And a request.

Oh, there he is.

Tony, can I ask you pressing questions?

Wait, did someone did you just press a button, Chat?

No.

Live.

Now it's you watching.

That is so bizarre.

Okay.

Yeah, Robbie.

Sorry, Chad, go ahead.

Yeah.

Tony, I was just gonna ask you a really quick question.

I I um I called you, left a message, I guess, um, last week on this, but I never heard back from you.

Um that was all Thursday and Friday, so sorry about that.

That's that's probably why.

No no need to apologize.

Um quick um public safety.

Uh just uh it's a quick question about um how we account for things.

So um for the um the new uh public safety complex that they're proposing.

Um I Lindsay, I don't think that's on tonight's agenda, or is it?

No.

No, okay.

Um where do they get all the money that they've spent thus far for feasibility studies and hiring consultants, etc., etc., etc.

Oh, that's a good question.

Definitely not out of capital.

Um, we that's a good question to ask.

Maybe they took it out of their operating funds.

Um that's a good question.

But it's definitely not a capital.

Okay, because I I I was when that we got their final, I I was surprised to see that you know, nothing had been spent thus far.

So that well, that project was never approved, so um right, right.

So where where would they get the money from?

It would have to be I mean, my guess would be out of their operating phones, but that's um something we can follow up on.

Okay.

All right, good.

Hey Bill.

You do.

That was uh Leslie circulated it and it was part of the email I sent around.

Um today.

Uh today.

Then I'm I'm gonna I mean Leslie sent it around a week ago and it was posted a week ago.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't remember seeing it a week ago, that's why I'm asking.

Okay.

But uh there was another one from you to uh uh tonight.

Uh here it is.

Yeah, here here it is.

Uh the meeting, there it is.

Okay, thank you.

I'm just gonna print it.

And I'll print me.

Okay, and I'm just going to try to mute myself.

Good evening.

Hello.

Uh so Jennifer, the I don't think I pressed the start meeting button, but the start meeting button has been pressed.

Uh so um folks have been admitted and recording has has started.

So Lindsay, can I just chime in for real quick?

Um just just to let you know that Nancy Ormsby is here to support all outside agencies just in case there's a question that she needs to answer.

Okay.

I'm gonna make her a presenter right now so that enables her to unmute herself and mute herself as needed.

Um I'll make other presenters available as we go through the agenda items.

Okay, so Nancy is good.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

Great.

So with that we are set to start.

Okay.

Um good evening.

Welcome to the uh October 14th meeting of the Stanford Planning Board.

Uh uh this evening on our agenda.

Uh the first item is the planning board minutes from our most recent meeting uh of October 7th, 2025.

Uh wanted to see if anyone on the board had questions or amendments about the minutes.

All right, uh Jack, go ahead.

I just had to find the microphone button.

Um the um the major headings on on the minutes from the the last meeting are planning board meeting minutes, election of officers, and then and then the agenda item, which uh the first item happened to have been a subdivision.

Um the uh Mr.

Linder made a motion uh to walk on a second extent request for an extension of time for subdivision.

Why is that placed under election of officers?

Oh uh that is I think that it probably just needs like a um a little bit more space to to make clearer um that it is not part of the election of officers item, but that is where the walk-on request occurred.

So I don't know if there's a better header, but it's just it's you know, it's part of the off flow of the meeting.

Giv given that there was a um there is um a section called subdivision that does specifically talk about um app subdivision number four four five three.

Perhaps it should be there, the first item under that section.

Uh yeah, I think that makes sense.

So just moving the header up uh before where it says uh where I called for the walk-on motion.

That should be fine.

Okay.

All right.

Uh are there any other questions or I think Bill in particular I wanted to make sure that uh it seemed like this reflected what you wanted it to reflect in terms of the other items that we reviewed.

Can you hear me now?

Yeah.

Okay.

By the way, my my it looks like my thing is very fuzzy compared to everybody else.

Is that what you see too?

A bunch of fuzz.

Yeah, it's a little bit greeny, kind of like an old TV.

But we can I can see you clearly and I can hear you.

I don't know why mine is like that and though anyway.

Um it says on the uh ZB application 22528.

Mr.

Levin supports the project, but voted in opposition due to the applicant electing fee and lo.

I it wasn't so much that they're elected fee and lube, but that they wouldn't do even consider any units on site.

So I'm not necessarily opposed to fee and lube being a part of the project.

Um, but I thought some of the units should be on site.

So the way this is written is a little um not exactly what I thought I was saying.

Uh so uh maybe an alternate is um Mr.

Levin supports the project overall but voted in opposition due to strong preference for a bease of portion, um, if not all of the BMR units to be located on site.

Yeah, yeah, I didn't want it to sound like I'm totally opposed to the fee and lo, but I thought on this site, given its location that some of the units and I think you can even add that, right?

Um so Mr.

Levin Sports Project overall voted in opposition due to um strong given the given the location of the development, a strong preference for at least a portion of the unit and on the second one 225 29 the the last sentence where it says and an unattractive streetscape that shows garage doors.

I think the the point was the repetitious use, uh you know, that it was both a repetitious um looking streetscape uh dominated by garage doors.

It's this the fact that there's garage doors by itself is not really the problem.

So I don't I think maybe that could be reworded to say um the repetition uh dominated by repetitious uh pattern with garage doors dominating or something like that.

Um I don't know.

Um Ravi, was there anything else that you thought should be stated more clearly than than it is or I'm okay, I'm okay.

Okay, okay.

Um so Bill, maybe it's something around um an unattractive uh repetitious design, unattractive design, including repetitious uh I'm trying to figure out uh including with um kind of dominated by a repetitious pattern with the garage doors.

I mean it doesn't have to be perfect, but it I didn't want it to sound like just the fact that there's some garage doors.

Yeah, perhaps visually dominated.

Yeah, that's good.

There we go.

Um, so and okay, so it would read a and a um design concept dominated or visually dominated by garage doors in the inner uh circulation roads.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, sure.

Um I do also want to note that you mono maybe you could put the word repetitious in there somewhere.

Oh, sure, sure, sure.

Yeah.

Um and I I do want to just note that under the reasons it says lack of BMR units on site, um, but I just want to make sure that we clarify that this project um had not just kind of left open either way, whether or not the units would be on site.

That's I think there's a discussion of modifying it to say that um texture river and um uncle like unclear plan for whether or not BMR units would be on site.

Everybody just chat wants to say something.

No, okay.

Oh, you're on me.

Um, there was no agreement to include uh any on-site units again, like the first project.

They didn't say they wouldn't, but they aren't promising to include any on-site.

And again, because of the central location.

I think in both of my comments on both projects, I stated because of the central location of these projects within the city that there should be some on-site units.

I didn't specify a percentage or anything.

Sure.

Okay.

Yes.

Um, so I might recommend pulling out the uh clause of the lack of BMR units on site and actually having like a sentence after um this kind of noting like also the applicant has not um indicated uh whether at least a portion of BMR units will be on site.

Okay, so that's I think it is important to distinguish it from the prior application where they did have a uh they had specified what their plan would be.

Okay.

Um are there any other questions or clarifications uh in the minutes?

Um all right.

Hearing none, uh we put forward a couple of modifications for clarification.

Uh do I have a motion on the minute?

Robbie, uh motion for approval.

Uh drive a second.

Anybody, anybody?

All right, second from chat.

All in favor, just raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously with the four present this evening.

Um Lindsay, is there anything uh else that we should write down or just to make sure that the amendments get transmitted properly?

Uh didn't see just here.

Oh, and I see Jeremy there.

I'm very glad that you guys are all still here.

Okay.

Sorry.

Um, you asked me, I I dropped out at uh is there anything else?

Oh, I was just uh given the several amendments that we noted to the minutes.

If there was anything else uh we should do just to make sure they get transmitted accurately.

Uh no, it seems pretty clear what language you guys that that you wanted to do.

So thank you for specifying and spending the time to do that, um Jennifer.

Sure.

Yeah.

Um and I do want to note when I looked in the list of attendees that Jeremy is in there.

So if we can get him pulled into the uh presenter group.

I actually have them in presenters.

Oh, okay.

Uh got it.

What is maybe I need to change my view.

Uh okay.

I just had to it looks like his camera's off, Jim.

That's all.

Yeah.

Okay.

Got it.

That's just not popping up.

All right.

Um, our next order of business this evening is the capital budget presentations.

Um first on the docket, we have the Harbor Management Commission.

All right, so just um this is the White House.

So um, I need to update the agency, it's not Harbor Management Commission, but I'll have that updated for uh you know for deliberation.

Sure.

Um and do we have uh someone on to present this item?

All right, Gary Callan and Trezavant Moore are both on um to present.

Um so if you could identify yourself for the record and then go ahead and walk us through the context on the budget request.

You're on mute, Gary.

Oh I'll start then.

I'm Trez Moore, and uh I am the treasurer of the Lighthouse Project.

My colleague Gary, Dr.

Gary Kalen is uh the president, so I'll let him uh uh initiate.

I'm all set.

And thank you for inviting us.

Um we'll be brief.

Um just briefly on the Stanford Harbor Lighthouse is one of the crown jewels of Stanford.

It was built in 1882, same decade as the Washington Monument, Brooklyn Bridge, and the Statue of Liberty.

And it has stood at the entrance to Stanford Harbor for over 140 years.

The lighthouse is suffering from over 40 years of deferred maintenance, and without your help and support, it's in danger of suffering permanent, irreparable damage.

We formed the nonprofit Stanford Harbor Lighthouse Project with the goal of saving the lighthouse.

With a combination of private and public funds, it is our goal to restore the unique historic features of the lighthouse and to create a true gateway to Stanford that will instill pride in the community and draw visitors by boat from throughout Long Island Sound.

We're working in collaboration with the Harbor Management Commission as we plan to utilize living shoreline solutions to restore ancient oyster beds in the surrounding 10 acres.

