All right.

Good evening.

This is the October 7th regular meeting of the Cree Planning Board.

First on our agenda is our planning board minutes from September 30th, 2025.

Are there any amendments to the minutes?

So Jenny Flood, unfortunately, I didn't receive the package for this meeting.

So I'm unable to read the minutes, so I'll abstain.

I'm sure the minutes are correct, but yeah, no, that makes sense.

I I didn't I haven't seen them either, but I did want to mention again that I actually saw everybody else and voted for the plan that you couldn't see.

So I don't know if you want to not count.

Well, um just I saw everybody else and my hand with everyone else.

Yeah, you can uh well one, you are you should be able to vote on the minutes because you were present and then I'll just read the um there was some text inserted um at um with the vote, which actually did include you because you were present but having technical difficulties, so it says no.

Mr.

Levin had some technical difficulties and was not visible on screen, but provided the following statement.

I support the draft Stanford comprehensive plan with the various conditions stated and described in the motion to approve on September 30th, 2025.

Okay.

Um that was sufficient to include you in the vote because you were present.

Um just Jennifer, I don't think I received them either.

I didn't receive them in what even in an email unless they went out.

I'm looking at the email from October 2nd from Leslie.

And I don't see them online either.

The uh envelope with the um uh distribution only we I received it today.

Okay.

Um I received mine in the mail um I think a couple of days ago.

Let me see.

Mine was postmarked October 3rd.

And the draft minutes are are posted on the website.

Um they they should obviously be in your packets, but um to note that they are.

Oh actually, I I just I do have them.

Soptember 30th.

Yeah.

So let me at least put forth a motion to approve the minutes.

Okay.

Unless would folks rather have time to we don't if folks would rather review them beforehand.

Um we can do this next week.

I know they're very general.

It sounds like folks might want time to review the minutes and vote on them next week.

I'm looking at them now and I don't I'm I'm okay voting on them.

Okay.

Um just uh if I'm not mistaken, so under presenters, um I know that uh Suzaki had collaborated on pulling together the presentation, but Lindsay, you were you were driving the ship there, right?

Indeed, I was yeah.

Um so just with that amendment on the presenters.

We can say um present for consultant staff or present for planning team and then CPCO associate planning principal.

Okay, so yeah, that's just basically adding a comma.

Um now that folks have had a chance to look through, are there any other questions or amendments?

Okay.

Through hearing none.

I know you did you started to put forward a motion but just for flow's sake.

Yes, I'll move.

I'll move to approve the uh September 30th minutes with the um revision of adding uh Lindsay Cohen uh to the um our presenters list oh I think the the amendment is really just uh to actually pull out presenters um and just include uh our consultant from Sasaki as present for staff i see okay all right that's fine with me so moved okay do I have a second all right second from bill all in favor and Ravi are you all right you're abstaining because got it all right uh so we have four for approval of the minutes okay um next on our agenda is the election of officers um with Jay departing from our board um and having been long serving vice chair we do have this opening um and uh officers do need to be uh full members of the board um so with those notes um want to open to nominations um hey did me do you have any objection if we nominate you i do not be honored ravi okay so i think uh did me is the newest member of the planning board uh but he brings a lot of passion and uh enthusiasm to the school and his background is also appropriate uh for this responsibility so uh i would be very happy to nominate Jimmy as the post of the vice chair for the planning board okay great um this is a bit perfunctory but are there any other nominations all right hearing none uh vote um whether to approve Jeremy um becoming uh vice chair raise your hand if you are in support uh can we all can vote on your own appointment oh i'll I'll abstain can can the amendments also vote the alternate yes the the alternates also vote yes all right uh so moved uh we have our uh congratulations Jeremy four members voting in favor thank you very much chairman congratulations thank you um next on the Jay would say it comes with a very large salary increase of yeah true um next we had a request for a subdivision walk on um so I can note what it is and uh I'll need a motion uh to be able to add it to the agenda um so this is subdivision application 4053 at 90 Havilin Road uh a request for a 90 day extension to file their map uh do I have a motion on this item all right Jeremy uh move to uh uh add a walk on okay uh do I have a second second from Ravi all in favor okay Ravi yes okay okay um so we have now walked on that item and we can go ahead and invite our presenter who I trust will probably be very quick yep uh so John Lyden is here john you can unmute yourself and to hear trying to find him on the john present okay I made him a presenter but I let me do allow mic here um okay it's a phone number let me go to the phone number to and I'm not seeing that phone number um uh for the sake of time uh if if do I unmute on the call or in line um I will say um the reason that the final map filing has been delayed is that the city has not issued the addresses that need to be on the final map um as a requirement of our conditions of approval so

Um for the sake of time.

Uh if if do I unmute on the call or in line?

Um I will say um the reason that the final map filing has been delayed is that the city has not issued the addresses that need to be on the final map um as a requirement of our conditions of approval.

So um it's the cities that has held this up, not not the applicant.

Um so um they have to go through this step of you know doing the formal request, and I look to see if it was something I could approve.

It is not, they have to come to the board.

So that's why John is here tonight.

Okay.

Um well, noting that.

Um can we go ahead and make a recommendation to approve it.

Even though the applicant's not here.

Yes, we can um so continue to try to make a presenter.

But um Lindsay is it okay if we just move on the item.

Okay, um, so Bill has moved approval.

Do I have a second on that?

Anyone uh second from Robbie.

Um, all in favor of the extension on subdivision 4053.

All right, and it passes unanimously.

And of course, I just got it to say changing role.

Um, but it seems to be stuck on that.

So thank you.

Um for moving ahead and letting me speak on that.

Sure.

Again, very straightforward and I appreciate the context on uh why the delay has occurred.

Um so um uh I just want to note that uh while we previously had capital budget presentations on the agenda that those have been uh moved to a future date part of the request of the relevant agencies.

Um and so next on the agenda we have requests for authorization, supplemental capital project appropriation requests.

Uh the first being utility paving project CP 8711, a total request of uh 2 million four hundred and twenty-three thousand eight hundred and one dollars and fifty-nine cents.

Um I will allow our presenter to briefly summarize uh but we have uh heard an explainer on this utility paving account before.

Good evening, everybody.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yes, we can.

Okay, perfect.

Can hear you.

Do you want to see me?

I remember last time somebody asked to see you on the phone, Thomas, and uh you said you'd been up since 3 a.m.

working on the roads.

Um okay that's fine.

Thank you.

Okay, so uh quick synopsis.

Utility paving is to coordinate when they tear up the roads with their trenches, and when the half that they do not owe is in bad shape, I decide it's worth paving curb to curb, they'll give us a check for their half, and then I'll go pave the road.

What this request is for is that we're at a point in this program where we're starting to coordinate in real time, which means in March they gave me 29 roads and I've been working on them, but in the last few weeks, I've agreed to take on five more and try to get them done before the end of the season.

And the goal of this program is to be able to clean up these roads as quick as possible whenever the city agrees to do them and not let them linger for another six, eight months waiting for winter or whatever.

So this money is to ensure I have in the account what I need to do.

So that's I I told them I was low on funds because we're halfway through the paving of the 29, and I'll run out, but I'll need money for the five extra.

And this money will ensure I can get those done, and then whatever else pops up, even in the winter.

If they turn over a road in the winter, I can start drainage repair and get it ready for spring and just hit the ground running.

So that's what this money is for.

Okay.

Great.

And I assume the very precise amount is just that it mirrors the expected payments from the utility company.

I think the uh the 423 stuff is whatever they found.

And then I think an extra it was like one million in change from the city and then a million authorization for whatever we expect privately.

Okay, got it.

So it's there's nothing specific in here right now.

It's just the funding they're look requesting.

Are there any questions from the board?

Lindsay.

Um, if there's no questions from the board, I just um wanted to note um that this is a great example of some of the capital work that the city does throughout the year to improve our roads, um, investing in our infrastructure.

As Thomas said, our roads, our drainage systems, we're doing this in real time.

And one of the reasons why this is not coming through the capital budget process is because um Thomas is constantly doing this work at adding roads as needed.

Um, so we kind of refill his coffers as as needed through these supplemental capital appropriations.

Um, so that's the relevancy here.

Um any further questions?

Jeremy.

No, I'll make a motion to uh to approve it.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second from Bill, all in favor.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

I think uh Mr.

Klaus is not here for item number two.

So part of that is for me, part is for Dan Calori, and we're here to speak on it as you guys need, just so you know.

Okay, um, let me go ahead and just read that item into the record, and then we can um look at the request.

Um still under supplemental capital project appropriation requests.

This is citywide vehicle replacement and upgrade project CIS520, a total request of 1,190, um 120 dollars, additional appropriation for the immediate purchase of three rear load refuse trucks and two asphalt hot box machines to reduce costs, improves citizen services, and decrease fix it complaints.

Um I guess Thomas, do you do you want to go ahead and talk about the the second half of that?

The hot box machines.

Sure.

So I have right now currently three hot boxes, which is basically an attachment to our trucks.

It's not a truck itself, it's an attachment to the hook lift truck.

And I acquired these about 11 years ago, and they vastly improved our asphalt work because they keep it hot the whole time, makes it easier to work with, it bonds better with the ground, it's just a million times better than the old method of throwing it in the back of a dump truck, and the second they leave the plant, it starts cooling down, and sometimes they throw half of it out.

So it was really bad.

The problem is I have three because I want to be very productive.

Mainly it's asphalt in in May in April and May in the spring, it's potholes, but then we need to get over to curbing, which I'm sure most of you guys heard about, and then also we do aprons, the beginning of people's driveways, and then sidewalk patches.

The problem is this past summer, two out of three have been broken down consistently.

So I've only had one running, which means I can only focus on pawholes, which is usually the bigger safety priority.

Because if you blow a tire and you swerve, you you can hurt people.

Okay, so this is just replacement.

Okay.

These are gonna replace two of them.

They're only about a hundred thousand dollars of this request.

So they're fairly cheap, they're about 50 grand each, and we got a massive return on investment last time, and it's just to keep the the motor running with the asphalt work.

It's it's our bread and butter, and it's it's very important.

Okay, that sounds uh like a worthy investment, and I don't think there's anyone in town who complains that we're uh paving too many roads.

So um, and then for the refuse trucks.

