Harbor Management Commission - Regular Meeting

Do I seem to be on just once now? Damien, you're muted.

Muted, Damien. Yes, thank you. Everyone, I don't know what our... Yeah, John, you're only on once.

You're good.

Thank you. I don't know what our wrinkle is, but here we all are. And of the people that texted me, it looks like everybody's on. So, again, apologies for the 15-minute wrinkle. I am Dr. Damian Ortelli, presiding as chair of the Stanford Harbor Management and Shellfish Commission. This is our regular monthly meeting. It is Tuesday, September 15th at 6.45 in the p.m. And we're coming to you live by way of Zoom. In attendance tonight, we do have commissioners, our vice chair, Mr. Karp. We do have our secretary, Mr. Pensiero. We do have Mr. Abernathy, Mr. Adelberg, Dr. Graham, Mr. Hollander. I think I saw him. Yep. Is Mr. Malloy here?

Yes.

And then Mr. Malerba. Is he here? Don't think so. Okay. Let's see. And do we have Yale? Jeff should be along any minute. Is Yale here?

No, Yale, let me know that he won't come on board until closer to 7.30. He's got a conflict, but by 7.30, he'll be on.

Okay. All right. And so Frank Omega's not here either? No. And, of course, Leslie is here as our fill-in OSS. Leslie, thank you so much for joining us tonight. And we do have Kendrea Walston, who is a board of reps member here by invite. And I don't see any of the other board of reps members that had reached out, but perhaps they'll get themselves on. If you're here as an invited guest, please unmute yourself and let yourself be known. But let's go ahead and, so there's our roll call. Public participation will be allowed at the end. And let's go ahead and review and approve the previous meeting minutes.

Make a motion to accept the minutes as submitted. Second.

Thank you. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Yes.

I would make a motion to postpone Because I have not seen them. Okay. Well, you can abstain.

Yeah, I didn't see them published, though. Yeah, well, and Marie is not here to suggest.

And Dr. Abernathy, a motion to postpone needs a second, but it is debatable. And it doesn't table them indefinitely. It just postpones them. I would second the motion. And Mr. Chairman, there's no debate allowed on this.

Okay. So let's vote on motion to postpone. Those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? All opposed? Okay. Any abstentions? All right. I believe the ayes have it. We will postpone them to next meeting. Next up is my report. Item A, Shellfish Commission Charter Ordinance was approved Monday, August 3rd by the Board of Reps. And we are now officially, and I think that's supposed to be September 3rd, we are now officially the Stanford Harbor Management and Shellfish Commission Ordinance. and I believe it's official official now, as opposed to it being only slightly official after August's meeting. Okay, item B, the Port Authority grant with the discussion with the board of reps invitees. Again, I thought we were gonna have Mr. Adams. But anyways, so let's see, where are we? We received a grant from the Port Authority for $62,500. Matching grant. We had gone on the record as being willing to designate restricted funds from 860 Canal that we've been hanging on to these many years for the purposes of phase two of these, which is the study of, as a result of phase one, the tabletop study, right, found among the sites that we looked at that Kosciuszko Park, northeast corner was the ideal out of the available spaces in Stanford for a boat yard. And phase two, this particular, you know, jump in this, in this project is, uh, uh, or step in this project is for, uh, actually digging into that site, uh, metaphorically to see if it is something that can actually happen there. Uh, there are a number of questions that need to be answered, um, and through this process, going through the different boards, whether it be, uh, uh, board of finance, um, through the planning board, through the different levels of the board of reps. We were denied in early summer and we reworked it and got some help from some of our partners in the city, the fire and police and our harbor master. We resubmitted with the help of Representative Gilbride, and we were successful, finally, in bringing it back around and having the approval not to build a boatyard, but to do a study to see if it is even feasible to build a boatyard there.

You mean a boat ramp, don't you?

Sorry, boat ramp, yes, yes, boat ramp. Thank you, Sam. So as of the last couple of meetings with the board of reps, the reps were fantastic with giving feedback, asking lots of questions, trying to understand the totality of what we were asking. And I think we all learned a lot. You know, the idea with the reps being here is to absorb as much of that feedback as we possibly can as we go into our now approved ability to set an RFP process in motion and get the ball rolling. There is one little wrinkle that apparently the mayor had also submitted way back when a second ask of the board reps to approve her ability to sign the agreement. with the Port Authority. And that little bit of housekeeping just needs to be voted on at their next meeting to get that approved. So it really just seems like it's housekeeping. There is another little wrinkle with that is that the paperwork for the Port Authority has Aaron McKenna's name on it. And the Mayor is asking for her to have the authority to sign it. So we may need to get them to rewrite that. I have sent a couple of emails to see if maybe the mayor wanted to withdraw that request. And I haven't really gotten a full straight answer, but apparently it's being worked out. And that also will sidestep an additional wrinkle that could happen, which is that Erin McKenna is retiring. And so we'll be getting to know her replacement pretty soon, I imagine. I'm not sure what her retirement date is, but she just sort of dropped that in an email not long ago to tell us that she was retiring. So certainly we hope to have her on to congratulate her and wish her well for all of her years of good work and being a friend of the Harbor Commission and helping us do a lot of the behind the scenes stuff in the land use world that we needed her to do. Um, wish for the best, but, um, anyhow, that is pretty much the skinny on the, uh, Kosciuszko park plan. Um, and, you know, one of the other, I guess, things I should, I should point to is that the, um, you know, with the, the, there's quite a lot of community engagement around the general state of the park, um, and the upkeep of the park and you know well unfortunately that's not necessarily our purview um but it is something that that i and i hope you guys really feel like as as our project gets fleshed out um the uh the the rising tide raises all boats right and and hopefully the the amount of conversation has created an upswell of support for the park, not just from the community, but also inside of the government. And some of the work that Kevin Murray, for instance, has been advocating for for quite some time will actually be addressed and that, you know, we make the park through this process nicer, you know, not just for boaters, but for all, right? Because the park is for all. It's not just for walkers. It's not just for hikers. It's not just for dog walkers. It's not just for runners. It's for boaters as well. And, you know, picnickers and, you know, everybody in between. So we really want to encourage that improvement that it deserves. It's a little tough because things are more expensive when you're doing it on top of a sealed landfill. It's a lot more permitting and things that go into it, but it doesn't mean it doesn't, just because it's expensive doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done. And, you know, I like to think that perhaps the powers that be have heard that. Mike's got his hand up. Mike, go ahead.

Uh, Damian in your, uh, absence a little bit earlier, John Malloy made a really good point and I'll let him emphasize it, but, uh, certainly, uh, you and Russ are to be commended for your efforts. Um, that was sort of a masterclass in, in, in efforts of, of making your point. Well, well known both of you. And, um, certainly, um, uh, it was an eye opener, I think, to some of the reps, uh, But a job very well done. Excellent representation for the Harbor Commission. You both did. So thank you.

And Joseph was there as well and stood up to speak.

Yes, Joseph as well. I'm sorry. I had him on my list as well. But John, since you mentioned it earlier, maybe he wants to also emphasize something.

Again, I wanted to thank you all for taking up the efforts at the Board of Reps meeting. Again, one of the things, again, just what Mike said, excellent effort to, again, educate and provide clarity around what the purpose of the motion was for really just to, you know, to get the boat ramp study done. But one item I did note, and again, maybe this is not the right opportunity, but one item I did note was one of the gentlemen who was chairing, I think chairing the meeting, didn't indicate that some of those funds could be better utilized for other purposes. And again, I just wanted to make a comment that the Harbor Management Committee budget is for the Harbor Management Committee and not for the Board of Reps to pull and utilize in other areas.