This will not only help to protect the harbor from rising sea levels, but will also be of great benefit in cleaning the harbor water.

To date, we've collected over $750,000 towards our goal of $4 million from private donations.

We were recently awarded a survey and planning grant of $20,000 from the state historic preservation office.

And we have a community funding project grant of $500,000 under consideration by the federal government.

The support of the city of Stanford is critical to our project and will be of great benefit in soliciting donations from the residents.

Thank you.

And uh Trez and I are happy to answer any questions that you have.

Um yes.

Uh so my main question is if you could just elaborate on the like specifically what the 100,000 will go toward.

Sure.

Um you've described broadly the state of the lighthouse.

But yeah, I mean, our our first phase is to restore the exterior.

Um we've been working on structural repairs over the last two summers.

And uh our plan next summer is to be in painting the exterior of the lighthouse.

Um we've had one um quote of 260,000 to do the painting.

So the 100,000 grant would be going primarily towards getting us to um the funds to paint the exterior next summer.

Okay, so it'd be a portion of the funds required for that project.

Correct.

Okay.

Um I see other members have questions first.

Chat, I see you again.

Thank you.

Um, Dr.

Callan, just a question.

Um how have or who helped you generate the total capital budget requirement for this restoration project yeah?

I'm not trying to understand the what do you mean by that question?

You may you made reference to a total budget of four million dollars.

Oh, yeah, yeah.

Well, we're including so our restoration, the actual restoration itself um will be in the range of two to two and a half million.

Our goal is to raise four million, and the reason is that we'd like to have um a foundation set up, you know, and and money to perpetually keep the lighthouse so this doesn't happen again.

So basically, we that's our goal in in uh fundraising is four million.

We don't expect the restoration to cost that much, but we want to make sure that the lighthouse is always maintained in the future.

It's it's a it's an endowment to fund routine repair.

Okay.

And um the two the two million to two point five million estimate for the actual restoration.

What was the source of that estimate?

So we have been working with a number of contractors, and in addition, one of my partners in the project, Brendan McGee was one of the principals of the uh Green Sledge Light um restoration efforts.

So we're using that experience, um, knowing what various things cost.

We've been um you know getting estimates from uh marine contractors, uh restoration painters.

Uh we will use the grant from the historic preservation office is the survey and planning grant, and that will allow us to hire um architects and engineers, which will help us with that.

So we've also visited um the Terrytown Lighthouse, which was restored by the County of Westchester.

The Tarrytown Lighthouse of Sleepy How Lighthouse actually has a twin of our lighthouse.

It was built in 1883 and is almost identical.

Um so you know, through all of those efforts, you know, we've been able to put together a budget um that we think that we will be able to come within that budget for the whole project.

So do you expect um I I see here that uh the request for this capital budget budget year, the um uh the 2627 year, I think it is, um is um a hundred thousand dollars.

Do you anticipate that there'll be m additional funds that you'll be requesting from the city?

Uh the capital budget?

I would say that um we would be very happy if the city would support us with additional funds, but you know we're making every effort to get as much private donations and other sources, state bonding money and federal money as we can.

Okay.

It it should be also noted a lot of the work is being done DIY by volunteers.

So people are going out there in the summer and scraping uh uh uh metal and uh cleaning up uh uh residue from uh seabirds and things of that nature.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Uh Ravi, I see your hand.

Yeah, yeah, and so just a uh I think it's a very um exciting project and we should support it.

But is it accessible to the public, the lighthouse today?

Right now, it is not as but it would be our goal to to rebuild the dock and the breakwater um and make it accessible.

Um on a you know, a limited basis where we could have tours.

It's not something you could just drive your boat up and go into, but obviously if we're gonna spend all this time and money restoring it, it's something that we want to be um able to show off as part of the city and and be proud of.

Yeah, I was I was thinking, you know, from a community engagement school kids and well, we also we have an arrangement with soundwaters, and we're gonna be doing in-water um projects and educational projects out there.

We certainly are looking forward to using it as a laboratory where we can bring school kids out and other people.

And you know, many people in Stanford have never even been exposed to the harbor.

And so this will be a center where children and adults who who don't realize what a great resource we have here in Stanford, um, we'll be able to actually go out there and see.

And it's very awe-inspiring when you're at the lighthouse.

I mean, it's it's uh incredible views and to see how the keepers lived.

And so we want to make this an educational facility for everybody.

Yeah.

It's 65 feet tall.

So when you get up to the top, it's a pretty amazing view.

Yeah, I've seen the Pedriton.

I don't know how dull is Terry Town, but it's it's a very uh ambastic uh uh you know, when you when you walk by it, it's pretty nice.

Terrytown is is identical to our almost identical towers, yeah.

The twins thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Bill, I see your hand.

Yeah, my question is this project with the funding requested.

Is that include some kind of uh ability to bring people there, or is that a whole separate thing?

Well, we um need to do extensive work on the breakwater, and at present there's not a a dock that we can bring people out to.

There was a dock in the past.

A lot of the there was a a lot of damage from Sandy that will need we need to repair.

We do have a permit from DEEP to do the the repairs.

We've applied and that's been approved.

So um, and that's what I we have um requested funding from the federal government actually to repair that breakwater and dock.

So if we get that funding, then that part of the project, you know, but will be taken care of, but that is part of our long-term goal to make it accessible.

Okay, but this specific funding is not to bring people there, it's to fix the no.

No, this is to part of the restoration, actual restoration.

Yeah.

First, we intend to fix it, then we intend to make it uh accessible to all.

Right now, you have to jump from a boat onto a ladder, which I would submit is not a good idea for the general public.

Um I follow-up question on that.

Um so even though this request wouldn't be for that repair, the the breakwater and adding the deck, um, about how much would that project which would be required for the accessibility about how much is that?

For the breakwater.

For the breakwater.

Yeah, I I applied for community um project funding, which is government earmark for half a million dollars.

Um that went to the subcommittee of the appropriations committee of housing and urban development, which recommended it be approved, and that's where it is right now.

Um obviously the government doesn't have money running the government right now.

So we're, you know, if and when we'll get that money, we don't know.

But it it will be um probably in the range of three to five hundred thousand to to do the repairs we'd like to do, you know, to bring out new rock um and build new docks.

Okay, so that the amount that you've requested and which kind of has a tentative uh approval would be sufficient to cover all of what's required.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

Um I want to just one offer, I know that you all are um you haven't presented capital budget items before.

Um, so wanted to note two things.

One, uh, so for this capital project cycle, the earliest the funds would be bonded would be July.

Um, and since it sounds like you were looking to apply these funds toward uh painting, which would occur this summer, the timing wouldn't work.

Uh that would work.

Yeah, that would be fine.

So July.

Our plan is to really start painting um when the days are the longest and the water is the calmest.

You know, so we can have long days out there with a contract or painting contract or so.

Probably July and August would be when most of that work would be done.

And uh I'll leave to Tony.

Is there any other uh context on the timing of this that we should make sure it's clear?

Yeah, well, if this was to be approved, it it wouldn't the fund wouldn't be available till July 1st.

Um at that point, we would um we would leave it up to the administration, you know, the mayor on which project would move forward.

Um so it's it's questionable at this point.

Uh if the funding if the project was approved, if the if this would be one of the projects that would move forward.

It all depends on our safe debt limit and how many projects are being submitted this year and and the total.

So you know, those there's a lot of factors that we need to take into account before we get to that point.

Yeah, can I just come?

We do have funds to be to get started on this.

So, you know, if the money was approved for the summer or later summer, that that would not be prohibitive in terms of us doing what we need to do this summer, because we're limited in the time of year, obviously, that we can get work done out there.

Sure.

Okay.

Um, and then just a couple of other kind of more administrative things, I suppose.

Uh under justification for inclusion and capital plan, there's a checkbox for leverages other funds.

So I would recommend that you would check that and go through and list out the funding sources and amounts that you've described here.

Uh, because um the leveraging of of other funds uh is certainly an important consideration as we're looking at uh uh all of the items that will be before us.

Um we have happy to do that.

Okay, great.

Um, and I would say um noting well well, for one, just clearly describing like what is involved in the restoration, so it's clear what the funding request is for.

Um, and then I think that the context about the breakwater and accessibility, even though it's not part of this project, um, having that included in the description is also helpful to note that uh you have this tentative earmark uh for the that infrastructure investment that would allow the public to visit this restored facility.

Um are there any other questions from board members?

All right.

Um and of course, the the last uh revision here would be to change it from the harbor management commission to the proper name of the nonprofit that you all have established for this project.

Okay.

All right.

Yeah, well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, next on our list is the Bartlett Arboretum.

Uh good evening, Tracy Kay, CEO of the Bartwood Arboretum and Gardens here in Stanford.

This may be a very short presentation.

I think I might have mentioned at our pre-planning meeting that we were waiting on information from Trophy Point on a pending project or project that's in the pipeline, our horticultural complex.

As I open my emails for tonight's meeting, I noticed that Trophy Point sent us the estimates, and we would really like time to review those estimates and maybe come back to you at a future meeting either your October 21st or November 5th, because the estimates unfortunately are a little higher than the money we have available at the moment, but we wanted to revise or go through that and review it to see and maybe revise our submission for this year.

I don't know if that's acceptable.

I can I can dance around the numbers, but no.

Sure.

Um I I know that you had mentioned this at pre-planning.

So I think that should be fine.

We can determine uh probably most likely it would be the November 5th meeting, which is when we're doing our uh callbacks and things uh for the capital budget process.

That'd be great because I know our project team wants to dive into the numbers to make sure we're comparing apples and apples and not apples and oranges.

So yeah.

Okay.

And should I write down that November date?

Is that probably the date we'll do it?

Uh well, I'll I'll leave it to um to Lindsay and Tony to determine based on the other things we have on Docket whether that'll make sense.