Um I'll speak to that.

our investment last time and it's just to keep the the motor running with the asphalt work it's it's our bread and butter and it's it's very important okay that sounds uh like a worthy investment and I don't think there's anyone in town who complains that we're uh paving too many roads so um and then for the refuse trucks um yeah I I'll speak to that we're requesting um this is Dan Collalori Director of Cyconsitation we're requesting a million ninety five thousand for the replacement of three trucks we we currently have uh 20 rear packer garbage trucks their average age is 13.5 years the industry standard for truck uh a rear packer truck is six to eight years so we're obviously well past that we we produce uh 16 to 19 routes per day on an average day we're missing somewhere between 20 to 45 percent of our trucks because of of maintenance repair work uh today's a perfect example we had 10 trucks not here so therefore but we still have to pick up garbage and recycling so we are behind the eight ball severely with um being able to produce the services that we do okay um so this is uh replacement to improve the reliability of the fleet um okay and then I will admit I don't um I haven't looked ahead at the um in the capital budget um but are there is are there additional requests in the capital budget cycle for uh refuse trucks this past year's capital budget uh the the cycle that we're that we're working through right now yeah we we requested last year uh three trucks and it and I believe that that was eliminated from the budget got it okay I remember the whole thing with the electric trucks the electric trucks um are at least a year out uh Bill told me that um there's there's a big discussion uh on the on the grants uh we don't know if that's coming in we don't know um we don't know what's happening with that uh in the in the meantime the uh a truck coming into our yard will be a year to 16 months from when the purchase order is generated okay um are there any questions from the board all right um seeing none do i have a motion on the um citywide vehicle replacement upgrade jennifer i do have one question okay um just regards uh again to how long it takes you know from the the purchase order to getting the truck which as you said is 16 months that's for the electric trucks that's a bill told me for that yeah so the diesel trucks are usually um anywhere from eight to 12 months depending sometimes they they have you know a sparrow in the yard depending upon how lucky we are got it but it still takes a while okay thank you for that any further questions Robbie I'll tell you motion to box okay motion for approval is our second second from Bill all in favor let's raise your hand and it passes unanimously thank you very much to the board appreciate your help thank you thank you all right uh next uh we move to zoning board referrals uh first on the docket is zb application uh 225-28 uh presenting is Lisa Feinberg of Carmen Torrent Sundak and Hennessy LP representing 120 Long Ridge LLC uh this is site and architectural plans um requested uses and special permit applicant is proposing to convert an existing office building into 196 apartments with 808 parking spaces and associated amenities good evening madam may i may I proceed yes yes you may i i actually was hoping i i discussed with miss cohen um possibly uh presenting both items one and two simultaneously just in the interest of efficiency they are separate applications but they're related and I just think that it's it'll be more efficient for you all and also just transparent is that possible for us to open both of them um I I mean I guess since they are at the adjacent sites at the same address um we can do that uh so um we also have before us the ZB application 225 29 uh this is for um this is representing 120 C Long Ridge Road LLC and toll northeast v Corp um site and architectural plans and requested uses and special permit applicant is proposing to construct 44 two story carriage homes and 58 three story townhomes with associated improvements and amenities um so you're gonna have uh red both into the

This is for this is representing 120-C, Long Ridge Road, LLC and Toll Northeast V Corp site and architectural plans and requested uses and special permit.

Applicant is proposing to construct 44 two-story carriage homes and 58 three-story townhomes with associated improvements and amenities.

So you're going to read both into the record for presentation, but we will vote separately on the items.

Excellent.

Thank you.

May I go ahead and share?

Yes, go ahead.

Okay, so just for the record, my name is Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner with Carmeny Torrent, Sandak and Hennessey.

My office is here in Stanford at 1055 Washington Boulevard.

With me tonight is my colleague Dan Chapel, also from Carmody.

I believe Tim Hollister from Hinckley Allen and Eric Linquist from Time Bond are out there.

And we are all here on behalf of the applicants, current owners 120 Long Ridge LLC and 120C Long Ridge LLC, which are both entities related to BLT represented tonight by David Waters, Kurt Keener, and Connor O'Neill.

And then also toll Northeast V Corp, the contract purchaser of the Southern Parcel, known as 120C Long Ridge Road, represented by Brian Sokel and Michael Zamola.

So also sort of in the interest of efficiency, my plan is to spearhead the presentation, but the other members of our team are here just in case you have any questions that they're better equipped to answer.

So many of you are likely familiar with these properties, but just to better orient everyone, here they are.

The Ripplewam River is along the western edge.

To the north of the properties is the new senior housing development, known as the Mosaic Senior Living.

That's 210 units.

Across Long Ridge Road, of course, is Whole Foods, Saks off 5th.

And then a little bit further south, we have Pepe, Starbucks, Shake Shack, and CBS.

So the subject site, as as currently proposed, will consist, 120 Long Ridge Road anyway, will consist of about 25 acres.

It is currently improved with a three-story 300,000 square foot office building and a large parking garage with 808 parking spaces.

It also has some surface parking over here to the north.

120C Long Ridge Road as contemplated will be a little just over 20 acres.

And today it is vacant.

Both properties are located in the newly adopted MU-2 mixed-use community campus category.

It was formerly the Master Plan Category 8.

They are also in the CD zone, the design commercial district, and have been so uh since the late 1960s.

As you may know, the CD zone is commonly referred to as the suburban office part zone because it was ultimately molded to accommodate large companies looking to relocate their headquarters from New York City to a greener, more suburban environment.

But in the early 1900s, this site was home to the Gibbons Sanitarium.

And that's this image here from the Historic Society.

Later in the 1960s, Olin Chemical developed the 60 acres as its headquarters.

It was subsequently subdivided, and the office building was most recently home to GE and then Genery.

But of course, in the last uh few decades, uh that trend has started to change and companies began prioritizing access to the train and amenities that you find in a downtown environment.

Then COVID hit and the vacancies became even more pronounced while the need for housing continued to grow.

The cities attempted to address both of these issues by amending the zoning regulations beginning in 2021 to uh permit multifamily housing in the CD zone.

More recently, um, the zoning board amended the regulations again to encourage the conversion specifically of existing legally non-conforming office buildings into housing.

And interestingly, uh the state also adopted legislation encouraging conversions during its last session.

So the current proposal really furthers all of these goals.

The existing uh 300,000 square foot office building uh would be converted to 196 apartments by BLT.

It's a mix of studios, one bedrooms, and two bedrooms.

They are proposing a fee and loop payment to satisfy the below market rate obligation, which for conversions is 7%.

The existing garage would remain, but only one level would be utilized for by the residents, about 285 spaces, and that's the level with a direct tunnel connection to the office building.

So folks don't have to walk outside.

There's no new construction proposed on that site, and all of the mature landscaping would remain.

The vacant parcel would be redeveloped by Toll Brothers with 102 townhomes and carriage homes.

44 specifically would be two-story carriage homes, and 58 are proposed as three-story townhomes.

They are all three to four bedrooms, 2,000 to 3,000 square feet, all have an option for a bedroom downstairs.

They all have their own private driveways, private garages, additional parking for visitors and the driveways, of course, and then also within the property.

And it would be a condominium structure with an HOA to handle maintenance and improvements.

And they have not yet decided on whether the BMR units will be on site or whether they will utilize the fee and lo.

So they'll have to make that decision before they pull a building permit.

We think the aesthetics are attractive.

It's a modern farmhouse style, although they will not be visible from any public space.

This is the carriage home.

And then this is the town home.

The townhomes are three stories.

They're primarily located within the site interior or this sort of tuck under construction where they will be visited, they will appear as two stories on the outer edges.

They all offer high-end finishes with custom options for homeowners, so they can really make them their own.

There will be a clubhouse with a fitness center, social space, seating areas, restrooms, and of course an outdoor pool.

There'll also be a tot lot, a child play area for folks to use.

And almost 60,000 square feet of the site will be dedicated for publicly accessible trails, and that's shown here in this green color.

The yellow just denotes the public access easement if folks are gonna get to the trails via car and then they can park right here.

Otherwise, there's a direct connection to the new sidewalks on Long Ridge Road.

From a circulation perspective, existing access and circulation on site would remain largely the same with the signalized intersection to the north and an unsignalized intersection to the south.

Although 120C, the southern lotically has frontage on both Cold Spring and Old Barn Road North, those frontages will not be utilized, which brings us brings me rather to the special permit request.

So the first special permit request is for the use.

In the CD zone, all uses require special permit approval, including multifamily housing.

So I think we've covered that.

The second is related to the sidewalks.

They do trigger the city's sidewalk requirements.

So for application 225-29, the Toll Brothers piece, we've requested a fee and lieu exemption from that technical sidewalk requirement.

TTP has also supported this request.

The last thing I just wanted to note is as you, as you know, we're here looking for your confirmation that these special permits conform to the master plan or as it's now known, the comprehensive plan.

So I wanted to just take a minute to explain why we think that they do.

As I mentioned earlier, uh at the time we filed the property was in category eight.

Today it's in the MU2.

Many of the policies and objectives we cited in connection with the former category continue to be applicable with the with the MU2.

It was really the MU2 was applied, as you know, to large campus-style areas and intended to provide redevelopment flexibility for office parks.

Among other things, the category encourages flexible combinations of uses, including residential as well as publicly accessible open spaces.

I think you know, the incorporation of both for sale townhomes and rental housing will provide some diversity of housing choice at this location and continue to support the new retail establishments across the street, really creating that mixed use environment.

The other thing I'd note is that you know, um, collectively between the two projects, um, they've been asked to contribute almost a half million dollars.

Um sorry, uh, yeah, almost a half a million dollars uh towards the traffic and pedestrian improvements um in the area.

And that was a request made by TTP.

And then they're also Toll Brothers is doing the the 60,000 square feet of publicly accessible trails, which will also you know enhance pedestrian activity and safety in the area.

So for all those reasons, we think that the proposals really do further the goals of both the 2015 master plan, which was in place when we filed, and the the newly adopted um comprehensive plan.

That's really all I had.

Okay, thank you.

Um are there questions from the board?

Chet.

You are on mute.

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Um hi everyone.

Um Lisa, the the drawing that's currently on the screen uh suggests that 120 and 120C either are or will be separate lots.

What what what they may currently be owned by the same uh entity, but what is their future intention?

So they are separate lots today, and they are owned by related entities, but they technically are separate entities, they are different by one letter, 120 or 120 C.

Um, but BLT uh is is the owner um, you know, the the related entity that owns them.

Um we are doing a modest lot line revision, and the project is designed based on that, but the they are different lots today.

Okay, thank you very much for that.

Um next, Ravi.

Hi, Lisa.

So I think the uh conversion of the office space to residential housing is welcome, as well as the garage homes and town homes and condominiums, and I think uh my concern is the number of apartments.

I think you said 196 units or something like that.

And so I have two concerns.

One is I'm not a architect or a building.

What would you come up with this 196?

I mean, how do you feel appropriate for this site?

Should it be lower, be higher?

Uh at least man, it looks like a lot of apartments, even though I'm not uh uh you know expert in this field.

That is one question I have.

I think I'd be very comfortable if the number of apartments were lower and some three bedroom apartments were most as well, but uh it's not for me to get into those details.

But so that is that is one issue I have.

Second issue is I mean, whether we like it or not uh uh pedestrian activity in this in these neighboring sites, the neighboring roads, etc.

And I do understand this used to be office building, which had historically you know greater traffic, but that is in the past.

We are now where we are.

So what what are the developers proposing to do to um substantially alleviate that concern in terms of 500 cars coming in or going out or people trying to cross the road and go to the other side and I understand half a million you said was the contribution.

Um I'm not able to judge what half a million gets you in Stanford, but so can you please address these two points, the density and the traffic concerns, please?

Thank you.

Sure, I would be happy to.

So in terms of the density, I think I actually have an exhibit that may help.

In the CD zone, you can have anywhere between 12 to 14 units an acre.

That's the the built-in density.

You get 12 units per acre if the BMR units are off-site and 14 units per acre if they're on site.

So that's sort of the base density.

Just by way of comparison, the toll brothers piece, which is about 20 acres, you could get under the zoning 240 to 280 units max, but they're only proposing 102.

So that's about 35% of the density that they could have, or five units an acre.

Um BLT, which is the that piece is closer to 25 acres, they could max out at 298 to 348 units.

Um they're proposing 196, which is you know a little more than half of the density they could have, and that's about 7.8 units an acre.

Um if you look at the the properties kind of around us, like Mosaic, which is senior housing, they've got 210 units.

They developed it's a 15-acre site.

So they did max out.

They developed it 14 units an acre.