Yeah, well, and I made this point to the full board last week that they are the ones who commission us, right? So they have chosen us as their representatives, their local authorities, essentially, right? But this drives to, and he had a good point, right, that our harbor management plan does encourage walkways, right? And one of the things that was at issue is the shape of the walkways around. And if we can spend $62,500 on a study for a boat ramp, why can't we spend $62,500 for a walkway? I think the walkways are a lot more expensive than that, but it drives to the effort that we made when we were in the master plan process or the comprehensive plan it's now called, right? Yeah. And in that plan, one of the major drivers of this commission was to put into the land use record in this that there should be a gradiation of the water dependent uses from highest best use of lower uses. And from a strictly marine viewpoint, you can certainly understand that a working boatyard with a ramp or without or with travel wells is far more impactful in water-dependent use than a walkway around the perimeter. Right. As much as some developers in town might want to be able to swap a working boat yard for a walkway, you know, both provide public access. But you can certainly understand that one is far more valuable than the other in terms of the resources that it provides for the maritime, you know, uses, water dependent uses. So. But, you know, there's lots of things we need to figure out. You know, traffic through the neighborhood was a big concern for a couple of the reps that are down there. And, you know, I wanted to, and I wasn't allowed to speak. I was allowed to address them. I was given two minutes to sort of get them up to speed as best I could. Uh, and then, you know, the, the meeting was closed, um, to, to any discussion from anybody who was not a board of rep member. Um, and, you know, I think one of the things about the traffic that, that has sort of struck me is, uh, you know, not long ago, we, that we were all fighting for save our boat yard, right. About a decade ago. And, So far larger traffic, far larger trailers, far larger boats were traversing that same area to get down to the 14 acre boat yard. And we were all shouting from the rooftops that we wanted to save that boat yard. And so, you know, I hope that we, you know, we certainly will engage a traffic study on this, but, you know, it's certainly, you know, that gives us a baseline that that, you know, Washington Boulevard, Dyke Lane has already had that kind of traffic going through there. And it apparently was not a major issue for back then. in that we had that groundswell of public support to try to maintain that. And of course, we were interested in maintaining that as well. So, more things to find out, but any other conversation about this? Representative Walston, if you'd like to chime in, please do. I know you had concerns at the meeting.

I can't really say anything because I'm not sure if this is going to go before the board and we have to vote and I don't want to have to recuse myself. So I'm on listening.

Okay. Yeah. I don't want you to tie your hands and, um, you know, we are, we are open to any conversation and, and, you know, it's not, uh, anyhow, um, we want to make it so that it's right for everybody. And I think engaging in whatever professional to do the job is going to help us to do that, right? We're a group of volunteers. Yes, we are the commissioned local experts, but we are not expert engineers or surveyors. And so, for instance, we had Race Coastal that did our phase one, And this is what they do for a living. And so they're going to think about things that maybe were not included in what our thoughts were coming out of the gate. Russ, go ahead.

Yeah, and Damian, I think that And I'm going to throw myself under the bus on this one. I think that over the past few months, I've failed to articulate the greater view of what was going to go on at that boat ramp, that it's not simply a ramp that serves a few tens of thousands of Stanford residents, but in my myopia of trying to get focused on what's involved in site selection and getting to this point, what I came away from that board of reps meeting was, is that collectively, and I know I feel a little guilty about this myself, that we fail to articulate all the benefits and the attributes of the ramp, that it's not simply a ramp. It's going to have a kayak launching platform, paddleboard launching platform, an educational component to the kids in that neighborhood. It's one thing to walk around K-Park and admire the water. It's another thing for K-Park after all of these years to finally have true access to the water, this is going to be the first time in Cape Park's history that I can think of that you can actually go get your feet wet. And that there's a whole community of kids and seniors that live down that way that have stood on the coast looking out. And we've never given these folks a true opportunity to see Stanford from the water looking in. And I think that this is the birthright of everybody who lives in the South End, and that through all of the development that we've experienced, We just have neglected that. And part of the boat ramp vision that I think we all shared over the last half dozen years was to give immediate access to the water. So, yeah, it's nice to make a nice walkway around and look at all the pretty boats out there. But you're seeing, you know, folks with sneakers are looking at boats, guys on yachts. And that doesn't really tell the story of our harbor that goes back to the 1600s. have a reasonably or inexpensive way of accessing our harbor, accessing our coastline, learning about shellfish, learning, I mean, you can actually go down the ramp, go to the platform and launch your kayak, launch a paddleboard, fish legally. Ideally, you know, in the original plans going back years ago, we'd envisioned a dinghy dock to encourage, you know, boat tourism that folks transiting Long Island Sound would pull into Stanford. And if you weren't a member of a recognized boat club, you couldn't get into Honus or Stanford Yacht Club or Dolphin Cove, this will be a chance for folks to really have a great first impression of our city. And wouldn't that nice first impression be K-Park, right? This is where if you anchor your boat out, there is no other dinghy dock in all of the city. So My bad that I think that we failed or I failed to articulate that greater vision. And I came away from that meeting somewhat disappointed in not being able to tell that story well. And so I'm thrilled that there's a couple of board of reps members on board here that we should all be working together and pulling in the same direction and get more kids in the community out on the water. What a wonderful resource. It's a birthright. If you grew up at the base of a mountain in Vermont, it's your birthright to learn to ski, right? If you grow up on Stanford Harbor, you were born to the water, and why can't you get there? You can't just sit on the shore and look out, right? So if you guys are with that, I'd love to tell that story better.

Well said, Russ.

Yeah, I agree. And, you know, I think we have for a long time had – had some relationships with folks on the board of reps not that not that a lot of our of our work really comes in front of them but but that was in my in my talk to them uh last week um that was really what i hit on is who we are because i don't think many of them have interfaced with us and and in previous iterations of boards i had relationships with people that you know could could you know pretty much anything that came in they were like oh okay that's coming from damien and the harbor commission like let's just get it voted on right um in the same way that the dredge testing was voted for on the same meeting when we failed right? It was $125,000. It was the same amount of money and it got voted on consent agenda. They didn't even discuss it, right? So it was just, you know, I think because we're unknown to this board and we didn't message well, we also didn't have a lot of questions on the way up through the boards. And I just figured it was a, you know, a rubber stamping thing. We And it seemed pretty uncomplicated. And, you know, of course, opened a whole can of worms that we weren't ready for. But I agree with you, Russ. I think everybody deserves the opportunity to. is the basic form of public access. And there is nothing down there that the public can access into the water, right? They can access looking at the water. They can access walking down a ramp onto their boat if they pay for a slip at Cummings. But everything else is private, right? And so... It really is the, you know, the every man's, every woman's way to get onto the sound. You want to go head over to, you know, Facebook Marketplace and get yourself a $200 kayak and, you know, put it on top of your car and launch it out of there. You can't, provided you have the proper safety equipment. And there is a sticker on your kayak saying who you are in case of emergency.

No, and I think that a part of the education here is one of the reps very insightfully had talked about these large boats and yachts. And I realized what got me through the heart was none of those boats that you see there that are that large can ever benefit from a boat ramp. The boat ramp is designed from the very first point for access to small boats. The large boats with keels or that weigh a lot will never use that ramp. The boat ramp... is the common man's access to our harbor. And there is no public access anywhere on that harbor. And that's heartbreaking. And so, but we need to explain what a boat ramp is. I realized when we walked away from that meeting, there are a lot of folks that never used a boat ramp, don't understand its purpose, don't understand that it's, There's a huge fishing fleet of folks who fish for subsistence. They supplement their protein diet during the summer with the fish that they gain there. And they have no other legal public access without a public ramp like that. We just want to make it safe and we want to put food on their table. What a wonderful way for families to go fishing. And unless you spend a lot of money on a boat slip, you're hosed. You can't get on the water. The boat ramp makes that so.

Another piece of misunderstood that I'd like to clear up is there was talk in the paper about a 4.9 acre boat ramp. One acre is something like 42,550 square feet, right? That's enormous, right? This boat ramp, it calls for anywhere between- 43,560, by the way. There you go, Tris. Thank you. This program calls for somewhere in the order of 20 to 30 parking spots, you know, plus whatever the ramp would take up. And and turnaround spot right so so the 4.9 acre thing we're probably going to end up somewhere in the in the half an acre to probably even closer to a third of an acre. the 4.9 acre plot that makes up that corner of the park. And that's where the 4.9 acre thing came from. It took us a while to figure that out, but apparently Kosciuszko Park has several tracks that are, or plots that are a part of it. And this particular project would be rooted in the 4.9 acre plot that is whatever the heck that plot is named. Um, not that we're going to use all of it, but that that's where the footprint would be. And the other, another misunderstood was there's no boat house that's going to be built. There might be support structures like a floating ramp, floating dock, uh, you know, to, to, uh, tie up to, and, um, you know, of course some pilings to, to support that. But, um, Really, you know, I think first order of business we need is we've got to get the RFP out. We've got to get responded to. We have to figure out who our contractor is going to be. And I think, you know, the first dollars that we spend out of our allotted amount is we need to make sure that the membrane is either A, not there at that site, or B, is something that the... Sorry, that is something that can actually, we can get through to be able to actually make the thing, right? If we can't sink a ramp into the water at that point, then this thing is dead in its tracks and we just spent whatever, a couple thousand bucks to figure that out. At which point we go in a different direction. Um, so that's the, that, that sort of, uh, step one, um, Russ, you still have your hand up or was that from before?