Thanks so much, Jennifer.

Thanks, Tracy.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Next on the agenda is the Stanford Historical Society.

Um, I don't see uh Dr.

Zubek on.

Is William at yes, there we go.

Okay.

Yes.

Here we go.

However, Tracy has that other project.

Tracy has the maintenance garage.

Oh.

Oh, okay.

Apologies.

Right.

So we do have the sheet for the maintenance building.

Um, so if you could walk through uh this request.

Sure.

I won't put the presentation up.

I'll just walk through from the numbers we were talking about.

Uh this was a building that was built in the 60s, um, as I described at the pre-planning meeting.

Um it is in a bit of state of disrepair.

It has four bay doors, only one of them are operational at the moment.

Um, you can get a clear view of the sky through the roof.

Um, and a um woodpecker flew through one end of the building and out the other.

Um, and I'm just sort of embellishing the presentation a little bit, but um, what we're hopeful to do is do a design study um to make sure that this building is worth uh upgrading.

We'd like to, it does not have um water or heat service there.

It is the building that we use to maintain the property and the vehicles that help to maintain the property.

So we'd like to have a design study to make sure that we can make improvements to this building, or should it be recommended that another building be put in its place?

Um we initially talked about a design budget of about $50,000.

It was discussed internally uh also with engineering that perhaps we might raise that to $75,000.

Uh, we we'd like to try to get the design element part of it done because with each year that goes by, we obviously uh further deterioration occurs.

And so that's a submission right now.

It's our number one priority.

However, the horticultural complex that is the pavilion and greenhouse may come up as a higher priority.

Okay.

Um, any questions from the board on that item?

If anyone would like to come up and view the building with me, I'd be more than happy to give them a tour.

Okay, tours are always lovely.

Um actually Lashley.

Um I do uh actually uh want to give you the opportunity actually to say a little bit more context about the Bartlett Arboretum for our board members who are new, just so that they have an understanding of the land and the works.

Thanks, Jennifer.

I meant to mention that.

Uh Bartlett Readham and Gardens is a nonprofit, non-city entity providing educational programs and experience at a city-owned site, hosting over 110,000 visitors annually.

The property and facilities are open to the public free of charge from dawn to dusk, 365 days a year.

It should be noted that since federal funding open space funds were used by the state and city to purchase the property.

We cannot charge an admission fee.

Uh, we rely on individual memberships, grants, donations, and program revenue to support our operations and obligations for our lease with the city of Stanford.

While our lease officially covers 64 acres of city property property, we also care for an additional adjacent 27 acres of city property, including Potter's Field, where Stanford's indigent were buried up until 1970.

We rely heavily, as I said, on those donations.

All improvements that go to the city property and do not become assets of the Bartlett Arboretum Gardens, because since it is on city property.

So any improvements we make becomes an asset of the city.

Any further questions from the board?

Um, I thank you very much.

And thank you.

And we'll see you again at some point in the next week.

All right.

Uh so now we move to the Stampshire Historical Society.

Hello.

Uh I'm uh Bill Einden.

I'm the treasurer of the Stanford Historical Society.

And uh we have uh requesting to uh uh improve the um exterior and to do some work inside the building.

The um uh primary uh the largest thing is probably having the parking lot paid.

It was supposed to have been paved um when uh White Barnum House was moved uh seven or eight years ago.

Um the uh funds didn't cover end up covering that.

We got it approved at a later date.

Excuse me.

Sorry, I think a few of us are having a hard time hearing you, um, William.

Um there's some feedback.

Uh okay.

Maybe I was open that would be causing feedback, I don't think.

Okay.

Uh okay.

I guess speaking loudly and clearly is the best we can do right now.

All right, I'll try to um as I started for saying the uh the paving apartment lot was approved at a later date uh as a capital project, but then uh the oil tank was replaced and they took the funds we had approved for the parking lot.

Uh so now we have a parking lot that's uh seriously deteriorating.

Uh and the worst part of it is at the point where everyone walks into the building.

So we're not um uh it becoming a safety issue at this point in time.

And we also want to add some outdoor lighting because we can't use the building is very well at night when because there's no lighting outdoors.

Um we also have um uh a room in the basement that uh needs to be remediated.

It has lead paint and it has tiles.

Um we can't use that at this point in time because of the uh the condition.

And there's also um some deteriorating walls, um the cobblestone uh uh wall needs to be repointed, and some of the interior brick walls need to be repointed.

So that's the uh gist of our request.

All right, uh I see a hand from Jeremy.

Uh thank you, Will.

I guess my my questions are regarding um, you know, I I see that you have you know, some stuff is is out to bid now uh for the restoration of the concrete steps, the railings.

Um for the abatement, uh you know, is that an accurate number, or is that just the number that you guys are expecting that that to roughly fall under 25?

Um that would be that yeah, that is a rough estimate, Jeremy.

Um the job that's out to bid, we had estimated to be about 210,000.

So and then we're we're putting an alternate on for the uh like the stoop at the front, excuse me, the north door.

So we think that that whole balance of 245 will cover that.

that an accurate number or is that just the number that you guys are expecting that that's roughly fall under that was that yeah that is a rough estimate Jeremy um the job that's out to bid we had estimated to be about 2100 so and then we're we're putting an alternate on for the uh like the stoop at the front excuse me the north door so we think that that whole balance of 245 will cover that the abatement it's um basically just a square foot cost for the asbestos and the uh the lead paint okay and that was that that square foot cost is is based off of historical abatement costs off of uh my my estimates my estimates i do a i do a lot of um abatement with the engineering department okay understood thank you too much no i i do abate myself and i know it's expensive so i just want to make sure it's an accurate number all right um i the uh chat's hand up uh thank you um you in your project description you list uh four principal items made to make up the scope um do you have um uh estimates uh broken down for each item so that you might be able to tell us for example how much how much of the total request is for the parking lot how much for the site lighting et cetera it's in the comments look in the comments it's in the comments okay thank you very much and um I'll point out that the paving of the parking lot and the sidewalks that's off the city bid cost so that's a competitive cost already we will um not be able to pay with city money but we can utilize the city contractor that has that bid um any other questions from the board um seeing none i think uh we are in good shape i do want to um appreciate and highlight what you've said about the actually the history of the parking lot in particular that there have been two prior attempts at setting aside funding for this um i will just say in general uh funding repaving parking lots is often difficult to prioritize in the capital budget but given that this uh is long overdue and that there have been prior prior attempts to fund it um i think makes us an important item to consider yes thank you very much thank you uh all right next we have Stanford Center for the Arts who's here for the Center for the Arts Tony that would be Mike Moran Mike Moran MM okay thanks Nancy all right um here Mike you are able to unmute yourself and turn on your camera if you choose Mike Moran I can try to un I cannot unmute you um but you can unmute yourself by clicking the mic button at the top right hand corner of your screen we can also move on to the next um agency and sure yeah that works all right uh next then is uh child care learning center all right and Monica is becoming a presenter right now I'm just gonna make the rest of our presenters presenters um Monica you can unmute yourself hi everyone thank you so much for the opportunity I'm Monica Michera Philpoon I'm the CEO at children's learning centers of Fairfield County located in Stanford just a brief um overview for folks on CLC a reminder if you will um CLC has been providing early care and education in Stanford since 1902 um CLC's um one of the first historic grantees in the country and we're the largest provider of early childhood education in this in lower Fairfield County and certainly in the city in fact about one third of every um incoming kindergartner to Stanford Public Schools comes out of CLC um and we partner very closely with the district the school district and with the city to with in curriculum and in supporting children's learning to make sure that we're providing a a program that provides a seamless transition to kindergarten for Stanford's youngest children.

Um we partner very closely with the district, the school district, and with the city to with in curriculum and in supporting children's learning to make sure that we're providing uh a program that provides a seamless transition to kindergarten for Stanford's youngest children.

Um we operate about six sites in the city.

We serve um around 800 children.

Around 800 children at any given time.

Um we are asking in this um request for um $50,000.

Hold on, I'm gonna make sure.

No, it's 80,000 to support um infrastructure and systems improvements at our um flagship site at 64 Palmer's Hill Road.

So that building has um been there since um I believe 1980.

Um and we need to improve the reliability, reliability of our HVAC system.

So at that site we serve about 150 children.

Um, it's also where our administrative offices are located, and we have one boiler, which is not um the norm in a building that is you know in a public serving building like that, which means that the severe it's significantly vulnerable if there was an issue that we would have to shut down the whole site.

So last year we came pretty close to having to shut down and send 150 kids home, and that means 150 families whose parents can't go to work um because of a boiler issue.

So we're asking for the city support and allowing us to um install a second boiler, which is brings that facility up to you know it's considered standard practice for a large facility of that nature.

For example, our facility at um William Pitt, it has three boilers.

Um, so that is the support we're asking.

I certainly have additional information about CLC, et cetera, but happy to pause here and see if there are any questions from the group.

Um, I do actually want to just check in on the amount before going to the other question.

So the sheet we have is 50.

Uh, you would set it 80.

Yeah, I'm glad you said that.

The the the document I got today says 80, but I remember it being 50.

The reason there was the difference is because the cost of the project, I think I it's 50,000.

There is um some money left over from a previous project that was open.

So we are asking for 50,000 out of this fiscal year's plan.

And we have some um existing funds from a previous project um from prior to my being at CLC that we're gonna also use.

I think that's that's why the difference comes in.

But we're asking for 50,000.

I see.

Okay, so this is uh a complete existing project-ish kind of thing, because they're already.

Yes, because yes, it's the balance, the balance will not cover the cost of the boiler.

The boiler is closer to 100,000, and we don't have documents or design to actually um you know bid it.

Okay, great.

Um so uh Jeremy, I see your hand up.

I just to clarify.