Um we did this just for purposes of comparison, but you know, Old Barn Road, which is a single family neighborhood, there's 52 houses on a little over 11 acres.

That's around 4.7 units an acre.

So very close to what toll is proposing.

And then this area here is um a little under the 10 acres, 65 homes, and that's at 6.6.

So we really feel like the density is in line with the neighborhood and in significantly less than what is permitted in the zone.

So from a density perspective, I I think it makes sense.

Um in terms of traffic, I mean, I drive through, oops, sorry.

Um these intersections all the time.

I live in the in the mid-ridges.

Um, so you know, I'm I'm pretty familiar with the area.

I guess what I would say is in the CD zone, there are very limited um uses that are permitted at all.

And as I noted, they're all special permit, which is sort of unusual.

So you can have office, you can have public schools, you can have housing, you can have assisted living, independent living, you can have colleges and universities, and then there's some smaller uses like child care centers, group daycare homes and senior day programs.

I would offer that out of these eight possible uses, um, only a handful would really make sense on a site of this size, and they would generate the same, if not more traffic during peak hours.

And I think that that's you know, apparent, just based on the fact that there's an 808 space parking garage that's on the site today.

Um, and that you know, Jen Reed told us that at their peak, they had over 1100 employees.

Our traffic study um estimated 133 weekday morning peak trips, and this is combined with the two different projects, 163 weekday afternoon peak trips and 148 Saturday peak trips.

So while there will be cars associated from a peak hour perspective, when we're really, you know, when things are tightest, this use is in my you know opinion, based on the facts that I have the best use of the site based on what could go there, and something has to go there.

I think everybody would agree um with that.

In terms of contribution, I think you know, a half a million dollars is a lot of money.

And and the breakdown was 150,000 each for each of the property owners towards the traffic signal improvements to accommodate the to the changes um in movements, and then $50,000 each um for pedestrian improvements at Bullshead.

And this is on top of the investment that's already been made by the state and the city, with I don't know if you've seen the the sidewalk improvements that are being constructed right now.

And then on top of that, um, because of the technical sidewalk requirements for both cold spring and old barn road, Toll Brothers has to throw in close to another 50 grand.

So they are, I think paying their fair share in terms of you know impact fees, if you will.

Um, and without it, you know, that money there would they wouldn't be there.

So I guess that's how I would respond.

Did I answer your questions?

Yeah, thank you.

I'm still thinking about all you said, but thank you for declarefication.

Sure.

Bill.

You're unmute.

Oh, okay.

Um I have a number of questions.

So is it okay if I ask you one and then you respond rather or rather than do go through all of them and then you won't remember the first ones.

Absolutely.

The first, this is just a follow-up to Robbie's question.

I missed when you said what the density for the Toll Brothers project was compared to what could have gone on that portion.

unmute oh okay um i have a number of questions so is it okay if i ask you one and then you respond rather or rather than do go through all of them and then you won't remember the first ones absolutely the first this is just a follow up to Robbie's question I missed when you said what the density for the the toll brothers project was compared to what could have gone on that portion I somehow I didn't hear that um so I might note um so they could at a at a density of 12 to 14 units an acre which is what the CD zone allows they could have between 240 and 280 units just based on a technical you know math um they're proposing 102 so that's five units an acre versus 12 to 14 okay that answers that my next question is has there been reaction from neighbors on the old barn road area which seems to be the most impacted um since it's directly adjacent to I guess I'm not sure if it's the carriage houses or the townhomes are directly adjacent.

I think it's a combination um we met actually early on in the process before we filed anything we held a neighbor meeting um and invited you know the all the folks in close proximity um so we did you know have a handful of people from old barn road and had conversations with them about just you know screening and buffering and you know I think we have a pretty robust landscape plan so hopefully um they will be satisfied but we I think you know you know we send neighbor notice we post signs we publish in the paper so um everybody will be notified of of the public hearing in front of the zoning board which is is on the 20th have you had comments from them recently since the no I have not okay and what about the neighbors on the other side of the Rippewam River which are not quite as impacted probably but ours yeah there were a few folks that came to the meeting that we held but I haven't spoken to anybody recently okay um I had some questions one of the pieces of information we got I think it says C 110 it's it was on page C11 uh regarding the open space in the toll brothers project and the the public access space yeah let me let me open that up to that page it was C11 I don't think these are in order so oh yeah yeah here um yeah that seemed to be about open space and it says on there it divides the open I don't know if you have anything you can put up that shows that but is it a civil drawing was it a tie and bond drawing it's uh it's in this package of like a big thick patch yeah tie tie in bonds if it's see it's civil yeah let me see if I can pull it up and it's page C11 open space plan I just didn't have all the civil drawings um well I'll it says it divides things into the publicly accessible amenity space which is actually kind of not right where the units are but off kind of in between between the project and the river and a little bit on the east side and then usable open space that I guess is not publicly accessible.

It's only accessible to people who live there um but it says on there that only one eight acres of usable open space is required on this whole site which I guess is 20 acres or something that's just seemed incredibly low as a requirement and is am I missing something there?

You're not it's a the requirement is um 75 square feet per unit so um I think this are we we're talking about the toll brothers piece right now right yeah so I'm just here I think I have your the plan it says you're providing 1.59 acres but yeah and I would say to you that um Time Bond took a very conservative approach with the technical usable open space.

It has to be a certain depth and a certain length, and you know, you can't just give folks a sliver of green grass and call it open space.

Um so all of this space is technically part of the property along the river.

They didn't count any of that, they didn't count anything around the wetlands.

Um, but what you see hatched is is technical usable open space.

And then you're correct, that is space that is dedicated to the residents, it's not open to the public versus this space along um the frontage on Long Ridge Road, which is the publicly accessible space, and that's that you know, 60,000 square feet.

Um there's a lot of green space on this site.

And and there is associated parking with uh publicly accessible open space as well as a little kiosk on Long Ridge Road, it's like a little sign that says publicly accessible and it's an entrance in and out.

There was one place in the staff report, I I don't have it right with me where it said that this project will replace surface parking.

But when I look at the aerial map, it looks like it's right now it's either grass or trees.

So I and I can't figure out where this surface parking is exactly because I think the footprint of this project doesn't look like it's replacing any uh parking.

But I don't know if if either Lindsay or the applicant wants to.

No, you you're right.

That was uh uh misrepresentation on in my report.

Okay, okay.

I I thought that was the case because I looked at that aerial and I thought there's just no parking here.

But anyway, I do have a concern that this project is uh I I guess I have a kind of the opposite impression from Ravi.

I feel like the the apartment, the um BLT project to the north um seems seems to me a very good reuse.

It's not uh impacting open space much.

It's it's really in the same footprint, and it seems like it is a mix, a pretty good mix of units.

Uh my biggest concern with that project is the um the inlu fee.

It seems like that to me that this is a very good location for affordable units.

It's almost right in the center of the city in an area that really doesn't have affordable units.

So I'm very disappointed that they don't want to do it on site.

I I'm also disappointed that whenever we do this Vien Lou, it's years and years down the pike, and you have to put together several projects, and basically I probably won't be around when they if they ever get to doing those units versus the projects we've seen where they actually had to do it or they agreed to do it on site, those are already in service.

So I'm I think I have a pretty fundamental disagreement with staff on that because they seem to think that in some cases there could ultimately be more bang for the book with um in Lou fee, but I I just haven't seen it myself.

I see, for example, downtown by the the two corn cob buildings that are still standing, they were supposed to be uh rehabbed for uh when the two buildings that are there now on the north side of Tressor were built, and it's still years away before we we get any affordables there.

So that's the biggest problem I have.

Otherwise, I think the northern project makes sense.

This townhome carriage house project.

I'm very concerned that that there really isn't adequate um usable open space right within the project.

And one question I have is this intended for 55 plus, or they're actually going to be expecting children to be living in these units.

Um there's a tiny I'm sorry, there's a tiny little playground shown, but it just doesn't seem like it would be uh a good, it's basically all pavement and garage doors fronting the the streets, and doesn't seem like it would be a great environment for kids, and I just I don't see much you know there's strips behind the the units that are what you're calling usable open space, but to me it seems inadequate and that that too many units are being packed in here.

And I just I don't see much you know there's strips behind the the units that are what you're calling usable open space, but to me it seems inadequate and that that too many units are being packed in here.

I I like the idea of the missing middle, and this is this is classic missing middle type housing, but I just think it's uh it it may not be the maximum number of units that could go in the un in the project if you did apartments or something else, but for this type of product, I think it's uh cramming too much in, and that it's it's uh deficient in that area.

So um let me see.

I don't know if you do you want to respond to that before I go on to my I'd like to try.

I mean, um, at least to to some of it.

Um I you know, we've had the conversation many times about the the BMR fee and lieu, and um, I think to some degree we have to kind of agree to disagree on it.

What I will say is that you know, it is no longer a special permit request, it's just something that the applicant is permitted to do one way or the other.

Um, and so that you know it satisfies some folks more than others, I I guess.

Um, in terms of the open space, I I would say that I think that the drawings can be misleading just because of the size of the site.

64% of this site is green, 64%.

So it is not, I mean, this is not a highly developed site on top of the restrictive standards that are in the CD zone, because this was created as a suburban site, with you know, the idea at the time was to really make these office buildings disappear, um, and to give folks a lot of green space.

That has been maintained with with the housing as well.

So, on top of those restrictions, as I as I noted, I know you heard that they're they're significantly underdeveloping this site at five units an acre.

So I just don't think it's a fair representation to say that that it's not, you know, that we're we're overdeveloping this site because we just we just aren't.

Um the one other question I had was about the pedestrian path systems.

Can you speak to that a little bit?

How this project I guess connects to the one to the north and how it connects to Long Ridge Road and to getting across the street uh to the commercial.

I know Long Ridge is a big wide road, so it's not that inviting to cross there, but I I didn't see a drawing specifically showing the whole, and maybe it's in here and I just missed it, um, showing the pedestrian path system.

So this shows the interior pedestrian path system.

Um blow it up a little bit, and that's the the area in green, and you can see there's a direct connection to the Long Ridge Road sidewalks, which are being redone right now.

Um, in terms of crossing Long Ridge Road, there's also improvements being done right now by the city um with crosswalks um to really enhance the safety.

They're gonna uh put in a pedestrian signal um to to make things safer.

And then that's why Luke also um asked for additional funding from the projects and other you know 100,000 of pedestrian improvements and in the um Bullshead area.

So all of this will be connected via sidewalks in terms of um to the north, um, that connection would be you know just straight along Long Ridge Road.

What about the I one question you didn't answer that you probably know the answer is what's the story?

How many is it open to families with children and how many children do you anticipate?

So it's not age restricted.

Um, in terms of the demographic that they anticipate, I think the fact that they offer the the bedroom on the first floor is is telling it's gonna, you know, I think they're anticipating a lot of folks that are downsizing um but want to stay in the community.

I'm sure there still will be some children.

You all didn't receive it, but we did do an entire economic analysis, which included um projections with related to you know, students in the that could be in the public school system.

So we studied um we got numbers rather directly from Stamford Public Schools for other sort of uh similar projects like 77 Havamire, 23rd Street, um 180 Turn of River Road, those types of projects, they're all a handful of school age children, but I we got numbers for Old Barn Road um that development, you know, sort of to the southwest of us, which is single family, and that's when you get into the you know double digits in terms of of kids.

So um while there may be some children and certain and certainly there could be some young children or grandchildren, they're not anticipating um a ton of kids and and the numbers just don't support it.