I lowered my hand, but thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other commissioners or if I may, Mr. Chairman? Sure.

Representative Walston, I very much appreciate you taking time to join us tonight. And at the meeting last week, I listened to your points and I found them very interesting. And I don't think the commission properly addressed many of your points. But I want to acknowledge that you are a volunteer just like we are. And I could probably imagine you could think of a better way to spend your Tuesday night than hanging out with a bunch of old farts like us. So thank you for coming here. I don't know if there's any other representatives, but I very much appreciate you going above and beyond to be open to hearing what we're talking about. So thank you, Representative.

You're welcome. And I'm glad to be on this call tonight because at least, you know, it's not a whole bunch of different chatter. But now, you know, it's like face to face, you know, just hearing you guys, you know, without a whole bunch of other little chatter.

And I think we don't have an echo representative in our communication.

OK, I got you.

Yes, that was really difficult. There was a they were having technical difficulties. And and there was like this feedback of, you know, three or four echoes that that made it difficult to understand. And I know the folks that were were tuning in at home were having trouble, too, which is a shame because, you know, obviously lots of important business being done at the time. at the border reps meeting and you know, everybody deserves to have access to it. Um, And, you know, the person that spoke a couple of people before me was the mother of that young man that died in police custody several years ago. And she was imploring the board to, you know, help her get some answers. And it really, you know, perspective is everything. Right. And I'm sitting there listening to her and I'm thinking, God, you know, that is really amazing. Just incredible. And what we're, you know, not fighting, but what we're arguing over is, you know, minimal compared to what this woman has gone through. And it led me to thinking about it that, you know, we're really all on the same side here, right? We all want to see the best use of Stanford technology. And, and we can, you know, we can, we can make that work. It's just a matter of polishing up the, you know, the rough edges so that everybody's happy. Um, I'm getting a, a couple of questions here on, um, on my cell phone here. Um, the first question is punish yacht boats. proposed launch site from a public safety point of view fire and police, why should police and fire and safety be docked by the boat slip with other boats? So there is a private boat ramp at Polonus Yacht Club and in the past we have on occasion It had been given, I can think of one time when we had that giant monolith that was floating, that giant concrete dock, and PONUS was kind enough to let the city come in with a back loader or something and pick that thing up and get rid of it. But, you know, for Stanford Fire to be able to drop their smaller boats in and quickly, like that

That site is for that.

a marina uh stanford fire stanford police uh and harlemaster all have um all have things that they can they have boats that are you know that float through the through the season and they run down and get on but there's no way to launch new things um and and deputy chief hayes uh did did speak to that in his uh letter of support seen that that's in the record um and he speaks to the how the ramp would be um somebody's speaking in the background uh damien if they could mute their mic okay that seems to have done it um are proposed parking spaces located right on top when you get on the hill okay um well we'll have to look at where this parking space is um I'd rather see the completion and people living in the 265 apartments at Pitney Bowes. At least 500 more people will be residing, more cars, more usage will be at the park. Will there be an entrance to Cape Park from PB, like where the cafeteria used to lead straight to Cape Park? Will the proposed parking be on the blacktop or up? um yeah i mean all this stuff has to be developed as a function of the of the plan and and you know none of that has even been necessarily looked at with any substantial nature because we've got to answer can we get through that barricade right and if if we can't then this was an exercise in uh not going to happen um and so before we start designing anything or put any kind of time, effort, and energy into any of that stuff, surveying the public, traffic studies. Before we do any of that stuff, we have to know more about the closure plan, which we have a copy of. We need to know more about where that barrier is and if it is something that we can actually, you know, even reasonably build there. And that will include, you know, us working with our consultant and I presume conversations with engineering in town as well as with DEEP because I think they, the closure plan is a city thing, but I think they're going to want to have say in it. So that's in my mind. And Jeff, you can tell me if I'm missing something, but that's question number one that we need to evaluate, right?

Yes. I just might say that in the course of the discussion leading up to that meeting, the discussions I had with people, the questions and the concerns were very good. And were appropriate. And they have to be addressed in the course of the study. And as we mentioned, and you've talked about it now, this is a feasibility study. It's not determined that we can build a ramp there. But what we're doing, the diligence and pursuing the responsibility of the commission to look for that. And then when we craft the scope of work, that also has to be done carefully for the consultant. And we mentioned that we may start, you know, do phase one, and something comes up that leads us to believe it's not feasible. And therefore, it's not necessary to go on to the others and spend the rest of the money. So just like you've done everything else, it's a You know, it's done in the public interest and with the recognition that we're looking for, you know, an objective assessment. And it may be that we can't build it there, but we're certainly going to learn. And that's the purpose of the study. And, you know, we tried to interact with Deep that, what is it? the weed group. I keep forgetting that the acronym stands for something to do with the landfill cover. And we were wondering, you know, right up front, if we could get an answer that this was infeasible to pursue, but we couldn't get that. And, you know, that we had the okay to pursue the evaluation and that's what we'll do. So I don't mean to keep talking, you know, but at I think that the way you and others address the public concerns, not to dismiss them, but they're valid concerns. And also make clear that the environmental impacts of this along the shoreline and the intertidal area, those all have to be addressed and will be addressed in the evaluation. And I think we can be confident that race will do a good job in this regard. I know my work with the city of West Haven, they did a good job on evaluating a potential boat launching site there. And interestingly, that proved to be not feasible, not for environmental reasons, but for right of way reasons and so forth. And they're working on one now up in Norwich, Connecticut. So I think we've probably got the best, most experienced engineering company in Connecticut to work on this for us.

Just to be clear, Jeff, we haven't prejudged our RFP process. We have to nominate and we have to put out to bid and then, you know, come to... final conclusion, but I'm sure race will throw their hat in the ring. And I think for consistency sake, it's probably a, you know, would be advantageous if they were to pick up phase two. But yes, they're very good at what they do.

I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to prejudge them at all. And I don't have any role in the selection process. But they did a good job on the phase one project and will certainly work with whomever is selected through the proper process.

Exactly. Exactly. Mike's got his hand up. Mike, you're muted. Yes, thank you.

To the points that were made earlier, I know Representative Walston is still on the call, and I did recognize Stu Halpern is also on the call. I think it would be good to publicly say that whatever comes out of this report will be shared. And I would also just emphasize to the degree that they would be willing to help us We would like to have the public and in particular the folks that are down in that neighborhood maybe even host a conversation once we have the report so that everybody at least understands the baseline of what the report is saying. So I'm just going to put my hand up now saying this is an opportunity going forward to work with the community. And maybe that's something we should have done the first time around a little bit earlier. But let's correct our errors in that.

Yeah, certainly. We never wanted to sneak anything by. We just had never had any kind of wrinkle like this. So it never occurred to us that we would be creating this kind of a... creating this kind of an upset, right? And I think a lot of it was around just, you know, not understanding really what we were asking for. And I think, Mike, your point is very well Given and take a good good point. Well made. And I think we will have more public outreach on this because we understand that, you know, there's a significant amount of Of interest in this concern and interest and and as I said, I, you know, we want this to be right for everybody because Cape Park is for everybody. And, you know, that's an important piece that we want to make sure that we're encouraging the right thing for all. And I do see Representative Graham is here. Thank you for being here. Representative Graham is from District 3. That's her home district down right outside of Cape Park. And She and I have traded a couple of emails and thoughtful questions and answers. Representative, did you have anything you'd like to add to the conversation tonight? I don't know whether you were here for it or not, but Representative Walston was a little concerned about um creating a conflict for herself so um that's that was her opinion we're not looking to entrap anybody in anything but but certainly welcome your comments or questions if you feel comfortable doing so oh you're muted i saw you

I just wanted to let you guys know I was here listening. I apologize. I had a previous engagement, and I just wanted to let you know how important K-Park is to our neighborhood, and we want to preserve as much as we can in addition to whatever new plans that are coming aboard. We just want to remember that we have a large... based on the south end of residents that need the park. So we want to work with the Harbor Commission to make sure that things go smoothly. And I yield. Thank you for giving me the time.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for being here. And please, if you would, go back and watch the first or the last 20 minutes or so of this conversation. I hope it can help to stimulate further conversation as we all look to do exactly what you're saying, which is to make sure it's right for everybody. Any other commissioners or reps members want to chime in?

