No, if not.

All right.

Good evening.

How do how do I mute myself if I want to mute myself?

I don't know.

So at the top of your screen, there is a camera.

And to the right of that is a microphone mic.

Oh.

So that's you put the camera off.

There you go.

And then you muted yourself.

So that's great.

But click the camera again so you can put your camera on.

All right, great.

Okay.

So you're muted and your camera's on, so you're good to go.

All right.

Great.

Good evening.

This is the September 30th regular meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

We are back in our familiar environment of virtual conference call, though still getting the ropes of using Teams instead of Zoom.

I am Jennifer Gadsenno, Chair of the Board.

Ravi Suberman is our secretary, Jeremy Linder, full member, and our two alternates, Chet Salett and Bill Levin are also present today, along with our staff planner Lindsay Cohen.

Before we get to the top, the main topic of discussion today, which is the 2025 to 2035 comprehensive plan adoption and any amendments that are related to that.

We do have a little bit of just housekeeping to do of approving planning board minutes from prior meetings.

So we do have the quorum that's required to approve the minutes that we had tabled on the September 22nd meeting.

So first we have the uh minutes from September 2nd regular meeting.

Present at that was uh uh Jay Tupper.

That was his final meeting with us uh on the board.

Um Ravi Sabranian, Jeremy Linder, Bill Levin.

Um so uh are there yes?

Forgive the interruption just for a moment.

Um I just wanted to point out uh since we do have we we are having some camera issues.

Ralph is also on attendance at this meeting.

Um Ralph Blessing.

And we have uh two other individuals, one identified as a Maureen and the other identified.

And I don't know if they're staff or or not.

Uh we have a number we have a number of uh members of the public who are listening in.

So I have my screen expanded more so I can see more names.

Um but you know it's a public meeting, um, and so um people are always welcome to listen in, although I just do want to note this is a public meeting, not a public hearing.

Um, and so the purpose of this meeting is for a discussion among the planning board members.

Um so um okay, so for the minutes of September 2nd, um you all heard if you were present.

Um are there any amendments to the minutes for September 2nd?

Hearing none, can I have a motion for approval?

All right, move by Jeremy.

I have a second, seconded by Ravi.

Um all in favor who were present, um, which basically just includes Bill.

Uh so Bill.

I like that.

I was not there.

All right, Bill, you're on mute.

Okay, cool.

So Bill.

Uh so that passes unanimously, approving the September 2nd minutes.

Uh next we have the minutes from the special meeting on Friday, September 5th.

Um present at that meeting is myself, Robbie, and Jeremy.

Um, are there any amendments to the minutes from September 5th?

Um hearing none, can I have a motion?

All right, Ravi motion for approval, seconded by Jeremy, all in favor.

All right, passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Just a couple more.

Um we have the minutes from the September 9th portion of the public hearing on the comprehensive plan.

Again, present myself, Ravi Jeremy.

So we are able to vote on the minutes.

Are there any amendments to those minutes from September 9th?

All right.

Hearing none, can I have a motion?

All right.

Move by Robbie.

Second by Jeremy.

All in favor.

Ravi, I have you in favor.

You made the motion.

So all right.

And that passes, you know, uh among the three members present.

And finally, the um minutes from the September 22nd special meeting.

Um see uh and present is myself, Jeremy, and Chet.

Um that was our most recent uh meeting.

Um are there any amendments to this set of minutes?

No.

All right.

Um I have a motion then for approval.

Moved by Jeremy, seconded by Chat.

All in favor.

And passes.

Thank you.

Um and I will just note for the members who were not present on the 22nd that we did approve the minutes for August 26th, uh uh, and uh September 16th.

Um, and so that's why those weren't in the vouch.

All right.

Um so and then trying to see if this other um so our topic at hand is the um final discussions on the comprehensive plan.

Um we uh there is there are a number of um I think clarifications uh that have been put forward and uh Lindsay did um was there something I should have seen in um another inbox I sent to you the pocket plan which is a high level summary uh spreadsheet but if you want specific to your um city email address but if you want the specific point by point like uh public comment and response public comment response if that's what you want I can send that to you right now um if you could um and then I'll forward it over to uh just so the public knows I'm having unfortunately so um if you can send that to my city email I will forward it on so that I can have it in front of me okay thank you okay I do have it as the last like five slides um in a in a deck that I have prepared for tonight okay um um well why do I think we can start um with that with that deck then um thank you very much for your patience all right do you want me to pull just go right to that or um and you say a few words or uh I did want to just have a just a quick few words before we jump into planning board discussion sure um I mean I um I can say a few words just about kind of where we are in the process okay um and again just a little bit of grounding on how the process has proceeded um in prior plans as well um so I mean I I think um among the many questions that we've received from the public um that has included questions about you know who is responsible for the actual you know drafting of the text in the plan what are the processes that we have to follow in order to um meet our obligations um and so I will note that um the the role of the planning board we're here um is uh to be the stewards of the plan and so we are um reviewing uh the material that is before us um and we'll be referring back to the comprehensive plan uh going forward as we make decisions um the as is the case has has been the case for the 2015 plan and the 2002 plan and honestly any plan in any community in Connecticut we have uh undertaken a contract with a team of consultants um and their role is one to um get public feedback um from a cross section of the public yeah she's paused on my side too am I back yes yeah okay sorry I was having this issue in an earlier meeting as well uh where did I where did I break the consultants okay um so the right so the consultants um had a few uh key roles one um two

Yeah, she's paused on my side too.

Am I back?

Yes.

Okay.

Sorry.

I was having this issue in an earlier meeting as well.

Where did I, where did I break?

Okay.

So the right, so the consultants had a few uh key roles.

One to uh conduct uh public um engagement uh for the purpose of getting input around uh the high level vision uh for the city and that that input needed to come from a cross-section of residents who are representative of the demographics and characteristics of residents in the city.

Um second, there was a highly technical aspect of the plan, um, which involved gathering a fair amount of data just about you know things like population projections and current infrastructure and also an update to our affordable housing plan per the per state requirements that all communities have to have an up-to-date plan.

And then uh third is to um based on the high-level priorities and vision set forth by uh the community input to then determine a number of specific strategies that could be implemented in the realization of this plan.

Um, and that one reason why it is very helpful to have uh a team of consultants aside from the fact that we're all volunteers and you know, I don't know how we would have drafted this on our own, um, is that they are able they have the um the purview of being able to pull a lot of different strategies that um have been working in communities, and that they brought uh many more strategies than are listed here.

Um it was the task of uh various city staff in the land use bureau, transportation operations, mayor's office, many different offices to then look at that wide array of potential strategies and determine of those which are most appropriate for Stanford, because not all of them are going to be appropriate for our context.

Um and so that is how we land here at the uh plan before us.

Um it is the organization and culmination of all of those things.

Um again, we um I don't mean to belabor the plan process too much, but um I will note that for the 2015 plan process, um, there were about 600 people in Stanford who gave public comment, and there was one uh steering committee, um, which consisted of six people who were primarily the um the leads of uh relevant uh appointed boards and agencies, planning economic development, board of representatives and zoning.

Um and that that was it in terms of uh a group that came together regularly to steward the plan.

Um, and so the approach that was tried for the 2035 plan was to also add in this element of the technical advisory committee and the neighborhood ambassadors who were a part of it.

Um just just noting um because I know there have been a lot of questions around um again, like kind of what's required and how different things were implemented, wanted to put that into the context of our prior plan.

Um the last thing before I hand it over to you, Lindsay, um, is so I also took a look at the 2002 plan, um, which is really beautiful, I must say, actually.

It was published in a number of booklets, and I was really struck by um how much the introduction to that 2002 plan still feels very um relevant and applicable to now.

Um, so if you'll indulge me.

Um a master planning process is often considered a moment when a city can challenge itself to think big and act boldly, but big ideas and bold initiatives do not have to mean that a city should undergo drastic change.

For Stanford, thinking big means rediscovering the qualities that make the city strong uh strong, its diverse social and economic base, its natural resources and beauty, its strong downtown and neighborhoods, and reasserting them as the foundation of the city's future.

Uh jumping down a bit.

Um thinking big means addressing old challenges in new ways.

The issues the city faces are connected to each other in complex ways.

In the long run, solving the city's traffic problems will have more to do with its ability to create housing for all income groups than it will with engineering improvements.

Protecting neighborhood quality will depend on finding ways to say yes to new development in and around downtown and providing clearer guidance for development in outlying areas of the city.

Acting boldly means asserting with clarity the public's purpose and objectives, a diversity of housing and employment opportunities, access to resources like the waterfront and open space, better options for moving from place to place, and policies for ensuring the city's architectural and landscape heritage is protected.

But it also means recognizing that the details will appropriately be worked out, neighborhood by neighborhood, project by project, place by place.

And so with that context, which again I feel like we could have thrown that into our 2035 plan just as easily, is that the plan the after after this, after this process of approval for the comprehensive plan, um one of the first things that needs to happen is that for the areas of the city that are expecting you know the most you know kind of intensive uh change or development, those are areas that um ought to be prioritized for uh neighborhood studies.

Um you may be members of the public may be aware that right now there is an ongoing neighborhood study for a cove and east side, um, which um as we've heard, and I fully agree, there are there are traffic issues, there are um there are issues around uh housing units and whether they're housing the number of people that they're supposed to be housing, um, their traffic safety concerns, there are all sorts of of things that are being that are uncovered in that study, which is ongoing, um, and that through processes like that and neighborhood conversations is how we then take uh the higher level principles of the comprehensive plan and then determine you know what kinds of projects should we encourage, where might it make sense to change the zoning, where might it make sense to add some transportation infrastructure or open space, etc.

So the purpose of the comprehensive plan is not to make those granular decisions, it's to set again the high-level vision and then in conversation with community residents is where the rest of uh the magic happens.

Um, and that even before we get to that place, um, I've you know talked with Landy's bureau staff, and we want to make sure that there are opportunities after this for residents to just get a better, a deeper sense of how this impacts uh communities, um, because I think that um there are um I think just kind of understanding again, like what are the things that belong in the comprehensive plan and and what are the things that kind of get worked out through future processes, or you know what do particular terms mean?

It's really important uh to make sure that the public is clear on that.

So Lindsay, is there anything else uh to add in terms of process and where we are?

Um I do have a few a few things to address um based on what we've heard over the past uh two months.

Um so if now is the time, happy to bring up that deck.

Okay.

Yes, please.

Um, and Ralph, if you want to uh just pop in and introduce yourself to kick off the presentation, that would be super Can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Excellent.

Um my name is Ralph Glessing.

I'm the land use bureau chief for the city of Stanford.

Um so uh the land use bureau um provided the support uh on the staff level for the planning work that was done uh and was also working with um the consultant Sosaki on this plan.

Uh so we were guiding uh this whole process.

Um and uh Lindsay actually was uh or is uh the project manager for this particular project.

Thanks, Ralph.

Um, and tonight I am joined by Siki Zhu from Sazaki, um, who uh is here to help um walk us through some of the revisions and and responses uh made over since since July.

Um so just sharing my screen quickly.

Um so just sharing my screen quickly.

All right.

Um so just kind of aligned with what Jennifer was saying.

I would like to just kind of take a step back and level set a little bit.

Um there were uh quite a few things that happened before some of you, the even the planning board members here were on the board.

So as we bring this project to a vote and and what I hope will be an approval.

Um, I I'd like to take a step back, look at the process, um, and remind folks where we've been.

Um starting in the fall of 22, um, we started to initiate conversations about funding this project and requesting capital funds for this project.

Uh this went through the public meetings at the planning board, the board of finance, and the board of representatives to scrutinize the funding and cost of this project and the approval of said funding.

Um, so when when I do hear members of the public asking about why why this project cost the way it did, I want to assure folks that um this went through a public review process.

We asked the prop the appropriate questions and did the work to make sure that we were uh spending the money appropriately.

Um we readdressed those comments again when we were going for contract approval in the summer of 2024.

