Oh perfect.

Here's Jeremy.

Great.

Good morning, Jeremy.

Yeah.

Good morning.

All right.

Well, good morning, all.

This is a uh special meeting of the Stanford Planning Board on Monday, December 22nd.

First on our agenda is the minutes from December 16, which we have forum to approve.

You can double check if you need.

Well, send on email.

I thought I went through it and I was I personally was okay.

Okay.

Yeah, just give me two minutes here, just to just like to check it one last time.

Um should we come back to the minutes at the end of the meeting?

I'm uh I'm all set.

I have no problem.

Okay.

Do we have um a motion on the minutes that are approval from Ravi?

Excuse me.

Listen.

On that motion.

Second from Jeremy, all in favor, take your hand.

And the motion passes to approve December 16th.

Um request for authorization supplemental little project requests.

Um read um the first two in together because they are related.

The first three, I suppose.

Um first uh we have capital project closeout recommendations pursuant to Stanford City Code Section 8.2, close out of the capital project as recommended.

Project number CP711, utility paving, close out amount 1 million 220, 8159 with a funding source of grant.

Um, and close out of project C 612, uh street patch and resurfacing, same one million two hundred twenty-three thousand, eight hundred and one dollars and fifty-nine cents uh as with bond as the source.

Um I'll read the other two, but we will have to have separate motions for each of these.

Um, and now request for creation, utility project CP 871.

Uh same amount requested, uh requesting to replace uh local capital improvement program grant funding with bond funding as the utility paving project is not eligible for grant funding.

Project bid was not accordant with applicable state or federal requirements, and item three, and resurfacing project 56182, same amount, uh requesting to replace bond funding with local capital improvement program grant funding for the street patch project as that project qualifies uh for eligibility and complies with applicable state uh procurement requirements.

Um I'll go ahead and hand this over to our presenter.

Uh no, this is uh so this got added while I was out sick.

Um and Steve is here for the subdivision.

Okay.

Um so I think what I'm seeing here, and I I was looking at this, you guys probably saw my lack of a poker face because I'm thinking to myself, what are they trying to do here?

Why wouldn't they send somebody to talk about a project when it was switching the funding in accordance with, but it seems like they're just switching, they're just switching the accounts.

So it's a neutral change just yeah for uh projects that are eligible for the state funding, and then the flip uh for bond funding for those that are not eligible, but um a neutral swap of amounts.

Any questions from the board?

Uh hearing none.

Um can I have a motion first on item one, the capital project close out recommendations?

First from Jeremy, second from Ravi, all in favor.

Place your hand, and that passes unanimously.

And that passes unanimously.

The second item, the um appropriation uh to utility paving.

Uh do I have a motion on that item?

First from Jeremy.

I have a second, second from Ravi, all in favor, just raise your hand.

And the last, uh the street patch and resurfacing project um appropriation uh for uh for that from the state grant funding.

I have a motion on that item.

All right, first from Jeremy.

I have a second.

Which which project number is that?

Uh this one is uh street patch and resurfacing project C56182 for the grant funding.

So again, we we closed out uh bond funding for street patch.

Sorry, hold on one second.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

So I thought there were only two items for approval on this one.

Okay, so it's three items because the first motion was uh closeout, which means pushing the funds out of the accounts, and then there are two additional items to authorize the funds that we just closed out to swap accounts.

Okay, okay.

I mean, that's what it is, that's what it is.

I just I thought it would just substitute it, subs substitute.

That is what we're doing.

We're substituting the funding between the two, but it takes three motions because before we can appropriate the funds, we have to close out the funds so that they're available to be appropriated to the other account.

Okay.

What is it?

Um I'm okay with that.

Just okay.

Let's give a second on the street patching resurfacing.

Uh and all in favor, please raise your hand.

And that passes unanimously.

Um the third.

Um fourth, rather, citywide signals project C56174, total amount uh 125,000.

This request is for traffic signal upgrades on Broad Street as part of the development at one 130 Broad Street.

So this is accepting a payment uh from the um developer uh in order to carry out uh improvements as a condition of the development, which is already underway.

Um are there any questions on this item?

Only that agreement only that what it would have been clearer if if the agenda had stated that instead of the way it's so this isn't this request is isn't really for traffic signal upgrades, it's for the reimbursement to the city.

Uh I mean it's it is it is it is both.

It is the acceptance of the private contribution for the purpose of using them for citywide signals.

So I know that the way that it's stated in the agenda does not uh well, I mean, it doesn't have the element of requesting or a receiving the private contribution, but that is in the um in the CP ship.

Um and this again is the kind of thing where it would be nice if we could figure out how to streamline this administratively, because obviously we want to be able to accept the payment for something that we asked of the developer without having to go through extra administrative hoops.

Um that said, we do require a motion to accept the funds into the citywide signals account.

Uh do I have a motion on that?

Yeah, just one one quick question.

I mean, uh, does the city have the right to use those funds for something else?

Or um they have to use it only for this purpose.

Um I mean, I believe it would be a sort of breach of the agreement with the developer for them to direct it to another use without agreement.

Like it's possible that in the course of um getting this set up that maybe the city receives like a state grant that would instead cover this, and they could ask the developer like, hey, like we have another way to cover this, but there's a different improvement that could be made at this intersection, which would still enhance safety, et cetera.