Well, Damien, I was just going to simply say that considering that this was nothing more than a feasibility study, it's understandable that we might not have thought about bringing this to the attention of the wider community. It is not a proposal to do it. It is simply a feasibility study.

Yes. Thank you. But things are not always as simple as they may seem.

Yeah.

And, you know, it took quite a bit of effort to get it turned around and go back into steering committee and back through fiscal and have to defend it, you know, each and every time. So I, for one, am greatly relieved that I can claw back the hours and hours and hours of time that I spent on this. So, but again, you know, those hours are worthy if it makes it a better project for all. Okay, any other discussion on item B? Longest chairman's report ever. Okay, item C, the hurricane barrier repair meeting is September 22nd, 5 p.m. Major stakeholders and the Army Corps of Engineers. I believe that's being hosted on the sixth floor in the training center. I'm not sure that it's been finalized, but that's coming up next week. It still remains to be seen whether or not I can be there. Bob is definitely going to be there, but it's not really our meeting to run. It is Army Corps sitting down with Rubino, ONG. I think Congressman Hines is going to have representatives there. The mayor's going to have, if the mayor's not there, she'll have representatives. And I think the idea is to continue to discuss the economic impacts and other impacts that the hurricane barrier has closure and repair will meter out on the water-dependent uses in the east branch of Stanford Harbor for a quarter of next year and really what is probably half of the boating season. So anyhow, we got an email from a boater um who was it wasn't directed at me but it was directed at uh gloria at cashiering and permitting you know asking what is the city going to do for those that have their boats in that uh in that incoming in um ceasic and how will how will the voters be reimbursed will they be given priority in other city marinas uh, you know, what, what, what's the deal? Um, you know, as you know, there, nobody wants to lose half a boating season. So, um, or if some kind of other, uh, accommodations can be made, um, it would have been real, real nice if Cummings was coming back online, uh, prior to this happening, but you know, it's just another reminder that we don't live in heaven. Um, Okay, so that's coming up next week. And through this process, I was combing our website. And I happened upon the... Harbor Commission's mission statement. And I don't know that I like it. And I want us to think about changing it. Right now it says the Stanford Harbor Management Commission regulates and monitors waterfront development, encourages the retention of waterfront industries, recreational uses, in all parts of Stanford Harbor. And like, it's not even punctuated correctly. So I think we can do better than that. Let's kick that back to, what do you think? Jeff's got his hand up. Go ahead, Jeff.

I think that statement may even predate the Harbor Management Plan because we have goals in the Harbor Management Plan and in our vision statement that are a little bit more instructive or illustrative than that. So we can certainly switch that into a better statement.

Okay. So, uh, it's kind of seems like an, I don't know, an application review committee thing. Like maybe we can add that under new business or something next month. Um, and, um, see if we can spin up a better, better version of that. And then we can get that added to the, uh, added to the website. All right. Um, that's it for me. Um, let's move on to committee reports app. Sam, what do you got?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We met on September 8th. We were looking at a huge agenda with something like 12 items or so. It turned out that the bulk of them were from the zoning board and they were text changes to regulations. We played around with our agenda quite a bit. We reversed some items. And then Director Bless indicated that I think six of the 10 items, if I have the numbers correctly, he wanted to withdraw. And so we actually only dealt with four items from the zoning board. And then we had two CSPRs, which I will get to. The first item that we had was application 22619. from the zoning board, and this concerns zoning text changes. The purpose of this change is to update the sign regulations, establish stricter controls for signs within the city of Stanford, and to better target the sign regulations to the built environment of individual zoning districts. As I mentioned, Director Blessing was there to explain the application. After his presentation and his addressing our questions, the recommendation of the Applications Review Committee to the full commission is a finding of no objection with the understanding that the new regulations will not affect the provision of appropriate signage on publicly accessible amenity spaces as may be necessary for guiding users and protecting public safety.

I make a motion that we accept the committee's response as no objection. Second.

Okay. I have a motion for no objection for 226-19 that has been seconded. Is there any additional discussion on 226-19, no objection? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. And I believe we are full. Yes. Okay. So Mr. Malloy.

Aye.

Dr. Graham. Aye. Mr. Attenborough. Aye. Dr. Abernathy. Aye. Mr. Pinciaro. Aye. Mr. Karp.

Bob. Bob, you're muted.

Thumbs up or thumbs down, Bob? Aye. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The ayes have it. We have a no objection on 226.19 unanimously. Next item.

The next item was application 226-20. Again, from the zoning board, and it concerns zoning text changes. Purpose of this change is to align the structure of the M dash L light industrial zoning district regulations to the other district regulations to add protections for abutting residential districts and establish urban design standards. No major changes to density and other bulk or use standards are proposed. And again, Director Blessing was there to explain it and to answer our questions. The recommendation of the Applications Review Committee to the full commission is a finding of consistency with the Harbor Management Plan based on the understanding that the proposed changes are expected to result in reduction of impervious surfaces and improve stormwater and water quality conditions on development sites.

Make a motion that we accept the committee's no objection to that.

No, it's a consistency, finding of consistency.

I'm sorry, consistency with the comments that would be applied to that recommendation. Second.

Okay, and that was 226-20? 20, 2-0.

Okay, thank you.

So we have a motion that's been seconded for a finding of consistency of 226-20 and any additional discussion. Hearing none, we'll put to a vote. Mr. Malloy?

Aye.

Dr. Graham? Aye. Dr. Adelberg?

Aye.

Dr. Abernathy?

Aye.

Mr. Pensiero?

Aye. much next item all right this is application 226 21 again from the zoning board and it again uh well this this involves zoning map changes the applicant is seeking a zoning map change from the current b hyphen d uh zoning district to the c hyphen n zoning district director blessing was there And the recommendation of the applications review committee is a finding of no objection as the proposed change is not expected to affect the harbor management area in any significant way.

Make a recommendation that we accept these committees. No, I'm sorry. No objection. That application. Second.

Thank you. We have a finding of no objection or a motion of no objection to 226-21, map change. It's been seconded. Any additional discussion? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. Mr. Malloy?

Aye.

Dr. Graham? Aye. Mr. Adelberg?

Aye.

Dr. Abernathy? Aye. Mr. Pensiero?

Aye.

Mr. Karp?

Aye.

The ayes have it. Thank you very much.

Okay, the last application from the Zoning Board is 226-22. It's a zoning text change again. Purpose of this text change is to rezone the city's only B-D district to C-N and to delete the B-D district from the city's zoning regulations to simplify the regulations. Again, Director Blessing was there to explain it and answer our questions. And the recommendation of the applications review committee to the full commission is a finding of no objection as the proposed change is not expected to affect the harbor management area in any significant way.

Recommendation to accept the no objection to that application. Second.

Thank you. We've got a finding of no objection on 226-22. Do we have any additional discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Malloy? Aye. Dr. Graham? Aye. Mr. Adelberg?

Aye.

Mr. Abernathy?

Aye.

Sorry, Dr. Abernathy. Mr. Pensiero?

Aye.

Mr. Carr?

Aye.

The ayes have it. Thank you.

okay the um next item on our agenda was cspr 1238 which is a property at 16 fairview avenue the commissioners will recall from our last meeting at the application the applicant is seeking to approve the installment of a patio and a spa at the last meeting of the commission we made a finding of a consistency subject to submission of papers from experts as to water management and water purity. In fact, the appropriate documents were submitted. And the Applications Review Committee found these documents to be appropriate and to validate the representations made by the applicant. So we don't have a further recommendation, simply a report that the documentation which the Commission called for was received, and it supported the representations made by the applicant.

We let the application go through as it was subjected as we voted.

And so that was no objection was the finding?

No, it was a consistency.

Okay.

There is improved. As I recall, there was a catchment basin installed on the property. And we just wanted support for this from the engineering experts. Okay. Okay. And it was submitted. Frankly, I don't think we need a motion on this. I think it's simply a report from the Applications Review Committee that the documentation the commission sought was received and that it supported the representations.

Okay. All right.

That's my own personal opinion.

I agree with Sam. Okay. Okay.

