Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Starting now. Perfect timing, Jeremy. Good evening. This is the September 8th, 2026 meeting of the Stanford Planning Board. Our first item of business is the minutes from our prior meeting on August 25th. Do any of the members who were present have any amendments or questions about the minutes? Seeing none, could I have a motion for the minutes?

I'll move.

Okay. Drew, move approval. Second from Ravi. All in favor, touch your hand. And it passes unanimously. Thank you. So the next item on our agenda is a request for authorization, lease agreement, and improvement of city-owned property at the Glenbrook Community Center, 35 Crescent Street. The city issued RFP number 20260140, seeking the reimagination of the Glenbrook Community Center by offering for-profit and non-profit applicants an opportunity to convert a historic city-owned structure to a mixed-use building with an emphasis on community activation. If our presenters could please introduce yourself for the record.

Good evening. Thank you, Chair. Matt Quinonez, Director of Operations, and I'm joined with Chris Della Selva from Office of Legal Affairs. Would you like us to just proceed with that?

Yeah, if you want to go ahead and proceed with the presentation about the... the related items. Should I actually, actually, Lindsay, as a point of procedure, should I also read in the, well. Supplemental. Supplemental, right. Well, it's further down on the agenda, so you'd have to move it up. Yeah. Number five.

We may need an emotion to reverse or revise the agenda, the order of the agenda. That's right. Also also move.

Okay.

I have a second to move up the Glenbrook community center property claim item to the top of the capital project closeout or supplemental capital project appropriation requests section. Right. So I had a first, a second all in favor, raise your hand. Um, and it passes. Um, I guess for count, I should alternate between Ashley and Drew? Yes, please. Okay, so Drew voted on the minutes, so Ashley will be voting on this item.

Yes, so you would have her vote both on the lease and on the capital appropriation? Yes, I think that...

Well, I'm not sure. We will vote on them separately. So why don't we have Ashley on the lease and Drew on the capital? Just for count. So obviously everyone can and should ask questions, but just procedurally supposed to have five specific people in the count. So if you want to go ahead and present.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So the lease agreement before you, I think, may make sense for Chris to just describe the terms of the agreement. It's typical with our lease agreement presentations. And then I'm happy to just offer some perspective and background to process for selection and then answer any questions that you may have. Chris, can you hear us? Chris, you're not coming through, but you're off mute. Well, while Chris was working out his audio, I'll just jump in and reverse that order and offer some background. So this is, if you're not familiar with this particular property, this is a city owned property that has been vacant since March, 2020. Recently, the city went through a community engagement process based off of community input for a desire for this location to serve as a community center for the neighborhood and greater Stanford population. The city produced an RFP based off of engaging with the community as described, and the RFP received three responses. A selection committee was put together. Ultimately, the entity that was conditionally awarded. The RFP was Domus. We then went through contract negotiations to ultimately lead to a lease agreement that's before you this evening. Goal for occupancy of this is for Domus to operate their programming, which is described in the agreement. But just to briefly and broadly summarize is providing youth service programming and primarily focus on workforce development, targeting disengaged and disconnected youth in the Stanford and greater Stanford area. They currently occupy a city property on Lockwood Avenue. That property is slated for demolition as part of the city's school construction program. So part of the, I think, justification in selecting Dome is beyond its worthiness as an organization and mission alignment with the city of Stanford. is knowing that they were going to be displaced from that location. So I just kind of mentioned that as a side note. It does offer a solution to a separate issue for supporting an organization that provides this level of resources and services to Stanford youth and Stanford population. The lease structure was primarily dictated in the RFP in terms of what support the city was proposing. The building itself needs some capital improvements in order to occupy So we have during the process of pursuing the selection, we were pursuing earmark, a federal earmark and grant dollars to offset some of the capital investment necessary to occupy the building. So this is kind of tying in the appropriation request again, but it's, I think, relevant to the lease application. uh structure so the city is committing um under this agreement 2.5 million towards uh the initial capital necessary to occupy the building of that um there is 1.4 million in insurance reimbursement um from a pipe burst and subsequent damage water damage caused by that event um then the earmark, as I mentioned, of 250,000, and then the balance between the 2.5 million and the remainder, which is, sorry, I don't have it right in front of me, approximately 800,000, or 850,000 in city bonds. So the commitment to the city is to make the initial repairs from that point on, The terms of the lease would commit the city pending the approvals of annual budgets to $50,000 to offset operating expenses. Domus would essentially take responsibility for all ongoing maintenance and capital repairs for the duration of the lease. I'm just going to pause there because Chris just sent me a note and said he thinks his audio is fixed. So, Chris, do you want to test it?

Cannot hear you still.

