Harbor Management & Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

um greetings um uh those members who are not uh part of the those participants who are not part of the commission or the city staff my name is sam abernethy i'm the chair of the applications review committee and i'm calling this meeting to order at 5 33 p.m um I want to let you know in advance that our agenda is being altered slightly. The first two CSPRs, item 1238 and 1239, which are items three and four on our agenda, are going to be moved to the end of the agenda. That is before we go into old business and new business. Sam, we have to approve the minutes of the last meeting first. No, I'm just explaining what we're doing to the agenda at this point.

I'm sorry. Excuse me.

24, 25, 26, 27, and 28 are being withdrawn by Director Blessing at this point. We will see them at a future date. And so we are going to start with items 226, 19 through 22. And because Director Blessing has another obligation immediately after this meeting,

we are going to give some consideration if director blessing is willing to consolidating these three these four i'm sorry are you agreeable with that uh ralph uh yes uh absolutely um i'll i'll present i mean i'll try to keep the presentation as quick as possible um uh and uh yep you you can

No, don't rush it. I think given that we're only dealing with four of these items, we have plenty of time for that.

Thank you very much for accommodating my schedule. I have to go to the planning board.

Let me interrupt you. I'm sorry, Ralph. The first thing we should do is approve the minutes of the last meeting.

I make a motion to approve the minutes except for one typo, where you have to have SHMC to correct the minutes, please.

Where?

Where is that needs to be corrected? It is under old business. It's the second bullet point. in the second line of that bullet point which is s-h-m-c oh right okay is there a second uh second okay any further discussion hearing none i'll call for a vote all those in favor of the motion raise your hand and say aye aye okay any opposed any extensions the motion carries okay ralph all yours

okay thank you very much so once again thank you for uh accommodating uh my schedule and uh applications two to six uh dash 23 and the following um i will come back um at a later date so um the first application i would like to talk about today um is application 226-19 and uh can you see my screen yes we can thank you uh so the first one is uh a change a proposed text change to the sign regulations so the sign regulations have been around for a really long time over the years we have heard some complaints about them that they don't regulate things that people think should be regulated and so forth. So we decided to take a look at those sign regulations. And basically the changes we're proposing fall in three big categories. That's probably one of our most voluminous text change with regard to pages of zoning being changed. um but uh the changes that we're proposing are falling into like three distinct buckets the first one uh changes to section 11 which are the sign regulations proper so section 11 basically says for example signs that are generally prohibited um so for example moving signs are not allowed and stamford signs that can be confused with emergency lighting those kinds of things And it also sets standards for illumination. So, exposed bulbs are not permitted. But one thing that we're actually adding to the regulations is that we want to limit the time signs are illuminated. So they have to be turned off at the earlier of 11 p.m. or 30 minutes after the close of a business. So that's a new regulation that we added because obviously illuminated sign, brightly illuminated signs can be disruptive for neighbors. So, that's the first bucket of changes we're proposing. Oh, I see a hand up. Yeah.

Go ahead. Ralph, is illumination defined in the regulations? As I recall, the regulations made a distinction between illumination and backlit.