Uh typically this process takes about two months, but we were recommitted at the board of reps three times.

Um, this was the board's only statutory role in the comp plan was the approval of the contract.

Uh while this did delay the project start and would have put completion in summer of 2025.

Uh we knew that would be an issue, and that was something that we discussed with the steering committee right off the bat.

Um, and after a year of getting a contract in place, we publicly kicked off the project almost a year ago to this day, which is fitting.

So since then, we've embarked on a 10-month engagement process that repeated itself in cycles that I'll tell you about right now.

Uh we started off with steering committee meetings.

The steering committee had representatives from the zoning board, the planning board, the board of representatives, and the administration.

The first meeting was about process, um, how the 2015 plan had gone, what are the requirements.

Um, and we introduced the data findings in the state of the city.

Um we the Jennifer the steering committee helped us work through um final approval, moving it to September.

So we didn't do that in over the summer, which was a really wise decision.

Um they helped us uh uh revise data before we brought it to the technical advisory committee.

I will tell you a little bit more about the technical advisory committee in a minute.

Um, but after we presented our data and analysis to the steering committee, we presented it to the technical advisory committee to review our findings, provide feed feedback, which we then took, revised, and uh republished for open houses.

Uh the open houses were where members of the public were introduced.

The first one was introduction to the data and analysis.

We repeated this process to show the members of to show the steering committee, the technical advisory committee, and members of the public uh the visions and the goals.

And then we did this again for the strategies and actions.

Each round introduced new information to the public that formed the building blocks for the July draft.

Nothing in the draft was completely new.

When uh when I when I do hear um that there was not enough time to to review the draft, I do want to remind folks of all of the steps that we went through to get to July and releasing the data, the goals, strategies, and actions.

We employed multiple different types of activities on different days at different times and different locations to get as much input as possible.

And we advertised on city social media accounts, emailed comp plan listservs, planning board and zoning board agenda lift serves, neighborhood groups, clear G listserves, and we use the mayor's newsletter as well.

We asked our technical advisory committee members to share with their networks and provided them with talking points and materials.

Um we we made a concerted effort to spread the word as much as possible.

Um, and the results paid off.

At the very first open house where we presented data and opportunities and challenges, we had 225 people participating, reading the data and analysis, identifying challenges and opportunities that they found in their lives and sharing with ones that we had not yet discovered.

At the second open house, we had 250 people reviewing and commenting on the visions and goals.

That's three times as many people as those who spoke at the public hearings.

We have heard from folks that perhaps they might not have liked the sticky notes.

But if you did not want to write your comment on a sticky note, we had opportunities to speak with members of the planning teams to take comments and have discussion, filling out mad libs, telling the planning team about yourself and your concerns, uh, pinning issues on maps, filling out surveys, and attending public hearings, if that's your chosen platform.

We heard from residents that they wanted neighborhood-based meetings as opposed to our citywide open houses.

So we changed our strategies and had held five neighborhood-based workshops.

Here, residents were introduced to strategies and actions relevant to their neighborhoods.

We discussed and residents identified locations for specific actions, literally dragging and dropping them on a map.

Um and we held a sixth workshop to report out our findings.

All of this variety has led to a here's another pop-up, but I can get to that later.

It led to a truly representative pool of rep of resident feedback.

Um during contract approvals, the board of reps has made it clear that the concern about representative is uh critical, and we're immensely proud of how representative our engagement has been.

All of this is self-reported, and we continue to track this and update this.

Um the student survey was immensely helpful in um evening out our project reach by age and uh neighborhood statistical area.

Um then we deployed boots on the ground outreach in neighborhoods that weren't well represented.

We also heard concern about um the technical advisory committee.

Um this selection process is outlined in the first quarterly report that's available on the website and was presented at the Board of Reps and the Planning Board.

Uh we had a month-long open call that was advertised on social media, our email blasts, which was sent out to hundreds of individuals, mayors, newsletters, and clergy listservs.

Um we had criteria for selection of members, including their relevant professional experience, existing Stanford networks, communication skills, commitment to Stanford.

We purposefully did not choose people who already held positions of leadership or regularly attended meetings because those folks already had a platform or felt empowered to use existing platforms to share their ideas.

We purposefully chose people who were looking to become more involved in the city and who also had relevant experience.

And finally, we heard confusion as to why we would engage the city's youth and what value that could bring.

Please check out the engagement appendix and read from a teacher from every grade about how impactful this day was for each and every student from kindergarten to high school, uh, from building with Legos and understanding buildings in kindergarten to discussing local issues in third grade to balancing individual visions with the vision of a group in seventh grade.

Students learned what a planner does and were introduced to critically thinking about their surroundings.

What's more important and strategic here is that the students brought the survey home to their parents.

Parents that wouldn't necessarily show up to a meeting or an open house were introduced to the plan and responded in surveys.

Pedestrian safety and small business support were key issues for them.

We also know that children serve oftentimes as translators for their parents, and this take-home survey helps facilitate the conversation in the comfort of their own home.

The following slides I have our direct uh public comment and response table.

I'm happy to go through that, Jennifer.

Um, but I did just want to conclude by saying that this has been an immense effort that I'm immensely proud of and excited to continue to begin to implement if all goes well tonight.

Um this is a living document.

Um so the vote tonight does not cement this in stone.

Uh, we can continue to have discussions and there will continue to be public discourse about the recommendations of this plan.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Lindsay, for keying up all that context.

I want to see actually if the if um members of the board um have any questions or clarifications or anything that you wanted to call out from that.

Okay.

Um with that, um, Lindsay, if you do want to go ahead and go back to that table of uh changes um in response to um all of the input that we received over the last uh couple of months.

All right.

Oh, okay.

So that was up for a second.

Sorry, I thought I shared the wrong window, but um here it should be up again.

That's all right.

Um do you want to walk through those, these or um sure.

Okay.

And these are ones that already have been incorporated, right?

Yeah, yes, a lot, a lot have.

Um so uh these first four are um reflective of some of the very first revisions to the plan in response to comment.

Um future land use categories are too much like zoning districts.

Um we revised the names from R1 and R2 as an example to Res1, residential single family, and res two residential neighborhood.

Um this brings it further away from the R5, R6 categories of zoning.

Um we heard that it wasn't clear what uses were envisioned for each um for each land use category.

So we created a detailed future land use map that identifies um the future uses that are envisioned, the intent for each category.

Um we heard that folks didn't want multifamily buildings in the middle of our singing single family neighborhoods.

Um so we were more specific about what categories were intended to accommodate population growth, um, with certain categories noted as minimal, um, that being res one and res two, and other categories uh being noted as the highest level of population growth, um, such as the mixed-use core and mixed-use urban.

Um and then uh significantly one of the requests was to revise the R2 residential neighborhood boundary, um which we did.

Um that boundary got uh significantly uh brought closer in towards our transportation nodes and areas of infrastructure.

Um there was uh uh sentiment about the idea of uh rezoning single family neighborhoods or losing single-family neighborhoods.

Um we re-clarified that 65% of the area is classified as uh single family detached homes, um, noting that ADUs and cottage clusters could be allowed where permitted.

Um we there was a lot of comments around accessory dwelling units, particularly with this board as well.

And we um softened the language, um, reframing uh around ADUs.

Um at first it said uh revise zoning regulations to um and then it made three recommendations about how to revise the zoning regulations and we have revised that to say study um whether the ADU regulations need to be revised to um uh so we kind of pulled pulled back that language to study it.

We did similarly for ACUs, um, accessory commercial units.

Um that was originally in the opportunity section.

Um, but as I was talking through uh, especially with Chet was a really fabulous conversation.

Um when I was talking about ACUs, I was speaking about them as a way to support small businesses.

So uh we moved that over to um prosperous section and um tying it instead of um saying to allow ACUs, uh it's reframed as potentially studying how ACUs could support a small business and tying it closer to the cottage food license, which is an existing um framework for um starting small business.

Um there was uh there was confusion around uh whether ADUs and cluster developments were already allowed in certain areas, which they are allowed in all areas of the city um clusters in RD in the Res One areas.

Um so we clarified that as well.

Um there was an idea that um denser, more diverse neighborhoods are targeted for upzoning while wealthier enclaves are left alone, and we stressed that the revisions are for balanced growth with clear placemaking.

Um neighborhoods like downtown and the south end are targeted for the largest amount of growth because they're at the uh we have the infrastructure, the strength Stamford Transportation Center, um, and it would be excluding areas of flooding.

Um supporting missing middle housing.

Um we clarified about promotion of ADUs and cluster housing, adding city communication campaigns to raise awareness about these options.

Um we clarified the uh near-term need for a senior center.

Um in response to resident of Hubbard Heights um comments regarding historic preservation.

Um we did and in response to HPAC comments as well.

We added HPAC as um one of the um execution responsibilities uh for a number of the different missing middle housing um actions uh so that HPAC can have a role in what might be context sensitive in these historic district districts.

Um we heard about underserved transit, so we uh beefed up some of the transit strategies, um, including coordinating bus schedules with the Metro North.

Um there was um an overall dismissal of the plan's data, um, but we had to clarify personal experience is different off sometimes from what the data reveals.

We did revise maps and visuals um to be more clear and clarified metrics throughout.

Um there was a mixed response on roads um in terms of car dependence versus multi-use roads.

Um, and we really in this instance kind of uh just balanced back on vision zero and adding flexibility while maintaining safety.

Um in sustainability and resilience, um the Department of Environmental Um Energy and Environmental Protection.

Um of the biggest changes there is pulling out some of the water dependent actions into its own strategy to prioritize public access, recreation, maritime industry, and conservation along the waterfront.

Um so we just took all the waterfront and and put them in this this public access strategy.

Um, and we added a uh conservation mission um to pull out the conservation commission from the environmental protection board in response to public comment and um comment from our EPB director.

And finally, um there was some skepticism about affordability regulations, and um we we clarified that there is a general frustration in the state of housing.

Um there is an urgent need for um for affordable housing.

Um the uh going as far as changing the percent of BMR is something we identified as not um not the place of the comprehensive plan, which was a few comments recommended that we go in that direction.

Let's see, I think that's and that's that's it.

not um not the place of the comprehensive plan which was a few comments recommended that we go in that direction I think that's and that's that's it um this does not include the table that that chet uh the recommendations that that chat had put forward so yes we so you see these uh uh the four the um these comments were incorporated and the new uh comprehensive plan was issued to the public um if it regulated correctly the September 22nd or 23rd is my understanding right I think she froze you won't frozen out all right um well I'm um I'll take a moment to just confirm the date of the latest batch of changes um but it was you know after um the September 16th hearing that you know there was a batch of comments that were incorporated yes I believe it was October 16th I'm just wondering you know when exactly it was published because there's a perception that the public did not have time to review the document I just want to set it at rest and I hope Lindsay can come back.

I think document was published on 22nd or 23rd and if that is true then we had a week into that I just wanted to place it on record maybe wait for it at the time yeah I mean I think that this is kind of where there's the nuance around the process and kind of how it's conducted um there's really no requirement for us to as we're incorporating changes to publish new drafts um you know it would have been perfectly um normal and legal to just you know take things in and then kind of compile compile compile and then have uh a draft um that was reviewed by the planning board members um in advance of uh this discussion here um however it seemed a lot more productive and responsive to continue to put out updates as they were added in batches so that um it was clear that um comments are heard um and that there have been meaningful changes that have been made in response um and that I think in particular um the effort to have a batch of revisions ahead of the September 9 uh start of the public hearing I think was meant to um uh ensure that um for many of the change many of the comments that we've got prior to that that many of them had are actually already been addressed so that you know folks didn't come to the hearing responding to a draft that had since changed maybe so in si is back maybe she can answer so this all these changes you we went through Lindsay and by the way they're all excellent changes so uh was the new document published with this changes on November 22nd as I recollect or am I am I mistaken?