All right, well, Chris continues to work on that. No worries. I'll just highlight a few other items within the lease. It's a 20-year initial lease with the possibility of two mutually agreed upon five-year extensions. There is a rent of a dollar a year for Domus. Domus has the responsibility for the administration and supervision of all its programming. uh they have the ongoing responsibility for maintenance utilities grounds keeping custodial services security building operations and there's more specifics around kind of how we are managing oversight for their ongoing maintenance of the building and as i mentioned the city is committing to annual um financial assistance of $50,000 to help support the building management, which is subject to our annual appropriation process. Happy to answer any questions about the process for selection or any components of the lease agreement before you this evening.

Ravi, I see your hand.

Yes. Hi, Matt. So in terms of the selection of DOMAs in the RFP criteria, can you please tell us what are the criteria, especially on the financial adequacy and stability of DOMAs itself? Because this is a long lease, 20-year lease. We want it to be sustainable, you know.

Yeah, absolutely. So that was a critical component. You kind of hit on one of the main drivers. I think we received proposals from various entities that brought different services that would benefit the community. Domus, I think, distinguished themselves significantly in their financial security and the health of the organization. They were able to demonstrate over $10 million in reserves. We have a track record of observing and overseeing their management of a city building, as I cited earlier with the Lockwood Avenue location. So those were all quite significant contributions, I think, to their selection. I was a member of the selection committee, and there were others who might offer their own individual perspective to why they scored the way they did. But I think I can safely categorize the selection as very much being supported by that financial stability.

Thanks.

Can anyone hear me now?

There you go.

Hey. Okay. Good evening, everyone. This is Chris Della Salvo. I'm an assistant court counsel for the city. I have a new city laptop and I'm obviously working through it. And I really apologize for that. You know, Matt covered it all pretty well. There are a few things I think I should add that are part of this lease that should be of interest to this group. I know you're all familiar with the Glenbrook Community Center, so I think you know what it is we're leasing out. Matt mentioned the term of 20 years. There are another two possible five year extensions, but they are by mutual agreement. So they're they're not like, you know, don't miss a sole option to extend. You know, we have to agree that there they've been a good partner to do that. uh the there is subleasing allowed you know that i think we want them to do that to some extent but only per you know the city's specific conditions that are set forth in the lease and for for example like the loose the use has to be consistent the subtenants have to have a written agreement they have to contain or provide or procure the same insurance levels and um You know, Matt mentioned that, you know, the idea is once the city finishes, it's what we're calling the pre-possession work. We're going to bring the place up to code and have it move in ready for domus. But after that, they own it and they're taking it as is on that day when they move in and they'll be responsible for all repairs, capital repairs, regular maintenance, you know. things like that. But they do, per the lease, have a right to walk away if they consider any expense too great. Okay. So that's something you should be aware of. But also we've had a history of tenants kind of neglecting buildings. You know, they get a building for a dollar a year and And they don't do the work, you know, and it ends up being a capital, a large capital expense for the city, you know, that regular repairs could have avoided. So this lease, and I'm pretty sure it's the first one we've done this, we've added in a requirement where Dolmus is going to provide a comprehensive facility maintenance plan every year. and that's something that you know matt and company will review and make sure they're satisfied with with domus's plan for maintaining the building systems and and and it's i personally think it's a great idea and hopefully uh it'll avoid some of those large capital expenses because we don't certainly don't want to be in a situation where domus says yeah great you know we're responsible for that but we're not paying it we're leaving and then the city owns it anyway right so hopefully um I don't know if it's perfect, but it's certainly a great step in the right direction to kind of avoid some of the problems we've had in the past. And I'm so happy that my microphone works now and I can talk to everybody. So I'm here for the rest of the meeting if there's any other questions.

Great. Thank you. And thank you for that additional context. Chad, I see your hand.

Yes, thank you. You know, this is something that the community I know has wanted for a long time. So I'm really simply curious, what took so long? The facility, you know, closed in 20. It doesn't say necessarily that it closed... In fact, it doesn't make clear the opening saying why it closed, whether it was COVID, whether the condition of the building, but then there were subsequent, you know, pipe bursts and, you know, a need for additional repairs. So why did it close originally? Yeah.

Yeah, so I can speak to that. Thank you, Chet. So... This kind of predates our administration. So I was a little hesitant to try and be explicit as to kind of the projecting why it closed because it didn't really happen while we were there. But so I have heard mostly that it was driven given the timing around COVID and And I think there's other perspectives. However, that's... just not something I'm in a position to really validate. So just kind of left it factual in the sense that it closed in March, 2020. The prior administration also was pursuing a plan for the building ultimately to be sold and then redeveloped for housing with community space. The pursuit of the ultimate approval for That particular plan ended up not coming to fruition under the prior administration and then carried over into post-election and into Mayor Simmons' administration. When the approvals at the board level were pursued, there was significant public outreach in support for an alternative approach that would be more of the traditional community center model. And ultimately, when pursuing the approvals at the Board of Representatives level, the mayor withdrew that due to lack of support at the time. And then from there, there was a period of time of kind of reassessing potential building use, community outreach was done, a meeting was held. in glenbrook where residents came out and kind of further validated the position of that neighborhood and greater community's desire for a community center and then from there this process ultimately was pursued that i described earlier in terms of the rfp selection and we are here today

Okay. And do I understand correctly from your supplemental document that you distributed, Matt, with the background? there were some insurance proceeds for the pipe repair, which basically is what appears to be a reasonably large step toward the funding of these repairs. What was the timing of the insurance?