So what is not allowed are exposed light sources. So light bulbs, neon lights, exposed LEDs, those kinds of things. We still have backlit and signs that are illuminated through a spotlight, for example. Those are permitted, but no exposed light sources. And also no moving lights or things like that. So that's also currently prohibited and also in the future will be prohibited. Like those chasing lights that you see sometimes and so on and so forth. um also i mean one thing uh that we added are electronic displays um i mean you see them all over the place now um and obviously when the the regulations were written originally that was not a consideration so um the next bucket of changes concerns section 3b 3b is the definition section So that's where we define the different types of signs. And then the third big category of changes is that we moved all the sign regulations to the respective district regulations. So currently when you look in the zoning regulations and you read for like a single family district, what the sign regulations are, then it refers you to section 11, and you have to find the information section 11. What we're now doing is we're moving it to the individual district regulations, which we hope will make things a little bit easier. And generally speaking, we think that we tighten the regulations. I already mentioned an example that we set hours for illuminated signs. We also prohibiting additional types of signs that weren't necessarily prohibited, like box type signs. We also limit what can be advertised or put on signs for cannabis products. We're also making very clear that private signs are not permitted on public properties, including the right of way. And also clarify that any sign that is not specifically permitted is prohibited. So, for example, in the past, those inflatable signs like that you see at car dealerships, the floppy figurines, it wasn't really clear if they are permitted or not. um so now we're saying because they're not mentioned in the zoning regulations they're actually not permitted so you can't have uh those types um of science excuse me ralph are blade signs on buildings building facades uh permitted yes they are permitted in certain not in all districts um but in certain areas uh they are permitted and obviously they have to meet certain requirements so they have to be at least eight feet above the the floor or the sidewalk level, they cannot extend into the public right of way. So, if the building is at the street line, you couldn't have a blade sign that hangs over a public sidewalk. If the building is set back a little bit from the sidewalk, then you can have a blade sign. For example, the Smith building across the street from the government center has a blade sign and that is a blade sign that is permitted because part of the sidewalk is actually on the property of the Smith. So as part of the approval, we required them to provide a certain sidewalk of a certain width. So a dead blade sign, even though it sticks out from the building, it is still within the property lines of that project. And then we're also adding a lot of illustrative graphics to the regulations in the hope that some of those things will be a little bit easier to understand than one of the examples you see there. And then the changes to Section 5 um as i said before um we we're moving uh all the the regulations uh concerning signs in a certain district to the district regulation so that you don't have to flip back and forth in the book to see which type of signs are allowed in a particular district and this is just one example for the mxd district but we did this for all I believe we have 48 zoning districts. It also turned out that for some zoning districts, we actually didn't have sign regulations because they forgot to put them in at some point. So that's also something we corrected. And I think that's pretty much it for the sign regulations.

Ralph, is there anything in these regulations that would affect Harbor speed notices, either buoys or signs that might be placed on a bulkhead, if I don't think any of them are illuminated at this point, but if they were backlit, is there anything that affects that?

So first of all, zoning doesn't have really any jurisdiction outside the coastal jurisdiction line. So none of those would apply to those areas. And also one of the signs that are always allowed are signs that are required by state, federal regulation. safety, no designs, and so on. So, I think you're covered with those types of signs.

Before you move on to the next item, any questions from members of the committee? Jeff, do you have any comments or questions?

Thanks, Ralph. You mentioned that no private signs will be permitted on public properties. What about an instance where a waterfront development is providing public access, you know, perhaps with an easement to the city, but public access public access areas is provided as part of a private development projects. So that would still be privately owned, but the public is allowed. How would your regulation affect that? Could not the property owner be able to place a sign having to do with the use of that area or directions and so forth?

Yes, they can do that because even though there's a public access easement, it's still private property. So they would be subject to design regulations as they are now. So really what we're talking about is right of ways that are basically owned and controlled by the city. but an access easement over a private property does not change or take away any rights to take away signage rights. One of the things that we've been working on is actually trying to, for publicly accessible amenity space that is regulated through the zoning regulations, uh to come up with more uniform like wayfinding signage and making it clearer that there is public access um but it doesn't take away any any signage rights um for private properties even if there isn't public access easement okay nothing else all right let's uh why don't we move on to the next one So the next one 226-20 concerns the ML light industrial district. So ML districts are generally found along I-95 here and on the west side and along the rail lines. And they're light manufacturing districts and one of the purposes is that they are oftentimes used as a buffer between heavy manufacturing districts, MG districts, and more residential low-intensity areas, so that the most intensive uses are not right against very sensitive uses. um what is proposed is actually relatively minimal so we're not proposing any significant changes to uses that are allowed and density and setbacks and such things the focus is really on urban design and protecting especially residential neighborhoods better that are budding on industrial neighborhoods So here, this is an overview of the key regulations of the ML district. And you'll see that very little has changed with regard to the density and the setbacks and so on, with the exception that when an industrial property abuts on a residential or non-industrial district, there's wider setbacks. required and there's also additional screening requirements like plantings and things of that nature. What we also did was to increase stormwater management capabilities is that we limited the lot coverage. There currently is no limit and we said that there has to be at least 10% of the lot not or being pervious to allow for better stormwater management than has been there before. But once again, really not a major change with regard to the uses that are allowed, the bulk regulations, it's really urban design requirements to better protect abutting non-manufacturing districts and uses from industrial districts.

Any questions from members of the committee? Or comments? And again, Jeff, if none from the committee members. Jeff, comments, questions?

None? This doesn't seem that we have a... No, I have no questions, Sam.

All right.

Thank you.