Okay, the final application was CSPR 1239. The property is at 279 Stanford Avenue in Stanford. The applicant is proposing to renovate the interior and finish the existing basement of a single family residence without increasing the existing building footprint. The property is within the CAM boundary. The representative of the owner was there to explain the project and address the commissioner's questions. As a result of this, the Applications Review Committee is recommending to the full commission a finding of no objection to the proposed project, which is not expected.

entertain a motion?

We accept the committee's recommendation of no objection.

Second. Second. Thank you very much. So we have a finding of no objection on CSPR 1239. Any discussion? Hearing none, we'll put it to a vote. Mr. Malloy?

Aye.

Dr. Graham? Aye. Mr. Adelberg?

Aye.

Dr. Abernathy?

Aye.

Mr. Pensiero?

Aye.

Mr. Carr?

Aye.

The ayes have it. Thank you.

um okay we we under old business we had several items that two of which will i think be very well familiar to this meeting um but the first item which we often talk about concern the uh efforts to achieve a legislative amendments to the connecticut harbor management act to clarify and uphold the authority of harbor management authorities in the various communities along the coast of connecticut What was interesting that Mr. Our consultant, Jeff Stedman, pointed out was that a recent meeting with representatives showed a I'm going to say a more perhaps a more sympathetic response. view of the position that we're taking on this issue. And I think we have reason to hope that this will be, that the change in staffing here will result in a more cooperative approach from Deep, but time will tell. I don't know whether you want to add anything, Jeff, to that or not.

No, I think just as a result of Frank Fideli's efforts, you know, with the work he's doing to learn more about environmental remediation in the harbor. We did have a meeting in Hartford with a deep attorney, the acting at the time new director of the Land and Water Resources Division and some others. And their attitude was, we didn't talk specifically about the legislation, but with respect to the issue that Frank and I were discussing, they seemed to be very helpful, in an effort to be helpful, unlike some previous people we've talked to. And so once some of that information is concluded that Frank is assembling, Our next step was to reach back out to them and ask for a similar positive meeting to discuss another topic, which is the harbor management legislation. And then interestingly, yesterday, I got a message from the chair of the old Saybrook Harbor Commission, and they were in a meeting involving their state senators. and they brought up the matter, and apparently there's another, some sort of a community event on Saturday in Old Saybrook, and they're going to continue the discussion. So we'll just do the best we can, and hopefully there's some new fresh ears at DEEP with a little bit different attitude. the attorney who was most adamantly opposed to discussing this, as I mentioned, has left the agency. So we'll hopefully have a positive outlook and let's see if we can accomplish something this session.

And Jeff, where did that attorney go to?

Private sector.

Interesting.

Funny how that happens. Working for the Harbor Management Commissions?

Not quite. I don't know. Not to take time, but it was very interesting. I think I mentioned when Frank and I went to the Deep office building, it was essentially a ghost town. We went into a conference room. But all of the other cubicles and desks and the other floors and the entrance, they were dark. And part of that is that people have been working part time at home, but also there was substantial water damage in their office building. It hasn't been repaired yet. But it was just very interesting, you know, before COVID, when we would interact with DEEP, It was, you know, a bustling government office building. When Frank and I walked in there, it just looked like hundreds of vacant desks and cubicles. But let's hope that that doesn't reflect the outlook of the agency. Thank you.

Or its ability to function, yeah.

Yeah.

All right. Remind me next time I want to work from home to hose down the floor in my office. And that way I can stay home for a year or two.

But Deep, there are two people from Deep who are going to join the hurricane barrier meeting next week, but they're going to do so via the remote link. Although we have asked them if they wish to come to Stanford that, you know, we volunteered the Harbormaster boat to take a firsthand look at the hurricane barrier, but so far they haven't accepted that invitation.

Okay, Mr. Chairman, another item under old business was a discussion of a boat ramp and the feasibility study. I think we've covered that extensively at this meeting, so I need not go into that in further detail. The last item under old business was a discussion of the hurricane disaster. barrier repair project, and it's now scheduled. I guess there was a meeting scheduled for September 22nd with the Corps of Engineers and stakeholders in the government center. And Jeff reported that DEEPS pointed out that it has an obligation or a right to review this and approve it for consistency with the Connecticut Coastal Management Act. And it also involves a formal deep public comment period. And of course, we as a commission have a right to review this. So we didn't speculate on whether or not this would alter the Corps of Engineers proposed schedule and that we left that discussion there. Under new business, our consultant, Jeff Sedman, reported on the August 2026 Stanford Coastal Resilience Plan, recently provided by the Land Use Bureau to the Stanford Harbor Management Commission for review. It's a lengthy document, and it's been broken up into separate parts, and we agreed that members of the applications review committee would would review this plan and we would discuss it at our october meeting um and that was the end of the substantive part of our our meeting and the next meeting will be october 5th at 5 30 p.m and that's my report mr chairman thank you okay any questions on uh apps um uh sam yeah

We left a meeting that we would review the report, but I don't think it was finalized, like how we're going to break it up, offline or send us an email.

I'll send an email around tomorrow. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your good work. Shellfish, Frank is not here. They did have a meeting today. Trez, were you at that meeting? Of course you were, because you hosted, right? Trez?

Yeah, let me unmute. It did not occur. Technical difficulties.

That's going around. Okay. Um, Frank, uh, did give us a bit of a rundown. He sent a number of emails over the last week or so. Um, and you know, he's been doing a lot of really good work as Jeff said, digging to the bottom of the, um, of the, the remediation funds, the DCD stuff. You all saw the emails. Um, I asked him if he felt like we had had all the questions we needed answered, answered to be able to really, uh, understand what happened to the to the boatyard and the remediation funds. And he said he's getting close to feeling like he's got a full answer. Jeff, you got that look about you like you want to say something.

Well, I know Frank had a personal thing to deal with today, but it was very interesting. And I may not understand it completely. And Frank may not either. But in pursuing additional information from the Department of Economic and Community Development, having to do with the monies that were allocated by the Connecticut Bond Commission for the remediation work on the 14-acre site. And I don't understand it completely, but Frank said there are what they're called portals on the DECD website or the state website. And you submit your questions, you know, essentially the freedom of information requests through the portals. But what he was reading yesterday, and it was his opinion too, the response is almost like an AI. It seems very much like an AI generated response to the question. And I'm wondering if that's true. somehow replaces a person in government responding to your freedom of information request. But Frank can report on that. But the responses he got were almost as if, again, it was an AI-generated response almost based on news articles as to what took place. But he's pursuing that, and like you said, he has made a significant progress to understand what – what took place in terms of funds and the, and the allocation of those funds. Uh, but he, he, he can report on that when, when, uh, you know, when he, when he gets back to do so.

Okay. All right. Any other comments, concerns on, on, uh, that sort of a dual shellfish slash, um, uh, special assistant, which is later in staff reports. Go ahead, Jeff.

One more thing. We did talk with the director of the Bureau of Aquaculture about the status of the water sampling efforts that are being done for the Harbor Commission in order to reopen the shellfish beds. And I forget how many sampling locations there are. Sound Waters is doing this. 15. It's 15, Jeff. Yes. And Mr. Carey said that all of the 15 are lacking the necessary samples. And it's difficult to get them because some of them have to be done after rainfall events. But there are samples, a number of samples listed missing from each of the sites. So I think that we should have a discussion with Soundwaters about that and what their intent is of getting the rest of the samples. So that was one thing. And also we inquired that there was an inquiry from Rhode Island Sea Grant for, and it went to all of the towns with shellfish commissions, asking for information, mapping information of the location of shellfish beds. And when we talked to Mr. Carey about that, he said that that is a joint program with Rhode Island Sea Grant and Yukon Sea Grant, Connecticut to assemble information to help the towns respond or react to a new state law having to do with the assessment of shellfish beds for tax purposes. And when we talked with Dave Carey about this at the Bureau of Aquaculture, he said that he didn't think that there's anything that we could provide that he hasn't already, that the Bureau of Aquaculture has provided all of the maps that they have of shellfish beds for this effort. But I forget the name of the state act, but it has something to do with municipal assessment of shellfish beds for tax purposes. And so that the sea grants are coming up with guidance for all of the municipalities to do that. Nothing for us to do immediately about that.