The insurance, I believe, was received this calendar year. So there was some negotiations taking place from the period of the event to, I think, within the last six to nine months. And I think we received that that check this year. Ultimately, it was my idea. goal to align the proposed lease agreement before you this evening with the proposed authorization because there was a lot of moving parts associated with this particular issue. I thought that it would be cleaner and give the boards a fuller perspective to ultimately vote on. It would be challenging to approve money for repairs without an operator and it would just as easily be challenging to approve an operator and commit the city to capital repairs without an authorization to consider. So we sat on the reimbursement check for a little bit.

OK, well, the good news is, I guess it just proves the adage better late than never. You know, it's terrific news and I'm all for it. Thank you.

I did want to ask, you know, without getting into the messy details of the prior Proposal for the Glenbrook Community Center a few years ago. I mean, I know that the prior RFP for redevelopment approach was put forward in part because there had been an attempt to find an operator for the community center and that there were not at that time any financially viable opportunities. And so, I mean, I know you've walked through, you know, some of the funding that's been cobbled together, but if you could just kind of summarize kind of what's different now that allows this to now be viable.

So I don't want to try and represent the prior process because I wasn't in this position or directly involved. So I can't necessarily speak to that. However, I think with our selection process, It's clear that Domus is a very credible operator and probably one of a small handful of, I think, community-based organizations that could demonstrate the financial stability that they have, as I cited earlier. And the motivation for Domus is certainly been driven from them being displaced from the Lockwood location as a result of our pursuit of the South School School construction project. And I can say that that wasn't a authorized project back then. And Domus hadn't been informed that they needed to vacate the building. So I can only guess that they weren't even in the market for NewSpace at that time. I can't speak for any other entities, but to me, that's a clear difference just in terms of timing.

Thank you. And just to be clear, I don't ask that to indicate any opposition to this, but for the record, it'd be helpful to just have that stated. Ravi, I see your hand. You're on mute.

Hey, Chris. I mean, this is a wonderful project. We all wish it to be successful for a long time. But in the agreement, do we have any termination clauses, either from Doma's side or from our side, for some unforeseen contingencies or something like that?

Yeah, so this is Christella Sullivan. Yes, there are. You know, the city's termination clause is, you know, if domus defaults. You know, so if they fail to provide the programs that they promised to provide in their proposal or that are set forth in the city's RFP, all of which are incorporated into the lease contract, You know, if they fail to make the repairs they're supposed to make, you know, if they fail to play by the rules of the lease, the city has a right to terminate the lease. Domas has a few. They can certainly do the same thing if the city defaults. But they baked in a few other ones in our negotiation process where the city is giving $50,000 a year in assistance to Domas. So what they say is, okay, we understand that's subject to your typical appropriation process, but if you don't appropriate it, we can walk away. Or as I stated before, they are responsible for all capital repairs. If they deem any of them to be too great and not worth it for them, they can terminate and walk away. Those are the ones I, I think that's it. I'm pretty sure that's it. Go ahead.

I'm sorry. Forgive me for interrupting, Chris. You know, as I was reading Matt's synopsis that was also distributed to us, both parties have the right to terminate, you know, relative to the ultimate cost of the pre-occupancy capital improvements.

That's correct. Yeah. If the cost of the pre-possession work exceeds everybody's estimates, you know, And we could both say this isn't going to work financially for either one of us and walk away. Either party can do that.

Yeah. So in that regard, I'm just curious now, I guess technically we're in a part of, by definition, I believe we're in the preoccupancy phase at this point, or does that only happen once the lease is executed?

Well, that will only happen once the $2.5 million gets appropriated and Matt can start the work. Yeah.

Okay. But what kind of studies have been done of the long-term facility needs of this building? By this point, surely somebody knows what the scope of the repairs and code work and other remediations that need to be done to extend the useful life of the building and whether that's how close to the $4 million or below or above it's actually going to be. We should know that, I would think, by this point.