Well, let me ask this question. We're not voting on it now, but because there's a requirement for 10% impervious surfaces, might this one be considered consistent? Would we make a recommendation of consistency? So we may have to vote on these separately. I'd assume that we would probably have no objection vote to all four, but let's think about that. Move on to the next.

Sure. And the next one, those are basically tandem applications, 226-21 and 226-22. It's a map change application and a text change application, and they concern the BD district, which is the design business district. So there's only one BD district in the whole city. It's located on Newfield Avenue, far away. from the harbor, it basically covers the Newfield Green shopping center. So, Newfield Avenue is here, Oaklawn is down here, and a couple of other properties adjacent to the shopping center. And one of the things that we've been trying to do is make the zoning regulations easier and simpler. So this also includes trying to get rid of zoning districts that don't serve or that are actually very similar to other existing zoning districts. So what we do propose is to get rid of the BD district here and change it to a CN neighborhood district. um which is very similar with regards to density and uses permitted and we actually just did some changes to the cn district that add more design regulations that were already in the b district bd district made them applicable also to the cn district So we think that once this area is rezoned from BD to CN, we can get rid of the BD district and delete it from the zoning regulations. So this is the map change application, changing the BD to the CN. And then the text change application would just be to delete section 5B from the zoning regulations because we've got rid of the only BD district in town.

Okay, any questions or comments from members of the committee? No, thank you.

Jeff? No, thank you.

All right, so feel free to disagree with me, but I'm going to suggest that we should make a motion on items 19, 21, and 22. and we'll treat, what was it? It was 20 separately in view of the fact that there's a possibility that we might think a recommendation of consistency is appropriate there. Do you all agree with that? Is that an appropriate way to do it?

Sure. Why would you not include all of them?

Because I'm assuming that 19, 21, and 22 are going to be no objection recommendations. And I'm not sure that 20 will be a no objection. It might be a consistency recommendation.

Okay, so the ones you just suggested would be a no objection?

That's what I'm suggesting.

Okay, so I make a motion that we have the applications committee that we have no objection. and we should submit this to the full committee for final approval.

Is there a second to that motion? Second. Okay, we have a second. Any further discussion?

Yes, Jeff. Sorry to interrupt again, but with respect to 19, the no objection would be with the understanding that the new regulations will not affect the the provision of appropriate signage on publicly accessible amenity spaces as may be necessary for guiding users or protecting public safety. That was the only thing I thought about. It's not going to affect the waterfront signage on publicly providing appropriate signage on publicly accessible amenity spaces. Is that?

is that fair to say ralph or is that yes yeah okay okay so i'd like to amend the uh my recommendation to include jeff's comments okay and we still have a second on that amended motion yes we do indeed okay any any further discussion nope hearing none call for a vote all those in favor of the motion as made and seconded raise your hand and say aye aye any opposed any abstentions okay it's unanimous um great so this raises the uh issue of of whether uh application 2620 because of the um increase in the pervious surfaces or the requirement for pervious surfaces um might lead us to make a recommendation of consistency anybody want to comment on that or make a motion if no comment

then that's fine as long as it's consistent with what we've been talking about all this time. I'd like to make a recommendation that it's consistent with our management plan.

You got a second?

We're not twisting your arm. If you think it should be no objection, by all means.

Is that a second? It's not a big factor for me. I just was wondering if somebody else on the committee would want to second it. Give others on the chance to voice their whatever.

Well, I mean, I'm perfectly comfortable because it's a relatively small feature. I'm perfectly comfortable with no objection to it.

It really doesn't affect us in any way, so...

Well, except we're always dealing with impervious.

All right. So call the vote. Come on. Call the vote.

Okay. So we had a second, albeit somewhat reluctant, but we had a second. So any further discussion? No. Hearing none, call for a vote. All those in favor of the motion, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Abstentions? None. Okay. Unanimously approved. all right ralph i think that's it thank you very much on to your on your next meeting and we'll see you and i'll be back we'll see you in the future yeah yeah good evening thank you bye all right okay so bear with me uh folks um the um next item on the uh altered agenda is CSPR 1238. It concerns property at 16 Fairview Avenue. The applicant, the Neveloffs were proposing to install a patio and a spa and a property, the properties within the camp boundary. We made a recommendation at the commission meeting last month uh or the commission um uh held that this was as i recall consistent subject to receipt of uh plans from the uh applicant concerning stormwater management and we have since received um those plans and i i guess um uh mr uh paredes are you here um on that item yes i am good evening everyone um you want to give us a very a brief summary because we have have looked at um uh i believe we've had they have certainly had the opportunity to look at what you've submitted and i think you've probably met the conditions that the commission imposed but maybe you can give us a brief summary of of