So I I know it says that the encumbrances were paving the main parking lot drop-off loop with uh new drainage, which is completed but not yet fully paid.

So is that accurate or that's not accurate for for this?

That is accurate.

I think Nancy knows, yeah.

Go ahead, Nancy.

Yeah, that's accurate.

We we're holding um considerable amount of money because it has taken Grasso so long to finish the job.

Um and there's a punch list of items that he has to correct.

So part of this 50,000 is going to cover that, and then the rest is going to be.

No, we we have that encumbered amount.

See that encumbered amount?

Yep.

That's going to grasso.

So that is part of a balance basically.

Just confuse them.

That's just my clarification on why that's included in a nuke request.

But okay, got it.

Yeah, I think just as a as a formatting matter, Nancy, I think if you just take that first sentence and uh add that add it to the end, like a little have a little line break and then just add it to the end.

Um because we do uh it is helpful for us to um to know, you know, kind of for the for the encumbered uh and available funds, uh, how they're earmarked.

That is uh frequently one of our questions, uh, but just making clear that it's not part of this request.

I'll we'll put that before the strategies.

I yes, that sounds that sounds good.

Um I do think it's also worth noting uh what you said about the overall project cost being uh you said probably about a hundred, but that this is just this is enough funding to top up this account so that it would be possible to complete that project.

Yes, possible to build to bid it, bid it and construct it, yes.

Yeah, uh, because yeah, just as a matter of criteria, we're always trying to make sure that funds aren't just sitting there.

So if we have a portion that uh would move out the door if we could uh chop off the project uh that makes it a priority in our consideration.

Um are there any other questions from the board on this item?

Okay, pretty straightforward.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, everyone.

And I think now we can go back to uh Tampered Center for the Arts.

I'm here.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

All right, thank you all for your time this evening, and thank you for your past generosity.

My name is Mike Moran.

I'm president and CEO of Stanford Center for the Arts.

We own and operate the Palace Theater, and we also own the Rich Forum.

Uh, you have three project requests in front of you.

Uh the first one is to address uh water infiltration to do some study work and some design plans to deal with the west and south wall so that we can go ahead and continue to do some plaster repair work in this building.

Makes no sense to do that work until we can identify and alleviate the penetration of the water.

Um we just finished $350,000 with the plaster restoration this summer.

So I again thanks, many thanks to the city for helping us with that.

Uh I think Nancy may have some beautiful photos of the crumbling plaster on the back wall of the Palace Theater.

Uh Nancy, I don't know if you've shared that.

No, we we don't we don't show that to the people.

Oh God.

Well, a picture's worth a thousand words, I'll tell you that.

It's pretty crappy, yeah.

Um also we have come before you a couple of times in the past to try to get some EPIS repair work done, uh restoration done on the Rich Forum at 307 Atlantic Street.

As you may know, uh NBC Universal Stanford Studios occupies that building, and we've been trying to keep that building in as pristine shape as we possibly can for them.

They're a valuable tenant to the city.

Um, and then the last one would be interior finishes, which comes back to addressing the plaster at the Palace Theater once again, but not until we have the water infiltration issues identified and corrected.

Um I've also seen numbers from uh a qualified plaster repair company that tell me that this potentially could be about 3.8 million dollars in total if we want to get the Palace Theater back to the condition that it should be, and another million dollars on top of that if we want to restore it to its uh 1927 grandeur.

The building is coming up on its 100th anniversary.

Uh, we are kind of an iconic venue in downtown Stanford.

Uh I don't know if you guys want to talk a little bit more about the capital plan.

The um I I made some notes, but I think Nancy had some notes to these CP documents as well.

So happy to answer any questions that you might have.

All right.

Uh questions from the board on this item.

All right.

Uh I will I will note I recall from the pre-meeting that one piece of information that was useful was the uh the ongoing cost of having scaffolding uh if things are not repaired.

Yeah, we closed for approximately two and a half months this summer.

That was not the plan.

The plan was to close for about um eight weeks, but there was some additional work that needed to be done so that we could ensure the safety of personal property and people inside the auditorium.

Nancy, do you have that number?

Was the the wasn't the scaffolding close to 200,000?

Yes.

So yeah, like 290,000.

So to erect the scaffolding and then take it down and then put it up again and take it down and put it up again is really not practical.

It just makes more sense to come in, erect the scaffolding once, do all the work and have the scaffolding removed.

Um that may not always be uh the best way to go about this when seeking uh state or municipal funds, but it certainly makes the most sense for eliminating how long or or minimizing how long the palace would need to be closed.

Also, when the scaffolding's up, you have to remove the some of the chairs, some of the seats.

So and cover everything with plastic and uh cardboard runners on the carpeted aisles and it was all a downtime, all that downtime was very expensive.

All that downtime was very expensive.

Yep, it was quite a site this summer.

All right.

Uh thank you for the context on that project.

Uh next is the exterior envelope for Richmond.

So the rich forum was built and opened in 1992.

It's uh exterior surfaces, ethos.

There have been cracks in the ethos through the years.

Water infiltration gets behind it.

Uh we actually had some storm damage.

Um wasn't sandy, it was post-sandy, and a section of the ethos had fallen into the um the side lot of the St.

John's Rectory.

Um we put an insurance claim, we had that fixed, and then we discovered through the years that uh there are additional cracks inside uh along the seams of the ethos for the most part.

So we've had the probes done.

Uh the city, I believe, funded that.

And Nancy, are we still waiting for the first elevation to be done?

I believe that's the case.

We had the um the bidder wanted additional money because of the increase in costs and purchasing would not allow that, so we do have to rebid that.

So we're hoping to rebid that south elevation in the spring, and we will have the east elevation as an ad alternate to that.

East el each elevation costs about 250 to 300,000.

They're they're not exactly the same sizes, some are a little more, some a little less square footage, but um it's it does cost a lot more money to do it piece by piece like this.

But we don't have enough money to do all four sides of the core.

So we're we're hoping for the uh the the south and the east coming up in the spring.

I have to rebid it.

Questions from the board.

Okay, seeing none.

Final project is the interior finishes.

And again, this is priority three, primarily because we really need to identify the source of the water infiltration before we go ahead and do any more major plaster work in this building.

A lot of the plaster work that needs to be done is on the south and west wall where we are seeing water, water damage to the to the plaster currently.

Um so we can get into this as much or as little as you want, but we really need to get priority one done first before we can move to priority three.

However, we need to build up the funds for the interior because all these areas of repair are in the three to five hundred thousand dollar range, and we don't have enough uh you know, in a balance or enough to do the project.

So we you know break it up wall by walls, crazy.

Or down by theme.

Yeah, you can see that there's a request for 2627, and then there are substantial event um requests for the out years.

All right.

Um if if you could this maybe kind of more for the record, but I I think a frequent question of ours is uh to what extent projects can be uh phased or kind of what the expected timeline is.

Uh so you've got the one item here for the plaster uh in the foyer for 325.

Um, it's just helpful for us to get a sense of what the impact or trade-offs are uh if the project gets broken into pieces.

Well, the foyer is kind of isolated from the rest of the auditorium, so the erection of scaffolding would not require the removal of seats.

However, the foyer does have an exterior wall on the south side of the building.

Um so it does make sense to go ahead.

It would minimize the downtime to do the foyer separately from anything that's happening in the auditorium itself.

But it's also some of the most beautiful plaster we have in the building with the tray ceilings and the comedy tragedy molds that are on the walls and the crown molding.

Um it really does need a lot of attention, but I don't think that and Nancy probably knows this better than I do.

I think that we could probably do that in a matter of six to eight weeks in the summertime when we traditionally don't have a lot of programming, whereas the auditorium itself would require more time.

And the auditorium and the sound board require scaffolding.

Correct.

Or higher scaffolding, higher, I guess is the main point.

Thank you.

Um seeing other questions from the board.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for your time.

I appreciate everything you do.

All right.

And next we have the Stanford Museum.

Yeah.

And here we have Melissa and Peggy.

So you get Peggy.

I don't see Melissa.

She should be.

She should be there.

She's under modified.

But she should still be able to unmute herself.

Um, Miss Mulrooney.

Okay, there's Peggy unmuting.

Good evening.

Hello, Peggy.

Um is Melissa kind of leading the presentation tonight.

She she is, and I know she was on because we were texting uh about 15 minutes ago.

So bear with us.

Uh yeah, yeah.

And you guys did uh get our materials, I I hope uh yes, we were we were sent the sheets.

Um the microphone button, uh Melissa is the top right corner.

Um labeled mic, looks like an old school uh radio microphone.

There we go.

Thank you all.

Sorry, technically challenged.

It is okay.

All right.

Is it possible to put our presentation up?

It'll be easier for me to speak to that.

Tony, can you help me with that?

You got my updated presentation.

Oh I'm so sorry.

Yeah, I have it if you want me to share the chairman.

I just think it's easier to speak to that.

We're certainly grateful to the planning board for much success.

And I hope everybody is gearing up for the opening of the new planetarium and astronomy center.

Mid-November, if all goes beautifully.

Uh, let's, yeah, we'll go.

We gave you some background images, which we had discussed in the preliminary meeting.

So this proposal that you're looking at now, um, is our CP 3343 site infrastructure and improvements, a $600,000 request.

This is the third time that we have um come before the planning board uh to support the request that we're making for a pavilion on our meadow.

And to anyone who's been to the museum, you've seen that we have sort of strung together tents for a number of years.

And uh they're just not safe, they're not holding up.

So we started three years ago uh with some requests to get started on this project.

We're grateful to have received two tranches of funding, and then we did all of our preliminary work um with uh redness and mead.

Um, and also with Tai Su Kim, our architectural firm to help us to put the simplest specifications together for the pavilion.

Uh Dominic has been our partner on this, and we went out to bid.

If you look at the second page, Peggy, after that, oh sorry, the third page.