Yeah, so there was done by both parties. We did it internally within the city. That's how we came up with our 2.5 number. And I think Domus' analysis, they had it closer to like 2.9, if I remember off the top of my head. So we do have... spelled out in the agreement what the scenarios would be for cost escalation beyond the initial 2.5. So wanted to kind of balance the skin in the game for lack of a better term. So it's 2.5 million that the city is committing to in this agreement for the initial pre-occupancy scope of work, costs that exceed the 2.5 million. DOMAS is responsible for every dollar past 2.5 up to 3 million. So that's 500,000. And then the city would be responsible for 1 million going to the total of four. But we would go through a separate appropriation process process um in the event that we were pursuing that additional million dollars um i would also offer and i think i tried to articulate this in the in the memo that we plan um to continue to pursue grant dollars um and in partnership with domus another i think um optimistic view of this partnership is they are in the business of philanthropy. So we feel that when we can get a lease agreement approved and their commitments are made in conversations with them, we feel like we can then begin to go and engage the private sector in terms of fundraising. So my hope would be to offset any of the authorized city bonds with grant dollars, hopefully, prior to even moving towards the repairs and renovation piece of the preoccupancy scope. And certainly during the cost estimating, if we are seeing indications that we're going to exceed that 2.5% we would exhaust all of our private and public grant fundraising efforts before returning to you for any requests for city bonds.

Matt, in connection, it's really the scope that's going to drive the need for the fundraising, of course. But I haven't heard anything, anyone talk about the process going forward from today on to further define the actual scope of work.

Sure. Yeah. So some of that was articulated from a conceptual standpoint in their RFP submission. So we have a perspective of kind of their program and what they're looking to do. We're going to have a governance structure that includes both city official and domus representation, um, to oversee the design process. Um, so that's kind of the, the, the mutual governance structure we're embracing. Uh, and then the funding, um, relationship, the financing relationship that I think includes domus in costs that exceed that 2.5, I think will also keep us from having to see any kind of mission creep in terms of the actual design of the building itself. And we anticipate, as I mentioned, cost estimating at each phase of design. to help kind of serve as a checkpoint to make sure we're staying within budget. So that would be how I would kind of describe the next step. So once we have this agreement approved, we've already drafted the RFP for design services. So that should be, if not out already, out shortly. And we can immediately get to selection of the architect and go from there.

And will it be a component part of the design services to have the design professional help the city to further analyze the needs of the building?

Yeah, because our main goal is to open the doors and then also number one, and then from there to be able to set Domus up for success in terms of managing the building. So we're going to need to have a full perspective on each element of the building in order to do that.

Okay. And I would think the code issues probably have to be addressed before the doors can open?

Yes. Yeah. I would think so. We haven't really dove into the details, so I'm a little bit hesitant to speak of any specifics just because we haven't really done that beyond the analysis for cost estimating. But that was done in conjunction with our building department and our chief building official. And the question for him to answer was, what will allow this organization to occupy this space? But I think... As you know, Chet, that depending on the scope of work could drive different requirements in terms of code compliance. So it's just something we have to monitor closely. So I can't say, yes, every single code is necessary, but as necessary, yes.

Okay, so then last question and then I'll yield the floor. So based on the pre-occupancy scope, the two and a half million that has been envisioned thus far, how long after the execution of the lease Will that come to an end, the pre-occupancy construction, I'll call it? And from today forward, how long until the lease execution, potentially?

So we're before the three boards this month, beginning with you all, and then from there, the Board of Finance and Board of Representatives. If we're staying on that timeline, then we'll have the lease executed or approved the first Monday in October. we're still running parallel in terms of the RFP process. So it's not necessarily delaying what would be next in terms of the selection of the design services. So that's kind of running concurrently now. But from we think really the The point of selection and contracting of that architect, it's probably 12 months from that to complete design and renovate the space. It was pretty much gutted from that water event.

So you're saying 12 months for both the design and the initial construction phase? Yes. Correct. Okay. Gotcha. All right. Good. All right. Thank you very much. I'm sorry.

Jeremy, I saw your hand earlier. Do you still have a question or comment? All right. If there are no further comments or questions, could I have a motion then on the request for authorization lease agreement? I'm going to Ashley will vote on this item. Chet, you're on mute, but I presume you're saying you move approval.

Yes, I'm moving for approval. Yes. Thank you.

Do I have a second? A second from Ashley. All in favor, please raise your hand. And it passes. Thank you. So now I will, we had moved up in the agenda, the associated capital budget item, but I will just kind of read some of the details into the record before we vote and Drew will be voting on this one. So this is request for authorization, supplemental capital project appropriation requests, Glenbrook community center property claim, uh, project number CP four zero zero zero zero seven six total amount requested, uh, $2,500,000. Um, the city has received, uh, $250,000 from economic development initiatives earmarked in the house transportation, housing and urban development and related agencies appropriations bill to rehabilitate the Glenbrook community center. Um, I'll skip over some of the details of the history, but, um, flooding caused by a burst pipe for the damaged facility. And in March of 2025, there was an appropriation for $250,000 of capital non-recurring funding to address the immediate need for restoration, cleanup, and repairs. This appropriation funds will support replacing drywall and flooring damaged by flooding, rehabilitating the gym space, modernization of mechanical systems, HVAC plumbing, and electrical equipment. and other structural repairs. And we have heard the breakdown of, in addition to that federal earmark, the insurance proceeds of $1.4 million and city bond of $850,000. So do I have a motion on the capital budget appropriation? Motion, Ravi, for approval. Do I have a second? Second from Jeremy. All in favor? And it passes.