of those materials yeah certainly um good evening everyone for the record juan paredes i'm a professional civil engineer uh here in stanford connecticut Brief summary of the improvements at 16 Fairview Avenue. The property is a little bit over one acre. What we are proposing is outside of the upland review area, there are two sections of wetlands, both inland and tidal wetlands. There's a beautiful bluff that is mostly supported by uh phragmites um are our proposal for a 15 by 28 patio inside of which there is a 10 by 10 spot because of the soil conditions we did some soil testing and this is sort of this is going to um in reference to the comments that we got from the engineering division they asked us to do a little bit more soil testing which we did uh and it confirmed while we what we knew on the site from the test holes that we did versus the hydraulic conductivity test that they asked us to perform. So the comment just sort of solidified the concept that we were proposing, and I think that was probably the primary request or concern from engineering. It's a total of 4,600 square feet of disturbance, all of which again is outside of the Alpine River area. We're proposing just a little bit over the threshold for the requirement of stormwater management infrastructure, which is 400 square feet. We're proposing 466, so just a little bit over it, and we're going to collect way more than the 466 square feet of new impervious areas. We're going to collect a lot more than that of impervious surfaces. There was a question about the littoral line, which in our case is the mean high water elevation. We do have that in our survey map. And those were the conditions that we got or the comments that we got. Other than that, we got some positive feedback from Connecticut DEEP and I believe from the board as well. Thank you for the opportunity to present this and I can respond to any questions that you have.

Okay. Any questions from members of the committee? Mr. Steadman. Yes, sir.

Sorry to keep interrupting, but... No, you're not interrupting. We found this project to be consistent with the harbor management plan previously, and then we were waiting for the comments of engineering to be addressed, I guess. But going back to our basic question to a professional engineer, Mr. Paredes, would it be your, again, engineering opinion that this project will result in a significant improvement to existing stormwater and water quality conditions on the site? I think that's our basic question for every applicant of these sorts of projects.

Yeah, certainly, and that's a very good question. The answer is yes. We will have met and exceeded the city's stormwater management requirements.

And you have addressed satisfactorily the comments that were provided or that were made to you by the city engineering department?

So we submitted responses to the comments, which I believe are accurate enough. We have not heard back from the engineering staff yet.

But I believe a recommendation from you subject to their approval would probably be OK. And that's always one of the conditions of the Harbor Commission's comments as well, is that the proposed project meets all city requirements for stormwater management. But I think we would, based on the engineer's professional opinion, that we would, again, find this consistent with the Harbor Management Plan.

again provided it meets all city requirements for stormwater management uh but that that would be my suggestion i would agree thank you sir so how would if we're going to wait for to hear back from the city engineers um how do we handle a vote right now or do we just say contingent on

then we wait for that to happen i think this is one of the conditions of our of our uh the commission's um uh finding that this is consistent that's that would be my approach and and that's the that's the normal that's the basic condition in all of our all of our findings yeah and i i think the the question before us was the arc is whether or not the applicant has satisfied the condition laid down by the commission at its last meeting. And I think the answer is that it has. And I think the minute should reflect that we agree that the applicant has satisfied the conditions. And unless anybody on the committee now disagrees with that conclusion.

Well, if that's the case, then why should we hold up this applicant from moving forward? Then I wouldn't make a recommendation that's consistent with our management plan.

Well, we already have a finding of consistency.

Well, we were holding off until we heard confirmation as far as how much of the impervious would be, you know, filtered. And the applicant has identified more

more than that was required right yes so i think that what we're looking at is they have satisfied the condition and our task is to judge whether or not they've satisfied the condition laid by down by the commission at its last meeting anybody disagree with that am i wrong no it's correct yeah so i think the record should reflect that the applicant has satisfied the conditions

Yeah. So the recommendation is it's consistent.

We're not making a recommendation.

I don't think we need to do another finding. We've already done that.

We don't need to make a recommendation to the commission. We're just explaining that the conditions that the commission laid down have been satisfied.

Okay.