Um, but it uh the it's a can it was a condition of approval uh for this item.

So for the city to appropriate the funds differently would not be in agreement with that.

Okay, got it.

Um I have a second on the motion.

U second from Jeremy, all in favor, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um I did see that.

Oh, Luke.

Hi.

Hi.

Hi, bye.

I'm happy all that one.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you for hopping on if clarification was needed.

These were pretty straightforward.

Um thank you.

All right.

Um last on our agenda, which was the main purpose of our um uh special meeting today, uh, is uh subdivision, uh subdivision 4053.

Uh applicant Stravos uh I Velis at 90 Havlin Road, two lots.

The applicant proposed a two-lot subdivision of the two-acre lot with an address of 90 Havilland Road.

The property is located on the southern side of Havilland Road, approximately 600 feet west of Springwheel Lane and in is and is in the RA1, one family residence zoning district.

This application was approved by the planning board on April 8th, 2025.

The final map has not been recorded.

The planning board is considering a modification to the approved plan to relocate a portion of lot line.

Uh so with that, go ahead and um introduce our presenter.

If you could please identify yourself for the record, and do want to note for planning board members that the final map was transmitted uh by email from Leslie.

Uh Steve, I was gonna say a few words first if that's okay with you or yeah, sure.

Okay.

Um and I'm gonna I'll share my I'll say a few words.

Um so the the subdivision regulations uh require subdivisions to result in zoning compliant lots.

Um as as stated prior to recording of the final map, um, we identified that there was a compliance issue here.

Um specifically lot two C, which I will share right now.

This is the map that was um shared via email this morning and posted on the planning board's website.

Specifically lot 2C was just shy of the one acre required um for the RA1 district.

Um simply due to access way calculations.

So um since the map wasn't recorded, the city requested the applicant to revise the map to meet conformance, um, and they've done so.

Um, and we're back here to get the uh go ahead.

Um the access way was revised to a 25 foot width and shortened to 10 feet, um which would allow for the remainder of the access way to be counted towards the total lot area um so that we can meet the minimum lot area requirement.

Um nothing is changing besides uh this lot line coming in this way, um, and the notation of lot area exclusive of access way and the access way to the total lot area.

So uh this should look very familiar to you all.

Um it's the same subdivision simply going like that, so that we can uh meet the lot minimum lot requirements.

Um Steve, do you have anything else you would like to share?

Um I think you covered it all, Lindsay.

Um just for the fact that you know, just want to thank you guys.

I know it's the holidays and this is a last minute meeting, and I appreciate your efforts to get me in.

Um I'm I'm you know happy to answer any questions.

And I'm here also with uh John Lyden, attorney um who's who's waving at me, but he's not in the camera.

John, there he is earlier.

Thank you.

Yep, he's here.

So um yeah, so I think you covered it all, and I would just want to thank you guys for taking the time today.

Thank you.

Questions from the board.

All right.

Um hearing none, do we have a motion on this item?

All right, Ravi, motion for approval of the lot line change for the subdivision.

Um, do I have a second on the motion?

Anybody, anybody?

I know this is such an exciting one.

Any any of these simple dissertation, Jen Jamie?

I'm just curious.

A second from Jeremy.

Um, all in favor, uh, please raise your hand.

And it passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um thank you for catching that little bit of non-thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Yep.

Thanks for having me.

Have a good day.

Thank you very much.

We appreciate your time.

Happy holidays, everybody.

You too.

Thank you, Lindsay.

Thanks, Steve.

All right.

So with that, just a reminder that our next regularly scheduled meeting is our public hearing for the capital budget on January 13th.

And I will note Lindsay, tell me if this if I'm misunderstanding this, but the correspondence from Tony regarding the capital budget and the way that the uh safe debt limit letter was written.

There is a recommendation for 10 million to schools expenditures other than the match for the major construction and 25 for other capital projects in the city.

However, that division between the two is not binding on the planning board.

It is a recommendation.

That was my understanding.

Right.

Yes.

Yes.

I'm sorry, I'm getting someone is really.

It was just a recommendation.

It's not binding.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

So now that we have that clarification, we'll head into the public hearing.

I will note that even if that recommendation is binding, you know, after we review the budget, it goes to the mayor.

And I imagine that the mayor may want to hew closer to that recommendation so we can determine as the planning board what we want to do with this information after the public hearing.

After that, we have regular meeting on January 27th and on February 11th.

So public hearing, uh Jennifer, uh if I remember from last year.

The public don't speak, right?

Uh no, the public hearing for the budget is uh one where uh members of the public testify.

Um and so um it will be virtual.

Um I think last year we had a number of um representatives for the various public agencies also come to the public hearing to testify with clarifying information.

Um that's not the primary purpose of that hearing, and I think we'll have less of that this year because we were able to do more pre-review this year than we were uh last year due to shuffling of various board members.

Okay.

Um and I imagine we'll start to get some letters um uh by email prior to the hearing as well.

Um there being no other business, um, we can go ahead and conclude this meeting.

Um happy near you or happy new year and happy holidays to all.

And we'll see you in January.

Thanks all.

Have a great holiday.

Thank you.

Bye, everyone.

Thank you.

Have a good holiday.