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.

And quite frankly, the other thing is we don't even know what's there, what's historically significant.

I mean, there have been surveys done uh in the past by volunteers.

Uh many of them are outdated.

I mean, if you go to the South End, there is a historic district, many of the buildings have been destroyed.

Um so uh it's it's uh once again, historic preservation is one thing that everyone clamors for, but then in the end, when it comes to paying for it, uh it becomes very uh very difficult.

But but I think it it is uh a very important goal, and that's that's not only because I studied history a long time ago.

So are we are we changing something in this from what it is today, or we are just uh reinforcing what we are doing today?

What what exactly is this action then?

I think we should expand on the things that we have.

So uh I mean what we what we've done in the past was uh I mean, probably no one knows, but um I've worked uh with the Board of Reps on creating a historic preservation trust fund.

Um preservation trust fund is great, but there's no money in it.

So um what would be a way to uh get money into the trust fund um to make it a more uh useful tool.

Um with additional staff support, we can do um uh uh surveys of historic properties and and can actually prioritize.

This is really an area we want to look into.

And once we identify those areas, what what can we do?

What is the city willing to do?

What are private entities are willing to do?

Um I mean, there's there's also uh uh there's tax incentives out there, uh state tax incentives for historic preservation.

Maybe we can promote them more.

Um if if there is more uh support, uh there's obviously uh a great and a and a large historic preservation community uh that um I think could be an incredibly resource if if there is a little bit more coordination.

HPAC will play a very important role uh in all this, but but um uh as I said, HPAC unfortunately is is one of the boards that they get the minimum in in staff support at the moment, and and I hope that will change um uh uh in the future to really expand and and also develop new tools uh that we don't have the capacity for right now.

Yeah, so those sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead, Jade.

I'm sorry.

I was just gonna ask, uh, we all received a message, uh, an email uh this afternoon on this very subject.

Um put um putting forward specific language um that they respectfully requested we add to the comprehensive uh uh plan to um provide some of the strength that uh apparently they believe um we've diluted that was in the 2015 plan.

afternoon on this very subject uh put um putting forward specific language um that they respectfully requested we add to the comprehensive uh uh plan to um provide some of the strength that uh apparently they believe um we've die diluted that was in the 2015 plan can we start with with this as a as a discussion item is there is there any reason why we can't add a broad you know this broad statement or some facsimile of this broad statement to the comprehensive plan um basically making a commitment to further protections of historic districts and neighborhoods um right so the um this the second paragraph and I'll I'll read it um well what why don't you start with the first paragraph Jan and then and then we can sure right okay I'll read the whole thing I will note that the second part is kind of what I was referring to in terms of it actually being in conflict with the way our zoning code is currently written but okay so uh this text says the preservation and enhancement of Stanford's neighborhoods and overall quality of life requires the protection of the city's historic resources as redevelopment continues at an accelerated pace it is imperative that Stanford safeguard its hit a designated historic districts and structures and that future development within these areas remain consistent with their established historical identity that all seems fine so far.

Accordingly the city affirms that historic districts shall remain subject to the zoning regulations currently in effect such districts shall not be eligible for additional density incentives this policy is essential to ensure the continued protection and integrity of Stanford's historic areas for the benefit of future generations um so there are two elements of the that second paragraph that um are challenging one I d we can't put into the comp plan that we're going to freeze zoning anywhere um and the second as I mentioned is that and as as Ralph was just elaborating on one of the strongest elements that we currently do have in the zoning code is um a a modest contact sensitive incentive um or bonus that um a property owner receives um and it requires that they then maintain the existing historic structure according to um uh standards that are set you know by HPAC and in accordance with the cultural resources inventory and so again that that that bonus is actually what makes it financially viable to preserve the existing structure so to have an have this text that's discouraging bonuses would actually one like encourage taking that out of the zoning code I get that so let's modify the second paragraph to to put in the words that make it meet uh one legal and and and that actually does you know provide provide the right words to provide the intent to safeguard historic places right I I think just the challenge as Ralph was saying though is that the tools to do that are not there aren't really a lot of great tools.

Yeah but we don't need to think of the tools today we only have to establish the goal okay I mean what we what we don't want to do is we we don't want to uh create incentives that encourage the demolition or the loss of historic structures right right we do want to create incentives that help protect historic structures and maybe uh rather than then saying it has something to do with with like not allowing any additional density I mean if you just allow more density in a historic district without any safeguards yes you encourage the demolition of historic structures.