Thank you.

Thank you all. It's been a long time coming. Thank you very much. Continuing our supplemental capital project appropriations, we have capital project closeout recommendations pursuant to Stanford City Code Section 8-2, partial closeout of the following capital project uh, projects is recommended. Um, let's see, C, C five, six, one, eight, two street patch and resurfacing closeout amount of $201,587, um, with the funding source of bonds, CP eight, seven, zero, zero, uh, project Leone park, uh, in the amount of $150,000 and $150,190, uh, Source, federal grant ARP. CPB 751, Stillmeadow HVAC equipment replacement, automation, ventilation, closeout amount of $4,225.02. Also from federal grant ARP. CP3154, citywide drainage study, closeout amount of $500, federal grant ARP. and CPB 500 district-wide indoor air quality, close out in the amount of $58,151.97, also federal grant ARP. So Tony, will you be walking us through?

Yes. So agenda item one through four are all somewhat related. took a look at our ARP funding and we've identified projects that have been completed or projects that were expenses were charged to ARP dollars and were ineligible. So what we're doing is we're shuffling funding sources, the net impact to the capital budget when you take all of the agenda items one, two, four together is zero. We're just moving ARP dollars to the paving projects, and we're taking some of the paving bond funds to the projects that were identified as an ineligible cause. So we're just shuffling funding sources around.

Okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. And actually, if you don't mind, Tony, If you wouldn't mind introducing yourself for the record, because I think also this may be the first since you had a title change that you've presented before the board, or at least before me.

Yes, I'm currently the Director of Administration as of August 4th. My role for this budget cycle will be my old role and director role until we find a replacement. Okay.

So are there any questions on the capital project closeout recommendations? Seeing none, do I have a motion? First from Jeremy. I have a second. Second from, oh, actually, sorry. I need to alternate still on this. So Ashley should vote on this one. So do I have a second? A second from Ashley. All in favor, please raise your hand. And it passes. Next, we have a Leone Park project CP8700, total amount requested $150,190. As mentioned, changing funding sources due to ineligible ARP expenses or project completion. I don't know that we need any further explanation on that, but are there any questions on this item?

So, yes, just so the agenda item one was the closeout of prior other accounts, and technically agenda items two, three, and four are the addition of funds to those accounts?

Yes, that's correct. And the net effect between all those agendas is zero.

Okay, thank you, Tony. Okay. Okay.

So Drew will be voting on this item. Chet, is that a motion for approval?

Yes.

Do I have a second? Second from Drew. All in favor, raise your hand. And it passes. Next, we have District-Wide Indoor Air Quality Project CPP500. Total amount requested $51,397. Again, changing funding sources due to either ineligible ARP expenses or project completion. Is that a move for approval? Okay. And Ashley will vote on this one. Could I have a second? Second from Ashley. All in favor? And it passes. Thank you. Next, we have street patch and resurfacing. Project C56182, total amount requested $213,066.99. Changing funding sources due to either ineligible ARP expenses. In this case, we're applying the ARP to this, correct?

That's correct.

Yes. Okay. And was that a move for approval or a question? Move for approval. Do you have a second? All in favor? And it passes. And we've already done item five. All right. So that is all of the items that were associated with the swapping of the funding sources.

Yes, that's right.

Great. So next on the capital appropriations agenda, Scalzi Park Project CP6809 total amount requested $200,000, funding for the reconstruction of 10 78-foot tennis courts to post-tension concrete, complete with 10 60-foot blended tennis playing lines, along with new fencing and LED lighting. um tony will you be watching us talking through this one there's someone yeah if someone can promote kevin murray he's going to be presenting the next two agenda items does it um even though there are different sites does it make sense for me to read in the cove island because i presume that there's similar issues that are leading to needing a little bit of supplemental um there's separate projects Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Yep. Yes, we can.

How are we doing?

We're good.

So, yes, tonight I'll be speaking on behalf of the two projects in front of you. The first one, Scalzi Park Project, CP 6809. Total amount requested is $200,000. I believe you just mentioned that. So I don't know if you have any questions in regards to the $200,000.

Pat, I see your hand.

Yeah. Sorry, I didn't raise my electronic hand. I raised my real hand. Kevin, just a real quick question. Thanks so much. For this one for Scalzi, was this $200,000 requested either in last year's capital budget requests or in a prior year?

So this request was done in multiple years. So we went out to bid. So this project was on the radar for, I want to say, close to 17 years. We were lucky. We obviously were granted a USTA grant as well. Which went towards this project as well. So, with that, we didn't know the cost of the project extent of the post engine concrete was kind of the nuts and bolts of the cost. And the drainage was a big question mark of how much the drainage was going to cost for this project because of the current, the previous conditions. So, therefore, all in, we thought the project. um was going to be well over two million dollars um so we wanted to build a bank account kind of and if we had a phase that we had to phase it but with um with engineering support um it went out to bid um the prices came back and therefore um we were fortunate to um come up with a number that we had um throughout the several years of requesting more funds

So this appropriation request will complete the need for funds for the scope of work as currently defined?

