not here right now.

Also trying to make sure that things are done reasonably, because I don't think that they should ever be done unreasonably.

I do believe that this master plan was concocted, probably strong word was drafted in in a very unreasonable manner.

I don't believe that uh the city's residents were properly consulted.

I do understand the motivation to see what kids want because they're the future, that's cool, but they don't have any concept of land use, and you know that it's very difficult for even the people in this room to have a good concept on one land use.

Land use is an incredibly complicated subject, and this is being rushed, and I think that if you listen, if you if you look at what happened today, and I'm I know this is very difficult, and I I did actually try to help okay, um, but this is what it should have been the entire year of development on a map, right?

Every turn that that the development took of that of that document should have been like this, and I'm not pointing fingers at anybody, but it's just really really convenient that it is the mayor's, you know, this is everything the mayor's been talking about for the last four years, and it's not you know Sanchez and Smare Tim Martin said a lot of the same things, but not like this.

This is aggressive, this is aggressive, and this isn't even necessary because we already have the units that we need to make up the 16,000.

They're already in the pipeline, they're shovel ready.

We don't need to redistrict or rezone or guide our way to a rezoning because it already is that way.

Now, if we were gonna continue with this plan the way it is right now, if we were to continue with the plan as it is right now, you are opening the door to a lot more than 16,000 people, a lot more.

And I I just think that if you're if you I think it's a bad idea to move forward with this plan, I really hope that you turn this plan down and or you kick it down the road and you actually do the engagement that was that was required in the first place.

And those are my comments, and I appreciate it.

Let them go right on.

Thank you very much.

To follow up on the comments that's made by the gentleman, and I have statistics and I have the traffic information for the speech.

This is Catherine Marius who lead lives in the Cove and she'd like to make a couple of comments for the record about traffic.

It's getting important just getting your point.

Yeah, I have the traffic statistics on East Pain Street, but that the gentleman reference showing accidents.

I have statistics on pedestrians and bikes, they're accidents in the code, and I have the heat map of all crashes in the cove area, and the number one issue of the code is traffic.

And again, the process was a sham.

And if it hadn't been, you would not be seeing the anger and distress you're seeing now.

I'm sorry, you were all put in this position, but that's why.

And everything that David said, it is not there is a lack of trust, and I want to there's a total lack of trust in the process, and maybe a