While we're on the previous issue, water quality testing, right? So Frank's recommendation had been that we, in some form or another, get a meeting together with Shellfish Commission slash Harbor Commission, with Mr. Carey, and then with Soundwaters and really get a sort of meeting of the minds and status update, as well as what are the best practices moving forward, right? Because we've been paying for this for several years now. And the water quality testing is important, but ideally what we're looking to do is get the requisite number of samples at the 15 locations, both regular samples and then the adverse pollution event samples, and getting those shellfish beds open, not just the commercial ones, but the recreational ones. That's the whole point of this whole thing. So is it this board's pleasure that that be done here at a board meeting, or would you rather I task the shellfish subcommittee with running that?

I'm pretty convinced that Frank would like to have this subcommittee at least take the first crack at it.

Okay. All right. I like it. Make it so. Okay. Anything else on shellfish or special assistant? Nope. Okay. Hearing none. Let's move on to Marina mooring and safety.

Good evening, gentlemen. A couple of things going on on Marina's committee over the last 30 days. You guys are all aware of the Board of Reps meeting that we attended. We have an overview of where our goals are in terms of outreach and education. We'll leave that aside. Most of our other focus has been on the hurricane barrier closure. I want to know how many of you guys have been invited or will be attending the meeting on the 22nd. I will be there. Harbor Landing Marina has asked me to be one of their two designated spokesfolks or stakeholders. So I know I will be there. And Mr. Chairman, if you're comfortable with me wearing both hats that evening, I'm happy to report back to the commission, depending on who else is going to be attending.

Yeah, Russ, I value your input any way you can give it, as I do everybody else on this commission. So, yeah, I am hoping to be there. I know Bob is certainly going to be there. He's already confirmed. And it is just a matter of my schedule and how it's going to roll. Again, it's not our meeting. We're going to follow sort of the ACOE's lead. You know, in a perfect world, I'd like to see the governor's office figure out some way, or not the government, the congressman's office, try to figure out some way to create some relief for water-dependent industry. Because I think they're going to take a huge financial hit. It's going to be an enormous traffic crisis. issue with with down there as as rubino scrap and omg's asphalt is going to have to be trucked out i mean it is it is a disaster um waiting to happen um but it's less of a disaster than if downtown stanford floods because the hurricane barrier is broken right go ahead paul are you uh is bill warren aware and is he in planes oh yeah oh yeah yes So we're, you know, the work has got to get done. Army Corps has already said that they don't have any kind of, you know, not disaster funds, but any kind of economic impact remediation funds. And they're at the mercy of the timetable in that those are the most quiet months of storm You know, and historically, so that the hurricane barrier gets the least amount of use, they're going to have a crane on site in case they need to put it back in and lift it out, lift it up if we do have a storm. But they'd rather not have to do that while they're going through and fixing it. So that's where the time, you know, that that first half of the boating season comes in. And they're also at the at the the whim of the this this group of elite engineers that they bring in to do the work they're kind of like you know navy seals of army corps of engineering they come in and they they you know knock this thing out they're like sort of tier one operators But, you know, those are the two things. And that's why they're trying to stick to this. And they're not, you know, they still have permitting to get from deep. And they're hoping to get that stuff done in a, you know, in a jiff. Jeff, go ahead.

Just two quick things. We may be faced with having to review and comment on their plans sooner rather than later, because the last time we talked with the Corps of Engineers, they were hoping to submit their applications to DEEP at the beginning of of this month. I don't know if they've done that yet. And then the DEEP public notice would follow, public notice seeking public comment would follow this September 22nd meeting. So they're still pushing for that accelerated schedule, but they plan to have this meeting to explain the project before the public notice for public comments is issued by DEEP. So this may be something I'm not sure that we're going to have to address, I don't know if that public notice is out for 30 days, but we're going to have to be prepared for that. And that's why I guess we'll learn a bit on the 22nd. And also, you know, we have, which we will bring, a number of aerial photographs that we've put together of the hurricane barrier. And now the presentation we're doing, identifying the water dependent uses upstream of the barrier. So we can get those all completed in the next couple of days before next Tuesday, we can post those on the commission's website for public viewing. And then I thought we'd also bring the physical presentations on easels and set up at the meeting next Tuesday. Again, as an effort to provide outreach to the public to help understand what's at stake here and the facilities that are involved.

Yeah. Right. What's the outcome, Jeff? What do you think the best outcome of that meeting can be?

Boy, this is such a difficult problem because the work is essential. It has to be done. But the adverse impacts are substantial. And it's interesting that the Corps of Engineers has sought or has received what's called a categorical exclusion from having to prepare an environmental impact assessment of this, even though it's a federal project. And their argument is that the environmental impacts are insignificant. The significant impacts are socioeconomic impacts, and therefore they don't have to do this formal environmental impact evaluation. But, you know, how we, you know, in other instances, if this was a state project and the impacts were unavoidable, but they're adverse impacts that are unavoidable, the DEEP would require some sort of mitigation for those impacts. And I use the example of the filling of underwater lands to redo the state pier in New London for the for the wind industry. That, that, that was a substantial filling of underwater lands. And, and the state was required as part of the state permitting process to, to put in millions of dollars into a mitigation fund that was then used for, for habit environmental enhancement projects elsewhere. Now we've, mentioned that to the Corps of Engineers, and they said, no, there's no provision for us to provide any sort of mitigation like that. But yeah, I don't know. I guess part of the 22nd is going to be to try to figure out what the recommendation might be and whether the federal government can provide some sort of financial mitigation. or for the unavoidable adverse impacts. ONG also provides the materials for state construction projects. So that may impact, you know, not just their own business, but construction projects in southwest Connecticut. And as you know, the federal government doesn't need any local permits. The only review process that exists right now, I think locally, is the Harbor Commission's review as part of the coastal consistency review by DEEP. So that's a long-winded answer to say I don't know what our approach should be. We're just going to have to see what we can learn and develop something that recognizes the work has to be done, but the adverse impacts are significant.

And I'm with you, Jeff, because we submitted to the AOC what we felt were the tangible stakeholders. There are a lot of intangible stakeholders that don't have a seat at the table. I have a front row seat to the hurricane barrier. And there are literally thousands of families on the south end that rely on access to the harbor for the flip fishing fleet. These are relatively smaller boats that either reside in the residential marinas on the east branch or launched locally. And they rely, I mean, they're generally families that are food insecure. They rely on their fishing fleet to supplement their protein budget. Without access for those three months, that really adversely impacts a community that normally doesn't have much of a voice.

Well, Russ, that's very interesting. We hadn't talked about that with the Corps of Engineers as an impact. And Maybe before the 22nd, after the meeting, maybe you and I could talk about that because that needs to be identified as another socioeconomic impact of the project.

There's a large constituency in that part of town that already sadly has little or no voice, and there's no way of really adequately representing them unless the Harbor Commission speaks on their behalf. But we're also concerned, obviously, about the commercial aspects, the residential marinas. They're all taking a big hit. Yale, I know who's back on the Zoom call, and I had a chat earlier this evening, about that he's anticipating, and I don't want to step Yale on your agenda, that there'll be an influx of mooring applications for folks north of the barrier that will want additional mooring space. And one of his genius ideas was, again, Yale, you can go into depth on this, that we're one of the only harbors on the entire Long Island Sound that doesn't have a dinghy dock. or a place to launch from. And maybe we can commission TGM or BLT to give us a 40-foot end dock to use as a dinghy pier so that people that are not Yacht Club members can access a growing mooring field. So I'll leave that to you to explore further. But I mean, had we only had a facility south of the ramp, it would mitigate some of this impact. And sadly, we're not there or not even close to there. But I will be at the meeting, and I have a list of questions already prepared from the residential marinas immediately north of the hurricane barrier. Like, are the closure is going to be complete and absolute, or will it be intermittent? If there are times that the caissons are being moved, will there be transit possible? And if that's possible, can it be published so that people can move their boats to moorings or into service? So we have, you know, I'll share with the committee, with the commission, some of the thoughtful questions that have come from the Marina holders.

And not to interrupt, but based on the Corps' website, the answer to that question that you just raised is no.

Yeah, that's my impression, but I'm hoping that if we can corner them in person, I didn't think they were building a cofferdam completely around. I was under the initial impression they were working on each knuckle independently. Jeff, what was your impression?

Well, we'll see, Russ, but on the Corps of Engineers website for the project, it's very clear that there'll be no passage through the gate during that three-month period. That's a lot.

Okay. Well, then you know what, guys, not to make this meeting too long, I'll defer to my co-chair, Dr. Joseph Graham, to talk safety. Unless you guys have some other questions or input that you want about the hurricane barrier.