That is correct.

OK, thank you.

Any further questions?

Yeah, I guess just to clarify for everybody's information, the additional $200,000 that we're requesting is It says your private contributions, right? So we're not increasing any type of funding from the city.

That's correct. We're not using any internal funds. Thank you.

Any further questions?

Yes. Kevin, just curiosity, how long is this project going to last? I mean, those tennis courts are actively used. How long they will be out of service?

So the project at Scalzi Park is complete.

Oh, so this is just a bookkeeping regularization, Tony?

I didn't realize they were completed, but if that's the case, I'm sorry, let me just take a quick look here. I'm just looking at the account.

So they're buttoning up some, yeah, there were some.

It's almost complete.

There's some closeouts that they're working on. So it's not totally complete as we speak, but they're working off some punch list closeout items.

Okay, so the tennis courts that are being actively used now, they are more or less done. And this is just to tidy out some loose ends kind of stuff.

Correct.

Okay.

So it was a full, you know, obviously everything was included, new lighting, everything, fencing.

Yeah, I was wondering because I go there for a walk and I see the stainless codes being actively used. I thought, well, are we going to redo those codes all over again or what? But I understand what you're saying now.

So again, this is acceptance of and appropriation of the private contributions for this project, which is basically complete. Let's see.

I'll make a motion for approval.

Okay, motion for approval. I think... Okay, so Drew will be voting on this. Ashley's on Scalzi.

Drew is on Cove Island.

Ashley's not here.

Yeah, I don't see Ashley.

Whoopsies. Okay. Okay.

Okay, so Drew, you'll be voting on this item. I have a second from chat. All in favor, raise your hand. and it passes, thank you.

Kind of the same thing with Cove Island, the second item, but the difference is this project has not started.

All right, so reading this one into the record, Cove Island Park Project CP00006, total amount requested, $105,000 in funding for reconstruction, three 78-foot tennis courts to post-tension concrete complete with three 60-foot blended tennis playing lines along with fencing and an accessible path. Are there any further questions on this item?

I'll make a motion for approval.

For approval, and again, just for the record, so this is acceptance of private contributions. which will be put toward this, added to the balance for this account. So I have a second, and Ashley will have you vote on this item. I saw Ravi's hand for a second from Ravi. All in favor? And it passes. Thank you. Okay. I know that we've been adding to the appropriation for both of these for quite some time.

Thank you, everyone.

Have a good night. Thank you. Now we move to zoning board referrals. CB application 226-14 Stanford zoning board text change. The purpose of this text change is to align the CD district regulations with the general structure of the regulations. establish separate rules for townhouse development in CD designated commercial districts, add additional design requirements, and clarify the review procedures. The text change also proposes to rename the district from CD designed commercial district to CMC commercial and mixed use campus district, which more appropriately reflects the character of the district. No additional uses are proposed to be permitted. Also, the geographic extent of these districts is not proposed to be amended. So this item will have Drew vote on. And Ralph, if you want to introduce yourself for the record to present this and the rest of the text changes before us this evening.

For the record, Ralph Blessing, Land Use Bureau Chief for the City of Stanford. And for this item, I was actually wondering if this could be held and put on the next agenda. We are considering some changes to the text with regard to senior housing. And we obviously, we would want you to get the latest version of this text change. So it would be very helpful if you could put it on the next agenda if possible.

So this would be a motion to table this item to a subsequent meeting. Do I have a first on a motion to table the item? First from Drew, second from Jeremy. All in favor, take your hand. And it passes. Next item, which Ashley will vote on, ZB application 226-15, Stanford Zoning Board text change The purpose of this text change is to make corrections and updates to various sections of the Stanford zoning regulations.