You'll note in the green column, Peggy.

You were right, go to the fourth page.

Okay, keep going.

Yeah, go to the bid page.

So here we are.

So here's where we are with our $600,000 request for this year.

Um, and this is a critical piece that will greatly enhance our ability to do programming and uh keep our guests safe in all kinds of weather.

Um again, we're a major environmental education and soon to be bringing back the fourth leg of our, or I should say the fourth wheel of the vehicle with our science education with the planetarium and astronomy center.

But this is what we went out to bid a year ago, and the bid came back obviously escalated and much higher than we anticipated, which is why we're back in front of you tonight.

Peggy, if you'll go back to the next go back one page.

Again, uh we're part of a priority for open space as an organization.

We're aligned with strategy 12 parks and open space and community.

So you can see our narrative there.

A very ambitious and important plan.

So the public benefit of the program is really uh the public accessibility for um active open space in North Stanford.

It creates a year-round outdoor classroom and gathering space, expands our partnerships with the Stanford Public Schools, and um with uh local uh uh spending and economic development and aligns uh with the plan with all the equity goals by serving residents citywide.

And I will say just a sidebar in our overall education plan that is soon to include the science piece with the astronomy center.

We're in 135 uh schools, not only with uh school visits from schools, we serve every Stanford public school, most parochial schools, and we serve many schools outside of the community.

So it's a great source of pride that we're a centerpiece um educational organization.

This pavilion, and again, the background documents will just flip through those.

Um we have a much more in-depth series of images that I left the planning board with.

And you can see we've done all of the footwork over the last two years to set this project up for funding.

Um we would be deeply grateful if if we could have get this to fruition uh in this year's funding cycle.

Any questions on the pavilion?

Okay.

Um the other component of that request also included $68,000, and Tony had put that in the same request for a total of $668,000.

The $68,000 is for some repairs to our mansion, the Bendel Mansion, where which houses our museum galleries.

Um, you can see there I'm having trouble.

Uh, it's not enlarged a lot.

Uh but we have some envelope repairs and some interior repairs that we want to make to the Bendell Mansion that again houses the museum.

Uh, and we would be deeply grateful uh to get the city's support on that.

This is the first request, a significant request that we've made for repairs to the mansion since 2009, and there we have again uh the list of improvements and mitigation that we want to do to the Bendell Mansion.

So that's in the uh CP 3343 request.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Go ahead, Abby.

I'm really delighted the planetarium is going to be live soon.

Uh looking forward to that.

Uh just one question on the pavilion.

Uh, do we have any thoughts about using you know uh some environmentally friendly friendly power sources solar, you know, something like that in in the pavilion.

I didn't see it, I saw the traditional electricity and saying, you know, it could be a good opportunity to speak to our kids about sustainability and all that.

So would you mind considering that?

Yeah, you know what we we actually we have we have tree issues on the site.

We have very large trees, and so with the meadow, there are times when it is sunny, but it goes to shade or tree shade coming over it at many times during the day.

Um, I'm happy to look at and see if there's any opportunity, but my worry has been with solar is we we haven't been able to really sustain uh full sunlight on the pavilion because of tree coverage and the way that the sh the sun moves across the property.

I'm happy to look into that.

Yeah, I think especially if something can be done by the end of the year because there is some federal tax credits, etc.

So I'm sure that are ways to store this energy when the sun shines and release it and it's not required.

So I'll appreciate if you could just look into it one more time.

Happy to do that.

Happy to do that, and thank you so much for your your question and your support.

So those are the two requests there, and then um I did wanted to uh just for clarification.

So right now there's an amount available in the account listed at uh well the year date balance rather is uh 255.

Um so is all of that all of that is currently earmarked for the pavilion, but the bid, the low bid that came in exceeded what's been already allocated, correct?

It's actually we need the additional 600,000 um and so of the bid.

Yeah, I think that's that's right, Melissa.

We're saying the same thing that the funds that are in the job, what's left over it, and Nancy uh uh correct me if I'm wrong, there might be another 20 uh coming out of that 255 for our projects from last year, but I think there's about 220 left for the pavilion, and then we're asking for 600 on top of that to complete the project.

Yeah, if you go to the bid sheet, you can see the low bidder is in is above 600,000.

That one.

Right.

Okay, got it.

All right, thank you.

Just wanted to make sure it was clear.

Yeah, remember to support it again.

I think mentioned our previous items when there's already some significant balance that's been allocated toward a project.

Um find it important to figure out how we can make sure we're finishing projects of funds aren't just sitting.

You believe me, we're we are trying to get this finished.

This will really uh again help us a lot with our incredible summer camps and again, year-round programming.

Uh, we can work on the meadow uh with a beautiful wooden, sturdy wooden pavilion.

Uh it's way more challenging with uh whipped together tents when it rains, uh, the water just pours through.

Uh and again, we do a ton of outdoor education.

There is no bad weather at the Stanford Museum and Nature Center, only bad clothing.

And Jennifer had asked about the cost of the tents.

Um the actual cost, and you have to add for the electric and you have to get an inspector.

So we you know I mean, we don't have anything in there really than some extension cords.

Um, so we're not actively lighting or there are no fans or anything like that in there.

That's correct.

We're really trying to bring about an important centerpiece for the campus that is functional that we would have lighting in uh and we would have uh fans in so that we could manage to bugs and uh to heat as well so it it would be great we've worked on this for three years and you know the I'll be honest I think the bids are shocking uh but that's the world we're living in uh so again we're coming to you earnestly uh to see if we can finally get this pavilion completed and I believe if we can get this funding we can construct this fairly swiftly um I had talked about you know six maybe nine months um we're ready to go uh so we're we're just keen to know that we have the funding to move forward all right couple hands chat um yes thank you um I I'm I'm not sure if this is a question for you Melissa or actually for Tony um you've put together some terrific documentation in support of your request but this documentation hasn't come to us uh can it can a copy be distributed to the um board absolutely I would expect it to go to the board is it not sent to the board so I I do have a copy um I thought it was sent to the board but I'll forward it now and um so you will have a copy I'll send it to us and we I gave you uh in the in the most recent doc Tony that I sent over um I took out the full design drawings I mean it was a lot of pages so I've given you a real capsule and an understanding of of where we're headed with a with a um a um uh a built barn a barn that will be I mean I'm sorry a pavilion that'll be built right on site it's really the prep and all of the requirements that have come out of the bid process so I'd love that to be shared with the whole planning board terrific thank you okay thank you very much I see Jeremy's hand yes another question is there another question Jeremy you're on mute yeah can you guys hear me can okay great apologies uh thank you jennifer and melissa thank you for the presentation um so just uh I'm looking at the bid summary sheet here um and you know it it looks that the base bid is is significantly lower than than the other two contractors um I guess in in your review with Dominic you know or was there you know any reason you know was there a did they find a cheaper way to construct this did they find a cheaper sourcing of the the the pavilion I I guess it just you know the other two numbers are are within you know in the base you know within you know 20 000 and and this one's you know significantly lower and and you know I I think that's that's great but I guess I want to make sure that the you know what's in the documents and and what was bid is is actually accurate I guess and looking at that it is bids um and again I'm sorry Dominic is not here uh but um again we went through with hand in hand with the city uh and this was the bid document that was sent back again Dominic's res recommendation was to come back for the additional funding um and looking at uh mangior as our as our lower bid and then you can also see that we have um behind that we have um what's it called backyard creations which is built in that's where the additional 2500 you know the other expenses that we have related to the project um that's where that other documentation comes from and that's where those other funds that we have sitting in our account will be utilized does that make sense am I not being clear that makes sense thank you it will be quite an asset I will say okay any other questions on that request our second I'm sorry no other question go ahead okay our second um

Am I not being clear?

That makes sense.

Thank you.

It will be quite an asset, I will say.

Okay.

Any other questions on that request?

Our second.

I'm sorry.

No other questions.

Go ahead.

Okay.

Our second um CP2702 technology replacement and upgrade.

Again, we've been working diligently in partnership with the city for the last several years.

And I wanted to let Peggy uh speak to this technology request as we're able, I will say finally, um, with the with the planetarium and astronomy center coming on deck in mid-November.

Um, we will finally be able to sort of electrify the campus and allow us uh to get further work done on um getting off city systems.

So Peg, uh, can I is that a setup for you that you can speak to this request?

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks, Melissa.

Yeah, so as we mentioned in the pre-planning meeting, this was kind of a multi-phase uh project that we started back in FY 2021, uh, where the city had originally asked us to please get off the phone system.

And when we took a look at that, we kind of came to the conclusion swiftly that we needed to take a look at our IT technology footprint and uh work towards uh you know getting uh updated and also getting these phases complete.

So we find ourselves now six years later, and uh the first ask was to get off the phones, and we're now just about ready to get off the phone.

So it's been a long journey, but we've made some progress along the way with the city's help on that 80,000 original uh CP2702 project.

And that is we uh migrated to a new email system, Office 365.

We got off the city's um network.

Uh, we took our files and put them up into the cloud.

Uh we did do a workstation refresh initially.

Uh many of us were working on Windows 97 uh six years ago.

So we've now come up uh quite a ways from there.

And now we're just about poised uh to go to our new phone system.

We're actually going to implement a phone system in the astronomy center.

Again, being that we knew the astronomy center was going to come online and having it be a very high technology building.

The thought was to kind of hold off on the trenching and the network unification on the entire campus until the astronomy center was built.

It is really the anchor uh for the uh technology piece.

That is, we now have a fiber line coming in uh to the astronomy center, and we're going to feed off that fiber line down into the center of the campus, uh, which is challenging because we have water features, we have barns and animals, etc.

So there's a uh a difficult piece uh where we will have to do some trenching on the property to get the fiber line extended to the center of the campus, and that's that $97,000 unified campus network line item that you see there.