Yes all of um all of these changes are in the document that's been published online um that's why I didn't present on any of those comments being considered by the planning board because those you know those are haven't been discussed um yeah yeah thank you and yes and I didn't release a plan that had had those in there because they haven't been discussed okay um are there any other uh questions of clarification or or or comments on that batch of changes um that um and again those were changes that were made between um basically over the course of September um all right uh well let us then go ahead and dive into um yeah I appreciate that um all of you were reviewing and and making comments and such um and so um I actually chat do you want to start walking through um some of the amendments you recommended and I will just note from a logistics note that my other computer is finally started cooperating so I should be able to pull pull that up in front of me sure sure um thank you the um again most uh virtually all of these um remaining proposed revisions um um have been have arisen since the meeting of the 22nd uh if I'm recalling correctly uh and they were uh in response to you know feedback that we had received previously as well as feedback that we received uh as of the um the the um public meetings on the 16th and the 22nd um there are let's see one two three four five six seven eight and ten nineteenth

Uh and they were uh in response to you know feedback that we had received previously as well as feedback that we received uh as of the um the um public meetings on the 16th and the 22nd.

Um there are let's see, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, and ten, and then twelve, thirteen, change, and eight, nineteen, twenty.

There are they affect uh twenty of the existing proposed actions within the comprehensive plan.

So um you uh Jennifer, would it be helpful to the the um I I believe the board has received copies of all of these?

You want them to kind of be um noted aloud, or how do you want me to proceed?

Um I think I think it would be useful to note them aloud.

I mean, I think some of them are more I I think for the ones that are maybe a little bit of wordsmithing, um, we may not need to go through all of those, but um I think walking through those um and having discussion would be helpful, and I think you know we can have a round of discussion on each one of them.

Okay, all right.

Um, starting with action item one three, um, which I believe um uh right now um reads um as follows offer targeted incentives, such as tax credits, expedited permit reviews, reduced fees, density bonuses, or flexible use regulations or mixed use developments that provide pedestrian-friendly ground floors with retail dining or community space.

Um and and uh all the only revision that I that I proposed within this um was the addition of um two words, I believe uh changing it from offer targeted incentives, such as to offer targeted context specific incentives, such as so that it was only the addition of those uh two words.

Okay, okay, um I think um it's probably helpful from a process standpoint um as those are um introduced um to just temperature check each of them with with the board.

Sure, sure.

Um, because ultimately for approval, um, if there are changes to be made, we'll need to affirm um basically a memo that accompanies the approval uh for those changes.

Right, right.

Um so did that proposed change um for 1.3.

Does that make sense to the board?

Uh Robbie?

No, no, I was about to say yes.

And okay.

And I was about to say in order to speed it up.

Uh you know, maybe there's any objection you could speak up, otherwise we would assume that it's okay, especially if the own administration is okay with that as well.

So um well where do you think process-wise, Lindsay?

I do I do want to make sure that we do have like a moment to um even when they're smaller changes just to affirm um that they're consistent with our recommendation.

Um so we can do it all at the end.

Um if or kind of just have discussion about the ones that seem um a little bit more uh sort of less of of uh wordsmithing again uh said.

Um I think I I'm happy to kind of go through them a little bit quicker.

Okay.

Um if you do want to hit on each one, I can do a kind of uh high level.

Or I could go through and just do the umes that might have a bit more discussion.

Okay, uh let's let's start there.

Okay.

All right.

So um I would say the the ACU um comment uh would have a bit of discussion.

Um that's 1.6.

Um the original action was to allow ACUs within a quarter mile of neighborhood centers.

Um there was great concern on the part of members of the public and planning board, uh, chat Robbie and Jeremy all all expressed concern.

Um so in talking it through, I recommended and chat is okay with um develop a land use guide to starting a small business.

Is everybody okay with that?

And that would replace 1.6 allow accessory commercial units.

Okay.

Yeah, so I think you know the the importance of this change in terms of the feedback we got from the public is important, right?

I mean uh the previous wording is misunderstood to allow blanket ACUs to be started.

Uh but that was not the intention that is being clarified either in terms of uh the revised listing, which is to you know develop a guide to starting these kind of businesses.

I think that has to be acknowledged.

Right.

Yeah, I like that revision because I think it focuses more on the why rather than like any particular tool.

Um, and so um there's certainly a lot of aspects of land use beyond just the ACUs that are relevant to uh to navigating the process of starting a small business.

And uh yeah, so I think that makes a lot of sense to me.

Okay.

Um it's kind of hard for me to pick out one of the top the hot ones because a lot of them were hot ones.

Um at least a lot of these ones we're seeing right now.

So I I will try and be brief.

Um 1.9 permit and allow triplexes, due places and townhomes in areas served by city services and transit.

Um chat asked for uh additional clarification, um, and that it wouldn't overrule single family zoning.

Um we did allow city clear, we did I did provide clarification in suggesting um permit and allow triplexes, duplexes in townhomes in areas served by city sewer and water and within half a mile of a train station or bus stop.

Um we did talk about any nods to saying we will not change future zoning is not something that we can do.

So that second half of saying it wouldn't overrule single family zoning is not something I can actually do.

Um so clarifying by what infrastructure and transit means.

Okay, okay.

So I have a comment on that.

So this I don't know, this half a mile uh whatever the radius is, that seems somewhat uh subject up arbitrary.

I mean, in some places, it's very much not.

No, no, no, I'm saying in some places it could be 400, it could be 600.

So I like the other wording that you have proposed, uh, which is steady allowing triplexes duplexes as permitted uses in auditional zoning districts that gives us the town more flexibility instead of saying hey, you committed to half a mile, you cannot go one inch beyond half a maybe I'm just suggesting that other voting is probably uh reasonable for the town to follow, but I I leave it to the planning board to say which is better.

Um I see Ralph hand up.

Yes, thank you.

I mean, the the um half a mile uh comes from sort of um uh standard transportation planning uh considerations.

Uh so uh the that's like the quarter mile is a five-minute walk, um, and then obviously half a mile, uh a 10-minute walk, and this is what people usually based on on research that has been done for very long periods of time, but people are willing to walk uh to transit.

So that's really considered uh the transit shed.

Um I think what is important uh to keep in mind, however, is that of course you have to consider local um uh uh circumstances if you have to uh cross like a major highway uh that is not easily to cross by foot or or uh through walking, um, or if you have like steep topography, then uh it's it's a very difficult different uh uh kind of situation, but that's where the whether um half a mile and quarter mile or half a mile uh radius um uh came from.

And uh so we want it to be as as specific as possible, but I I agree that there needs to be an openness to consider uh local uh conditions.

And uh so we wanted to be as as specific as possible, but I I agree that there needs to be an openness to consider uh local uh conditions all right.

Um other thoughts from members of the board on this.

Can you read again what the new language says?

Um so I would say Ravi is is putting forward that I I provided two options, and I would say Ravi is is maybe favoring study allowing triplexes, duplexes, and townhomes as permitted uses in additional zoning districts.

Um and the the other, which I will say I think I I would lean more toward given the specificity is the permit and allow triplexes, duplexes and townhomes and areas served by city sewer and water and within a half mile of a train station or bus stop.

I'd be more in excuse me.

I'm I'm just I we're talking about ACUs here.

No, this is um this is for if you pull up the document on the proposed revisions.

Um the word document, it's on page two for strategy 1.9.

Um right now the text in the plan says permit and allow triplexes, duplexes and townhomes in areas served by city services and transit.

Um and so again, we had received a comment that both served by city services and transit were were fairly vague in terms of how wide of an area that might cover.

And so one revision gives some specificity in terms of geography and what the services are, and then the other is a more broad recommendation around studying permitting uh these types of of low rise multifamily in additional zoning districts.

So in other words, they could be allowed in single family.

I'm I'm confused, sorry.

Yeah, you know, I I think um this I um I tried to keep up with as many of the public comments as I could, and I will I will note one that we received from uh someone in Glenbrook who lives probably like four or five blocks from me.

I don't know them personally, but um, but I thought they offered a really balanced set of comments where they said, so you know, I don't want like a wholesale change of Glenbrook, like all the single family to become multifamily, which again that I that that was never I think the intention here in the plan, and honestly, I just it's just not a good idea, right?

Um and then they said, however, I understand that it may make sense for a few blocks that you know are close to the train to change because we need town homes, and so the process to do that should be through neighborhood conversation to look block by block at where that might be appropriate.

Um I thought I thought that was very thoughtful and balanced um the way they stated it, and that I and that ultimately that is what the process would be.

Um, and so uh again, I I think in my opinion, the um the second one, the study allowing triplexes that in additional zoning districts feels very like even more vague, and I think invites the sentiment that we're gonna like rezone the entire city for triplexes.

Um but I I think really what makes sense um is to again look very specifically in those areas that are served by infrastructure and determine if there are like some fine-grained changes uh that um to potentially have a few blocks where it's appropriate um to allow um uh these types of housing.

And again, even with that change, they're not it's not like they're gonna change overnight.

Um, I live on a block that's um R6.

Um, so it allows currently already single family and duplex, and the whole block isn't duplexes.

So I I'd I'd like to propose uh something here, if I may.

Sure, please.

Um I believe that there's a way that these two statements can be combined into one cogent uh action item.

Let me let me take a stab at it.

Um study allowing triplexes, duplexes and town homes.

Um as permitted uses in additional zoning districts, uh served by the city sewer and water, and within a half mile of the train station or bus stop.

a way that these two statements can be combined into one cogent uh action item let me let me take a stab at it um study allowing triplexes duplexes and town homes um as permitted uses in additional zoning districts uh served by the city sewer and water and within a half mile of the train station or bus stop one statement combines both the best attributes of both um i like that because i i do see how the starting with the permit and allow makes it sound like we're like changing the zoning right this minute which we know the comprehensive plan doesn't do that but um I think that that I think that captures the spirit of again having those those neighborhood studies as the mechanism by which to determine if it makes sense to change a few blocks that are already adjacent uh to similarly zoned areas yeah I would suppose that uh didn't even put uh Jeremy as well yep that's Bill okay great great okay thank you thank you thank you Chet's your needed all right um should we move to the revision for 2.1 sorry I was talking the whole time thanks Chet I have your wording in the um support column area where I'm taking all those notes but um 2.1 ADUs um so this uh is kind of this it says promote existing ADU and cluster regulations to increase awareness um is the action and um chet requested that the action be clarified to um suggest what types of ADUs in what locations etc um and I I stated that this action is more about promoting the existing regulations it does not suggest changing the regulations um so this is one of two ADU actions um this action is really just focused on promoting the fact that you're allowed to build an ADU um and I stated that um saying what types of ADUs and where is really up to the zoning um so I recommended a rephrasing promote existing regulations for accessory dwelling units and cluster housing to increase awareness so it's really just adding regulations for um might I suggest actually just condensing that a little bit starting with like increase awareness of existing regulations for um because I think the starting with the promote can be um I think it could be interpreted a couple of different ways actually I I'd endorse that okay so then it would read or okay read increase awareness of existing regulations for accessory dwelling units and cluster housing uh well I guess to promote these flexible independent living options you got it um and oh sorry go ahead I'm saying I I'm okay with that so okay it's a little bit semantic but um it makes all the difference it really does yeah um and I think that this is um again I I think that understandably there are a lot of people who just don't know that these are already allowed and they're already in the zoning code we added it you know in response to state law that required us to have some sort of response to and have a policy around ADUs um and you know at this point you know it I'll just um this is more just kind of personal opinion but um you know I I think that overall one of the goals in the plan is to create more opportunities for small unit housing given that there's a trend toward smaller households and that different kinds of neighborhoods um are like currently have access to those small um unit typologies and so in neighborhoods that are already more dense or like have more multifamily like you know Glenbrook is a great example there's already there are already many options for something that's like a small unit like a one bedroom um and then I think the way that the ADU regulations are currently written is that it's really targeted toward again those like large lot areas where um you know people are on like half acre lots and there's nowhere near anywhere that you know where you could build an apartment building or even a townhouse but we know that those folks at some point will want to age in place or you know their kids will grow up and uh go to college and come back and want to be able to live close to home instead of um you know living downtown and so this is really just about providing the opportunity for um for those in an area where this just isn't an option right now

um unit typologies and so in neighborhoods that are already more dense or like have more multifamily like you know Lenbrook is a great example there's already there are already many options for something that's like a small unit like a one bedroom um and then I think the way that the ADU regulations are currently written is that's really targeted toward again those like large lot areas where um you know people are on like half acre lots and there's nowhere near anywhere that you know where you could build an apartment building or even a townhouse um but we know that those folks at some point will want to age in place or you know their kids will grow up and uh go to college and come back and want to be able to live close to home instead of um you know living downtown and so this is really just about providing the opportunity for um for those in an area where this just isn't an option right now um okay uh two point three this one seems pretty fine uh should we do you just uh yeah I'll just keep let me okay um four point three um explore they it's talking about underperforming parking lots um and convert par and conversion in the future um chat asked for clarification on underperforming I revise to explore converting public parking lots and structure sites near transit that have low levels of daily parking ratio into development opportunities for housing um so that clarified some jargon um which is again uh you know response uh to public comment as well any reactions from any other board members I'm I'm okay with that I think we should go back to 2.3 I think you skip that okay do you want me to go over that one?