Okay, what I one last uh follow up would the on the northerly project, the BLT project, are they opposed to doing any of the units on site?

Would they be open to like a hybrid where some of the units are provided on site and some um or they just don't want to do any units?

At this time they're not planning to do any of them on site.

I mean, they've built a tremendous number of affordable units in the South End, so they're certainly not afraid to build them.

But um at this point they're they're proposing a fee and loo.

So just one last question to Lindsay are is it so we are not allowed to condition a project on doing some of the affordable units on site or because of a change in rules recently, because I seem to recall in the past we on certain projects we preferred to have them on site, but I'm not sure if that's you know, uh there was a zoning text amendment that was referred and went through the planning board that removed the special permit requirement um for fee and lieu dollars.

Um so they no longer have folks no longer have to apply for a special permit in order to to do fee and lieu, they have that ability as of right.

Um the reason being that uh it fee and lie is not a popular option, and it does deliver a greater number of units to a lower income bracket.

Um I just recently sent you all examples of recent projects um that were completed in the past five years with fee and lie dollars, and those are targeting and available to AMIs at 20 to 30 percent, whereas units here would only be required to be available to people making is it 80% AMI or 50% AMI?

50% 50% for the for the rentals for the rentals.

So using fee and loo dollars by affordable housing developers does achieve a greater affordability level of units, and that shows up in our data, which I'm sure Emily will will update.

Um the this project is on referral to the planning board.

So what the board is doing is recommending that the zoning board approve it or recommending that they deny it.

And so you can say the planning board recommends approval and strongly suggests that a portion, you know, the zoning board they they they need they don't have any tools legs at this point to require uh units to be provided on site, but I'm sure that there could be some type type of discussion to be had about you know what level of units would they could be provided on site.

The zoning board also might have a completely separate opinion on on this too.

They might be in favor of fee and loo dollars because they they also approved that zoning text amendment.

So getting these fee and lieu dollars is aligned with with that recent amendment that that they approved and went through.

So um your recommendation can come with recommendations on what the zoning board should look into.

I guess I my concern in here is that this is such a central location in the city and yet an area that I think has almost very, very little affordable units, which tend to be concentrated in some other areas.

So I don't know if other board members feel like we really should see some uh affordable units on site, right?

In in this central location, or if I'm the only one that has that issue.

Um I don't know if anyone else wants to chime in.

Yeah, I I can respond to that actually with um, I have a question that's related to that.

I I will say though that um I do um I am in agreement that the fee and loop program has been successful at delivering units, and I think that uh my understanding is so the the whole thing with the St.

John's Towers a few years ago.

Um the housing, the affordable housing trust fund had not been established at that point.

And so that was where you had like this whole like matchmaker process.

Um, but now that there is the affordable housing trust fund, it goes into that fund and there is oversight by a board, and then as projects um come online that are that require that funding, the the funding can go out the door pretty quickly and isn't kind of subject to the deal making that that used to occur.

Um so my question actually is um given that this is uh for the for the apartments that it's a conversion of the existing building into apartments.

Is that part of the constraint around um having the affordable units on site rather than paying fee and leave?

Because I imagine if you want to stay in the building footprint, there's you know, you just run out of square footage at a certain point.

You know, I don't know what went into their analysis.

It's certainly possible.

I think you know, just they don't what I can tell you is that the the constraints of the building impact the unit mix and the unit mix is the same type of you know, same smaller units that we have a lot of BMR units already at that.

So I think the idea, as I think Lindsay noted, is that we get these funds and we either use them to build larger units or we use them to build units at lower AMI or both.

And so, you know, we think it makes sense here.

Um Bill, I will I will say I think your your point about the geographic location of this is certainly uh well taken.

Um let's see, does anyone else on the board wanna Ravi?

Yeah, sorry, on a unrelated topic.

So I saw the Rupuan River is in the in the chat you were showing the Repubam River is the boundary here.

Is it so is is this plot touching the uh reward or just is there any public space, protected space between the plot and the river?

It does touch the rip, the river runs through it um through the the rear of it, and there is an easement already in place along the river.

Plus, there's the setbacks um that are required by EPB, which were just increased um from 50 feet to 100 feet.

So there's a significant setback from the river.

Have we considered doing any assessment as to any potentially back to the ecosystem on the river?

Because this is a pretty large development and it was obviously the resilient shift type of usage and different type of uh I would say waste and so on.

So does anybody done any assessment on the impact on the ecosystem?

An assessment of the river, did you say an assessment of the river's ecosystem?

Yeah, on the impact of this building on the system.

Um we have not done a specific assessment, but the project was reviewed by EPB and our storm drainage is being you know reviewed by the city of Stanford as well, and um, you know, to ensure that there are no negative impacts on on the river.

Right.

So we do have just like this has been referred to the the planning board at this this was referred to environmental protection um board staff.

Um so we have environmental analysts that um review these applications um and apply the uh conservation policies that we have in place.

So Lisa spoke about the upland review area, which is a uh a boundary around any inland wetlands and water courses where development has to be um specifically approved by the EPB.

Um so and in addition, um they will be doing EPB does reviews as part of um the building permit process as well as certificate of occupancy.

So any conditions that EPB comes up with, the zoning board, if they approve it, would include those conditions as part of their certificate of approval, and then EPB will continue to enforce those conditions through the building permit and co process.

After people are occupying the building, EPP can be called out to enforce environmental protections.

So sorry, was it a report attached in our deck or we don't have a report in our package?

The planning board doesn't typically get the referral um comments that because it's like you're also a referral agency.

All of the referrals get sent to the to the planning to the zoning board.

But I can see if we have access to them and I can share those with you.

Yeah, I just if they're given a clean report, I'd be more comfortable if they'd given a report with conditions.

I would like to know what those conditions were.

Hence my question.

So I don't know what was in that report.

So I think we all understand how important it is to maintain that triple WAM River uh ecosystem.

I think the CT spent a lot of money trying to clean that up.

So I'm just concerned this level of development next to that river is going to as I said not a subject matter expert, but I would like to see what is the assessment of that by the experts.

Well, here is a case in point.

Can I just interject for one moment?

Um Lisa, you representing the applicant.

Um were probably a recipient of those comments.

Are there any that you can choose to share with us?

I'm happy to, I mean, I'm happy to share them all with you.

Um they let me see if I can pull it up.

They typically need to be addressed prior to building permit.

Um just I have them up as well if you want me to share screen.

Okay.

Okay.

Is there a particular one?

I think probably 120 C is more.

It sounds like 120 C because 120 is not, we're not like building anything.

Okay.

I think it'll be where should we go on there?

Uh should I keep zooming?

So this is um they list the references, which are all the plans that they reviewed.

Um, they identify the proposal, summary of sites, site characteristics.

Um a quick discussion.

Uh let me see.

All proposed activities are beyond the flood designation and the upland review area.

The environmental issues of concern with the remainder of the applicant's proposal relate to site controls during construction, site drainage, and upland landscaping.

Um, so they go into a number of you can see the level of details um that are required.

And typically what happens is um this the EPB's comments, health department comments, planning board comments get packaged and provided to the zoning board to consider as part of this application.

We're all experts in our own respective fields.

Um, and the zoning board will then um say what if they approve it, what of these conditions are required to be met met um in advance of building permit or in advance of CO.

And essentially the EPB uh works with the applicant to address these comments over the course of time.

Um this is kind of their first big review.

Um you scroll back.

Yeah.

I think one of the important things that Bob Closby um noted is, you know, we have a retaining wall along the um western edge that runs along the river.

And the in terms of phasing, he requested that that be constructed first, and that will ensure that there's you know, permanent protection for uh for the construction activity that's going to take place to the east um throughout the process.

But he I mean he's incredibly thorough, and we you know, as as Lindsay noted, cannot get a building permit and cannot get a CO without him signing off.

Yeah, can I just go to page three, please, Lindsay?

Yeah.

Yeah.

I did also want to note these performance bonds.

So the developers are required to put up the full cost of uh the to bond the full cost of their um erosion controls with contingency.

Um so that if if it turns out not to be working, we will have the money to to implement it to the best of to make sure that it's working.

Um so okay, page three.

So here it talks about the number of trees uh being uh uh approved, I suppose.

So 189 trees.

Uh so it didn't it didn't it didn't strike me before.

So I thought this is some open space that we are trying to build caragosas.

You it was never that we are going to destroy 200 trees to build 100 apartments or 100 uh townhomes well the site is is vacant today, so the trees that are coming down are in the building envelope, but there are significant number of trees that are being maintained along the perimeter, and then it goes on to say that we're planting almost 500 new native trees.

So in order to, I mean, in order to construct, there will we will have to take trees down.

And and I was just going to point out, Ravi, um, for those existing trees that are outside building limits, there's such a vast amount of excavation work and and grading necessary to meet um uh topographic requirements that those trees won't even survive.

Yeah, hence hence why they're planting new um Rami, did you have any further questions on the environmental review?

No, I'm okay, thank you.

All right.

Um any other questions from board members all right.

Um I will note I found the um the summary graphic on the overall site density to be very helpful putting it in context, um, that it's actually a very low um unit per acre density.

Um do I have um do I have a motion from the board?

Oh sorry, can I ask one last question?

So Lisa, so are these two projects discrete or they need to be approved as a package or disapproved as a package?

No, they're absolutely independent of one another.

Okay.

All right.

So if I recall the first one that we're talking about is 225.28, which is 120 Long Ridge Road.

Uh correct.

So that is the application for the apartments, again, the conversion of the existing office building into 196 apartments, and then uh it'll retain the existing really massive parking structure that has 808 spaces.

Um yeah, I I would make a motion on that first northerly project for the 190 units to approve uh the proposal, but also to include a comment requesting that the zoning board consider requesting that a significant portion of the affordable units on that project be on site um because of the central location, in part because of the central location of this property in an area that doesn't have much affordable housing.

Or words to that effect.

Sure.

Um other board members uh have how do other how do other board members feel about that amendment?

be on site um because of the central location in part because of the central location of this property in an area that doesn't have much affordable housing or words to that effect sure um are other board members uh how how do other how do other board members feel about that amendment um yeah i i will note that one i think bec because of the zoning change i'm not really sure how much impact that uh recommendation would have with the zoning change i'm not in support of that sorry say that again jeremy with with the zoning change i would not be in support of that inverted um so bill i i think um we can certainly make sure that your um that your comment is noted in the minutes and will be in the record uh on the the vote but um we won't be attaching that as a condition so without that condition i'm gonna vote no and you can explain that that was the primary reason okay uh do we have a motion on zb application two two five two eight for one twenty long ridge jeremy uh move approval yes all right and i have do I have a second on that anybody anybody um um may I ask the reason for the hesitation on the second yeah I might as I said I think converting this uh the office building conversion is a great idea uh I'm just not totally convinced about the density there and I think Lisa was she made a point with e clear when she showed the chat as to number of apartments that we typically ask for and so on but somehow there's 200 apartments uh that area would be traffic going in and out seems excessive to me so I'm not going to stand in the way if if it is approved but I bring it I don't know I find it hard to second a motion um I will note as a technicality that the so seconding the motion is then allows us to vote on it so um chat uh it will look with the audience I think the motion but I do something else yeah um chat do you have some further comments um I'll I'll second the motion um all right for the for the purposes of of the vote uh and and I and I have one other recommendation it's actually an area Lisa that you've never talked about um but it is very consistent with the comprehensive plan now that we've just recently approved um on this property would do does the developer intend to to um reclad the exterior curtain wall to make it the building a little less corporate like there aren't any changes to the facade that are proposed but certainly if that's something that you'd like us to consider as a recommendation then then we'd have to be happy to do that.