All right. all right thank you mr paredes yes sir everybody else being here thank you thank you all right the the next item on the agenda is cspr 1239 the property is at 279 stamford avenue the applicant is proposing to renovate the interior and finish an existing basement of a single-family residence without increasing the existing footprint. And of course, the property is within the CAM boundary. And it looks like Ms. Sierra, are you here on behalf of the applicant? And by the way, your microphone is OK. It's open now.

Yeah, I'm here for the 279th and 4th Avenue.

Can you share your screen as you explain this project? Are you prepared to do that or not?

No, I didn't know I need a presentation. I apologize for that.

Okay. Do you want to tell us a little bit about this project?

Pretty much what are we trying to do is they're trying to add another room to our basement. They're trying to add a bathroom as well. And then after that, it's gonna be pretty much a recreational area for the family. It's just pretty much a guest room they're trying to add to the basement. So in case somebody is visiting, they can just pretty much stay there.

So no changes to the exterior of the property?

Not at all. Yeah, we're only trying to do interior work, nothing in the outside.

Is there any door being added providing access to the basement?

There's a door already. It's like a middle surface like basement. So everybody has a door on the. It already does. Yeah. Yeah. It's an existing area already. So it has a different entrance and it's connected to the main house as well. We're not doing we're not separating or nothing like that.

Why is this coming to the Harbor Commission?

Well, it's on CAM, you know. It's in our territory.

It's nothing to do with the soil management or any of the concerns that the Harbour Management Commission deals with. So I'm a little confused. Jeff?

Well, as an example, the project is located within the coastal boundary. And so what we agreed to with the City Land Use Bureau is that just as a matter of course, rather than them determining which applications may or may not affect the harbor, they'll send all of the coastal site plan applications to the Harbor Commission. And in this instance, there's no indication that this would have any impact at all on the harbor management area. So we would simply have no objection to this.

So I make a motion that we have no objections.

I have a question. That's a motion that we're recommending to the commission, right? Right. There's a second. Without any hesitation.

Have you had any experience in the basement of flooding? Even if it's just a trickle?

No.

Are there sump pumps in the basement?

We have won something.

So there must have been an issue at one time.

Not from what I know. That homeowner just bought it like four years ago, so maybe it happened before that. But not from what we know.

How long have you been occupying?

Living in the house for three years already.

Three years.

Yeah.

okay thank you so bob was that you're raising of the hand was that a question or was that a second of the motion of it was both it was both i i seconded it so i could ask my question okay okay any further further discussion jeff you have

Comments? I'm wondering if the application from land use about amending the coastal site plan procedure to exclude certain projects, that was my understanding, that are not considered to have any impact on coastal resources. I wonder if that proposal that's now being considered that we'll continue to talk about would exclude a project such as this from the coastal site plan review but uh i guess that that's that's independent of finding that this would have no there's no indication that this would have a affect the harbor management area and our basic uh conditions that it meets all city requirements for storm water management and and any fema requirements for for work in the floodplain it's just our basic uh conditions yeah

okay yeah no that's an interesting question and we'll be dealing with that i guess next month uh when uh presuming that ralph comes back to us we should we should ask ralph about that yeah okay any further uh discussion on this motion all right hearing none call for a vote all those in favor of the motion which is a recommendation of no objection raise your hand and say aye aye aye okay any opposed abstentions motion carries unanimously thank you very much miss ciara good luck with the uh with the project thank you have a great night yep you too thank you for attending the meeting too uh oh and by the way you should you should understand that this committee makes a recommendation to the full commission the commission will be meeting I think next Tuesday, if I'm not mistaken. Does that sound right? No, the 20th of the month. And, you know, I don't anticipate.

Sam, it's actually the 15th.

But you're welcome to attend if you if you wish.

OK, thank you.

Is the date right, Maria?

It's actually the 15th next Tuesday.

Oh, it is next Tuesday, the 15th. Yeah, it's the third Tuesday of the month. Yeah, I know. I've got it wrong on my calendar for some reason. I'm glad we straightened that out. Okay. Thank you very much. That takes us to, if I can find my agenda, old business.

And the

only item that is listed on the agenda is the you know efforts to get some legislation to clarify the authority of harbor management commissions with uh with deep and i assume there are no new developments there is that correct jeff no not not now uh we're hoping that you know as

In the course of Frank Fideli's interaction with DEEP and the DEEP attorney, that once some of those issues are resolved and we get the information that we would again reach out to that new DEEP attorney and ask for an opportunity to discuss the issue and hopefully have a fresh start in trying to address those problems.