Okay no we can finish this was I mean since we don't I don't need to get back.

Yeah um on this one I I think that I I think some of that clarification is helpful and that I think the terminology of daily parking ratio is still kind of jargony.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so that daily parking um yeah I mean I think sorry I mean does the parking daily use right um does the parking does the downtown parking study have kind of a threshold for what would be considered like a regularly occupied garage versus one that is quote underperforming or really kind of operating well below expected capacity.

I don't know off the top of my head Ralph do you know the answer to that question.

Um I think that would require some further study also working together with um TTP uh and the parking authority um plus uh obviously their input would be required to potentially utilize those parking facilities anyway um I mean the the other thing I want to throw out there is also that you don't have to get rid of parking uh you can build um um housing on top of a parking lot and have some sort of um shared parking arrangement where um the commuters use the parking uh facilities during the day and the residents um uh during the night so those things oftentimes go well together so I think it it shouldn't just be uh seen as like oh we're getting rid of all the parking it's about using parking smarter well but I think that I appreciate that feedback um I guess just thinking logically about that you know a lot of the circumstances downtown is you know with the entertainment downtown you're attracting both people at night so I don't know you know how we would address that you know if people are coming in for dinner or to go to a show and you have the residents also coming back to park in those parking spaces as well.

No you're absolutely right uh I mean we do already allow for uh shared parking uh in certain areas of town and uh in order to permit those shared parking arrangements uh you have to go to uh TTP and they analyze the different uses of all the different uses uh uh that are there uh and then um basically uh make a decision if if it's appropriate or not you you absolutely right obviously if if you have a uh in downtown uh uh it's it might be a different uh story than uh if you next to the train station uh for example uh so I think that's that's always important to consider but I'd like to just remind the board um that uh on this specific action item um it wasn't taking the proposed revision was not to take a stance one way or the other simply to explore um

Obviously, if you have a uh in downtown uh uh it's it might be a different uh story than uh if you next to the train station uh for example.

Uh so I think that's that's always important to consider but I'd like to just remind the board um that uh on this specific action item, um it wasn't taking the proposed revision was not to take a stance one way or the other, simply to explore um converting low use uh low use parking um into potentially other more beneficial arrangements.

So I mean I'm I'm still okay with the proposed language okay.

Um could we say um sites near transit that have a low percentage of daily parking use into development opportunities?

Sure.

Any other thoughts on that one?

Or or or or ask differently, does anyone vehemently oppose all right?

Onward.

Now do you want to go back to I think there was a request to go back to 2.3?

Yep.

I think yeah, I think 2.3 was important.

Um explore contextual adjustments to minimum lot size regulations in single family districts.

Um asked to uh define contextual.

And um the goal here was really to uh help address some of the issues that we see come again and again where um existing lots are sometimes are uh smaller than what's currently um required by the zoning regulations.

So if a property owner wants to make any changes to their house, they have to go through the costly and timely process of getting a variance.

Um I I recommended considering review minimum lot size requirements to better reflect existing conditions and development potential.

So Lindsay, um I'm studying to like how do you talk about 8.2?

Now you're talking about 2.3.

2.3.

Because what you said just now is what referred to 8.2.

I think this was more about minimum lot size.

Right.

Well, they're they're similar, Rafi, Ravi, but they're they're different action items.

You know, I know they're different action items, but the logic that Lindsay was explaining was more appropriate for them.

8.2, not 2.3.

So I just want to clarify that.

So I mean misunderstanding something easy.

No, no, it's it's an issue that we face quite a bit, and we're looking for different ways to address it.

Okay.

I just um I think then it just seems like 2.3 is kind of duplicative of 8.2.

Yeah.

And then I think that 8.2 is a lot clearer on the why.

Um, because I think right now the way that 2.3 is written, even in their revision, it's like, well, why do we want to review minimum lot sizes?

Um so and I can, you know, I can think of many reasons why, but if if really the main thing that we're trying to solve for is around, you know, in areas that you know predate zoning, they're just all non-conforming, you know, but they they work.

They're I mean, those tend to be actually some of the most lovely pleasant parts of the city, right?

Um, we're just trying to keep people from having to go through burdensome processes that are really not necessary to make very modest changes.

Right.

So that was actually uh 8.2, I think.

And that's level 8.

Right.

Maybe Lindsay, you may want to consider deleting 3.3 because I don't see a reason why you're doing talk about minimum large size of the elements in this context.

Right.

Well, uh I'll just say my the way that I read 2.3 is that um, you know, I mean, sa I have certainly heard public comments around, you know, it would be nice to figure out how to build more starter homes and like small scale single family.

And I think we had at least a couple of comments that are like, you know, should we allow for lots in you know some neighborhoods to be um to be smaller than they currently are, so allow for more subdivision.

2.3 is that um you know I mean sa I have certainly heard public comments around you know it would be nice to figure out how to build more starter homes and like small scale single family and I think we had at least a couple of comments that are like you know should we allow for lots in you know some neighborhoods to be um to be smaller than they currently are so allow for more subdivision I'm not saying that that ness it's is is a thing that I'm necessarily in favor of but I that's just the own that's the other way that I might interpret this text that it would be um about allowing folks to split lots in areas where they're very large lots um because otherwise there really is nowhere else to build single family housing in Stanford I guess yeah so the intention of the town was to do that then you should discuss it uh but the intention was about DNC state and then deleting this right yeah I would be inclined to delete 2.3 because I mean I I well I wouldn't be opposed to adjusting the minimum lot sizes um it just it at this moment it it doesn't really seem like um the high a high priority high yield way to add housing in the city um and I think certainly in the future given that you know this is a living document that I think that if there is a surge of folks in Westover who want to be able to allow for some starter homes then let's have that conversation but it it doesn't it doesn't strike me as a as a high priority uh given the planned priorities okay so Jennifer um what's the bottom line do you recommend um I recommend removal not modifying it getting rid of it what what uh yeah I recommend removal of two point three okay it's uh it's it's it's pretty vague um and the issue that it might address doesn't seem like a high priority I'm in agreement does anyone object okay okay great um and thank you Ravi for making the connection between those two um yeah um okay um I'm gonna share screen so that members of the public can see what we're working on thank you am I sharing our screen yes okay you guys see it here uh it's showing up now yeah you might want to zoom in a tiny bit but oh if you can okay um but yeah this is basically just a working session that happens to be transmitted to the world via Microsoft Teams.

Um so action three point one um Ravi may uh Ravi Chet made um did a rewording um to state explore viable methodologies by which to provide developers clear design guidelines such as development toolkits design reviews options to work with neighborhood associations and stakeholders to ensure designs and materials reflect each neighborhood's unique architectural styles and public realm priorities in order to improve design quality and materials while preserving developers bottom line and community identity all in favor this this makes sense to me I think there's probably a little bit of like editing the sentence because it's a little bit hard to follow but I think all the pieces are there and I think in particular the the piece at the end about the why right um of community identity on the one hand and on the other like having a just a more straightforward process so that um developers are able to um deliver high quality design in a way that's cost effective um I could put these examples in uh parentheses and that might help with sentence structure yeah maybe you want to add something about uh the the history of the neighborhoods we do have another um okay yeah there's another one yeah yeah okay we good to go on this one or with parentheses or can I ask a question sure so Ralph uh how will this be implemented so that uh we are going to scale developers like before we are putting any of your plans level three point one have a name neighborhood consultation using the student good and come up with an appropriate design for the neighborhood which is the local neighborhood uh step system steps is it not is it all the downloading members actually what we've been trying to do sorry what we've been trying to do over the last couple of years was uh

So we are going to tell developers like before we approve any of your plans, follow follow 3.1, have a neighborhood consultation, use this toolkit and come up with an appropriate design for the neighborhood, which could see the local neighborhood uh check systems.

Is it what is it all the town will implement this actually?

What we've been trying to do.

Sorry, what we've been trying to do over the last couple of years was uh to add uh design guidelines to uh specific um zoning districts.

Um so for example, when you look at the VC district, the village commercial district, um the idea really is to uh create sort of a main street feeling.

So you have small stores with um uh commercial uses on the on the ground floor and apartment buildings uh on top.

Um so um I think uh ways to implementing that would be to uh uh add more design guidelines and be more specific about materials, for example, like our preference would be brick or other high quality material rather than bin or siding or or anything like that.

Um and um also um uh working with neighborhood groups uh who uh could serve uh and HPEC for that matter who could serve as as architectural uh consultants and review wards.

So in which case, if that is really what we want to do, maybe we should add that here, saying explore viable methodologies and require developers to follow these guidelines because the way this reads is we are just going to explore something and we're not gonna actually implement it.

So the intention is that developers have to when they submit the application prove that they have done all this stuff.

Maybe we should include it in this.

I'm a little bit wary about defining how each of these is going to be implemented because part of the recommendation is to explore methodologies.

So we do have design guidelines in certain zoning districts right now, but I feel like part of the point of this recommendation is to identify do those work appropriately?

Are they working the way we want them to?

Is this the most effective way to have design guidelines?

Um right.

So I I think there's a process that needs to take take place.

I think it's a context of recommendation, and hopefully it will be executed in action and then they will be happy.

So but I'm okay to not change the word, I'm not not obsessed with that.

Okay.

Any other thoughts?

Um, this one is the the public parking lot uh that we talked about.

Um 5.7 uh rewording of a rewording to um allocate funding for the development of a new public safety facility downtown to enhance emergency response community safety and services.

Uh I'm sorry, and services accessibility, and then there was any addition of while improving operational cost efficiency.

That's the add that's the ad is the operational cost efficiency.

Was this a capital budget item or is it uh something more than this would be a capital budget item?

Or is it uh something more than this would be a capital budget item?

Uh when we evaluate the capital budget, there'll be competing priorities.

There will be.

Okay, so this does not require us to approve we're not we're not taking away the flexibility to evaluate this within the capital budgeting process.

No, I mean again, this is this is way more actions than we can execute all at once.

And so it sets out as a priority, and I think you know, just as um be it.

I got it.

Right.

You know, I mean, we've uh you know, we've set up a fund that's set aside for school improvements prior to this.

Um when I first joined the planning board a little over 10 years ago, we were in the process of building that the new police headquarters, and so that was something where it it was set as a city priority, and so over the course of several years money was set aside from the capital budget.

Um we did the same thing for mold remediation in the schools.

Um so I imagine that that would probably more likely the mechanism rather than um you know all in one go uh allocating several million dollars to this.

Lindsay, I don't know while we're in five.

If you want to discuss the possibility of an infrastructure assessment, some actions that we discussed.

I I could go down to that um after this one.

Nope, we don't have if it's on here, that's fine.