Right.

If you allow density as a condition of preserving a historic structure you protect historic structures so I think it's it's really um maybe broaden it a little bit and and and say something to the effect that um uh the the city should should employ uh zoning strategies that disincentivize the the demolition or the loss of historic structures yeah yeah thank you yeah and I would I would say like I think it's demolition but also like kind of uh out of scale um development and I know that would have to be defined a little bit more um but I think that second part is actually more where more of the fear lies nobody wants to look at my motion I'd say I I'd like to take that email that's is anybody reading out I try to summarize it a little bit in my version.

I try to summarize it a little bit in my version.

Okay.

Uh should any development is consistent with existing standards and define one of the productions and take actions to protect these buildings when demolition.

That's what I got it from that.

All right.

So in uh again in the spirit of putting off the wordsmithing to another day.

Um I would propose and I I would even make a motion to this effect if that was what was necessary that we incorporate some of this language modified as Ralph just suggested, and and as Jennifer is suggesting and as Robbie is suggesting to into the comprehensive plan that reaffirms the comprehensive plan's commitment to preserve historic um neighborhood.

I I think that sounds good.

I think we're in agreement on the principles, and we can do the wordsmithing afterward.

Then let's do it.

Let's move forward.

All right.

And that is it.

And it's some cluck.

So Jennifer, sorry, uh can I raise one issue which is not on this list?

Sure.

Okay.

Yes.

So Lindsay, please help me with this.

There was this uh email I sent to you about some boat club.

You know what I spoke to you about this boat club?

A new statement understand that what should be done if at all we need to take some action and the plan that's like that.

All right, so um this uh in one of the emails received um there was a discussion about um the south end boat yard um that was um demolished unknowingly uh and cause wreaked havoc on the city of Stanford.

Uh trying to find, let's see, um essentially the request was um the statement was that having it in the um uh having it in the mixed-use urban category, which most of the south end is in um would not protect this as a water dependent um use um for green space and I would just note that the mixed-use urban category is meant to categorize the area of the south end.

Um the boat yard is already, I think it's already approved for for office development, Ralph.

Is that the zoning on the boat yard?

I I guess I don't really Robbie, what is it that you want me to say about this?

Like I don't really know.

No, no, all I want, yeah, yeah.

All I want to ensure is we're not changing existing regulations or existing zoning for the boat yard.

No, I think we want to stay as far away from the boat yard as we possibly can.

Right.

That's yeah, yeah.

There's no we no, yeah, don't want to touch it with the 10-foot pole.

Okay, got it.

Yeah.

Okay.

And and right, we added the language around water dependent uses to reinforce that as well.

Yes, yeah, we pulled out uh a separate strategy to um collect all of the water dependent uses and really make it quite apparent that um we want to protect, preserve, and and promote uh additional access to Stanford's incredible waterfront.

Right.

Um yeah, and that may be another just uh it could be complemented by like maybe some more targeted communication around where that already lives, like in zoning code.

Okay.

So at this point, do we need uh some kind of a motion to need a motion to take can we do it for all of these as uh as one vote?

Yes, I believe so, because it's it's all in one document, and so I think the the motion would be to move approval of the comprehensive plan with the revisions indicated in the uh the proposed final CP revisions document, and then we would publish well Lindsay would uh does it make sense for us to like kind of publish a version of this as kind of like a memo summarizing what those changes were um we I can um similar to how we've done the other revisions, I can essentially like list these in this column, list these out um in a very clear way.

Um in a very clear way.

Yeah, I can I can do that.

Um release it as as like it would be a separate PDF.

Um similar to how we've been linking all of our PDFs on the comp plan website.

We could have like um planning board's final revisions, and then we would have the final plan.

Okay.

So then then do we need actually two votes?

One uh one basically the planning board accepting these as final revisions, one uh and then authorizing them to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan or whatever the right wording is, and then two action on the comprehensive plan.

I would say it's one vote, you're voting on the comprehensive plan with under the condition that these are incorporated.

As conditions, yeah.

Right, like I recommend approval of the plan with the following edits as outlined in the spreadsheet.

And that's the same as what we often do with development approvals that you know it's approved with conditions, so this is basically the same mechanism.