Yeah yeah um I I'll be supporting this when when the time comes for the vote but my support is is based on that precise recommendation yes all right uh so Jeremy since you uh put forward the motion um do you accept the amendment uh that chat has put forward on recommending uh the exterior cladding or redesign um of the building to kind of shift the office or commercial character yeah I'll accept that all right um so with that motion on the table all in favor please raise your hand okay so that is three in favor I'm abstaining so Robbie is an abstention um and all opposed okay so Bill opposed and noting that that was that's it's specific to um the plan to not include the um the affordable or the BMR units on site um yeah and maybe add i other than that I did support I like the project I just feel some affordable units should be on site maybe 50% of the okay sure that that's very helpful so in concept and design in support but it's just the BMR element.

That that's very helpful.

So in concept and design in support, but it's just the BMR element.

All right, great.

Um so the motion does pass uh with three in favor um and the comment noted on the oppose and the abstention from Ravi.

Um so next we need to uh now take up applic the application for the um carriage homes and town homes, uh that's CP application 225-29 uh for 120 C.

Um I will just note I mean I I mean I I think anytime we hear anybody proposing you know, like apartments or really anything, they say, why can't we have more town homes for ownership?

And these are town homes for ownership um that I think are well situated and um ultimately it's a again very low density per unit uh on the overall site.

Um so do I have a motion on this item?

I'll make a motion uh to approve, you know.

I I do think it's it's great to see uh town homes here um to allow for ownership in the city for for some younger people or people looking for their first home.

You know, I think uh there's also great respect to the setbacks to the adjacent properties on Old Barn Road and along the Ripperwam River um away from the wetlands, and and I think the density is you know fitting for the site in and not overdeveloping uh the site.

So I'll make that motion to approve.

All right.

Um do I have a second on that motion?

So pardon me, Jennifer.

I'm still thinking in my mind about the uh the EBB report.

Uh I'm trying to assess what that report I read the text of the report, uh, but I'm trying to get a sense of how you know how impactful the development is on the river side.

And uh, you know, they talk about retaining walls, destroying 200 trees and trying to plant another five trees on top and replace that.

Uh it seems to be a very uh what shall I say?

Uh beep impact to that maybe to that area there.

And that's why I'm struggling to second the motion.

I'm just hustling that.

Robbie, if I if I may, um, I mean, I again given the kind of the coordinated system of referrals, I would like to encourage board members to be considering um as the planning board, the question of whether this type of development, this typology at this density in this location for this category is consistent with the master plan.

Um, and then I I think I will trust the um judgment of EPB to then assess um the the questions around what remediation is required in order to ensure environmental quality on the site.

Is that helpful, Ravi?

So you are saying that I'm just asking this in a very respectful way.

So when we make our decision, things like how much greenery is being replaced, or those kind of issues should not be the ambit of the planning board.

Um no, not that that's not um not that that's not part of the consideration.

Um it sounded like Ravi that you had some very kind of more almost like kind of technical considerations around what level of impact um would occur um the land.

Um as noted in the report, there will be a significant net gain in the number of trees.

Um and so I it would be helpful to understand from a planning perspective kind of what remains um as a um as a concern that is relevant to our purview as the planning board.

Yeah, I mean the feedback we get from the residents many times is we are knocking down all these trees and making them into buildings and you know, etc.

etc.

So I'm just wondering how to factor that in our thinking.

And I in fact I started out by saying those townhomes and condominiums are a good addition to the housing stock.

So I've I got out about it, but then I saw the map with this border adjacent to the river.

And uh that's where I you know doubts kept into my mind.

But with the other members of the board believe that the EPB report, which unfortunately I didn't I didn't receive it in the package, I didn't get the package today, so I couldn't I couldn't read it.

So if others believe that that issue has been uh identified and potentially addressed.

Um probably I'm okay.

So I know I fortunately I didn't get a chance to read the report.

I don't know whether the report was attached, but um well, right.

So um there Lindsay had screen shared the report that we received that not we that um was sent to zoning um from EPB and had noted that um that that's what we were looking for with the looking at with the count of the trees.

Um Lisa had noted um the request for the um retaining wall to be built uh kind of early phase that seemed like one of the more substantive uh recommendations from EPB and that um that I presume that that will um be um it'll be difficult to move forward with the project um in terms of of permits um if that particular step is not taken first early in the project phasing.

Yeah, I I I'm sure the builders will comply comply with whatever conditions the EPB put, I'm not I don't know, I don't worry about that.

So Lisa, is that public uh that walk walkway that you mentioned?

Is it between the building and the river?

Where is that that public walkway that we that you referred to?

The publicly accessible space is closer to Long Ridge Road.

It's a trail system, which is similar to what's being done um further north on Long Ridge Road.

I see.

Robbie, what I think you were referring to is um in Bob Clausy's in EPB's referral comments, um he spoke about um a river walk.

Yes, uh, which was an idea that is trying that they're looking to um extend along the Ripperwam River.

Yeah, um, and he spoke about this in the Mosaic project, which is to the north.

I have to pull up the comments again, if you give me one minute.

Um is that basically what the easement uh you Lisa, you mentioned an easement uh there.

Is that what the easement is in connection with?

There's an existing easement um in place.

Our intention is not to construct a river walk in that location.

I will tell you that in our conversations with the neighbors, particularly those on the west or yeah, the west side of the river, that is not something that they want.

Um, and it was it's not part of our proposal.

We instead uh chose to do the public access closer to Long Ridge Road.

But there is an easement there.

So if the city ever decided that they wanted to do it, they could.

Okay.

But how would they get access to that easement, Lisa?

I mean, if it's recorded on the land records.

And I understand, but the physical access to that, they have to go through your property to get to that easement.

They'd have to, I'm sorry, they'd have to what?

No, how will the public saying the uh that easement that you talked about?

How do we physically access it?

People have to go through your build this development to get to that easement.

There's no they wouldn't you wouldn't access it right now because there's an I mean you'd be walking through the trees.

Um it's it's more of a a paper easement unless and until a river walk is constructed.

I mean, I guess technically you could walk along it, but it it's not really meant for that right now.

It's just on paper.

Okay.

So if the you know the adjacent properties did um want to move along construction of that, um the easement would allow if the city wanted to to continue the construction.

And so the access would be through um other portions of that that river walk rather than directly on the site.

Correct.

It's shown on C110.

really meant for that right now it's just on paper okay so if the you know if the adjacent properties did um want to move along construction of that um the easement would allow if the city wanted to to continue the construction and so the access would be through um other portions of that that river walk rather than directly on the site correct it's shown on c 110 if you zoom in over there there's a 20 foot easement along the edge of the property along the river on river all right so you will try to find some document on this on the little walk um i was looking back at uh epb's comments and uh basically it says the applicants projects and the improvements proposed were currently underway at the adjacent properties to the north would seem to provide an opportunity to develop the river walk epb suggests the zoning board discussed this idea with the applicant improvement of the river walk would require likely require permit from environmental protection board um but as lisa noted it seems like there's some uh neighbor resistance to a river walk so I think if the city were ever going to move forward with a river walk there would be uh a study and engagement and um a whole bunch of process before actually moving forward but immediately to answer Robbie's question could you show us or could somebody uh put C Jeremy you said it was uh drawing what C 12010 put C 110 on the screen so Ravi can see where the easement is located yep and in our giant packet that's sheet number 13 I closed it I'm sorry let me just the note Lisa is right above the 18 uh 680 square foot box if you zoom in right by the river it says it right there all right I have it right here thanks Lindsay yep ah oh no wrong one yeah down if you go down just a little bit that grade note right there so it's basically pointing to the space bordered on the east and west by the line the double dash line you can see it really well in see if there's another exhibit that looks that can share better it's on my I just have to find close to everything it's also shown on the redness in me drawing for the zoning location survey okay it looks somewhat similar but just in a different orientation all right here let me let me try this oh okay see this note it says existing 20 foot river walk easement can you remember that significant significantly I'm sorry no problem I'm with you um so it says existing 20 foot river walk easement and it it if you can see my cursor it goes along here so it really just kind of runs along and it it goes to the north as well okay and it and basically um it ends at you at the site southerly property line doesn't it yes in this particular exhibit yes yeah so so um Ravi to answer your question um this kind of an easement to provide access to a city developed river walk let's just say for sake of discussion um requires the continuity of the walk um and the easement to at least extend to a public way a road of some kind um so uh given that there are no roads here um as it is the you the public couldn't couldn't get to this as an easement but the easement is assumed to be a continuous thing along the in the entirety of the river um but just noting that my understanding of why epb had added that note is because the adjacent property under development uh is

So given that there are no roads here, as it is, the you the public couldn't get to this as an easement, but the easement is assumed to be a continuous thing along the in the entirety of the river.

But just noting that my understanding of why APB had added that note is because the adjacent property under development is putting in a portion of Riverwalk.

Which is Mosaic.

Mosaic.

Yeah.

Correct.

All right.

Are there any further questions or any amendments or yeah?

I'm going to be voting no on this, and I would like I have eight reasons.

I'd like to read them so they can be recorded.

Sure.

I'm opposing this project, even though I I like the uh the idea of missing middle.

I think there are too many units here.

Um the tree removal of large, even huge trees is excessive.

The grading is going to be very extensive.

There are going to be impacts to the river.

A lack of any affordable units on the on the site.

Well, they're not showing.

So they may do it on site.

I want to make that comment because they're not, they didn't say we're going to do it on site.

Um, lack of usable open space, particularly for children.

Um, an unattractive streetscape dominated by garage doors.

Loss of natural open space.

Um again, I did want to say that I would support this product type if it was a significantly smaller number of units and less impact to the environment.

I will join uh on saying no to the budget, but for many of those reasons that Bill just mentioned.

All right, hang on.

So just for um procedure, um currently, yeah.

I I thought it made sense for Bill to enumerate um those items.

We currently have a motion on the floor from Jeremy for approval.

And in order to vote on the motion, I need a second.

All right, so second from chut.

Um all in favor of approval, raise your hand.

Right.

So that is three um on approval.

Um, all those opposed.

All right, so Bill and Robbie are opposed, and there are no abstentions.

And uh the um the opposed uh will note the the um the items that Bill had cited.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So onward to zoning.

Thank you, Lisa.

Thank you.

So not done with her yet.

Uh great, yes.

Um, next on the agenda, zoning board of appeals referrals, um, CBA application zero two-25.

Uh Lisa Feinberg of Carmedy, Torrance Sundak, and Hanasi LLP representing King School Incorporated at 1450 Newfield Avenue special permit.

Applicant is proposing to modify an existing special permit to construct a 24,514 square foot addition to the existing upper school building, which will serve as a campus center and renovate 2,156 square feet of the existing building.

And if you would like to present.

Hi, everyone, it's been forever.

For the record, uh, my name is Lisa Feinberg.

I'm a partner with Carmen Torrent Sandak and Hennessy.

My office is here in Stanford.

With me tonight is again my uh colleague Dan Chapel from Carmody.

We also have uh David Appease from JLL and Peter Rader from JL, uh, Michael Tribe from Peter Gisalfi Architects, and we are all here on behalf of the applicant uh King School, uh represented by Stephen Schaefer, their chief financial and operating officer.

So we're here on a referral from the ZBA on a special permit application requesting some improvements to the King's School campus.

