May and and obviously this this is conceptual at this level, but assigning the planners that we have to different neighborhoods so that different uh neighborhood groups have uh basically a contact person uh to talk to and to get in touch with, and also for uh for the planner to do information sessions uh um in uh in the neighborhoods.

Um when I uh started here um I I did actually um a little bit of a tour of of different neighborhood organizations and talked a little bit about what the land use bureau is doing.

Uh but obviously for uh one person or or a small staff that's that's uh pretty challenging.

Um but with with added capacity, um I think we can we can make an effort to to do more uh neighborhood outreach and better connect with civic groups uh on all those issues.

Okay.

Um so broaden it a little bit around like kind of adding or realigning.

I I will just say as a as a planner, I don't think that this person needs to be a planner.

Um and I think that uh planners vary significantly in their skill in doing public outreach and explaining things in ways that aren't filled with jargon.

Um so uh I I it's really helpful to know Ralph that like you were already thinking in this direction of like kind of having specific uh neighborhood liaisons.

I just I I sense it a little bit of as is um it's not just like having somebody who's assigned to a particular board or a particular place, but just having that broader skill set around communication with normal people and like kind of having an organizer approach.

Yeah, no, and I mean we we have uh the mayor's office now has um a person dedicated to community outreach.

So obviously we don't want to duplicate uh things uh there.

Um I mean from from a person perspective, I started out as a as a borough planner in the department of city planning and I had um a community district assigned to me.

So um and and I think that was a very important experience because um I I talked to the people there on a regular basis, and I think a lot of what we're seeing in in planning and and uh a lot of the concerns also have to do with people not not knowing each other and uh what's going on.

Uh so if there is more of a relationship, I think uh that's beneficial for for both the department but also uh obviously the um uh the public.

But I agree it doesn't have to be a planner.

Um we've also uh a couple years ago um we uh had tried to create the the um a position of of like a community liaison uh together with the grants department to use C D BG grants.

Um and and that role would have been a little bit broader than really being a planner uh something to do with supporting small businesses with um uh providing uh people with contacts to other city agencies, health departments, social services, those kinds of things.

Uh basically a person who can direct uh members of the community to the to the right place uh within a city bureaucracy that can sometimes be intimidating.

Um so I revised this a little bit in the far column.

Um does this seem broader enough that it encompasses a few different ways that that objective could be accomplished.

Um so it's add and realign land use bureau staff capacity to increase transparent communication and neighborhood outreach regarding development and infrastructure projects and processes.

Yeah, that's great, I think.

Okay, cool.

And I will it doesn't have to be here, but I just um I had initially kind of put in TTP specifically too, because I think there's um there's a lot going on there that you know I think could probably there's a lot going on there.

So I think they could certainly use some additional capacity too, but you might not actually need like an additional person in both departments.

Okay.

All right.

All right.

Um the next revision um is is one of those where the language is not you're talking about engagement list now.

Yes.

I think you can skip my comments.

I'll come back to it later on at the end when we talk about covering literalism.

Right.

And this was just like this was already this was summed up in the slides that that Lincoln.

Yes, yeah, okay.

Okay.

Um and then the final one is um historic uh um celebrating Stanford's historic sites and neighborhoods.

Um and uh the comment was that there's a desire to ensure that um historic character of neighborhoods is maintained.

Um I wanted to keep celebrated Stanford's historic sites and neighborhood as an action items.

I think it had a lot of really important action items within the strategy.

Um but perhaps we make a recommendation on um identifying what the protections are that are currently in place for historic um districts and buildings, yeah, and then identifying policies to put in place to fill the gaps.

Yeah.

Um see, but I think the problem was when we under the strategy six, celebrate Stanford Historic Sights and Neighborhood, the first action was ensure thoughtful development.

That immediately creates concern saying, what are you going to build in my in our historical neighborhoods, right?

So my recommendation was take out that ensure thoughtful development.

We're always thoughtful with every development that we do, but instead focus on the actions around safeguarding this historic distinctions and structures or define the product, the new protections that you want to put in, etc.

So that inch increased thoughtful development in that strategy as a first action is my view not appropriate.

I hear what you're saying.

I I think yeah, I think there's probably a way to like re-word the goal such that rather than it implying that there ought to be a lot of development in historic areas, it something that still retains that like thoughtful element.

Um, in context.

I I do want to note though this the revision around the focus on protecting buildings from demolition.

I don't I don't know that that fully encompasses some of the comments that we received because there's also concerns about um development being um out of scale and like provisions for kind of when historic designation uh might indicate uh you know not being eligible for like certain types of development bonuses.

Um and I I haven't really figured out a way to insert in language that gets at the spirit of that well, because we know that actually there are sp there are some very specific targeted development bonuses that are only used in the context of historic buildings in order to improve the financial viability of preserving what's there.

So I think that something that is worded around kind of um reducing bonuses would directly conflict with um what's already written in the zoning code, and and we know that HPAC has been supportive of that being a strategy to encourage preservation.

Um quite quite honestly, the bonus program is also the only program that creates real uh protections for historic structures.

I mean, the the thing is uh that um something that's on the National Register of Places is not really protected.

Um you can put a plaque on your building and you can tell yourself, okay, I live in a historic structure, but there's very limited uh protection with regards to demolishing the place or um changing it in a way that basically takes away all the historic features um of a building and the bonus program, but it actually the the mechanism and and the way it works is that it basically says, okay, we give you the bonus, but in return, you really have to commit to protecting uh the historic structure.

So I think that's with historic preservation, that's a little bit everyone wants to preserve historic buildings, but uh uh there's not many good good tools um uh around um for uh for doing that.

And um I think having um a person and a planner that is assigned to HPAC who can work on that can really make um uh a difference in in coming up with with meaningful tools um to do that.