So, all in all, uh, with these multiple phases, uh looks like the project will come out around 225,000 total.

We've gotten funding from the city.

We've used some of our operating funding, and we had used some state grant money um uh thus far.

So we've got a shortfall here of about $50,000 uh to complete everything.

And just wanted to note uh with you know, us taking on our own IT uh telephony footprint um all the way back in FY22.

We took all of the uh help desk and licensing and all of that email protections, etc.

into our operating PL at about a 43,000 dollar cost annually.

Are there any questions?

Answer any questions sorry for the blabbing, it's been close to my heart and living it for six years.

Technology upgrades are very important.

We do have 97, gosh.

Let me let me also mention, and I'm again happy to take questions.

You know, we really started this infrastructure improvement with the farmhouse that we brought online in 2000 um 18.

And then we had laid the groundwork for the additional uh electrifying, if you will, of the campus went with and laid all of the the groundwork for bringing on the astronomy center, which ultimately allows us to migrate fully off the city's uh systems.

And again, up until then when I arrived in 2005, we were on the city systems.

So it's been a process.

Uh and again, we're grateful to the city for patience and care.

I do oh I had a question, but chat, why don't you go ahead?

Yeah, just uh just one other thank you.

The um Tony uh uh perhaps I'm the only one um who's confused confused, but we we've had dealt with um other product capital requests uh for technology software hardware upgrades, and they've all they've been considered short-term financing.

Um what is the criterion under which um it's short we use short-term financing versus uh bonding.

Sure.

So so normally short-term financing it it's submitted under a five-year bond request, and that's what you see in the paperwork today.

Um, but when we get to the mayor's level, um most of the time it it will get switched to our cash account or count not on the current account.

Uh but at this point we we don't have much funds in there, so we we are you know we'll have an answer, you know, unfortunately after you deliberate.

Um, you know, it's it's it all depends on the surplus we get at year end and how much the uh boards decide to uh put put in our captain on the current cash account.

Um but historically it's been cap non-recurrent.

There was one or two years that we weren't able to do that, and then we issued five year bonds for short-term capital.

So it's one or the other.

Okay, all right.

And then Tony, I think it could still happen, I see.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah, I I think and and up until now, we had this the tech funding that we had gotten to help us with this whole migration had been on that short-term capital line.

We moved it into this this request um with capital funds this year.

That's that is correct.

Yeah.

So ultimately ultimately three requests from the Stanford Museum and Nature Center.

Um I I do want to note uh Chat in answer to part of your question that given that part of the scope of this involves like the trenching for the for the for the line to be able to extend further into the campus.

Um, I would say that that's certainly you know more in the category of of capital uh rather than uh short term.

Unders oh, I see.

Understood.

I think Chad's question is a categorization one.

Um I do want to ask, uh, given that you've held off on this until like as you're phasing the rest of the buildings.

Um what if any time sensitivity is there to the technology replacement?

Uh is it uh yeah, I mean we're we're always we're all kind of figuring out what needs to be funded in this year and what can be funded in future years.

Sure, sure.

I think I can speak to that.

So we are, as you know, on the city phone system, uh, the Avaya phone system.

And we've had a lot of trouble uh this last year or so with the phone system itself.

Um, you know, drop calls, trying to call out.

Um it's it's in pretty bad shape.

Um some days we had we had uh duct tape and rubber that's not but seriously, um it's it's getting towards critical.

And I I think even more so the city would like us to get off uh the phone system.

Um so yeah, we we want to comply, um, but we could use some help in doing so.

So um, you know, we can we can rattle along a little bit further.

The astronomy center obviously doesn't have a phone system at the moment, so they will have brand new phones.

Um, and that will be kind of again the anchor for voiceover internet platform to bring that down to the rest of the campus.

Jen, you're on mute.

Thank you.

um you know we can we can rattle along a little bit further the astronomy center obviously doesn't have a phone system at the moment so they will have brand new phones um and that will be kind of again the anchor for voice over internet platform to bring that down to the rest of the campus jen you're on mute thank you um i just wanted to say for the comments i think it could be helpful to clarify uh that the you know the again that the reason you're moving off the system is it's per the city's request um and so that's what's um driving some of the timeline here i think we can fix that tony can we fix that notation uh yes we could do that tomorrow that's great thanks tony we're we're deeply grateful to Tony and Nancy and and all of you for extraordinary support that uh makes us a vital organization we're swinging at everything sure I can't wait to see you at the new planetarium and astronomy center all right yes that concludes our capital budget presentations this evening great thank you jennifer thank you Lindsay thank you planning board we're grateful great so now our next item is uh the comprehensive plan and going back and reviewing uh the section of revisions in particular around uh historic uh preservation um and also reviewing the cover letter uh that would be from the planning board kind of putting some broader context around the plan development and the next steps um do we want to start with the historical preservation language uh that you've updated and proposed all right uh lindsay if you want to go ahead and um screen share that as we talk through it yeah i just want to make sure i got the right one okay great thank you and and thank you to chat for bringing in uh to um assist with this revision let me sorry um again i think you didn't see my hand so before tony leaves uh what is the uh debt limit this year well the uh tony's already left he's already left looking at the last i think i mean for several years the expectation has been a 40 million uh debt limit so i think that's we'll deliver 40 okay uh that's a fine assumption for this year unless we're told otherwise last year we had 50 plus or something much higher amount last year yeah um this year it it seems to be a little lower um uh tony sent uh provided me a copy of the the uh the budgeting memorandum the debt limit in that memorandum is established at 35 million wow no it's just 45 yeah but there was a 2023 one that said 45 i would just check the dates just check the dates on the letters i there's so many dates here so i still right yeah this is this is last year this is last year yeah right so I don't think the safe debt limit letter has actually come out yet right so um yeah I'm sorry Lindsay what's not come out yet the safe debt limit letter this letter for this year right so last year's it was 45 million um this year we are still waiting to see uh okay um so we will get that we will get that information before the planning board makes their final uh deliberations that that would be that would be important yeah um but I you know I mean obviously a few million here in one direction or the other is significant and I think you know given that general ballpark of about 40 hopefully that's helpful for framing how much is going to need to be uh deprioritized or shaved off out of here I think last year we had over a hundred million in requests uh so we'll see what the total request ends up being for this fiscal year yeah I yeah I I suspect it'll be about the same or a little bit higher that is my hunch too especially given how much uh cost escalation there's been for so many of these capital projects all right um Lindsay do you want to start by walking through the um the revisions sure so can you guys I I'm I think I shared my whole screen can you say see all my tabs that I'm going through or just one so here's the draft cover letter here's the city of opportunity okay you're getting seeing all these different tabs yes right now you're on the the final revision zone okay all right so um eliza listened like read all my notes from last week's meeting listened to last week's meeting on historic preservation um we've discussed it and she

Can you sit see all my tabs that I'm going through or just one?

So here's the draft cover letter.

Here's the city of opportunity.

Okay, you're getting seeing all these different tabs.

Yes.

Right now you're on the final revision zone.

Okay.

All right.

So Eliza listened, like read all my notes from last week's meeting, listened to last week's meeting on historic preservation.

Um we've discussed it, and she took the first shot at the revisions, um, which are in this PDF that I can go to.

Um, it's summarized as um updating language in the encourage thoughtful development goal to include design quality, community identity, and historic resources.

So trying to take it away from the growth aspect and more towards the thoughtful aspect.

Um we updated the why section in strategy six, um, which aligns closer to some of the Hubbard Heights text that's been sent.

Um, we added uh uh several new actions to broaden the scope of the historic preservation recommendations and updated a case study um to focus on identifying historic preservation districts as opposed to historic preservation wayfinding.

Um so she gave this a shot, sent it around to myself, Bill, and Chet.

Um Chet was the first to respond generally, you know, and Chet, you can feel free to speak in.

Um, but generally thought it was very much improved.

Um there was some wordsmithing regarding the definition of an encouraged thoughtful development, which I think is fine.

Um so uh you'll see in this revision the revised definition.

Um help a city grow in a way that brings people together in red, fosters cohesive design and community identities and ensures neighborhoods grow in a balanced manner that was so with the the double grow was something that Chet flagged as potential issue.

Um so between myself, Chet, I I revised one of your suggestions to manage the city's growth in a way that brings people together, fosters cohesive design and community identities, and ensure neighborhoods evolve in a balanced manner that respects historic resources.

His other choice was instead of evolve is progress into the future in a balanced manner.

Um the strategy number six uh adding a word celebrate and protect Stamford's historic sites and neighborhoods, I think is great.

Um just kind of quickly summarizing Chet's comments.

Um the what in the strategy.

Um Chet had some discussion, uh had some comments on um how the what kind of focused on the storytelling rather than what we actually wanted to focus on, um, which is enhancing Stanford's identity and build community pride by promoting the value of our heritage and by protecting and preserving our significant buildings and neighborhoods.

Um Chet, I I did remove the architectural heritage because I think it the heritage goes beyond architectural in terms of preserving our historic um resources.

Um, but I thought that was a really great revision.

Um there were two new actions that Eliza added that um I don't think really address our comments.

So I would consider removing them.

Um so one is consider adopting historic district transition areas in the zoning code to ensure compatibility with historic districts.

It just seems like uh out of left field.

So I I don't really know there's been no discussion about this.

This wouldn't necessarily be responsive to specific comments, so I just I don't know how I feel about including that one.

I don't I would like to remove it.

And then the other one it says create design guidelines with the adaptive reuse of historic structures that preserve their sense of place while supporting their transformation to new compatible uses.

And while I do support and think that design guidelines are responsive to comments, having design guidelines specifically for adaptive reuse of historic structures, supporting transformation.

We just want to preserve them.

So I would recommend removing those too.

Yeah.

Lindsay, just one thought on 6.6.

Okay.

I can bring it up right here so we can see it.

Yep.

Yeah.