So the King campus is outlined here in yellow.

Um you can see the Italian center uh to the north, Newfield Avenue runs along the eastern side.

Um Innervale Road East is to the south, and then there are some residential properties on the western order.

Uh your new comprehensive plan has placed this in land use category resear one, which is your single family residential zone.

Um the former master plan had it in a similar zone, master plan category one, which was a very low density single family zone.

Getting a message, sorry.

And uh it is also in the RA1 uh zone.

King uh has been around since around 1865 and has been at this location since 1963.

Today it consists of just over 30, 34 acres with several buildings, and I apologize, but this is oriented differently.

So north is on the right side of the screen.

So on the northern part of the site, you see the upper school, the upper school gymnasium, uh, the performing arts center and the middle school.

And then as you proceed to the south, you get the lower school, the lower school gym, um, and a bunch of the administrative uh buildings.

King educates students from preschool to 12th grade and is considered what we call a school non-public or a private school in the zoning regulations.

So this use in the um RA1 zone is only permitted via special permit.

And because it's a special permit in a residential zone, each time they make a change or improvement to the campus, they have to first come to you and then ultimately go to the zoning board of appeals.

So since 1963, um, when they relocated to this site, they have filed numerous applications and appeared before these boards um many, many times.

So this is a survey of the complete site.

Um, most recently, they were before you a couple years ago in connection with the construction of two parking lots.

Um, and then again uh for improvements of the lower school, and you can see those parking lots.

There's one over here and one over here.

So some of you may remember that.

This is a close-up of what we are considering now.

So we are here in connection with a proposal to construct a new 24,514 square foot campus center, and also to renovate uh just over 2100 square feet of space in the upper school.

Um, really that part is really just to in order to modernize the locker rooms, the fitness center, and some of the athletic offices.

This proposal, and this is a rendering of of the new construction, is for a campus center, and it's really uh the outgrowth of King's 2021 campus master plan.

So currently King's upper school building includes a total of 20 classrooms and science labs that and they overlap as study hall space as well.

So while enrollment has been consistent over the years and no increase in enrollment is proposed uh right now, the buildings have been undersized for some time.

As such, the 2021 King Master Plan indicated that the existing 20 classrooms and labs are utilized at a rate that is just not optimal.

Among other things, um, this plan recommended optimizing flexibility in class scheduling by adding classrooms, labs, and study space so that uh classrooms can really come in and out of use and be used for various purposes.

The proposed campus center would address this issue by providing that additional classroom space as well as collaboration rooms and lab space and areas for students to study and also just to congregate outside of the class.

So there would be a new exterior plaza, um a covered connection, um, and I can show that on this plan from the middle school to this new space, so those kids won't have to walk outside.

Um, and the the new landscaping and site lighting would really be uh integrated into the in the the campus in the same manner that the existing um landscaping and lighting is.

As I noted before, there's no increase in in student enrollment.

There's also no increase in the number of faculty or staff or parking spaces.

While we're not increasing the number of sparking parking spaces, we are adding six EV charging stations right here.

And those uh could accommodate up to 12 cars at once.

This proposal continues to comply with all of the height and bulk and covered standards for special permit uses in the RA1 zone, which are um sort of more restrictive uh standards than would otherwise be applied to the zone.

Um lastly, I guess um, since we are here uh seeking your confirmation that we uh that the project conforms to the comprehensive plan.

Um I as I noted, we're now in the res one residential single family land use category.

It's very similar to the the old category, and it really um contemplates traditionally single family detached homes, but also supports what uh is can are considered compatible uses, such as schools.

So the scale and design of the building are in compliance um with the enhanced standards, as I said, of the for special permit uses in single family zones.

We think this is in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood.

It's sort of tucked into the center of campus.

Um and and will remain compatible with the uh the surrounding homes.

Lastly, I just note you know, King's School has been a member of the Newfield neighborhood um for over six decades and uh remains extremely committed to being good neighbor.

Meet with they meet with their neighbor semi-regularly.

They they had that summer semi-regular meeting um at the end of September.

They also sent out their own letter to meet with folks uh in advance of this EBA hearing.

Um, so there is really an active continuous dialogue between the school and and the neighborhood.

Great.

Are there questions from the board?

Um go ahead.

Not a question, uh Jen, but just uh to note uh for my colleagues that I'll be abstaining from this vote because of uh um a connection that I have to the school.

Okay, thank you for that note.

Um questions.

So sorry, uh Linsa Lindsay, the reason this is coming for up rule is because the nature of the zoning that all construction should be approved by yes, is the only reason.

Yes, it's a special permit use.

So it's a uh a school in a single family residential zoning.

So any changes they have to make as a special permit use have to come through the approval process.

I see.

Yeah, I think recently we had to approve something related to the athletic fields.

Is that correct?

Yeah, the there was two parking lots and I think a path.

Bill move approval.

Right.

Do I have a second?

A second from Ravi, all in favor.

And passes uh with four members voting and shut abstaining due to personal connection uh to the applicant.

Thank you all.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Um, so that is all of the approvals and referrals.

And so now we come to uh the comprehensive plan approved uh at the September 30 meeting with conditions.

And so the conditions are what we are reviewing this evening.

Um Lindsay, do you want to um go ahead and start by just kind of summarizing uh the wordsmithing?

Uh sure.

Um, so I took a shot at wordsmithing just a few uh just a few different actions.

Would it be should I bring those up and show them?

Or I you said summarize joint.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, so yeah, let's bring them up and you could go ahead and walk through them.

Okay.

So let me know.

Before you start, I just want to say I'm I'm just gonna stay in the meeting, but I have I can't sit anymore in this position.

So uh you may not see my face, but I'm still here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So the first one, well, I'll just I'm gonna start from the top so you guys are all aware.

We um were okay on many, and we were able to revise quite a few.

All those have been highlighted in purple.

Um this red text signifies wordsmith text.

Um so here for GIS, it was just too technical, and we wanted to potentially include other data.

So I have come up with expand public access and downloadability to city data for the purpose of transparency and to support others in completing analyses, prioritize download access to geographic information systems data.

Sounds fine to me.

All right.

Um with one question.

So is it that downloadability will be one long word?

Or is it are they uh no uh uh sorry what never mind okay download ability, the ability to do you want me to make download and downloadability?

Well, we can make it one word, that's fine.

That's fine.

No, I I would suggest not making it one word.

Perhaps you perhaps you want to say and ability to download expand uh public access and ability to download city data.

Okay.

Yeah, that works.

Expand public access and ability to download city data for the purpose of transparency and to support others completing analysis, prioritize download access, prioritize the ability to download.

I I think download access as written there is fine.

Download access to geographic information systems data.

Okay, yep.

I think that that captures the intent.

All right, great.

Um, so okay.

The next one.

Um this was about the variances and um how much how many reducing non-compliance issues.

Um I have uh suggested add criteria to the variance review process defined in the zoning regulations to include thresholds for when an application can be administratively approved, when it needs referral to the planning board, and when it is required to be approved by the zoning board of appeals with the purpose of reducing the time administrative and cost burden to residents.

Okay.

Um I think that I think that works.

Any other comments like Bill's head is gonna pop up if he if he decides he doesn't want to approve that um okay.

A lot of work done at that meeting.

Um this one was I had marked as a rewrite, but I realized Jennifer, you had suggested language that was in during the meeting, that was pretty perfect.

So, and that was publish explanatory materials to support community leaders and stakeholders to better understand the basics of municipal government and processes, including development approvals and budget procedures.

Okay.

Does that work for folks?

Okay.

And then there are specific we discussed specific ways um to implement that.

Um talking about the uh developer, the ways that developers assess impact the ways the city currently requires requires developers to pay for said impacts.

So those are noted as things that I have to do.

Um we also had a few notes in this discussion on on things to include in the cover letter, which I will get to.

about the uh developer the ways that developers assess impact the ways the city currently requires requires developers to pay for said impacts so those are noted as things that I have to do um and we also had a few notes in this discussion on on things to include in the cover letter which I will get to um this section is regarding the um historic sites and neighborhood I thought it would be good to just kind of outline what we were talking about so the the issue when I went back and re-listened to the video was that the goal of encourage thoughtful development um within the strategy to celebrate Stanford's historic sites and neighborhoods could be miss could be interpreted as to say develop the neighborhoods as opposed to kind of the thoughtful aspect of it um so yeah I think that was I have sorry so let's say that was my main concern because you know if we read the first action in that section it says encourage thoughtful development and then it's not probably the number one action there um so encourage thoughtful development is a goal um the I don't know what exactly what the first action is but um it is it's a goal it's not an action it's a yeah having that as the as the first item on that page uh in that in that section is a problem so I thought we decided to reword it I think you had it in in your other draft no I have two I have two options here yeah um yeah I was thinking what don't you include both both these uh to me at least distinct actions and they both strengthen our commitment to protecting the historical district Jennifer you're a mute um actually I find the second one to be much more concise.

Um and I I think in particular the disincentivizing the loss of historic structures um and preserving existing scale are very descriptive um I think that in the first one while the examples of existing tools can be helpful I think it I think it sort of just muddles the flow of it I think Ralph was explaining that currently we don't know exactly what are the tools we have and all the tools that we have to protect their historical buildings you were saying there is not one place that somebody could go and figure it out so I think you know maintaining whatever we have today and adding to it is what I'm trying to yeah um it's just not zoning alone I mean it could be much more than just zoning isn't it um well given that oh sorry go ahead no chan finish your talk and then I can um well given that the last chunk of the alternate text does note the funding for historic preservation maybe we can employ employee zoning and and funding strategies that disincentivize etc yeah I think the the disincentivize is is a great word here to to sort of you know we we did get a lot of new constituents that want us to preserve these areas and disentivizing geez that's a tongue twister is a great way to sort of uh address that in my opinion and I think I think I and I got that from Ralph's description of the historic density bonus program because that's essentially what it does is it makes it more pro it makes it more financially feasible to preserve a building I'm okay with it I I don't uh it's fine yeah I I think it's still inclusive of the existing strategies yeah because the this if you remember the residents comments were the 2015 plan had some wordings which they really wanted to include here and they felt that those wordings are being weakened so I think the first alternative here says we're going to maintain and expand those tools and the second action says we're going to take additional action so but it's it's I'm just you know trying to be very detailed on this but that's why I think either one or both is fine I think preferably both but I'm okay with one so does this uh does this uh let's assume for the moment the second one for sake of discussion does it is

So I think the first alternative here says we are going to maintain and expand those tools, and the second action says we're going to take additional action.

So but it's I'm just you know trying to be very detailed on this, but that's why I think either one or both is fine.

I think preferably both, but I'm okay with one.

So does this uh does this uh let's assume for the moment the second one for sake of discussion?

Does it is it's supplemental language that's added to an existing action, or what is it?

Lindsay, could you pull up the the current uh plan page to show where this would go?

Yep.

Yeah, so here's the strategy, celebrate historic sites and neighborhoods.

Um the first action uh spam undertake analyses of neighborhood histories, HPEC, yeah.

And here is where I see the goals as increased thoughtful development.

Right.

And I am not I don't I mean we're talking about historic sites, where we're talking about thoughtful development again.

That's well, so the sectionate historic preservation would be an example of thoughtful development.

So um here in in those examples, a developer will get density bonuses in order to or in exchange for them preserving and enhancing the historic character of the building um in question.

So that that is I would think that that that's my definition of thoughtful development.