Okay.

So are folks okay with 5.7?

Uh yeah, I think adding the the element of the improvement on operational efficiency is useful.

Okay.

Um if yeah, let's so uh let's just keep going down.

Um 7.1 um just adding a few words, uh adding develop appropriate metrics to the original action of uh create an online portal that allows residents to track progress of the 2035 comprehensive plans implementation.

That seems very straightforward.

Okay, okay.

Um expand Stanford's GIS open data portal to include layers, so the request is to put this into lab layman's terms, yeah.

Uh I think just to boil down like the why.

Yeah, make GIS data accessible to the public to enhance transparency.

Uh it's not even just to enhance it makes it easier to do analyses, like all of our nonprofits.

I don't know, Jenna, you you work for Cradle to Career.

I'm sure there's a lot of different entities that it would could use this GIS data.

Oh, sure.

Yeah, no, we had a conversation recently about could we overlay the um the city's transit network with the locations of current child care because the mismatch between the two of those is a challenge.

So it would it would allow for it would allow for it to be easier to do that rather than having to like call up someone in the land use bureau to ask them to do that uh map layering.

Yeah, uh all I all I um would suggest just more much more fundamentally by this.

Um GIS is an acronym you know, don't use the acronym spell out the words.

Um you know, where it talks about include additional data layers, data layers is a very technical term for a lay person.

So just change a few words here and there to make it more lay.

All right.

I'm I'm okay with um if members are just approving that, like yes, that should be done, but not taking the time to make that the exact one.

That's why I haven't done it.

It's gonna take me a minute.

Yeah, I mean, it could be as simple as making uh more city uh um available and accessible to the general public.

Why only leave it with GIS data?

There might be other data uh is is of interest as well.

Um see okay.

Um I mean uh I I for one would be willing to approve the item, but leave it to Lindsay to work out the wording later.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, these are the points that I will make in that um rewording.

And there's support.

Okay.

Okay.

That sounds that sounds good.

Okay.

Okay, so this is A point two, so we removed two point something up above three um in favor of A point two.

So 8.2, I had proposed a simpler wording.

Uh okay.

If you read my comment there, review and modify zoning regulations to reduce burdensome approval processes required for existing property.

You may want to consider whether that's what you are trying to say.

Once you talk about just zoning regulations, it's you know, it's something else, but sure.

Uh I think that might be a little too vague because that would that to me leaves open special permit uses.

Like, you know, one could say that applying for a special permit is a burdensome process, and let's get rid of all special permit uses, which is just wouldn't not a good idea.

Yeah.

Um I think that yeah, no, I I agree.

I think that that would feel like it opens the door wider than we mean to um the looking at the existing text zoning regulations to me, one of the things that's important here though is that it's about um giving existing property owners flexibility to make simple improvements that are already in character with their community, right?

The not the non-conformity is um the non-conformity exists because we sort of overlaid this like kind of one size fits all zoning um matrix onto a community that was already built a certain way prior to you know the 1950s.

And so when these things come before us, the ones that that we approve easily and unanimously are the ones where you know uh somebody just wants to like go up and build, you know, and it's not gonna actually be not only does it not really exacerbate the existing non-conformity, but the re but it is consistent with the way the rest of the block is built out.

And if that wasn't the case, then we wouldn't approve it actually.

Yeah, then that that's what you meant, Jennifer, that the existing voting doesn't right.

So I I think there's something about you know, I think context sensitive is probably too jargony, but but something about streamlining okay, uh let's see, adjust zoning regulations to uh yeah, I don't I don't want to spend too much on the wordsmithing of this either, but um I think if members are in favor of a wordsmithing that just kind of makes the the where the the why and the types of places a little bit clearer, we can kind of figure out the wording after this.

Um or or does that does that proposal make things too narrow so uh Lindsay, this action you target it only for non-compliance cases, existing non-compliance cases?

Not in a broader way, you only wanted to do non-compliance cases, right?

Yeah, right.

Yeah, this is this is this would I mean functionally it would significantly reduce the number of things that need to come before zoning board of appeals um when the improvements are simple, right?

Like we have folks who are like, I need to put in an air conditioner, and it's technically you know two feet closer to the fence than it's supposed to be, but again, it's the lot is narrow because that is just how all the lots are, and you know, it's not gonna kill anyone if an air conditioner is two feet further that way.

So are we going to change the zoning regulations on some other process what exactly are we going to change you know actually that's a good point that oh I wonder so I'm trying to work through this like so I something I'm working on in terms of language adjust zoning regulations to allow for small rent of small additions on legally non-conforming buildings without a burdensome process and we would have to define small by area but I don't know if that really gets to the character or like location yeah I mean I know we can't use the word character because character is vague and it's not allowed by state law but oh sorry go ahead.

Yeah I have you know let's say you know somebody's going vertical but they want to go three stories right you know and that would be out of character for the neighborhood so I guess how do we define what you know as as others have said what is you know small sure whether that's a square footage number or because I think there have been some come before us that we've you know rejected as they're out of character with the neighborhood.

Right.

Well I mean so for that one in particular I mean the it would need to conform with whatever the existing height regulations are right I think it it is not that we're trying to give people additional development rights it's that um we have folks who are just trying to make really simple changes you know adding a deck or something like that and we're making them jump through hoops um when it's really unnecessary um but but anyway uh to Robbie's point about what might we do it some of this actually might not be adjusting zoning regulations like some of this might be evaluating like the administrative review procedures which I know would have to ultimately be embedded within the zoning regulations um but you know I think that there are again many cases of things that we routinely approve because we know that it's consistent with the neighborhood and that it will not further exacerbate the nonconformity um and that there are multiple administrative ways by which to make that easier without having to like change what the square footage parameters are for a given zoning category.

Right just out of curiosity can we uh can we approve um one this um you know as a general um recommendation and yeah and come back to the specific wording another day yeah I I I agree I think that uh in column four it basically explains what what we're trying to solve for and that the text should just reflect that intention I think we agree on that.

Okay.

Then um Lindsay if it's okay with you for then of these that uh you have to go back and do some wordsmithing um let's put it on an agenda for one of our regular meetings coming up and and we'll just approve or or further tweak any final proposed wording is that okay sure okay okay um all right um so there I will revise the action to better reflect the intention Jennifer I'm trying to recall how what what you started your last comment with um that it's not necessarily adjusting the zoning regulations but what is the review it may be an adjustment in the in the review process right like it it there are probably some ways to create a set of um objective criteria around like you know uh the percentage of the non-conformity you know it if the setback is supposed to be 30 feet and it's like 28 right almost you know we we usually approve those but if the setback is supposed to be 15 and and they want to reduce it to three then you know that's a whole different conversation um so I I imagine that there are um kinds of criteria

Like it it there are probably some ways to create a set of um objective criteria around like you know uh the percentage of the non-conformity, you know, it if the setback is supposed to be 30 feet and it's like 28, right?

Almost, you know, we we usually approve those, but if the setback is supposed to be 15 and they want to reduce it to three, then you know that's a whole different conversation.

Um so I I imagine that there are um kinds of criteria like that that could be used to designate um applications that can be um subject to administrative review rather than having to go through the zoning board of approvals process uh of appeals.

Okay, and I would include PB referral on that one too.

Then I yeah, for years I've wondered why the planning board spends so much time determining whether or not people should add three feet to their deck.

Me too.

Um on to A point three.

Um replace they'd originally talked about replacing unnecessary special permit requirements.

Um there was a request to really clarify what we meant by uh this quite wordy action.

Um and uh we have landed on develop more stringent zoning regulations to avoid arbitrary special permit processes.

Um and we hope that with this, and then we can add we need to add something to address your comment, um Jennifer.

Um, I mean I think but my comment there was really more um as a um an educational item, not not so much needing to incorporate it into the text.

So you see you have the objective is to avoid and minimize the special permits because today that creates uncertainty for the leaders and homeowners, is that the objective?

Um it's uncertainty and end process as well.

Uh it is burdensome for the city to go through the special permit review um procedure.

So if there are special permit uses in certain districts that are consistently being approved, then perhaps um it should be written into the regulations.

So I'm just wondering the word stringent.

What does it mean what does stringent mean?

I mean the the problem.

Sorry.

The problem with with many special permits that we have on the books is that it's lazy zoning.

Uh it basically leaves discretion up to the zoning board where um there should be clear guidelines on uh what you have to do.

But there's some uses in there where it basically says, oh, and the zoning board has to determine the parking requirement for that specific uh for that particular use.

And uh there must be parking guidelines somewhere for the particular use uh that can be written in the regulations, so you don't need to get a special permit and the zoning board making things up um uh on the fly.

So I think this this is really and and I mean the the other thing is also uh special permit in many instances suggests uh that the zoning board has more discretion than they actually have.

Right.

Um and the vaguer the the uh things are in the regulations, um the more uh dangerous the territory becomes for the zoning board and the applicant to end in court and and which of course is even worse than going through a special permit process.

So that's really what it's what it's all about.

As I said before, I think special permits in many instances are lazy zoning.

No, thank you.

Thank you.

I think I think NC's already made the change to the replace that we have stringent with uh precise, which is probably what we have to do.

Um I think rather than avoid and maybe it's to reduce the minimum.

Yeah, but reduce instances of special permit processes.

Um I I think we can remove the arbitrary.

I mean, I think that I know that that's what we're trying to solve for, but I'm not sure that uh it helps to clarify the language.

Okay.

Right.

So is there support for this for this version?

Develop more precise zoning regulations to reduce instances of special permits processing.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, great.

Great.

Um so at 10.2 was talking about establishing a conservation commission.

Um and Chet um wanted to revise to say explore the best approach to do this.

Um I stated that the this is the best approach.

Uh um I do, you know, I in conversations with Bill, you we were talking about, you know, sometimes it can be frustrating when recommendations are explore study and it's not like an action.

Um in this instance, we have our the environmental protection bureau board staff and director have already explored the best approach for the city of Stanford, and it is a conservation commission, and they need someone to prioritize this.

We've gotten a lot of we've also gotten a woman commenting about the conservation commission as well, and she's spot on.

So um this is a perfect opportunity to really just hit the nail on the head and get the conservation commission.

Good.

Then let's do it.

All right, that sounds good to me.

Okay.

All right.

Um so this was another um 13.3 was another kind of uh rewording, um, adding uh develop a fiscally sound energy procurement strategy that prioritizes agreements with renewable energy sources.

Okay.

Um I completely support the the fiscally sound uh that sounds good.

Yeah, it's a minor revision.

Yep.

Uh another 17.3.

Um a revision that's a little bit wider.

Um it's and I can read it in full to fully support ADA compliance, ensure all signalized intersections have safe and accessible pedestrian crosswalks and signals, prioritize high pedestrian activity crosswall lights for implementation and configure crosswalk lights at such high pedestrian activities to turn on automatically.

Um so it helps kind of spell out a little bit, I think what we mean in the original action.

I had no comment.

Okay.

Yeah.

It it strikes me as a perhaps a little bit overly specific, but I'm not gonna die on that hill.

Well, uh just Jennifer, that just for your information, this was uh um in response to a recommendation that came from one of the uh reps, board of reps.

Okay, um in which um he was uh it was requested that we don't signalize all intersections, but just the heavily used ones, which is a direct contradiction to ADA compliance.

Uh I see okay.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you, Chet.

Okay.

Um, so 18.6 um was a definitely uh a hot topic.

Um originally proposed was consider eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments in certain neighborhoods.

Um there was um concern about increasing competition for off-street uh for on-street parking.

Um so I recommended a revision to review parking requirements based on location specific needs, such as the availability of on-street parking or access to transit.

I'm okay with that.

Um the way that reads to me, it makes it sound like the parking will be evaluated on a location by location basis, which is the opposite of what we're actually trying to accomplish, right?

Or trying to add some specific criteria to in a more straightforward way determine when it might be appropriate to have a lower parking permit.