I understand why Eliza may have uh recommended that.

Um, but what once we have kind of better more formalized process for preservation, um, you know, the transition zones between the the historic districts and the adjacent rest of the cities that are non-historic, um there they can be a useful um uh solution so that when you don't you don't go to the other side of the street and suddenly feel like you're in a different world, you know.

Yes, okay.

But we're not there, we're not ready for it yet.

Um and then um uh Bill made um some more, I would say kind of macro level comments about historic preservation um policy in Stanford, kind of like taking a step back, more clean slate style, um, providing kind of steps, and which I thought were were very um important to actually getting historic preservation done uh but I did wonder if it was kind of the next step at that comes after the comp plan, but to to go over them because I think they're very important.

So first would be implementing historic preservation program to protect buildings and possibly districts from being demolished or altered, upgrading HPAC from an advisory to a decision-making board, um, which is typically called the historic resources board, conducting an up-to-date survey of historic properties in Stanford, um, adopting regulations prohibiting demolition or inappropriate alteration of historic resources upon designation by the historic resource board and adopting a demolition delay regulation to prevent demolition of properties determined to be potentially worthy of protection until they can be evaluated by the HRB.

Um so I I thought they the the H the Historic Resource Board was fabulous.

The the survey of historic properties is would absolutely be necessary in kind of establishing a baseline for any historic press work that we're doing, as well as creating new regulations um regarding demolition and alteration of buildings.

So I I did try to take a shot at um, you know, consider making HPAC a decision-making body that would enforce a new set of regulations restricting the demolition and alteration of historic resources.

So I think this gets at considering I I don't even know what goes into making HRB, making HPAC a historic resources board.

I think there are a few steps to take before we do that.

Um would it be a charter change?

I believe so.

Okay.

Um, and then the second aspect being like creation of a set of regulations that would address demolition and alteration of historic resources.

So that's a summary of everything.

Uh I don't know if it might be maybe I could just leave it at that, or if you guys want to look at the red-lined version, um let me know.

Let me know how you what you guys think.

Lindsay, uh, aside from the this spread the spreadsheet um that you use to summarize all the uh the input in the final comments.

Um how do you uh if we did want to um implement the last one that you were just talking about of Bill's comments, you know, consider making you consider making HPAC a decision-making body.

How where and how would we integrate that into the comprehensive plan?

Um, it would be a new supporting action in strategy six.

Okay.

I mean, we we I'd be in favor of of uh adding that as a new action.

Um, and and even if it does, even if it is a charter revision, um at this point, you know, we we would have to determine that, and that's what the consider would be all about um I I think on that I am I I do think I don't know if we need to include it in the action, but I do think it's important to take a look at how historic preservation boards with more statutory authority have an implemented in the state.

So maybe we can include something in the cover letter.

Um so for example, I know like Robbie wanted and had made of several points about like fiscal stewardship as well as prioritizing um neighborhood studies in Waterside and Ridgeway Bull's head.

Um so like basically kind of pulling out highlight public comments in this cover letter that aren't necessarily specific action items, we could say, you know, um something along the lines of um enforceable historic preservation regulations or or something about something along the lines of um the city making efforts to uh develop either body or or regulations to protect our historic structures, the remaining historic structures and resources we have um in the cover lighter might address that.

Um why would we not want to put this in the in the plan like we were talking about a couple minutes ago?

What what's the reason to not have it in the I'm a little confused.

Are we interested in preserving what's left in Stanford or not?

Because this is the next this is the plan for the next 10 years or 20 years or whatever it is, and if we don't put it in here, then the first time it would come in would be 20 years from now.

There probably won't be anything left by then.

Nothing left to preserve to preserve.

So I think I don't really understand why Jennifer is suggesting not including it.

Oh no, I'm not I'm not suggesting necessarily not including it.

It's just that um, well, I mean, one component is even if the even if historic preservation becomes uh a board with uh specific decision-making authority, that authority needs to be in line with uh state law and how the zoning enabling act is written.

And so I just want to make sure that one actually that this action is inclusive uh more broadly of determining what are the strategies, including enhancing the authority of HPAC and other changes to uh to zone to you know zoning or other regulations that are able to take stronger actions and are occurring right now because my general impression is that it's not just that we don't have like the people uh or people power to be able to move forward on this, but there is actually a fundamental question of what needs to be done for any of this to actually be enforceable.

Well, I think a statement like consider making HPAC a decision-making body, that would mean we would look at all of that, but this is not saying how you do everything.

This is saying let's consider doing it.

And you know, we're not gonna and through the and through the consideration, we'll learn what the uh the roadblocks and potential obstacles are.

Okay.

Um trying to think through like what whether there's a little clause to add in just to add in this this context of um wanting to make sure that it's a decision-making body that has uh that actually has enforceable uh authority.

are okay um okay i'm trying to think through like what whether there's a little clause to add in just to add in this this context of um wanting to make sure that it's a decision making body that has uh that actually has enforceable uh authority yeah my recommendation is if it didn't have enforceable authority then it would be then it wouldn't really be doing anything so right exactly exactly that's that's why i'm saying like even if we technically change the status of of the um of h pack i mean and again i i'm i'm not i don't actually i don't have any particular expertise on how um historic preservation sits within our broader land use codes or how other our other um communities have gone about constituting something like h pack um but i do i do i am concerned that it's very possible that you could elevate the body of h pack without impacting the rest of the ecosystem that they sit in and so we wouldn't actually accomplish anything if that was the only action that we took so if that makes sense my recommendation is the cover letter as it is is I would say reasonably long and adding more statements in the coding letter probably is not admissible so which of our version Jennifer and Billby won't include let's include it in the main document uh whether it is the text we see on the screen or we want to modify it a little bit whatever it is let us put it in the main section rather than the coloring letter I would endorse that I'll agree all yeah I agree it should be in the in the main section um what do you guys think about this new text uh consider making HPAC a decision making body giving it the the authority to enforce a new set of regulations restricting the demolition and enforcement so that kind of gets it's not just I guess you what about like a you know uh you know um advocating for a charter change to make HPAC a decision making body giving it the authority to enforce a new set of regulations and instrictions or restrictions because I I believe it is a charter item right to right well I we can mark that under execution responsibility okay so can I make a small change uh enforce a new set of regulations I you know maybe maybe or maybe new yeah with an integrated set of cohesive set of regulations which the feeling that they have to work with the other regulations that are already there and not create some something on their own so all right so including as an action item in strategy six consider making HPAC a decision making body giving it the authority to enforce a cohesive set of regulations restricting the demolition and alteration of historic resources in and instead of the word restricting could it just be governing the demolition and alteration of historic resources that that makes sense to me because you know they're also the ones who currently already are reviewing uh like the request for I think we need to add something about identifying the historic resources in addition to enforcing and governing I think that's already in there Bill through a different action item which item is that um well you it used to be um undertaken inventory of all historic buildings establish a review in uh let me get my plan open yeah this is for specific um uh wayfinding and signage inventory noise complaints maybe this was just maybe it was maybe I'm thinking we're all thinking about the 2015 plan I know the 2015 plan has a uh has that as an action item well uh if that's if that's the case that that might explain some of the community input that said um the new plan has removed language that was beneficial and and originally in the 2015 plan.

I know the 2015 plan has a uh as an action item.

Well, uh if that's if that's the case that that might explain some of the community input that said um the new plan has removed language that was beneficial and and originally in the 2015 plan.

So um so the the cultural resources inventory, which I think addresses this task of doing the assessment.

Um I I think that that is likely an action that was put forward in the 2015 plan.

I I don't I don't agree.

I don't agree.

I so the cultural resources inventory how I've seen it working is you have to elect to put your building on the cultural resources inventory, and you essentially have to pay to do that and apply.

Yeah, so it's not the city going out and doing an inventory of all the historic buildings.

Um it's this it's it's our like historic resources, but you pay to get onto the list.

Um I think what we were thinking of is actually the original six um action item 6.1 before we started making any of the changes.

Undertake in-depth analyses of neighborhoods and and histories to identify and formally designate historic districts and buildings um worthy of protections, etc.

Ah okay, so that's in an old version 6.1.

Okay.

Pulling it up.

I think the language we have in the one on the online from the 19th is slightly different than that one.

She just read, Chuck.

Yeah, yeah, this was uh I think the the very first version of the comprehensive plan.

Um option for further study to identify new historic districts if desired by residents.

And it shouldn't just be districts, it should it should be individual structures as well.

Why don't we just maintain why don't we just keep the action item from the 2015 plan, which says conduct a citywide historic preservation survey and prepare a historic preservation plan for Stanford.

Amen.

Let's do it.

That works okay.

So this noting execution response.

I think it's action type will be a charter revision.

I think that's what it would be, and then plus cool.

Um it might it might be worth saying something kind of more along the lines of uh uh kind of like consolidating and expanding this survey, given that there have been some some of this work has been done.

Just to make it not sound like this is starting totally from scratch I because I just don't know.

I uh I guess consolidate I I don't I have that same action right consolidating and expanding seem to be opposites.

Okay, okay.

Uh glad to take different words, but I it just the point one is let's pull together the things that already exist and point two being and then let's evaluate more of the city beyond what's already been done.

And I think the very first step in a citywide historic preservation survey is gathering everything that's already been done.

Sure.

And you know, going from there.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So um kind of heading off from the top.

We have in the city of opportunity.

We've redefined encouraged thoughtful development away from this to manage the city's growth in the way that brings up peoples together.

Um progressing into the future to really bring things away from growth.

We are reinforcing protection in the strategy.

Um we are reinforcing the reason for doing this, um, community provid pride and promoting value of our heritage by protecting and preserving in the what.

Um we're creating um some new actions uh to give ourselves some more uh strength in creating regulations and enforcing regulations as well as identifying um historic resources that we have remaining.

Um are folks okay removing these two strategies.