Yeah, but I'm saying or Lindsay, I think the goal, I mean, in this section, if we're talking we're talking about the the celebrating our historic sites, the goal cannot be development, you know.

I mean, that's somewhat jarring to me to see but as Ralph said development, like that is the only way that it is going to be preserved.

So for example, um if uh if it is not profitable for a developer to maintain a historic building, they'll just demolish it and they have the right.

They could they could demolish it and they could that they have the right to do that.

Understand.

So is it a goal or is it one of the actions?

So I'm just getting confused about between a goal and action.

If the action one of the actions is which we discussed in the previous chat, you know, do you know using a combination of zoning and funding to have possible development?

That that could that is an action, but the goal cannot be development in a historic site.

I mean, that's just at least to me seems seems a little bit uh odd.

That's all so if you I agree with the way that this lands.

Um but uh I mean if it's so if it's an overarching goal, I think it's really just like how does this goal land when it's in the historic preservation strategy section is is kind of the the thing to figure out how to amend to make clear that as pertains to historic uh properties and neighborhoods.

Um that thoughtful development is um is in scale and that it enables preservation I'm saying wouldn't we change the goal to say enable preservation?

Why are we talking about development?

Well, because this is the goal for the entire city of opportunity section, so it's not only the goal for the it's just noting in context for each of the strategies that's embedded with it, yeah.

But just that statement without any caveats and as a goal is at I mean that's what I think the resident was reacting to, and I have the same feeling.

I mean, maybe that's not and I think it's kind of the reaction, I think it's simply the word development because this encouraged thoughtful development is not necessarily a statement that we want to grow, we want to develop.

So if this city is changing, which it's bound to because that's life, um, we want to be thoughtful about it.

Okay.

That's a ghoul looking.

I I don't want to debate, but to me, it seems to be incongruous as a goal didn't.

Can I just remind everybody where this originally came from?

Um on the 30th, or that we had received uh a text from some historic leaders within the city asking us to add a statement somewhere in the comprehensive plan, um about historic preservation.

I I I can find it and read it again if that would be useful to you.

However, um, we couldn't agree to all of the conditions that they wanted in uh put into that statement.

So this was an attempt to if you recall their statement consisted of two paragraphs.

We generally didn't have problems with the first paragraph, but we did have problems with the second.

This was a replacement of the second the language in the second paragraph.

So I would say unfortunately though, I will say like this statement would be like we can't just copy and paste this statement into the plan.

It that's not how the plan is written.

Um if we can pull out an action from this statement, or maybe um any kind of some kind of a revision from this statement, that would be helpful.

Um just why why can we not make uh in the section of the comprehensive plan that deals specifically with historic preservation?

Why can we not just add that a statement?

Let me get to it.

And I'll see if I can find it again.

Um I'm wondering maybe we can like change the what and the why.

Um yes, I found it.

That little goals window next to it.

Yeah.

Somehow let's squeeze it in there.

So it reaff basically what they're looking for is somewhere in the comprehensive plan that you know acknowledges the importance of preserving and protecting historic structures.

That's what their statement was oriented to am I correct that there is no regulation right now in Stanford in any neighborhood that actually prevents demolition of a historic structure.

We we don't have many cities do, like you know, New York City, there's whole 200 different historic districts where you can't demolish a home or a building without going through an extensive process and mitigation, et cetera, et cetera.

And there are many other cities that have we don't have that at all in Stanford.

So I don't know.

You would think the first thing if we if we really think historic preservation is important we should be a little more specific and say there's certain maybe there are certain neighborhoods or just individual buildings that are of such historic value that we think that we should uh protect them through uh um anyway, it just seems to me to have this extremely vague kind of language doesn't really serve too much purpose that we either make a suggestion of that we should start to protect some buildings or districts or you know, it just I don't I just don't see the point of these very very vague statements that we cherish our older buildings, but we're actually doing absolutely not nothing to protect them.

We should be a little more specific and say there are certain maybe there are certain neighborhoods or just individual buildings that are of such historic value that we think that we should uh protect them through uh um anyway it just seems to me to have this extremely vague kind of language doesn't really serve too much purpose that we either make a suggestion of that we should start to protect some buildings or districts or you know it just I don't I just don't see the point of these very very vague statements that we cherish our older buildings but we're actually doing absolutely nothing to protect them so Bill along those lines um and Lindsay and Jennifer as the planners among us, um how do the cities that do have such preservation requirements how how do they uh where do they exist?

How how do they do that?

How could Stanford what can Stanford do to emulate that?

Well, you know, I was I actually was the historic preservation planner in San Diego quite a long time ago.

It was like 25 years ago, and what they had there was there were certain specific buildings and certain districts where you had to go through an uh uh a fairly extensive process to demolish a building or significantly alter it.

Um it there's quite a bit of variety.

One city we might want to look to is I I think if we're really serious about looking at this, we'd want to look at the regulations in some other cities.

I know Jersey City has I think six or eight districts, uh and that's a city with tremendous development, even more than Stamford.

Um so it's it's very important there, and you might want to look at how they've done it.

It in very few cases there are there are exceptions if there's a safety problem, if it's just totally infeasible, there's if there's been a fire or damage, you obviously there are cases where a historic building can be taken down.

Um, but I think if if we what we might want to do is have some kind of policy saying we want to explore regulations to protect uh individual buildings and or historic neighborhoods districts, um and I don't I you know right here on the spot I can't come up with with the exact language, but I think we either do something a little bit specific.

Right now we do have a uh I what do they call them the H Stork sites board or something?

But they're a cultural resources inventory.

Yeah, they are just an advisory group.

There's really they can suggest things, but if somebody's intent on tearing down the most significant building in town, they could do it.

Um I correct the New York Cities, that was done by a charter mandate.

So I don't know if it would be a charter revision or something like that.

I don't know if we could explore or you know, put language for a possible charter revision to establish a or to you know study the establishment of a landmark preservation commission and a future charter revision.

Is that getting outside of our wheelhouse?

Um I don't think it's necessarily outside of our wheelhouse.

I will note offhand, I'm not sure within the broader context of uh state law and the zoning enabling act where this falls.

Um and I'll also note so my understanding uh of you know what what you were just describing, Bill, about what the process was um in San Diego is that the requirement is to go through a process, and then that process um kind of assesses the feasibility or the economic feasibility basically, or in employing tools to make preservation possible, and that there are some instances in which um this uh this board can determine that you know, given the conditions that it is permitted.

Um, but then you know, I'm not saying that anyone would would do this, but um if at least in that in that the context that you were describing, Bill, if some what would be the consequences if someone were to act against the recommendation of of that board?

make preservation possible and that there are some instances in which um this uh this board can determine that you know given the conditions that it is permitted um but then you know I'm not saying that anyone would would do this but um if at least in that in that the context that you were describing Bill if some what would be the consequences if someone were to act against the recommendation of of that board because I just I want to think through what is actually enforceable well I don't know maybe what we need to do is invite some people from cities that do have these kinds of regulations to brief us but for the purpose of the the the plan we could just have some relatively general statements saying we should uh you know take some actions to consider implementing actual uh limitations on demolition or inappropriate alterations of significant buildings and districts I'm not I don't think well historic as opposed to significant yeah historic I meant his historically significant districts or buildings um that we explore what actions could be taken to begin to implement um protect something some kind of preservation policy yeah because I mean it's really late because most of Stanford's historic fabric was destroyed in the since the mid-20th century and it's extremely late now there's not much left but uh it's still maybe worth putting in the plan well we we we still do have according to the this email um that we that we all received five neighborhoods in the city of Stanford that are on the National Register of Historic Places as a starting point we're talking about protecting and preserving them now some of them are very specific Hubbard Heights Ravona Manor et cetera um when it talks about downtown um there might need to be a little bit more study or analysis uh to identify those historic structures um and and in the south end as well um I don't know that we need to today um come up with the process uh but an action but I agree with Bill that an action we we could insert an a new action item uh in the appropriate place within the comprehensive plan that talks about um what what bill just you know recommend it um i wonder if that can be addressed by adding to this this text um the imply zoning and funding strategies that disincentivize um and I mean is it helpful to add a note there about um like comma including um emulating practices um um in other emulating successful strategies in um other similar communities that that can be said you'd have uh I mean before you can emulate them you have to you know research and study and find out which communities have them right right yes I think uh I've definitely heard that folks are a little bit tired of the word study in the plan even though obviously uh study is study is required in order to determine what are better practices um uh and then I think we can add um okay so employee zoning and funding strategies that disincentivize the loss of historic structures and neighborhoods comma and preserves existing scale um uh first for starters for starters you know I've heard what everybody said about the um the word that is dissentivize but as it's written the whole statement is terribly negative disincentivize the loss why can't we say incentivize the preservation or protection on a more positive side of the of that uh objective so employee zoning and funding strategies that incentivize

I've heard what everybody said about the word that is decent.

But as it's written, the whole statement is terribly negative.

Disincentivize the loss.

Why can't we say incentivize the preservation or protection on a more positive side of the of that objective?

So employee zoning and funding strategies that incentivize preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods.

The protection and preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods.

I see your point.

So what we want to do is disincentivize the loss of that.

Incentivize the protection of I I yeah, I that I just wanted to note that that that was my immediate reaction, Jennifer.

I am trying I'm looking to see if there is room in the in the what and why paragraphs to incorporate um this first what's in this first paragraph.

I mean, I know it's I think it's there, but is there a way to pull some phrases to strengthen that?

Um I mean I I think I think even just adding um adding something in the why that acknowledges that changes that growth is happening as part of the context.

Um I'm looking at the sentence that starts as redevelopment continues, it is imperative, et cetera, et cetera.

Um you guys see this if I put these side by side uh well, let's see.

I also have a a thought that might be a little bit out of left field, but um yeah, I am still noodling on uh the alignment of this section with the broader city of opportunity um section.

Um, because there is a lot there about um thoughtful urban design um and preservation of I I know it's mostly like the natural environment, um, but I I can I can see some synergies there where it it removes the connection um of this the the development goal, which I do think is is necessarily part of the city of opportunity and nesting it in a different place.

Um the strategies that are here are really they're they're about they're about the the built environment, right?

But it it's about kind of enhancing what's there, um cataloging it, um, and the you know thoughtful urban design.

Robbie, what do you think of that?

Are you saying move the whole section to a different place in the document?

Uh yeah, so moving strategy six, this whole section on historic uh character and um community in under healthy city and the two goals there um are create and maintain a healthy environment and prioritize community health and well-being.

Um and for that second one, um the text um says create an urban environment that supports the physical and mental well-being of all residents, improving access to health care, increasing green spaces and tree coverage, enhancing public spaces, integrating art into city, and prioritizing thoughtful urban design.

Yeah, I think I think that's the right is better than where it is today because if you put it where it is today, it leads to other consequences, so that's fine.

But you still would need to incorporate some more precise and specific wordings that under the action section that uh Bill and Jade have been out, right?

So I think we should do both.

Yes.

And then see if we can strengthen these actions by being more specific, right?

And what did we ask Bill?

Bill, why don't you take a crack and just say what you said in a short sentence and we'll see how it'll fit it in.

Um I can't remember which sentence you're talking about.

You said explore best practices from others to develop guidelines to prevent demolitions of existing something like that, right?

Um, I I kind of need to sit down for a few minutes to write something up.

I just don't feel comfortable just learning something out.

So Jennifer, do you want to move this on the side and move to the other other sections and then come back to this at the end and how do we do this now?