Yeah, I could see that turning into like requesting a special permit to reduce parking, which I think we might already have.

Uh we, yep, I think we do.

But Jennifer, is it not what they're saying here?

Like availability of on-street parking and access to transit, these are the factors you would consider.

Well, right.

So the factors that we would consider are accurate, but it's just if the end, the end goal, my understanding is to actually um have like kind of more uniform.

I think it's kind of like the design, the architectural design guidelines one where it's like, can we have some more specific criteria by which it we all agree it makes sense to reduce the parking requirements so that they don't have to go through like a site-specific study?

Um you said just out of curiosity.

Is that uh too much of an effort to be to do a site-specific?

I mean, if I'm constructing a building, is it too difficult for me to say there is a public garage next door, the street parking, and I'm just asking where do we want to you know go to that objective that you were talking about?

Right.

Well, I mean, so any sort of like extra hoop, right?

Whatever it is, um, it adds delay to the process of of constructing something, right?

And that that delay is not only a time delay, but it's you know, it's like literally time is money, right?

The more the longer the process is, the more expensive it is to make the thing happen.

And so uh across the board, I think what we're trying to do is determine um where are places in which an additional layer of review or an additional layer of approval or special permit is actually not necessary, like uh to Ralph's point about the lazy zoning.

Like, is there a way that we can add more specificity so that it's much more straightforward uh which sites would make sense to have a parking reduction and and which ones need to conform to the existing regulation.

I I uh agree with that.

And um but the the issue of what we found with the parking study is that you can have a single neighborhood, uh single family neighborhood, like uh uh in the cove or um on the west side.

Sure.

That are severe uh on-street parking issues for for a variety of reasons.

But one of the reasons might be that simply the buildings were built in a way that uh didn't contemplate cars, and and so you can't get in the in the rear yard or they don't have garages or something like that.

So I don't think it's about establishing um um more hoops or or red tape uh to address those issues, but uh acknowledge that an older neighborhood that was built before cars needs different parking requirements and there's different parking resources than uh a neighborhood that was developed in I don't know, let's say the 1980s or 90s.

Sure.

Um respect uh Jiniquo, I think this was also uh public public feedback that we are planning to eliminate uh parking and many many developments are going to come up without any parking, and then they're gonna park on the street, it is meant to create chaos and traffic on the neighborhood.

So the intention is what Lindcilia was explaining.

I think my wedding makes sense, but if you have a different view of this, then we should probably discuss it.

Right.

Um I think that perhaps a tweak of um I think something that that captures the spirit of what Ralph was just saying about like um the like the neighborhood context.

Um I I know that that's what the location specific is meant to refer to.

It's just like I said, I think the way that location specific reads to me is that this would need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but that's exactly the thing that we're trying to solve for, that there are many cases in which we don't need to do it on a case-by-case basis.

We can just declare that you know, in neighborhoods that have you know limited supply of street parking, you know, this is how the regulation might change, or in areas where there's a significant excess or there's access to transit, then we can shift the rate the the requirement in a different direction and to do that with specificity based on characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and infrastructure, rather than making them come for a special permit.

Uh what if we say something right size parking requirements based on neighborhood needs uh sure?

I think yeah.

I think the right sizing captures it well.

And also, you know, I mean, uh I'll acknowledge that there are certainly areas that, especially if they were built before zoning, um you know, may need a little bit more, actually.

So um, so yeah, that works for me.

So once again, I just want to go back.

The action will be what?

Um is it a Ralph.

What would we don't do, Ralph, for this action?

So it would be what we've already done uh is basically uh take the results of the uh parking study, uh and based on the findings of the parking study uh adjust uh parking requirements.

So one thing uh that we've done uh was we used to have that uh for all residential units uh wherever they are in the city, we had a 1.6 uh six uh parking requirement per dwelling unit, which obviously does not make sense when you go to North Stanford where uh people have two or three cars, um, or you go to downtown where we know that 30% of uh households don't own a car.

So um what we came up with was the idea of um different parking categories.

So downtown uh and the south end are now in uh a low parking category, so there's lower parking requirements than uh areas further away from downtown and further away from transit, and those numbers were actually based on findings from uh the parking study.

So that's just an example of of how that that could be achieved.

Nice okay, so the proposed action would be um right size parking requirements based on neighborhood need the understanding that neighborhood need would likely be identified through a concluding with the parking study.

Um I don't want to make it too wordy here, but yeah.

So um based on neighborhood need could you know allude to the fact that it would need to be studied.

So that that parking study was in downtown.

Um it it wasn't only in downtown took took into account um other uh neighborhoods.

Okay.

Um I mean I would I would think that that the word need um sort of implies that there needs to be a study or or some data this needs to be based on.

I mean, how would you know the parking need if you uh if you don't study it?

Right.

Um maybe a small insertion um parking requirements based on neighborhood um use and need because I mean ultimately a big part of the study is is looking at what's the current usage and I mean what they're doing for the cove study right now is literally uh having people going out at night uh counting cars uh in the streets uh and see what what the parking um uh demand is and and the parking usage is so we could also just uh we could we could say right size parking requirements based on a study of neighborhood use and need.

Well my sense actually, based on what Ralph was saying about different categories is that we may not need to study every single neighborhood, right?

uh in the streets uh and see what what the parking um uh demand is and and the parking usage is so we could also just uh we could to we could say right size parking requirements based on a study of neighborhood use and need well my sense actually based on what Ralph was saying about different categories is that we may not need to study every single neighborhood right like there are neighborhoods that are similar enough that they could be in a category okay okay I think Zenika we're not trying to define how the town should do it we're really saying you know right size parking governments based on neighborhood in a button maybe based on the uh what is happening and what should happen in the neighborhood how they do that do we leave it to them to figure it out right yes I I agree I'm agreeing with you I'm saying that I I don't think we need to add the word study um the I mean obviously any changes would be based on data but it just I feel like once you add study it makes it sound like you have to do like neighborhood by neighborhood a study of the requirements for each place whereas you know I feel like you know the parking requirements for you know Glenbrook Springdale and Belltown are like kind of you know they're similar enough places and similar enough context that you wouldn't have to like do a study of each neighborhood on its own.

And I'm okay with Disney Lady as one of the right size parking requirements based on neighborhood current use and future needs um I think that works I'm I'm noodling on the future need I could live without the future I could just use yeah okay I think that yeah again I think it encapsulates that there needs to be some way to determine what the current usage is and that might be a study it might be any number of things.

Okay.

Um 19 point nine uh create off-road paths between dead end streets or cul-de-sacks within a neighborhood um to increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity um chat asked for clarification that the action would be taken without eminent domain um and that if the proposed path is a right of way the privacy would be maintained um I know public access easements would likely be uh a mechanism for creating these off-road paths um I think eminent domain is a pretty big thing I but at this um can I just so who is doing the creating um the city the city so I actually just passed one um on is it on Summer Street across from the Armand hotel um there's a set of stairs that uh let's see leads essentially from where are they leads from the end of a cul-de-sac down to Bedford Street um and it was uh it's people were walking it and it was a uh a route and dirt path and so the city formalized it with stairs and people use it to walk from their neighborhood to uh to shopping and it's to to help promote walkability and and connectivity between between neighborhoods sure um what if we leave it just a little bit more general and say improve um bike and pedestrian connectivity I mean the thing is quite honestly like the city is not doing eminent domain because it's a very complicated process and also it's also incredibly unpopular so it's not something that that uh the city would do what the city could do is when there is a subdivision coming in um we can uh as part of the subdivision approval you could add something oh you have to provide a public access easement that creates uh a pedestrian and bike connection between that that cul de sac and uh that road uh uh nearby um and there is also uh what what might be another opportunity are there's actually quite a few paper streets that um uh uh provide ride of ways without them being paved so it's it's city owned or it's a it's a public right of way

Oh, you have to provide a public access easement that creates uh a pedestrian and bike connection between that that cul de sac and uh that road uh uh nearby.

Um and there is also uh what what might be another opportunity are there's actually quite a few paper streets that um uh uh provide ride of ways without them being paved.

So it's it's city owned or it's a it's a public ride of way, and you could just put a bike path in, and you don't have to take any land, it's it's already uh uh city controlled.

So um maybe just by leaving it a little bit more general, it makes it easier and and also leaves open different um uh options.

I mean, one example uh also when you look at the south end, the spray energy site, um they came in for rezoning, and what we did as part of the rezoning was we put in zoning regulations that require them to provide public access um along the water, uh, with the idea that uh at some point we would have a continuous greenway uh from the harbor up to Skalsey Park and maybe even beyond that.

Okay, so I'm hearing a couple different strategies, I guess.

Um is around um kind of formalizing um like site and approval processes to um encourage the addition of uh public rights of way in um uh to increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.

And then there's also you know, Lindsay, what you were just describing around there are um you know, paths, you know, goat paths, desire lines, whatever you want to call them, that people are already using, and that it seems like part of part of the strategy you're here is twofold.

One is to just formalize for like recognize and formalize it, and you know, and that may end up being rather than the city taking that action, like encouraging property owners to just do that, um, and that there's also a uh component of like raising increasing the visibility and knowledge of of that network.

So there's like a um I might have did I freeze.

Lindsay, you muted.

No, I'm I'm I'm like writing and trying to uh get them on mute myself at the same time.

Um so that's kind of like sounds like three parts, which being like require bike and ped connections between developments or or like between developments somehow.

Um formalize informal pathways that currently exist and publicize those routes, yeah.

Uh yeah, it publicize might not be, you know, I'm imagining it's probably more like a signage thing, but yes, yeah.

Um yeah, so I an interesting example um would be so that's a line, and I'm wondering if we have to specify that here.

Um maybe we do, because I'm thinking about some upcoming projects that we have.

Um one of which is redevelopment of 120 Long Ridge Road, they do provide such walking path as part of their PAAS requirement, publicly accessible amenity space, and there is a signage requirement already in the regulations when you are creating a publicly accessible amenity space.

So I think requiring bike and ped connections between developments could be folded into the PAAS.

I wouldn't want to be duplicated, like is that you're muted, bro.

I think it goes beyond the PAAS.

Okay.

Um so and that's why I'm saying maybe maybe just by leaving it more general, we we're helping ourselves leaving open different methods and and different situations.

Um so what was your language, Ralph, for keeping it more general?

Um increase or encourage bicycle and pedestrian connectivity.

In other words, basically uh shortening the original action item to its last um five words.

I think that we already have that as like a whole strategy on mobility.

Yeah.

I yeah, I think that they're I think adding something about the specificity of like the um the kinds of connectivity, like this kind of whole off-road paths or you know, circuitous roads kind of um so we encourage bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by um identifying opportunities to um formalize public rights away in existing and new uh development you think that in new development it's mostly captured by the public amenity space, but not completely, but then there's also this element of you know, even if nothing about the development site or not development site, yeah, the property, even if nothing about the property is actually changing, like there are all of these informal paths that people already use, and this is just encouraging formalizing those and making them more visible, obviously with the permission of the property owner.

Yeah, I like that anyone else have comments on this we rewrite.

No gonna add the opportunities to formalize.

I think that is I think it's good enough.

Okay, go ahead.

This is actually in in section 20.9, and the last one was 19.6.

Are you talking about this action item?

Yeah, the numbers.

Oh, the numbering is off.

Yeah.

Um, okay.

I can what was it at one point?

Uh the new number is uh twenty point nine.

Okay.

And the last one was 19.6 instead of 18.6.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Good to move on to the next.

Yep, or we're getting there.

Okay.

Um, next one looks pretty straightforward.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

Great.

Um this is the second of two ADU um action items.

Um, this one, whereas the first one that we that was at the top talked about promoting ADUs as an option.

This one is really about revising.

So conduct a study to revise ADU regulations in accordance with standards generally accepted by planning practitioners to encourage development of ADUs.

So it's really study, and we're removing um notes on potential revisions, like adjusting the minimum lot size or parking requirements.

Uh this this revision works for me.