So with this one, we are not so lucky. We are actually proceeding with this one. So I'll share my screen with you. Okay. So this is really a bouquet of small text changes that I intended to fix some mistakes or make some minor updates. They're listed here. So the first one considers the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board of Appeals actually has, per the statutes, they must approve the location for gas stations and repairs licenses. And they have been assigned to the ZBA by state statute and then taken away from the ZBA by state statute. And the latest is that they're back with the ZBA for location approvals. So we need to update the zoning regulations to reflect that. The next change to Section 1E, we want to clarify that some of the additional notice requirements, posting of signs or butter letters are also applicable to ZBA applications, not only to zoning board applications. So we think obviously that allows more people to be informed and participating in the process. The next change section 2C4 also gives staff the ability to approve minor changes to ZBA applications. This is something that explicitly staff can only do for zoning board applications. And it has a very clear definition of which changes can be approved by staff and which ones have to go back to the respective board. The next section is related to that, the definition of minor modifications and that it also applies to the ZBA. And then the next definition, temporary structures, we want to clarify that if a temporary structure is up for seven days or less, you don't require an extra zoning permit for that structure. You might still need like a building permit or other permits from the city, like the fire marshal might have to look at it. But for structures that are really up less than seven days, you don't need a standalone zoning permit. And then we are proposing to add to the transfer of development rights definition. So transfer of development rights is allowed for properties that are given to the city for a public benefit. So if someone gives a private property to the city, For a park, for example, they can take the development rights from that donated property with them and put it somewhere else in the city. We wanted to add to that whole list that is there. So it includes park, land for affordable housing, land for educational purposes, those kinds of things. what we want to do is to add land that is donated or given to the city for city facilities, such as yards, that they are also eligible for the transfer of development rights. And next, We're just making a quick addition that street trees and signage regulations, that they're also subject to the street tree and signage requirements. They already are. This is really adding cross-reference to make it more user-friendly. We propose some changes to the public accessible amenity space. We would like to add additional zoning districts where those are required. So publicly accessible amenity space is basically for properties larger than one acre that they have to set aside 5% of the lot area for a public purpose, such as a plaza. a cross-block connection or things like that. We also clarified that a public accessible amenity space must be free of charge for the users. and that larger publicly accessible amenity spaces. So if you think about like large waterfront access areas, that there also is a public restroom that needs to be provided as part of that requirement. We also want to acknowledge that providing certain publicly accessible amenity spaces, such as a community room, counts more because it's more expensive than providing a public plaza. So we're changing how that is calculated. And then we're also introducing the provision that a publicly accessible bathroom can be used to meet the PAAS requirement.

We are... Can I ask a question about that, actually? Yes, sure. So previously we had had before us, in addition to the publicly accessible amenity space related to childcare facilities as eligible, So how does that interact with the need for it to be free of charge?

I mean, it's really for plazas and those kinds of things or publicly accessible waterfront areas, those types of places, but we'll make sure that obviously doesn't apply to the services that are provided in a daycare facility space. I'll double check that and take a note of that. And also when we added the, it actually came up when we were considering the public bathrooms that obviously we don't want to create public bathrooms that you then have to pay a fee for using the public bathroom. That's how it came up. I see. Then we're proposing some changes to the below market rate housing program. This change is primarily to increase the fee in lieu per square foot for BMR units, the buyout amount for BMR units in the districts listed here, because what we've seen is that in those districts, we've seen a lot of development, but a lot of the developers have opted to not provide the units on site. by increasing the fee in lieu, we want to make it less attractive to buy out and instead provide the units on site. So that's where this change is coming from. And then last at least in table, in Appendix B, table two, We came at the beginning of the summer with you with a big text change that put all kinds of new stuff in the table and streamlined the notes to the table. And there were a couple of small minor things that we need to correct that we didn't get right the first time around. So that's that change. So overall, as I said, it's sort of the whole kitchen sink affects many bits and pieces of the zoning regulations, but generally speaking are relatively small updates and corrections to the regulations.

Thank you. Are there any questions regarding this set of changes?

Yes.

Chuck?

Yeah, thank you. Ralph, specifically on publicly accessible bathrooms, as you were describing that, can't be any charges to access the bathroom. Are all of the publicly accessible bathrooms currently in the city of Stanford open 24, accessible 24 hours a day?

I don't know that because they are under the parks jurisdiction. So that would be a Kevin Murray question. So this is basically for publicly accessible bathrooms on private property. So we want to give them the option to provide that as an amenity to the public, in addition to like a plaza, a mid-block connection, publicly accessible waterfront, and so on.

I raise the question only because I... having had the experience, Europe uses, has a lot of publicly accessible bathrooms on both public and private property as part of parks and plazas and the like. But very often there's a mechanism on the door where you have to actually insert a coin to unlock it and use it. Is that kind of arrangement, would that be a... it considered a charge?

Yes.

So that wouldn't be permitted.

Yeah. Having made that same experience in Europe many, many times and now having a whole wallet full of little vouchers you get for use, those public bathrooms that I can use for nothing. We wanted to make clear that those should be free of charge and they should be accessible to everyone, if they have a quarter or not.

Okay. All right.

Thank you.

Actually, building on Chet's question about the hours, I know that a number of the parks Bathroom facilities are open on a seasonal basis. When the weather gets cold, if they're not weatherized, they don't continue to operate. So what would be the expectations or requirements for these privately owned space? Are they expected to be constructed such that they're weatherized or so that they can be open year round?

Yeah, so the expectation would be they're open year-round and that they're also included in like... I mean, this is only for large projects. So let's say there's a building in downtown that decides to provide that amenity that it's integrated in the main building, first for sort of safety and oversight purposes, but also... It's not just a seasonal thing, but like a whole year amenity.

All right. Are there any further questions? OK. Jeremy, you're off camera, so I wanted to see if you're available for this vote or if I should reshuffle.

Nope, I'm here.