Um I think this I think this could benefit from re from having some time to absorb and and do a little bit of additional revision.

Um, because I I do feel like we're kind of running up against um not an impasse necessarily.

I think we agree on the principles, just trying to figure out how to how to word it and and which pieces to put where.

Yeah.

So I would recommend we conclude the other changes first and then decide on a course of action for this at the end.

You know, we're already running out of mental energy, I think.

Sure.

We're getting um the only the last the last item is the cover letter.

Okay.

That's it.

Yeah.

Um I did want to kind of get any other reactions to the idea of moving the strategy six under healthy city rather than um where it's currently placed.

Where is it currently placed?

Um it's currently placed under opportunity.

City of opportunity.

I think the idea was that it was like an opportunity to you know I don't, you know, uh enhance Stanford neighborhood character through these historic districts.

Um I don't really see that I'm not sure that healthy city is the right spot for this.

Because I think that's more you know, you could have a perfectly healthy city and demolish every single old building in the city, and I just don't see that as the right fit, but um, I mean I think one one reason it came to mind also is that I I feel like the overall descriptor for the healthy city section, um it so the last sentence is about thoughtful environmental stewardship and investment.

Um that I I my sense is that what is kind of rubbing against uh a bit in concept of of how some of the historic preservation language is written is that it is you know in the context of um assuming a lot of change um and and dynamism, and that I it seems that for um these historic districts that really more of this um kind of stewardship approach um feels like it sits better in what um it seems like residents are wanting us to accomplish.

And this does include some of the infrastructure strategies uh for the city um and number of transportation uh strategies.

Um so it's not so the healthy city section isn't just about you know what happens in our hospitals and how clean our air is I'm not I'm I'll say I'll I'm not tied to this idea.

I think it's I I see why it makes sense where it is.

It just seems that the good the rub is the goal around thoughtful development.

Yes, the only way to change that is if it's under a different section.

Yeah, well, Dr.

Is and I was saying it's it's I wonder also though, if it's just a part of like uh yeah, um I understand it brings concern, the word that word development and that goal being associated with this strategy.

Um, but if we look at the city of opportunity, um some of the the community priorities that are listed um really speak to sort of preservation pretty spot on.

So like encourage vibrant local centers, um balance growth, consider design quality and identity and preserve what makes Stanford unique.

Um I'm wondering if this kind of fear about city of opportunity and development is also kind of feeding into the the narrative about um not preserving single family neighborhoods, which is also in the opportunity section.

So I'm wondering if what we're hitting on is like a larger issue of ideas around development and opportunity and yeah, um, but I do I wonder if we kind of just somehow pull forward these community priorities for like preserve what makes Stanford unique, consider design quality identity and balance growth.

Um to just forefront that more in the description in strategy six.

Yeah.

I'm gonna reshare.

So here we have city of opportunity.

Um and it notes these community priorities, balancing growth, design quality, making Stanford unique.

And it doesn't seem like those community priorities really make their way in much to these spreads.

Um so I'm wondering if we can use some of the language in those in the those community priorities to enhance strategy six.

Um to really say that this strategy is not about development, it's not about encouraging development or encouraging growth, it's about preserving historic districts just to be um uh okay.

Well I I think um I think I I would like to follow Ravi's suggestion that we come back to this again.

I think I think there's a shared sense of what we're trying to accomplish to make sure that these broader concepts around um balance and character, uh local centers, design quality, um, and preserving what makes Stanford unique are more clearly forefronted in the description um and figuring out where it makes sense uh to put that within uh this this format would we allow the town to take another crack at this and we review this either through email or in our next meeting and then do you when you say allowing the town to take another crack at this, what do you mean?

So there were two things uh two act proposed actions.

One is to multi-section around this historical six, the strategy six to a different part of the document, which is what Jenny Ford was proposing, thereby be emphasizing the development piece of this, right?

The second option was to keep it where it is, but bring uh different elements in this document so that achieve the same objective, and then the last action was what Bill and you were talking about studying best practices to protect existing historical buildings, like these were the three takeaways I got.

And uh I don't know whether we'll have the time and energy today to figure it out.

Yeah, no, and along the line those lines, can I propose a um the current formation of a subcommittee consisting of Lindsay, Bill, and Jennifer to rec you know, come up with some proposed language and bring it back to our next meeting.

I will give it that if the gentleman is okay with it.

Um I like that idea.

I'm trying to figure out the timing uh just personally, because I um between now and up, go ahead.

I think Chester should be on the subcommittee too.

You could you can speak for me, Bill.

No, I you have a special perspective that I think we need.

Of course, then of course it's no longer a subcommittee, it's it's we're back to the full board.

Sure.

Yeah, um, I do like the idea of delegating to a smaller group.

Um I just I'm not sure that I can fulfill a piece of that between now and next Tuesday.

I I will note just uh logistically, I will be present and chairing the meeting um, but remotely from another state, and it's because I will be attending a conf a professional conference, so I I don't want to overestimate my ability to sit down and do this justice.

So, you know, I mean we can certainly shift the timeline a bit.

I hate to let this linger too long, but given that it seems like this is this continues to be a sticking point.

Um I you know, it's it's not like we would uh publish the rest of the changes and and just leave this one.

You know, given how small this group is.

I don't you know, usually subcommittees are like five or six people.

I think we need more than just two people's opinion.

I think we should all discuss it, but maybe not tonight.

Right.

Well, I mean, I think the idea is just for the sake of actually sitting down and like futzing with the language that having a smaller group is useful, and then certainly there would still be the opportunity in the full board meeting for folks to react and offer opinions.

So I don't think the suggestion is that the subcommittee would have the final word on what the language revision is.

It's just to kind of break down the work a bit.

And I will note that for the capital budget, which we are um uh waiting into that functionally we had a subcommittee of myself and chat who went through um in more detail um the um the various proposals um and chat is kindly leaning into that um again uh this year, thankfully for both of us much earlier in the process um than was the case last year.

Um and so I think that you know that's sort of the the spirit of of the the subcommittee terminology.

Uh could I then propose that Lindsay for the town and two members for the planning boarding to themselves for this section?

And Jennifer, if you're not available, then that leaves Jeremy J myself and Bill.

And I confess I'm not as familiar as the other two gentlemen are on this topic.

Uh so maybe it is Jeremy and Jed or Jeremy Jet and Bill, some combination of those just to make it more productive.

Um are either of you amenable to that.

Um and if not, the alternative is just to push the time light out another week um to bring this back.

Um I it is possible but unlikely that I'll be able to do this before um I depart.

What was that again, Ravi?

Sorry.

I said look, for five of us, we're not going to be able to conclude on this.

Certainly not today.

So we need a different approach between today and the next week.

And Jennifer is an unavailable, so that leaves four of us and be picked two among us to work with Lindsey and finalizes.

And I'm wondering, you know, if nobody speaks up, I'm just going to nominate somebody who's this key.

Yeah, I think you know, I think Bill should definitely be involved in the conversation.

It sounds like he's got some some good, you know, personal experience um and you know, ability to to help craft this in a in a smart way.

Um Bill and check it is along with wait a minute.

Jeremy, are you willing to work with Bill on this?

Uh I Chet, I I think the the way that you've crafted some of this and and may have slightly more time available than me right now to do this.

Um I can see my availability, but you know, I I also have a relatively busy schedule with a you know seven to to four here.

Chet, if it helps, um the uh pre-meeting that was supposed to occur next week with um engineering is actually deferred because of a scheduling conflict.

So if you wanted to take that chunk of time to instead dedicate to this, um we might be able to move this forward faster.

And if not, again, I'm glad to do it, but just a little bit later.

Bill, should we put our heads together with Lindsay?

Yeah, or you know, maybe we can just meet somewhere and try to write some stuff up and bring it back to the to the group.

Well, well, that's what we're doing, but you know, all anything we propose is going to be brought back to the group.

It's just so that the group can be reacting to something instead of five of us thinking about what you know how it should be worded.

Um, so well, I guess I'm saying we could you want to do a zoo uh um a meeting like this with just the two of us plus Lindsay.

Is that what you're suggesting?

Sure.

Okay.

Or or or you guys can come into my office and we can make some cured coffees and sit down and and have at it on Friday or something like that.

Right.

Okay.

And that is also it might actually it might be easier for me if we were in a place where you could where you had a table you could write rather.

That's sure.

Yeah.

That's fine with me.

Okay.

I'll email you guys and we're available.

I would I would try to clear my schedule here.

Only a K cup, okay.

Nothing, not no honey Joe's or Lorca or anything like that.

Okay.

Um so I'll I'll email you guys and we'll set something up.

Um and I will have um myself and Eliza will take kind of a a first shot at this based off of the discussion.

We won't change anything, but we'll have something to show you guys to kind of how as a starting point.

Okay, great.

Okay.

That sounds good.

I'll just note logistically, um, right.

If we if we have more than two planning board members, then we have to notice the meeting.

And so a little bit of the subcommittee strategy is that it allows us to get the work done a little bit more expeditiously, but without having to notice a meeting for people to sit and watch us wordsmith things.

Um then I I think I I think given the hour and given the fact that we're having to defer um the language for this strategy.

I think why don't we um if if planning board members uh could agree to take a look at the letter between now and the next meeting um and propose any edits um rather than us discussing it now, I think that will be uh that will also help to move the rest of this process along.

Where do we find the letter again?

Um Lindsay sent an the email that summarized the different um components of the meeting today.

Uh there is a link there to both the um the document with the these revisions as well as that letter.

Okay.

Okay, we'll do that.

When you come in, I can uh show you the wonders of OneDrive because there is a folder called Planning Board Materials that you have access to that has the most recent revision of the plan, the cover letter, the proposed final CP visions, and you uh I can show it to you guys so that you know how to access it.

Yeah, I think I uh saved a link uh now that I know it's on OneDrive or or where the other planning materials are.

Yeah, uh I I think I've already saved uh an internet link to it.

So cool.

Okay.

Okay, we'll mark it up and get back any thoughts to you.

Cool.

Thank you.

All right.

Um well, thank you very much, everyone.

We ran through quite a lot today.

Um so uh with that uh we adjourn.

Um and our next regularly scheduled uh meetings are um as mentioned next Tuesday, October 14th, where we will be focused on the capital budget.

We are expecting presentations from um non-city agencies, uh nonprofits, um, and then followed by October 21st and October 28th.

Is is Leslie going to be preparing uh new three ring binders for us, or should we just modify last year's?

Use last year's binder unless my binder, I'm I'm gonna have to ask for a new one because my binder I think is six years old at this point and it fell apart while I was shuffling around last year, but um, but otherwise, please reuse your binder and the tabs.

Um the tabs remain mostly the same.

If there are any new tabs that are added, like for example, last year future five was a new tab.

Um Lynn uh uh Leslie will um mail you a tab alongside the the CP sheets.

Yep.

Okay, so that's that's your binder, those are your tabs.

You can do whatever you want with those binders and tabs as long as you don't lose it.

Um did Jeremy get mailed a binder or does he need to stop into the government center to pick one up?

I got a binder.

Okay.

Tabs and all.

Right.

It's the little things in life, Jeremy.

Yeah.

I was wondering what I was getting.

It was a big box.

An empty binder.

Should have thrown a couple Gary cups in there.

I don't have a career.

Hey, I bought those with my personal money, Jennifer.

Well, we're public servants.

I guess uh good evenings are in order.

Yes.

Good evening to all.

Good night.

Thanks, everybody.

Bye.