Anything anyone else?

No, it's good.

Okay.

It works.

Um 21.1 uh was a request to um really define what flexibility and zoning standards um meant in order to promote missing uh middle housing typology such as multiplexes and townhomes.

Um I'm just wondering to like functionally, what would this look like or what would this allow?

Because I agree it's very it's very vague.

Um Ralph, is it current please correct me if I'm wrong?

Is it currently a special permit request in order for townhomes to go up to three stories to allow parking on the ground floor?

Is that what this is trying to address?

I mean, that's that's one uh regulation in and it's very limited to certain districts where when you incorporate a garage into a townhouse, then you can go uh a few feet higher.

Um I mean I would I would actually um almost consider deleting that um uh strategy because I mean the thing is if you allow if you allow flexibility, what's what's the criteria for flexibility?

Because usually what a developer does uh or property owner does, they go to the max.

So uh by allowing flexibility, um you you creating uh I think it it should be um this strategy should probably be taken out.

I agree with that.

Yeah, I would be in favor of removing it, and then I think at some point in the future, if there are specific cases like you know, in order to comply with parking regulations or whatever, that that those are just tweaks to the zoning code that are very particular.

Okay, Doki.

Um 21.8.

Um can we eliminate that one too?

I think we can it's more baloney.

Okay.

Well, and we addressed it earlier with the um the more specific or precise zoning to reduce the um to reduce special permits.

Yep.

Okay.

Moving on.

All right.

Um Jeremy, this gets to um one of your uh big big comments and concerns here, um, which is um ensuring that developers are um held accountable for any uh increased load on our infrastructure.

Um we did talk a little bit about how to require a fee for infrastructure upgrades.

Um in discussion with Ralph, there are um legal, it's kind of a legal gray area in the state of Connecticut.

Um perhaps Ralph can maybe speak to some of the ways that um developers currently do pay for um improvements to our infrastructure.

Ralph, you were telling me about like the WPCA review and fees and um uh things like that that I it was just unable to elaborate on.

Yeah.

So uh there's there's a couple of things.

So uh I've actually been advocating for um a development impact fee for quite some time, uh only to be told by the law department over and over again that a general development impact fee in Connecticut uh is illegal.

Um what you can do is you can ask for uh remedies for uh specific impacts uh that a development produces, but you cannot ask for um let's say um oh we know we need more schools, therefore uh let's slap every developer with um so and so many dollars per unit.

Uh um so one one of the things I think to address it would be um to lobby with the state to consider um changing or or uh creating enabling legislation that would allow for development impact fees.

And depending on the type of application, other um agencies.

And there are actually mitigations usually baked into their comments that they submit to the zoning board, and they are then incorporated into the zoning board approval.

So one example for that is when you look, for example at transportation uh impacts.

Um for the developments that were built in the last five years or approved in the last five years, um, developers had to make contributions in the amount of 2.6 uh million dollars to the city.

Most of them were for transportation improvements, and that does not include um uh in kind uh contribution.

So if a developer builds a new sidewalk um or builds a new sidewalk somewhere else for the city because they think they can do it cheaper, then that's not part of those uh 2.6 uh uh million dollars that that was requested over the last um five years.

Um there's also um with uh regard to sewers, um there's pretty hefty sewer connection fees um that are used by the WPCA um to uh upgrade to continuously upgrade their sewer system.

It should also be noted that um with regard to sewers um we uh had an uh if if you're interested, it's available online.

We we the zoning board invited uh Bill Brink, who's the head of the WPCA uh to give a presentation about the capacity of the sewage treatment plant and sort of the general upkeep of the sewer uh system.

And one of the interesting things was uh actually that the usage of the sewage treatment plant uh stayed flat or even declined a little bit over the last uh couple of years despite uh increased development.

And uh the reasons for that is that uh modern uh fixtures and appliances are just more water efficient than uh they used to be.

So that reduces the flow, and as older homes get upgraded and older uh properties get redeveloped, um we just haven't seen uh a significant increase in uh usage of the sewage treatment plant.

And the other thing that's happening is that um the city has been uh undergoing um rebuilding of the storm sewer system uh and eliminating a lot of like illegal connections between the storm sewers and the sanitary sewers, so that we have less stormwater coming into the sanitary sewers, sort of diluting uh what's what's being uh transported to the um uh the sewage treatment plan.

So the sewage treatment plant actually, I mean it was it was quite fascinating.

There's there's a graphic that that Bill Brink provided, which basically shows the flow to the sewage treatment plant over the last 10 years uh also store uh staying pretty much flat for those uh reasons.

So I think it's also sometimes difficult to say what what type of impact um uh development has uh and and that not all the impacts are negative uh necessarily, especially when you have a situation like in Stanford, where um a lot of the development is happening on um is is basically redevelopment.

You take down something old and replace it with something new, the new one tends to be better, so the overall development impact um is actually uh lower uh than having an old inefficient building uh sitting there uh and being used.

Uh the other thing that the city has been doing is um we put in a lot of requirements uh that we ask uh the developers to do.

So one of the things uh that we are doing is every new development needs to provide street trees now, and uh through that uh 336 street trees, new street trees were required um over the last five years, and where the street trees can't be planted, uh you have to buy out of that obligation.

Uh the other thing that the city has been doing is um we put in a lot of requirements uh that we ask uh the developers to do so one of the things uh that we are doing is every new developer needs to provide street trees now and uh through that uh 336 street trees new street trees were required um over the last five years and where the street trees can't be planted uh you have to buy out of that obligation so over the same period of time we generated 205000 for street tree plantings uh that the city um uh can do um and i mean one of one of the biggest contribution probably uh from from development is uh over the last five years we had 541 bmr units approved and a bmr unit is basically a tax um uh on development uh because they have to provide uh that unit at at a discounted price and in the same period um we also generated about 20 million dollars for affordable housing through fee and new payments so I think it's it's weighing those different things asking developers for specific contributions if they build something uh near an intersection the traffic bureau will ask them hey you have to upgrade that traffic signal at that intersection or you have to rebuild the intersection to allow for an additional turn lane or or uh whatever the case may be um the other thing is that the development not only has negative impacts um all the time and I think the other thing is also uh putting in requirements that benefit the public good like the street tree requirement for example or Lindsay has mentioned uh the privately um uh uh the publicly accessible uh amenity space um through that requirement which actually hasn't been in place for that long um we uh created uh or will be creating once all of those projects are completed uh 350 000 square feet of new public amenity uh that's about five and a half times the size of veterans park uh that is public open space that's that's going to be available for residents in Stanford and oftentimes uh that's located in in densely uh developed and populated areas where there is not that much um uh open space so um uh i totally agree like the the development impact fee has been sort of something that um when i when i came to um uh connecticut um uh i was bewildered to see that they don't have it and uh i've i've brought it uh to to people's attention that um maybe there should be an effort to change the state legislation to allow um for uh those kinds of things because um not having a general development impact fee is a little bit what i said before about lazy zoning uh it it opens the door for sort of one offs and and and treating people differently uh and also for the developer creating uh uncertainty like are they getting me for like a hundred thousand bucks or are they getting me for half a million which is i think also not fair um uh for uh uh them uh and and makes it less attractive quite frankly for them to to invest uh in a place um like stanford um so maybe um it it could be uh rephrased in a sense that uh general development impact fees should be considered or we should lobby for for uh impact development fees to to streamline um the the development process and and at the same time make sure that infrastructure uh keeps um uh up uh with with growing uh demand or something like that you need a quick answer uh go ahead happy hey now thank you for that uh pieces of information so many of these are not generally known and what developers are contributing and maybe you know we should probably say something more but this one particular action would assure many people like me at least that when a developer has a big building coming up you know uh it's it's just a win-win for both the both the town and for the developer as well you know so I understand your frustration with the existing laws maybe which prevent you from doing it but my action in this case would be that we work with the legal department and other public authorities to identify ways we can do this and once again I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to assume any expertise but if you have a menu card of 10 items that the developers can choose from like maintain a public card you know and do some main do something for the schools or something like that and then they voluntarily opt into the program there's nothing wrong in that I mean sure it may not be a legal thing but it is our strong desire

Um again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't want to assume any expertise, but if you have a menu card of 10 items that the developers can choose from, like maintain a public park or you know do some main do something for the schools or something like that, and then they voluntarily opt into the program.

There's nothing wrong in that.

I mean, sure.

It may not be a legal thing, but it is our strong desire.

The developers will come into the town, play a part in that people, they interrupt people in the town, right?

Whether it is legally allowed or not.

So that is the way I would word this that we of course explore with the law LR team, but in the meantime, develop our own thoughts around what we can ask the developers to contribute voluntarily on top of all these other things that you have been uh highlighting now.

Um can I suggest maybe one potential way forward on the action?

Um it it occurs to me that you know if we're gonna engage in like kind of policy lobbying, basically doing that with Westcog would probably be the most it'd probably be more successful than going in alone.

And uh for all of my disagreements with West Cog sometimes I imagine this is the kind of thing where there's common cause.

Um so maybe it's uh uh we're collaborate with West COG to uh develop a model state policy um to create more consistent and data-driven methods to um collect impact fees or request infrastructure upgrades.

So Jennifer, just one question.

I mean, having an action like that in the master plan about lobbying the state government or some action, you know, I'm not sure it would be very way to for the developers to voluntarily do this.

And we are very open about it, right?

We say, look, this is what the town is expecting of you, please opt in.

If they don't opt in, we will figure it out.

But I don't want to throw the ball into some other, you know, some other court saying the Connecticut state has to amend their constitution or something like that.

That is not realistic.

I think we should focus on uh tangible actions that we can take.

And I believe there is a way to do this.

I mean, if you tell a large developer, hey, here is a list of things the town wants, how can you help us?

And they would be happy to do it.

I mean, they're going to bundle it into their ROI anyway.

Uh, but uh in the short term that may work out instead of a longer term, you know, lobbying the state to change the law.

But this one action is a very very good action, I think.

Right.

A lot of residents are asking what does it do for us?

And this is all the things we mentioned, Ralph, that is what the town gets as a immediate impact.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Jeremy, I see your hand.

I do want to just note that I think that this I my sense is that this menu of voluntary choices might still be in that legal gray area around you know, um the method by which uh you are suggesting or requesting changes, and it sounds like part of what we want is a more straightforward and uniform process rather than it being variable development to development.

No, I mean, what uh actually um like new Rochelle has been very successful with that model.

So uh they did basically uh uh when they um allowed for the for the redevelopment of their downtown, they they did an environmental impact statement for the whole downtown.

And they basically determined, okay, we will need one more school, we need this much in the improvements into the sewer infrastructure.

We need that much in improvements into the water uh infrastructure.

Uh you you they added all the numbers together uh and divided it by the development potential in square feet, and they got a fee per square foot um of uh uh of additional development uh uh together.

And as I said before, um for uh uh no developer wants or loves to pay this fee, but the big advantage is they know it upfront.

you they they added all the numbers together uh and divided it by the development potential in square feet and they got a fee per square foot um of uh uh uh of additional development uh uh together and as i said before um for uh uh uh no developer uh wants or uh loves to pay this fee but the big advantage is they know it upfront they can put it into their um um uh performas and and uh make it part of uh their calculations rather than um being hit with sort of arbitrary numbers at a relatively late stage um in uh in the process and then you add all the other uncertainties uh uh into the development process like interest rates and tariffs and construction costs and and all of a sudden uh you you make um development uh uh a game of chance which which I think is in no one's interesting okay um Jeremy I know your hand is met for a while yep uh thank you Ralph for that explanation um you know and and I appreciate the the insight that you provided um you know I I think one thing that I've seen here in my time is you know there's developments where we'll receive um information on on sewer impact and and projections um which are based off of you know some studies that were conducted you know 10 to 15 or plus years ago and then there's also other large developments that we don't see any impact study um you know I I understand the the that we're we're below usage and and have decreased usage but I it doesn't sound you know it doesn't sound like we have any real good analytical data on on you know where some of the pinch points could be whether that be downtown or on the west side or or even the south end in and where we need that and you know if we are you know utilizing more than we should be in certain areas and less than others um you know and and maybe a streamlined you know requirement for you know developments of a of a certain size to to better understand that and and to better know what we do uh you know what we do need in and you know how it's impacting the the existing community as a whole I totally agree uh with that um I mean the the the problem is also the way I think we need to to have a blanket fee right but I I think if we can if we know where where our pinch points are what we're doing and and what we need you know I I think it would be you know more of a fee in lieu to address the specific concerns in certain development areas um you know and and be much more um objective rather than subjective I think there's a lot of subjectiveness right now in in what we we do have um yeah yeah and that there's a lot of oh well we think you know we're we're not impacting anything because you know I you know I that that's my own personal opinion and and you know I I think there's other things in here that that you know we're looking for studies on the infrastructure where we're at um you know and I'm in full support of of that um you know but I I think it's something that that's important without you know just you know saying there's a blanket fee that we're trying to impose.