Okay, all right.

Can we can we make a recommendation while approving this?

Not a condition um specific recommendation.

Yeah, no, specific recommendation I have is these two neighborhoods, the code and uh water site, uh, where I believe some there are ongoing studies.

Uh so we don't need to hold the comprehensive plan for that, but if the town can expedite those studies and take it to a group conclusion, then it is a holistic picture for those residents to see exactly how these actions are going in fact.

So if it is possible, I would like to you know recommend that the city speedily c complete those studies so that the residents can have a complete view of what is what is in store for them along with the comprehensive plan.

It's not a condition, it's not a condition for me to approve it, but I strongly believe we should do that.

Uh you know, Ravi, that should that um that reminds me actually of an action I had been thinking of that could be incorporated.

One, I mean, I think the COVID study is moving as quickly as it can.

Um I did look though, the water side study was last conducted in 2013, and there's been a lot of change in Waterside since then.

So I don't know that I would make it a condition of plan approval, but I think it's worth just noting on the public record that that that's given the pace of development there that it ought to be a a place to prioritize having a neighborhood study.

Um, but I um a potential action, I'm not sure where it would go, would be just to be very straightforward and and note that um to prioritize in the capital budget um neighborhood studies in uh parts of Stanford that are subject to um more uh intense change and development.

And maybe that could be a cover memo of sorts.

Sure, sure.

Um so it is memorialized.

Um obviously is on the public record.

Right.

Yeah.

Okay.

I mean you've just you've just memorialized it.

Sure, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Right.

And I would, yeah, I mean, certainly, yeah, no, I I agree there's been a lot of change in that neighborhood, and and so it's worth um further study, and you know, I think similarly, like Bull's head uh ridgeway, that's one of the areas that's targeted for a lot of growth, and I don't think there's been like sort of a comprehensive neighborhood study of that.

So those seem like priorities.

All right.

Okay.

Um do I have a motion?

Ravi, what is your motion?

Uh the planning board recommends approval of the comprehensive plan subject to the changes that we discussed in this meeting.

And the town is authorized to make those changes and incorporate that in the final version of the comprehensive plan.

Recommendations for the town.

As not a public letter.

Sure.

Okay.

Do I have a second?

Or an amendment.

Thinking that it should be it should be a permanent member.

As opposed to an alternate making the second.

That's a good thought.

So Jeremy.

Are you willing to second?

Or are there amendments you want to add?

No, I I'm you know, I I think there was a lot of good that's come out of this session and in the you know approval uh you know, contingent on these changes are um you know address a majority of the the residents' concerns.

Um so I guess I'll second, yes.

Okay.

Um so all in favor of the motion.

Raise your hand.

And that passes with all members who are present.

I guess we lost Bill.

Yeah, it's so okay.

Um and Jeremy, you're you seconded and you're in support of uh.

Yeah, I I'm I'm yes, unit supportive.

Okay.

I do want I mean I I is there uh what what might remove the hesitation that I'm hearing or address whatever that is uh I I think we we've addressed the the the concerns that that I've had and and that the you know a majority of the concerns that we we've gotten back from from the constituents okay so we're good with approval okay um well thank you all for a uh lengthy and in-depth discussion.

Um so we will um as noted publish um this set of um final revisions along with the um the final plan and the the this will go with the minutes of the meeting um I presume um we can't wait um there were there there were uh a number of items that um we still have to do some wordsmithing uh correct right yes well I mean I I think that we're basically authorizing the um the Lindsay and you know the plan team to take for items where some wordsmithing is required uh to to take the intent and just to to translate that in which you know up I will know up until this point right we haven't been wordsmithing like this um up until this point input has come in and then uh revised language has been drafted I think what you I think what you could do is uh Lindsay prepares the the uh changes and sends it to board members uh and uh if you have any questions or comments you can send it back um and if not obviously uh it's it's approved yeah I think that works okay um do we have uh Lindsay what's a reasonable timeline by which to incorporate the revisions um I'm gonna take the rest of the week off so I will get it done tomorrow okay tomorrow I will do it tomorrow okay yeah yeah and then the the planning team will incorporate and um we will get a draft plan back out in in a week's time okay great thank you yeah okay thank you all okay so congratulations everybody okay thank you very much we are now joining at 10 13th sounds good thank you very much have a good night everyone good night bye