It certainly sounded somewhat promising.

yes um but time will time will tell okay anything else under old business so let's yeah jeff well i guess tonight uh the damien will be at the board of reps meeting um to discuss the the cost share for the boat ramp feasibility project and in the discussions that you know that there have been inquiries by members of the public about the expressing concern about the use of Kosciuszko Park for this purpose and how it would potentially eliminate areas of the park now available for other public use and also for green space. And when we've been talking with the people who have raised those questions, We've said that those are legitimate questions to be considered. But to make clear is that this right now is not a project to build a boat launching ramp. It's a project to identify whether it's feasible on this property to do so. And we don't know that yet. And that we were also talking about as as the study is, the engineering consultant would progress on the study, you know, as the study progresses, there might be points in the study where it would be determined that it's not feasible without having to go through the entire work. So that's all to be determined. And also that we would be evaluating environmental impacts in the course of the work. But just, and also that this is, This is a Harbor Management Commission project in the public interest. We're pursuing the goal of providing improving public access to the to the to the harbor, including through public boating facilities. And so that in every every way, this is this is a, you know, a positive project that we've embarked on. But we don't yet know what the outcome will be. So hopefully we'll be able to move forward, and Damien will be able to address these questions tonight.

Yeah. Well, Ty, is he on at 6.30 or later in the meeting?

I think he's – I don't know. But I certainly know he's been preparing for it, and he's had a lot of discussions with – And the people, their thoughtful comments and questions, reasonable comments, the impact on the park, those are all decisions that will have to be made pending the results of the feasibility analysis. Okay. And also the questions, the other bit of old business, and this will be a project for this committee, is the hurricane barrier project. And, you know, on the 22nd, there will be a significant meeting in the government center involving the Corps of Engineers and now the Connecticut Port Authority. And two people from DEEP have indicated or said that they will be attending remotely. But DEEP has now informed the Corps, unless they've changed their mind in the last week, that there will be a review of the Corps of Engineers plans by the Connecticut DEEP with respect to the coastal management act and then of course that that brings in this this committee um uh with with review and comments uh in the course of that public review by by deep so that's going to be what do you think that does to the proposed schedule the corps of engineers is Well, the Corps of Engineers is hoping that it's not going to delay the schedule. In fact, when we last talked with them, they said that they were hoping to submit their application to DEEP at the beginning of September. But the DEEP would not put it out for public comment until after this big meeting in September when the Corps has a chance to explain to people what they're doing. So I don't know if DEEP was going to go along with that schedule or not. Damian and I had a very good discussion with a person from Congressman Hines' office and invited them to attend the meeting as well. A person who said that she is now the new or a new person dealing with infrastructure projects in the Congressman's district. So that's going to be a big effort to look at that proposal and how to deal with adverse impacts that are unavoidable and whether there's a provision somewhere for the federal government to somehow mitigate those impacts somehow, either with money or some other way. And that will be up to us too to come up with recommendations as to how to mitigate those adverse impacts.

Yep. Okay. All right.

Any other bold business point? No. Okay.

So let's move on to new business. Jeff, I think you've got something you want to bring up, right?

Yes. I think Maria had sent it to you. Yeah.

The Coastal Resilience Plan.

Is the Stanford Coastal Resilience Plan, which is a very substantial document. And we received a link to it. And of course, when you go to the link and try to download it, it's such a tremendous document, you can never email it. So we broke it up into three parts to send to everyone. We don't know yet the schedule for providing comments on this, but it affects a substantial area of the coast. And it also addresses the hurricane barrier in different ways, including suggestions that maybe the design is inadequate to deal with future storms. But we're going to have to take a look at this, and I guess I'll try to find out from Erin what their schedule is and who actually will adopt this. Is it adopted by the planning board or the... the legislative body. We don't know how this is going to be adopted. But one question, and we raised this in one of the meetings to discuss this, what do they mean, how do they define resilience? And is resilience for the purpose of this plan to reduce the vulnerability of existing development and increase recovery time Or does it also include being able to support new development in the floodplain if it provides certain features to protect against flooding impacts? I think that's a key issue because the 14-acre site, we're looking ahead to what might be placed there. That's all outside the hurricane barrier. and within the coastal floodplain, what sort of policies are going to be followed when we're looking at a project there? But anyway, we don't know the schedule yet, but I'm assuming we'll have to deal with this sooner rather than later. And I know Erin also said that, that the Land Use Bureau has provided some comments to the engineering firm that prepared this that have to be addressed. But it's a plan that affects the waterfront, and the Harbor Commission has a responsibility to review and comment on it.