No I I uh I I totally um uh agree with that and I'm all for I mean what what it comes down to I think is is predictability uh uh in in the process and uh uh and that it's uh data driven um so um I think what whatever we can do uh to do that um I think I'm I'm absolutely I'm absolutely for that then I would propose that we simply if such an action item does not currently exist in the comprehensive plan let's add one we're the comprehensive plan it's supposed to be big picture thinking we can work out the details later or the legalities later but this is an aspirational tool um so how how would you how would you frame that as an action chat um well first you decide you know what the right item is um but I think Jeremy's got you know enough wording here to you know to that we can craft some kind of a statement you know that um um develop uh develop uh some kind of again methodology or approach you know um should be devised to to um uh allow developers uh you know uh of of certain size developments or whatever you know to contribute to future um infrastructure needs that their developments are are creating today you know whatever it is

legalities later but this is an aspirational tool um so how how would you how would you frame that as an action chat um well first you decide you know what the right item is um but i think jeremy's got you know enough wording here to you know to that we can craft some kind of a statement you know that um um develop uh develop uh some kind of met again methodology or approach you know um should be devised to to um uh allow developers uh you know uh of of certain size developments or whatever you know to contribute to future um infrastructure needs that their developments are are creating today you know whatever it is okay and again we can we can take care of the fine tuning of the wording another day as long as we agree in principle with the item uh I'm gonna reorient this how about um um okay so I'm gonna stop there so um develop model policy to assess consistent data driven development impact fees to fund future public infrastructure improvements yes we could note West Cog in the execution responsibility yes okay yeah that's sound that sounds good because I just do want to have the nod toward the fact that we can't do this unless it's allowed by state law but we can still develop what the um what we would want the policy to look like and then that can be taken as an example to the state all right support um note maybe that's the way to do it okay uh we uh are we okay to move on to the next item yeah yes yes okay all right um so um the next item is in response to comments from from Ravi um uh it's kind of hard to like go through this so let me let me so yeah I mean I wanted to include some financial guidelines in the execution of the plan because some of this ends up going to sound bad that you asked a bit more taxes oh uh is that Robbie's background noise or your or Jennifer's let's see yeah okay that oh that was quite big okay cool go ahead Robbie please so it was doing you know I have some financial guardrails and I think for example the previous action we discussed uh was one of that which we already included and the one thing that I was not clear was the uh capital budget and I had recommended that I mean we have a very limited capital budget now and that is used you know for our existing projects and maintenance of existing assets and so on and so forth and how do we protect that will we're executing some bigger projects in the comprehensive plan how how how will it work so that was my point number C in the chat Lindsay which I didn't understand I think we we couldn't communicate to each other uh yeah and I I I didn't really understand exactly what what the question was um I'm I I think I'll right I yeah so you reply to my A B C B and E with full few of your bullets so I'm okay with A and B which has been already considered on C I'm I'm okay I'm okay with A B and B.

I'm okay with A, B, and B.

Uh, I'm not clear on C because you didn't have a response, and then on E, I'm not sure what your response was.

So maybe we can just focus on that.

So C is about the capital spending.

Okay.

And how do we ensure that the existing capital budget is not taken away for someone?

I mean, we we can only spend as much as we're allowed to spend.

So I'm not I'm not really clear on what additional guardrail you have in mind.

Oh, I know, but you know, if we allow big developments to happen and that requires some capital budget to be spent out of our existing pool of money.

Do you have an example of something that you would imagine would uh yeah, somebody says I need to build a new C wage plant or something like that because I got 16,000 residents going to come in.

So there has to be some way of uh what shall I say as we execute this comprehensive plan actions?

Uh make sure that we are assessing this holistically and not creating more financial burden to our existing budgets, right?

And uh maybe uh Lindsay, there's already a process today.

I don't because for the A, B and D that you responded to, it looks like there is a way for us to monitor that.

Uh but for capital budget, I'm not sure.

So are we going to get an increase in the capital budget from the 60 million we spend this year to a higher number next year because of all these developments, or are we just going to be asked to prioritize?

Yeah, it's more just about identifying the priorities for existing projects.

Um for example, um this plan um recommends uh uh require having development in areas where there is infrastructure, um investing in our infrastructure and neighborhood centers.

So that should guide um perhaps the uh sidewalk, the the capital funding for sidewalks, maybe those are targeted at neighborhood centers.

Um no project recommended in the in the comprehensive plan is meant to go above and beyond the debt limit.

Um it's just meant to guide how the money is used and and and what projects are prioritized.

Um for example, um in the capital budget, you will see um uh requests come through from operations department for um LED light bulb upgrades or or making municipal buildings more sustainable.

Um that's directly aligned with some of the goals of the comprehensive plan.

So that kind of that's the relationship between the comp plan and the capital funding.

Um does that help answer your question?

So in the capital budget process, if you're going to start next week or the week after, will we see that kind of a clear linkage or are we expected to see that?

Uh every every uh capital request is linked to some action item in the comprehensive plan.

Ideally, ideally, yes.

Um chat, you're you're muted.

Um since the plan yeah, since the plan has is just being uh considered for a vote tonight, and we start the uh capital planning tomorrow.

Um the this year the process is really about introducing the departments to the comprehensive plan um and working with them to identify um whether their projects are aligned with the comprehensive plan or not, but going forward in future years, yes, they will be expected to departments will be expected to say this project is in this future land use category, and these are the five ways, 10 ways that it uh supports the implementation of the comprehensive plan.

I see.

Okay, I take back my concern on that point, and then the last bullet is the point number E that you mentioned about board of representatives.

I I didn't understand what that was.

The development fees.

C D was okay, and then E development fees.

Um so your comment was that the town should review annually the fees charged to developers, incorporate incremental spending.

So I just noted that the board of reps is the body that sets development fees.

They did they increase them.

They did.

They increased them.

What I did note is that there are some fees that we do have control over.

And those are the um the item specific impact fees that Ralph was just speaking about.

So the below market rate fee and loo, sidewalk and street tree fees, they're all things that we can control and are adjusted to the construction cost index.

And it's written into the zoning code that that's how they're increased incrementally, right?

Yes.

Yes.

So I understand.

Yeah, I understand now.

Okay, thank you.

I think we can go to the next thing.

I will just note, I think related to this item and the last one.

I don't know that it's an action for the comp plan, but it sounds like it would just be really helpful to have a resource that explains like very succinctly, like all the ways in which we're already assessing impact and the ways in which developers are contributing to different kinds of infrastructure or like the the processes that uh certain developments already have to go through for like you know, fire marshal approval or you know, who whatever the I I think it's just there there's this general sense that um that people kind of don't trust the city to do the things that are needed to make sure that a development isn't um going to be um unsupported by infrastructure or or whatever and it uh so like I I think something that just outlines uh many of the things that we already just said here would be really helpful because a lot of those pieces are buried in different parts of the zoning code and is that separate and apart from the comp plan, or is that like a report?

I would say it's separate from the comp plan.

Like, and again, I don't know that it even needs to be a comp plan action.

I'm just identifying like there's a general um item under the strategy for um enhancing public participation opportunities um that uh there it's action 7.2 to source and publicly post training and resources for community leaders and stakeholders on the basics of municipal government and Stanford specific policies and processes.

So it's encompassed in there, but I just I just wanted to to put a um to firmly note, and again, it doesn't have to be in the comp plan that uh a summary of these development processes seems like a very high priority to build public transparency and trust.

And perhaps maybe the city's website would be uh you know better, a better source than the comprehensive plan.

Yes.

And and just really quick, if I could share my screen for a moment.

Um you're pulling up the yep.

So we have this on our website, which we started um a while back.

And um obviously if you have any uh suggestions, what should be added uh to that website uh that would be uh extremely helpful and with regard to the process, I think we don't have a whole lot of process things there.

We have it in a different place.

Uh Vinita actually have had prepared like a little diagram.

This is how the land use approval process works.

Maybe that this could be added here.

But if if you have, and and I totally agree, has nothing or little to do with the uh comprehensive plan, but obviously we have suggestions uh on how to improve this um that would be very helpful, and also when it comes to um uh things that are more germane uh to your work, like the capital budget, um, and so on and so forth.

So thank you for indulging me.

Sure.

Um yeah, I we did note at the um September 16th installment of the public hearing that that that that um FAQ resource exists and I think answers a lot of the questions and concerns that people have about development impact and okay.

Uh so is the uh are we taking an actual action on this like it seems like there are a lot of items that are already covered in other places and it may be just a matter of in our public memo of calibrating input to actions it means kind of put some of this there.

Okay.

Okay.

Which item are you talking about then the um the you know our long discussion here about um the financial review and and all of these bullets like I'm not I don't oh sorry.

I think I think Jennifer I think one action would be that the town should uh summarize uh right it lay out very clearly the existing existing processes they have on all these topics.

Right.

And then you know continue to update them or revise them but based on the uh public you know so that should be the action we those many of these the students that we asked I didn't know the background that we already had and I would leave the woman that the last capital budget was being discussed the fire department will wanted a new fire engine because we had all this high raised buildings coming up and we were debating with a capital offer fire engine or a full fire engine because we didn't have enough money to do it.

So you know so that is and that is a real concern right many many people have it.

So how do you it's not a part of the plan maybe you know but how do we how do we bring this up so that that uh a little bit of steal and maybe that could be an action.

Yeah I mean I again I think that the um under strategy seven 7.2 it kind of broadly indicates the need for more um resources and explainers and things um perhaps it could be tweaked a little bit um the way it's worded like I think posting training and resources like what that means is vague but maybe just be a little bit more specific about you know publish you know explanatory materials and hold you know public trainings to uh support community leaders and stakeholders to better understand uh the basics of municipal government uh processes including development approvals and budget procedures um so I have um in response to these comments and discussion um incorporating some of this discussion into kind of an amped up executive summary um and revising 7.2 to be more specific about um materials to be provided so including a a summary of the process channels for developers you want to share uh your screen oh I'm not sharing again okay yeah no it's um I'm sorry I I interrupted the sharing so it's okay I'm adding a little bit um so I just added a note to about kind of what some of the priority subjects for those materials are in particular the budget and development processes I don't you know I don't think anyone's trying to keep any of this a secret it's just that it lives in a million different places and it would be great for this to be better understood and accessible.

Okay.

Um this is kind of aligned with what we were just discussing.

Um but at a staff level um yeah I mean I think you know so much of uh the I think the undercurrent of a lot of the feedback that we got from the public was a a lot of just feeling like they either you know just hadn't heard about a thing or that they didn't know who to talk to about a thing.

And it at this point it's not really any particular person's job or focused capacity to do this like public outreach.

It's kind of more on a project by project basis.

So uh maybe one thing that I can share is that um the land use bureau is currently in the process of um hiring another planner.

And um with one of the ideas being uh that the person would be assigned to uh HPAC uh and the ZBA which currently do not have dedicated planners uh assigned to them but also um