Russ, before I take over, did you want to at least let the commission be apprised of the idea that you and Mike and Yale were kicking around about additional moorings and the feasibility of adding moorings for people that might be displaced?

Yeah. And like I may have just briefly touched on that. The feasibility is limited because there's no place to service a dinghy fleet. So even if there were, let's say, 20 to 50 additional moorings in the harbor. And again, I'm going to defer to Yale and his expertise. Where do we put that many dinghies? That is a whole lot of running board feed. for people that will need access to the mooring field. There is no public space that I can think of that would accommodate that many dinghies. And if, you know, as I suspect Jeff is completely correct, if the hurricane barrier will not be open even intermittently, there is no way of transiting dinghies from the northern half of the East Branch down into the harbor anyway. So unless you're a paid boat club member that already has dinghy launch space, even with the mooring, how do you get there? But I think this is something that we should talk about.

Russ, what about coming up with some sort of temporary launch service?

I'd love that. We'd need a launch operator. There was a guy that had an old Navy whale boat that was running a launch service, but I've lost track of what's happening.

That's our deputy harbor master. That's Frank Flumega. He was running the boat launch for BLT, but he sold that boat. But BLT, they've got a boat that they hardly use, the harbor taxi that really doesn't do a whole lot anymore going back and forth in the West Branch.

I would think that we could seriously pursue this as a possibility. And we might enlist a commercial or a private club as a shoreside dock for that launch. And I think that would go a long way to solving a problem if we have adequate number of moorings outside the barrier.

Yeah, ideally, GM would be a great site. BLT, if they have some, you know, the inside facing or east facing 22 fingers that we know that they're not going to occupy this summer. Clearly, they're not going to rent them. That would be also a very convenient launch site with parking to get folks out to the mooring field.

Jeff, go ahead.

Well, I don't mean to make a joke, I guess, but the coastal resilience plan that we're reviewing that was mentioned before by Sam, when you read that, that addresses the hurricane barrier at length. And one of the recommendations in that resilience plan is that the adequacy of the barrier should be evaluated now in light of the increased storms. And maybe it's necessary to raise the height of the barrier. I mean, that's not related to what we're talking about now, but it's very interesting the amount of attention that's given to the hurricane barrier in that resilience plan and whether it is adequate, will be adequate in the future. But imagine that, you know, an effort to now, you know, once, you know, fix the gate, and then the next project is to raise the barrier. But that, again, I don't mean to make light of the situation. It's very difficult, and I don't know what, you know, how we'll address this, but we'll certainly do the best we can. And maybe the response has to involve the Congressman's office. I mean, you and I talked with the infrastructure person, And several years ago, the congressman was at a meeting in Greenwich that I attended to discuss the hurricane hurricane barrier. It was another another project as well. But he certainly showed a lot of interest then. But but the the economic and social impacts of this as a result of a federal project. I think has to be brought to his attention and maybe get his sense of what sort of mitigation could be provided by the federal government, if any. It's a federal project, so maybe the questions about mitigation need to be directed towards the congressional delegation.

Yeah. Well, let's hope we can at least tickle the issue at the meeting coming up.

Yeah. So before we leave this, I would certainly vote for pursuing the idea of some kind of shuttle or other service to get people out to the potential of moorings. I mean, Russ and Yale, that's more your guy's wheelhouse than mine.

Yeah, have you pursued the number of moorings that are spaces that are available out there that we could even begin to stock outside of the dockage?

There are no moorings available. They're all private moorings. People will have to buy their own mooring and abide by the regulations of the commission to have a mooring. And it's just their mooring. We could put 50 moorings out there if we had to.

So that's the question.

You know, they're expensive. I mean, I don't know. People have been calling, you know, contacting me a lot about that possibility. And as you just discussed, they need a way to get there. We're going to have to find a place for them to put a dinghy dock, maybe at Safe Harbor or BLT or TGM or one of those places. because they need to get out there and possibly get a shuttle to do it, but that's gonna cost, they're not gonna do it for free, whoever's gonna do it, so that's gonna take some doing. But there's plenty of room for moorings out there, and I've had a lot of requests.

Yeah, so that was the question, how many mooring spaces are available? So you're saying 50? We could put 50 moorings out there if we had to.

Okay.

The question is, let's say, hypothetically, each of those moorings had a dinghy. Now, if we had a launch service that would operate till 10 PM, all week long. But the economic viability of a launch service that robust is relatively thin. But we haven't had a history of a launch service like that. But of course, I'm going to jump in. I'd love to see it. Our harbor should have that. But let's say we needed to accommodate 30 to 50 new dinghies. And of course, they're permitting. The city of Stanford does have a dinghy permitting procedure and length limitations, which is, I think, limited to 13 feet 11 inches. So now we also have a load of dinghies that need to be permitted. They need to be stored. They need to be housed. There's some regulation. There's going to be an awful lot of new dinghy traffic along with our existing commercial traffic, especially during peak times. That's a whole lot of new little boats buzzing around our harbor that we need to think about. So, I mean, yeah, I think that, you know, Yale and maybe Joseph and I will take this offline, not to make this meeting crazy long, but let's think about the logistics of all of it. But it is a multiple scenario. With every new mooring also comes a second craft and the traffic associated with it and the storage and all of the rest that goes along with that. One other thing that I forgot to mention that Yale had brought up, he had shared an email with me. There's an organization offering to have a unidirectional AIS antenna, incoming AIS antenna to be added hopefully to the lighthouse. And this is maybe more Joseph Graham's area because it's safety, but providing the provider, which will be providing the antenna at no cost to us, will be willing for us to provide that data to Stanford Fire and Police and maybe to our website. That would be nice. Then we'll have real-time AIS tracking, which would also be handy to a burgeoning mooring fleet, which is why I bring it.

Probably tell them what AIS is.

Oh, good point. Thank you. It's a positioning system that there's a send or receive a combined antenna on most vessels over 26 or 30 feet. And all commercial vessels. And all commercial vessels. Thank you. That lets you know their position, heading, speed, course, identity, all that. So it's handy to let other boaters know What the marine traffic looks like, it's going to be super handy for fire and police. But that being said, even the smaller fishing fleet will have GPS on board, and they often have AIS receivers, even if they don't transmit AIS-A and AIS-B.

You can get an AIS app for your phone that receives but doesn't transmit. I don't know how accurate or timely it is. I'm sure there's a delay on it than an actual AIS app. system on your boat, but you can actually get an app on your phone to receive AIS signals.

And I think that, you know, if we're going down this road with additional moorings and additional dinghies, you know, I'm going to explore this further. This all happened, you know, this evening prior to the meeting, but I'm going to be speaking with Gary Kalin tomorrow, making sure that he's amenable to putting this antenna on the lighthouse. I'm sure he will. But I think that it's a nice safety, additional layer of safety for the harbor. And in the event that we are increasing traffic on the harbor, how could it be a bad thing, right? a little more knowledge if especially if we have um 5g on the harbor then people will utilize it even if it's you know if it's out a little bit past the breakwater the uh the smaller boating fleet and the fishing fleet should avail themselves of it once we let them know it's there yale do you have anything to add to that

i mean it's uh i'm sure most small boats won't have it but it certainly and by the way i believe it stands for automated identification system uh which all commercial boats have it's and um and you can have it i think paul used to have it on his boat come to think of it was that you paul's hardware yes that's great yeah you're the only you you were the only uh um boat in the harbor, recreational boat that had it. I couldn't figure out where it was coming from. Then I realized it was yours. But yeah, most, you know, bigger recreational boats and yachts have it. Most smaller ones don't, but all commercial ones do. It can certainly help us track the commercial traffic going in and out of the harbor. And from the email I got, they said it was for free. All we had to do was, you know, supply a spot with a clear view of the harbor where you could plug it in. And the only issue is you need Internet. Are they going to have Internet, say, at the lighthouse?

No, there is no Internet there yet. We're still sorting out how that you know how that's going to work. But that yeah, that that is a hiccup. And Trez, you know, who works with the lighthouse quite a lot, can pick up this conversation. But for next spring, we're looking at some sort of. subscription or program that would probably broadcast on cellular so that we can then broadcast the weather data we're getting from PredictWind to our website and the Lighthouse website. And then, obviously, fire and marine can take advantage of that. I use AIS every time I back out of my slip just north of the hurricane barrier. I want to know whether there's a barge coming up the lane. I think it's a great tool. And I would hope that most boats over 26 or 30 feet at this point are using it. There's a lot of AIS targets that line up on my screen.