Yeah.

Okay.

I I think the adaptive reuse is an interesting one.

You know, I I don't know what others think.

I think it would be more of like the south end.

Um personally I think I do agree with the prior, you know, not wanting to prioritize that, but I think you know there is something said for adaptive reuse.

You know, I know you know there's there's a couple buildings downtown that or down in the south end that an adaptive reuse didn't end so so well.

But I I think you know, with the proper parameters, it's something that you know has been done in other cities and and you know well done.

Um I I agree that there should be the connection between the historic preservation and adaptive reuse.

I wonder there's already a there are a couple of other actions in here.

One is around kind of model designs.

Uh and then if I'm trying to recall if there is another one that's more specific to adaptive reuse more broadly.

But I think adding the historic element to that text rather than having it live under this uh historic preservation section might uh work a little bit better and and avoid the the perception that there is a uh an intention to be aggressive about the adaptive reuse uh in historic districts.

Um so I can look through and see which of the existing actions uh could be just modified a little bit to add something around ensuring that historically preservation development.

Yeah, let me um or Lindsay, the uh the what and why um could you uh show us that again because maybe maybe just the words adaptive reuse can be integrated into one of those.

I think one of them already.

Um I'm pulling it up right now.

Uh connect residents.

No, not not in the why that I'm seeing that now Stanford Grows and Predator Connect.

Okay, I will plan up so well I well actually in the why there is a there is a possible location where it says connect residents to its rich cultural heritage through the preservation.

It could we could say through through the preservation and or adaptive reuse of historic districts and structures.

Yeah, I think that fits well there.

Oh and uh I'm looking to see why action.

Um all right, well, okay, so the action the um action 3.1 does already in the talking about clear design guidelines, it includes HPAC and the execution responsibility and does have uh direct references to reflecting Stanford's unique architectural styles yeah uh yeah yeah so I don't think okay and I guess in those clear guidelines we could talk about adaptive reuse of some of those unfortunately uh Stanford's architectural styles are not at all unique which is has always bothered me you know that we they could be noteworthy they could be significant they can be but they're not unique uh I have that same do you do you propose replacing unique with noteworthy or some other word um yeah that that would work for me if it works for everyone else I'm fine with that well we could also say uh tool kits to developers that establish a unique architectural identity no okay okay yeah I don't want to go down a rabbit hole yeah really yeah let's don't open that can of worms okay so 3.1 uh that reflects Stanford's what architectural styles um just note uh I mean noteworth uh we could just say or significant or whatever I mean I we could also just remove the qualifier and just say reflect Stanford's architectural styles we don't have to describe what we think of styles I think so we we can leave out the adjective yes okay so um but for the adaptive reuse portion are folk are you are people okay with saying as Stanford grows it's imperative connect residents to the rich cultural heritage through the preservation and or adaptive reuse of historic districts and structures or do you also want to incorporate adaptive reuse somewhere here no I think 3.1 I don't think we want to say and or because that makes it sound like we want to possibly adaptively reuse but eliminate the original architecture something right yeah it could just be or I think is yeah okay and Jeremy since you were the one who brought up the adaptive reuse are you okay with putting it here okay no yeah I did that I found the 13 point or the sorry the 3.1 and I think it'd be part of the design guidelines check that we put up that are that are put out all right okay great so we will do all of that and we'll remove 6.6 and 6.7 yes okay i think that's it right well for the revision but we don't need to do we need to bring them back uh to us to the board once again or i i don't know i don't think so i think we walked through all of them and are in agreement yep okay on to the cover letter

3.1 and I think it'd be part of the design guidelines check that we've got that are that are put out all right okay great so we will do all of that and we'll remove 6.6 and 6.7 yes okay i think that's it right well for the revision but we don't need to do we need to bring them back uh to us to the board once again or i uh i don't know i don't think so i think we walked through all of them and are in agreement yep okay so happy to move on to the cover letter okay great i'll leave that open so um do you want me to read it no um i don't i don't know i don't know that you need to read the whole thing out loud um but maybe just uh high level the roadmap um sure so you know we're we're thanking folks telling them um what was done between the draft and uh adoption um and highlighting the new strategy for uh in response to deep's comments uh regarding waterfront access uh we then reinforce what the vision of stamps um for 2035 uh going beyond opportunity healthy connected affordable really kind of being a descriptor of how we envision and the city envisions Stanford in 2035 concentrating highest development around the downtown and Stanford Transportation Center which was going to be redeveloped in 2030 expanding parks and improving um waterfront access improving all modes of transportation diversifying housing stock and supporting small businesses as well as workforce development um we have a note on fiscal stewardship um that the plan recognizes that basic services remain a fundamental priorities and strategic investments are meant to improve quality of life um in a fiscally responsible way uh and then uh a few notes on um implementation and ongoing engagement um which is where we discuss um providing materials to the public and uh stakeholders um neighborhoods doing conducting neighborhood studies in areas that are targeted for high growth um and tracking information online and and ending in thanks um i i think it i think it looks good and covers the key points that we wanted it to uh starting from the end uh i think i might propose the header for implementation and ongoing engagement to just say ongoing public engagement just to make that very clear um i did put in a couple of small uh phrasing edits uh one of them this was really just uh flipping the sentence around around uh for the explanatory materials um just to add the prioritization part of it at the beginning of the sentence um and let's see um i had also suggested an edit uh initially it said increasing housing stock in all neighborhoods which i don't actually i think the intention is really about the diversification of the housing stock right like having more different types in neighborhoods but that there are plenty of neighborhoods where there might actually not be a tangible increase in housing stock if there are areas that are not suited to um much or high growth um and then i added uh in addition to where it said income levels i also added in household sizes because i think just emphasizing that piece around that being a key evolution is important um i will say that i so i understand why the strategy 13 uh given given that coming from the deep uh comments is noteworthy i it to me it lands a little bit funny as the second paragraph though yeah i agree so maybe it might make more sense to make that its own section or like header uh further down maybe before the um fiscal stewardship do we need it before that or after that sort of we're we could we could also just include it in the expanding parks green space

I will say that I so I understand why the strategy 13 uh given given that coming from the deep uh comments is noteworthy i it to me it lands a little bit funny as the second paragraph though yeah I agree so maybe it might make more sense to make that its own section or like header uh further down maybe before the um fiscal stewardship do we need it before that or after that sort of we have we could we could also just include it in the expanding parks green spaces improving waterfront access and just like of note you know we pulled out a whole all of the waterfront yeah yeah yeah okay okay okay um are there has everyone had a chance to read all the way through the letter yeah so I did I uh so Jennifer I did and I it um captures my points and I mean we can do it stuff to debt uh but I think this is a good uh letter to go with the plan all right great um and just for clarity so this is not this will not be in the plan right it's kind of like the transmittal letter that accompanies the budget or will it actually be up to up to you guys and and something I wanted to ask you guys about what what you wanted um it could be either um what did we have a similar letter the last site last cycle the previous slide uh uh I don't think there was one from the board in this way I I'm traveling so I don't have the tome with me at it right now um no no letter at all not even from the mayor in this plan weird so I think in the 2002 plan there was a letter that was signed by the mayor and the planning board but I there's too much in this letter for the mayor to sign off on wordsmith it to death I think this is uh this is not the mayor's communication this is our communication to the town and to the mayor and what the gender mess of the public right so putting it in a different document I think it's going to I'm not sure is the right option you know we would create another document we already have a document and in the current document we have being introduction by the mayor etc etc right communicating our priorities why would we not include this in this document saying this is a little final version and you know thanks to the public and it just concurred in one place so everybody can look at it instead of creating another another document um sure I'm I'm fine with that I actually I think it should come between the acknowledgments and the mayor's letter um yeah that's fine because it does address like revisions and um things like that whereas hers is just a little bit more high level um ours is a little bit more current and like time sensitive okay okay I uh I think actually since we did I since we did just refine the historic preservation section too I I would like to have some sort of nod or note here that there were a fair number of revisions on that subject I'm trying to figure out the best place to put that just another bullet under a vision for Stamper.

Because this is very like grow grow.

It is um do we want to put cultural identity though or focus more on historic something else.

I think the call may lose it may not having it as a separate bullet makes more sense.

I do think it is it is important to emphasize where where will there be growth and then I think this historic preservation uh focus is about acknowledging that throughout the fabric of the city whether it's a place that's growing aggressively or a place that's staying pretty static for the most part.

So you're suggesting making it a the second bullet here uh oh I I said separate I don't know that needs to be the second bullet well I mean from the standpoint of balancing uh growth and our historic assets um I I would think it's it's uh perhaps uh not more important but a higher level strategy than you know parks and green space and you know etc etc um I wouldn't I wouldn't say that I I mean we have a whole section that's dedicated to parks and green spaces um we have a whole section on mobility i i would i i was thinking it might fit after the bullet on diversifying housing stock okay um and i think yeah just pulling some of the language from the revision into there um emphasizes that that was part of the that was a key part of the revisions okay all right we'll do okay all right yay that that actually was quicker than i expected um i appreciate all the work that went into uh drafting all this in the in between so thank you very much i'm glad we got here cool all right so i will um we'll get this put on letterhead and incorporate it into the plan um we will i'll have a Liza incorporate those other final revisions in as well and then um we will get the final plan up and copies printed within a week and you guys will all receive printed copies of the comp plan um uh for you to keep at home and mark up and um yeah great well thank you all we do a regular I guess we're we're done with it now finally are we gonna look at it one last time just to no we're done done um the plan the plan was approved on September 30th with those comments about addressing XYZ and we've ascent we've been doing that these past meetings um so now we're done and on to I'm working right now on um figuring out how to integrate this into all of our departments and uh track it online okay great cool all right thank you everyone good night everybody thank you all right have a good night you at our next regular scheduled planning board meeting on October 21st it is 8 55 bye bye night