It struck me. I looked at the executive summary briefly. I skimmed it. I haven't really had a chance to read it. And it also identifies a project team. And I wondered whether or not, you know, the Harbor Commission should be part of that project team. Is that a reasonable thought, or is it a little naive, given that we're not employees of the city? Bob?

Well, I would It's a good idea, but there's political implications of this plan and how it's going to be received by the community. I've already been approached by one person who's kind of very much concerned about some of the recommendations, one in particular. And since we are charged with review and comment, it may be inappropriate for us to be on such a team. I throw that out there. I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just not sure.

No, I think that's a fair comment. There's a lot of work to be done that's being proposed by this plan. I don't know whether, again, the same comment that Bob makes, whether or not we want to stay away from involvement in implementing some of the proposals because we may be called upon to comment on it. Jeff, how do you think, what would you recommend that the Commission do at this point in time? Or should we not just, should we be aware of it and not do anything at this time?

I think we perhaps put this on the agenda for next month's meeting. and prepare ahead of time reviewing the sections of the plan that we think are of particular interest or concern, and I think we should come up with recommendations. Again, sorry to talk so much, but the concept of resilience, and when we asked what that means during this meeting, the last meeting with the consultant, At least maybe I'm not bright enough, but it wasn't like we got a direct answer to that. And they talked about sort of the old approach to floodplain management. And now we have a new approach, but it's a new name. But again, the concept of resilience has always been to, you know, as a measure of accelerating recovery after a flood event. And that involves reducing the vulnerability of existing development. But now you can see the instances where it's being used as a tool or as an argument to support more development. In other words, we can build more because it will make it resilient. And is that something we want to support?

You can make an argument that we might not want to see development in the flood zones.

We might not want to see increased development. And that gets into the issue with the DEEP. which has determined that proposals that would increase residential density in the coastal floodplain are inconsistent with the Coastal Management Act and shouldn't be approved. But in recent instances where DEEP has made that finding in other towns, the towns have approved it anyway. In other words, they've approved something that's been determined, which they have the right to do because DEEP's comments are advisory. So, the towns, in effect, have approved projects that the state has determined are inconsistent with state law. And the only recourse is for the DEEP to challenge those decisions in court, which they don't have the political will to do now. But I think it's significant because of the projects that are outside of the hurricane barrier, or the areas that are outside the hurricane barrier, specifically the 14-acre parcel. But anyway, if we can look at it more carefully before the next ARC meeting, and I'll talk with Erin to see what their schedule is and who's actually going to adopt this. Is it a board of reps action to adopt it?

I'll get to you in a second, Bob. But if you could let us know the results of that discussion in the timetable, that would be very helpful to us. Thank you. Bob.

um i'm just wondering i understand this uh uh document is very lengthy yeah and comprehensive it's a lot of material i'm just wondering if within our own commission uh or committee uh arc that we could parcel it out to us individuals certain sections to review uh then have a discussion within the uh committee About what we've what we're seeing and, you know, and what our initial reactions might be.

Well, let's see, we've got I'm looking at the contents. I think that's a that's a good suggestion. We've got. Seven chapters. And. Well, let me. The chapter three, I think, really deals with what has happened heretofore with community involvement and site walks and so on. I'm not sure that that needs for anybody to really focus on that. The chapter four deals with existing and future flood conditions. Chapter five is about what's at risk. then i think the next two chapters are probably the ones that we might want to uh focus on and chapter six is taking action for resilience and it talks about resilience action in areas one two three and then has conclusions and then chapter seven pathway for implementation um it seems to me that uh You know, we might want to look carefully at six and seven. Jeff, do you have any thoughts on that?

Yeah, seven is moving from the plan to implementation. And I think, you know, the six gets into that working group. And when they're talking about implementation, I think they're They're talking about specific projects. But yeah, so I think six and seven are the key areas.

Now, six is approximately 70 pages. Chapter seven looks like it's about 17 pages. Bob, you want to take on chapter six?

No, I'm going to take 17, of course. No, I'll take on six. I've heard something about it already, so I would be interested in going through it and reviewing it to see what exactly they're proposing.