Yeah, more and more. By the way, won't possibly get Starlink at the lighthouse?

I don't know. Who would underwrite that?

Right.

Well, we have a consultant coming in in October to adjudicate or at least investigate all of those types of issues. And we should be happy. be able to give you some type of report in November.

That would be great, Trez, because that is the stumbling block we're experiencing with all of this great weather and hopefully AIS and the two cameras we want to install at the lighthouse. How do we disseminate all of that wonderful information, even if it means we can bring this one forward in the commission another night, the commission making a small financial monthly contribution towards underwriting its costs?

Mr. Chairman, Russ, Sam, going back to the issue of dinghies versus launch, obviously there are issues and problems with both, but my gut tells me that a launch approach would be much simpler, safer, um, and, and sounder than pursuing the dinghy approach. Obviously some, some boaters are going to want to use their dinghies and if they can find dinghy dock space, fine. But I, I think we could probably prevail on somebody to, to, uh, allow a launch to operate and from, and I think we could find a launch somewhere. Um, my other mother thought is that, um, I don't know whether the Stanford Yacht Club would agree on just a short-term basis to allow some moorings to be put in their field, but the mooring density there, as I've commented previously, is not very dense, and it lends itself to many, many more boats in that harbor, that area, that mooring field. So it seems to me that If people are willing to pay for their moorings, that's a place. And if Stanford were to be willing to cooperate, that's a place where moorings could be placed. But my key point is I really think the launch approach is a better approach than expecting boaters to be rowing back and forth in their dinghies or with their three-horsepower outboards.

Yeah. And just so you all know, I know many of you are here for the conversation about the jet ski issues in Westcott Cove. That's coming up as a part of Joseph's safety report. So hang in there while we're passing this stuff out.

Cool. Then let's not keep those folks waiting. Mr. Chairman, let me relinquish my part of the meeting so that Joseph can pick up the conversation.

Thank you, Russ. So on our safety committee meeting, Sergeant Fitzgibbons of the police department said that the Westcott Cove and West Boat Ramp target enforcement was their highest priority. They also have been very aware of and cracking down on use of jet skis. Jet skis are not allowed out there after sunset. So they're issuing violations for that. The other thing is our marine fire department. We're also busy. There's a very interesting piece that you can read about on the fire website or in the paper, and we call it the curious incident of the dog in the nighttime. And you can either read the paper back or look that up. The last two items I have, Yale, I don't know if you want to address these in your Harbor Master, but they kind of overlap safety in Harbor Master. The unauthorized moorings, you're still working on that. Yeah, I was going to talk about that. All right. So you can either, you know, Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you want Yale to do it now or at his Harbor Master. Do you have a preference?

whatever feels right to the conversation.

Yeah, it's not a lot. We're just still identifying some of the derelict moorings in the harbor. I think I mentioned it last meeting. We had that incident after the Block Island race, Memorial Day, where someone from the race just picked up an empty mooring, but it turned out that it was a derelict mooring that had not been serviced or inspected. um you know for years and i guess there was a storm that night it broke free and it somehow ended up in dolphin cove and it uh and it sustained a lot of damage so i've been identifying uh you know the the the moorings in the harbor that uh are derelict and uh tagging them and if no one uh no one contacts me we're we're having them pulled out and uh also it As far as that goes, related to that, I also contacted Stanford Yacht Club just yesterday, telling them to actually identify their moorings. Because the boat that was on that mooring was one of the boats that was participating in the Block Island race. And the protocol was when the yachts came back from the race, just pick up one of the empty moorings at the yacht club. And he thought it was a yacht club mooring because they don't have any identification on them. And the kid running the yacht club launch didn't know it wasn't one of theirs, and that's what happened. So I'm also having the yacht club actually identify their moorings so that doesn't happen again. But, yeah, cleaning up the harbor and just finding the moorings that have been neglected and, you know, getting them out of there so that doesn't happen again. But getting back to the mooring field, the mooring room in the harbor, we have plenty of room for moorings. But again, it's just a matter of how people get to the moorings. And if they're gonna wanna invest in a mooring for one year, I mean, it's a big expense. It's thousands of dollars to buy the ground tackle, to buy the actual mooring. And I don't know how many, although a lot of people are asking about that, I don't know how many people are gonna actually pull the trigger to spend thousands of dollars for a mooring for three months. So it's complicated.

Not to mention the ongoing maintenance. Yeah, every two years it has to be inspected.

Well, if it's only three months, though, they're not going to have to worry about that.

Oh, right. No, they won't. But, you know, again, you know, it's going to be interesting to see. I mean, I've had a lot of requests about this, but to see who actually pulls the trigger on it to spend thousands of dollars to put their boat on a mooring for three months. I mean, honestly, it would be cheaper to find a dock, even if you've got to drive to, you know, find a dock somewhere.

I think the rational person is going to just wait until the project's done before they put their boat in the water.

I guess a lot of those boats are already in the water and they're going to be trapped behind, you know, as we know, it's, it's complicated and it's going to be a big deal. So yeah.

Yeah. Was there also a question about moorings that were approved that had not been properly inspected?

That's something else I just addressed, uh, Yesterday, again, with Eric Knott, who's doing the approvals and running the application system, just as far as him communicating with the, we only have two mooring providers in the harbor, just to confirm that before he approves a mooring that they're up to date on their inspections, because I found one that wasn't. And then it just brought me, it just raised the question, who's making sure that these things have been inspected timely before Eric approves them. So Eric and I are working on that. I don't think that's going to be difficult. Thank you, Yale.

Last item I have is an update on the oil slick in the harbor. As far as I know, Yale, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but from our massive rainstorm, we didn't have any huge problems with oil slick. But it didn't look like it. A lot of trees, not a lot of oil. Right. Well, I did check in. The latest we have about citing the people that were responsible, Deep has handed it over to the city of Stanford. And I was in contact with the director of stormwater management, Tyler Thader. He did not get back to me yet, but he is an enforcement officer for the city. And hopefully I will have more to report on next month. And that's it for me, Mr. Chairman, unless there's any questions.

Yeah, was there, did you interface with Evan Weiss? Is it Weiss? There's an email going around with a petition to sign for changing the speed zones in Westcott Cove. It seems like there's a grassroots effort to try to get some change made for slowing down the jet ski issue in Westcott Cove.

This is from Evan.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. He says something yesterday out. I think we're going to call him here more about that later in the meeting. I don't have any, any new information on that. Okay.

Yeah, so Sarge, when last, I had feel that a couple of- I don't think he's here.

Oh, I'm here. Sorry, it took me a while to figure out how to unmute. I apologize. It seems like everybody's having a problem with that. I'm not used to the phone interface. But I think one thing we did, Joseph, is we did speak on the phone. And I guess you and I had three parts in the proposal. And at least on one part, you and Yale had gone out to the site to look at the two rocks and- And I think one thing we were trying to decide was if one or two or neither of those rocks should actually be marked with the buoy. And that was one thing I wasn't entirely sure is if you made a final determination on that.

We did go out and we also, also accompanied with us was Frank Fumega, our deputy hard master. So we did, we did survey out there. And I think, you know, I would defer to Yale. We looked at those rocks, but we also saw a lot of rocks out there. So Yale, can you speak to that?

Those two were ones that were more notorious for being hidden and I think that's why kind of those more than, say, any others. But certainly if there are others you thought were dangerous, then that might need it.

Paul, we'll know the answer to this, but Paul, what's the procedure for marking a rock buoy?

Yeah, okay. In order to do that, it's not as simple as... You can't just put a mooring in there, a buoy with the, you know, be aware of the rock. It has to go through the Coast Guard, the Army Corps, the city, Coast Guard. There's like four or five different agencies that have to inspect it and approve it before you put anything in the water like that. So I just want you to be aware.

Including the DEP. Paul.

Yes, yes. It's quite a... You better have a really good explanation and you better be prepared to go through all that... All the legwork, they've started to do that.

Yeah, and I think part of that legwork is a letter from the Harbormaster saying, this is something that I support. So if you guys figure out that. That's something that Deep wants. I kind of went into it some, and I bet there are other things, but certainly Deep wants. uh needs to approve it and deep wants the uh jurisdictions harbor master to want it so um i guess that's something that i at least for i'm asking of the commission is just to decide whether or not i guess if the harbor master is to say