You know, I hate to sad look. We don't have young staff here to work with us, right? Maybe the three of us can look at six and seven. And, you know, I don't know whether we're going to be prepared to talk about this next Tuesday, but perhaps at the following meeting. Does that make some sense? Oh, yeah. It would be way too soon.

Not next Tuesday. But I'm also wondering if and I haven't asked if Deep has received a copy of this to review. and what their comments might be. I've made an effort to contact the deep person who reviews these things from Stanford, and she's out of the office this week. But, you know, I think it's another opportunity. And, you know, I think it all begins with how do you define resilience and what does it mean with respect to new development?

All right. Well, Paul and Bob and I, I think, ought to take a little bit of time with these two chapters, and then I think we should, we'll see where we stand at our next meeting, all right? Does that make sense? Yes. And then we'll maybe come up with an approach that the three of us would present to the commission at the following, I guess we're talking now about the October meeting.

That's okay with me. Figure out what we say about a recommendation to redesign the hurricane barrier now. That was one of the topics suggested we give consideration to.

Oh, that's in here?

Oh, yes.

Starting from scratch and building a new one?

Adding to this.

They talk about the nuts and bolts of it?

No, but adding that the rise in sea level and increased frequency and severity of storms may legitimately give the idea that we need to look at the design of the hurricane barrier and see if it's adequate for protecting the South End anymore. But I think we'll leave that aside for now.

Jeff, I don't want to be the one to recommend that we raise it.

Jeff, are you going to be attending that October 22nd meeting with the Army Corps?

Oh, yes, and we've put together some nice visuals, you know, in large photographs of the aerial photos of the hurricane barrier site, and I thought we would bring them to the meeting room and place them, you know, on easels around and trying to finish a map now that identifies all of the water-dependent facilities that are affected by the closure. or will be affected by the closure of the gate. Again, as a display of the potential impacts.

Yeah. You're aware that Damien has a family conflict and will not be attending. And he asked me as the vice president of the commission to stand in his stead. So perhaps maybe you and I can swap emails if you've got something to present. might be good that I would have a glimpse of them beforehand.

I think we all know that there's going to be significant adverse impacts on navigation. And the Corps of Engineers, I forget what they call it, I didn't understand it at first, the fellow said we're doing a CATX, which is short for, I learned, categorical exclusion. from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare an environmental impact assessment. Because their argument is that there will not be any significant environmental impacts. The impacts will be socioeconomic impacts. And therefore, that's not necessary to do an environmental impact assessment, which, again, is very interesting because I don't believe that we should anticipate that the project is going to be changed in any way. The Corps of Engineers is not interested in doing that. They're interested in making sure everyone is aware of the impacts. But this is not a meeting to discuss possible change in the design. And the period of closure that they've chosen for the gate is the time of the year, statistically, when the barrier is least likely to have to close in response to storms. So someone said, well, why can't you close it in the wintertime? But that includes the time when they often have to close it. So this is really a significant project. And OMG to... you know, to move the amount of aggregate in trucks that they bring in every week in barge loads is an astronomical amount of truck traffic.

Yeah, a lot of that would have to go on the highways, which would create an environmental challenge, putting all that material onto trucks down 95.

And our last meeting, Bill Warner was there and he was telling us about the numbers. They were huge. That they're going to have to truck.

What I don't quite understand is why they can't do some of this, bring some of this material to their site in the West Branch.

And that's the principal truck impact that Mr. Warren talked about is between the facility on the West Branch and the East Branch, that they would be bringing this additional material into the West Branch facility that they would then bring over to the East Branch to the asphalt planter. I forget. I think that's what it is over there. Yeah, so those, you know. Then there's also Rubino Brothers that doesn't have as much traffic. They send the scrap metal outward. And then all of the recreational boats that pay a fee for their marina slips. But we can't solve it.

Well, they're going to be there at the meeting, so they'll make their concerns known, I'm sure.

Yeah. And apparently now... There is no provision for any sort of mitigation for this sort of federal work.

It's hard to conceive of what mitigation you could provide other than a few bucks, but that doesn't really solve a problem and make people whole.

Well, there's enough bucks that there is.

Any other new business? Nope. Okay. Our next meeting is October 5th. And then we'll have a little informal thing between Paul, Bob, and myself sometime after that on this coastal resilience plan. Motion to adjourn. Okay. Mr. Karp, you're going to reluctantly second that one.

No, I'm sitting on my hands on this one. Okay.

Maria, thank you very much once again. James and Trez, thank you for being here. Your presence is invaluable.