Okay, great. So do I have a motion on this item? Move for approval from Ashley, second from Ravi. All in favor? And it passes. Thank you. All right, next on the docket, trying to shuffle through all these different attachments today. So the next one is ZB application 226-16, Stanford zoning board text change. The purpose of this text change is to add comprehensive regulations to the CN neighborhood commercial district. Currently the CN district is only roughly defined by the use regulations contained in appendix A and the bulk regulations in appendix B. and does not contain any site and urban design requirements. The CN district is intended as a district to facilitate small scale commercial areas for neighborhood needs, easily accessible from nearby residential areas. And Drew will vote on this item.

So, yes, this is One of the text, we have actually, or I've come to you with a couple of those text changes for districts that really didn't have their own chapter in the book. And we're trying to add regulations to those. So the CN district follows in that tradition. CN districts, they are primarily along arterial roads. So for example, upper High Ridge Road near the Merritt, the Trader Joe's, those types of businesses. Around Bull's Head, we have CN districts as well as along East and West Main Street. So they're really sort of the strip mall typology. So smaller businesses, often reached by car. But obviously one thing that we're trying to do is also increase accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists. without taking away the ability to drive there. So what we're proposing to change, so we're not adding any new uses that are not currently allowed. Also, the densities remain pretty much the same as they currently are. but we make it a little bit easier for mixed use development to add residential to those districts. And one big aspect is adding design and architectural controls to the district regulations. So for example, we would require internal sidewalks and walkways, landscaping requirements, use of high quality materials. We would add protections for abutting single family districts, like larger setbacks from those types of districts. And we would also update the review guidelines. So when does a project need a special permit versus just like a site plan approval or an as of right approval. And we would also require the standard sidewalk requirement is 10 feet. And along certain commercial streets, we would require 15 feet because there's a lot of pedestrian traffic there, obviously. And this is just a comparison between the bulk regulations of the current CN district and the proposed regulations. So you see that the density, the FAR, stays pretty much the same. We have a higher residential FAR that was sort of baked in in the original regulations. So it's not a net increase. So the units per acre actually is slightly lower than what is currently permitted. And we allow higher buildings for mixed use development. We slightly increased the building coverage allowance to allow for residential buildings, but we also introducing a lot coverage maximum that didn't exist or doesn't exist currently in the district. And as I said before, one of the goals is to better protect abutting residential districts, so there will be larger setback requirements from those districts. And that's the gist of it.

Great. John, I see your hand.

Yes, thank you. Ralph, referring back to this chart, your proposed changes, Do all current developments in in CN districts now. Conformed to your proposed requirements.

Yeah, most of them do. That's why we also try to use a light touch. So we're not proposing dramatic changes to the density and the heights and so on and so forth. We'll make it a little bit easier to conform. So generally speaking, we don't expect a whole lot of non-conformance issues to arise with that text change.

But your answer basically suggests to me that there could be some.

Yes. And obviously existing developments, they are grandfathered in, so they wouldn't have to change anything. But I think that shouldn't stop us from making new developments better compatible with surrounding areas or achieving some of the other goals, like making them not only accessible for drivers, but also for pedestrians and so on and so forth.

Mm-hmm. So in the city of Stanford's current requirements, if a lot is currently non-conforming, we'll talk about one of these that you're referring to, change of ownership does not precipitate the need to do some upgrades?

no it goes with the land and that's that's actually state statute so uh there's there's nothing um we can do about it and i mean obviously in in many instances it's it's a protection of of uh the property owner in some instances of course it would be nice if we could force people to replace or update buildings to be compliant and conform with the new regulations, but there is the state statute that regulates that. Okay, thank you.

Ashley. Thank you. How did you arrive at 15 feet from the curb line and 10 feet from the curb line for the front yard setbacks? I'm just wondering if to allow for more street trees, we might want those to be slightly larger, in particular the 10 foot.

So the 10 feet is basically a four foot planting strip. with a six foot clear path. That's the standard sidewalk width. And the 15 feet is along commercial streets. So the street tree manual requires a four foot wide planting ditch along the street that is filled with structural soil to make sure that A, there's no buckling of the pavement on the sidewalk, but also to make sure that there is enough space for the tree.

Are there any areas that are zoned CN where there's sidewalk cafes or places where they'd want to have outdoor seating where we'd want a little bit more generous setback?

So you can, this is the minimum. So you can have more setback. What you cannot have or what is the change is that you can't have parking in front of the building. So one of the urban design guidelines, actually, it's already in effect, but we're clarifying that in the district regulations itself, is that we want the parking ideally behind the building or next to the building, rather than in front of the building. And especially on High Ridge, you have oftentimes, or in some instances, the situation where you basically... have a very narrow sort of strip before the building where people park which is very dangerous for traffic on on the road it's not conducive it's very dangerous for pedestrians because there is no sidewalk in many instances And it also doesn't create a particularly nice urban environment. So that's something we want to avoid and want to get to a situation where you have at least a 10-foot wide sidewalk, 15 feet on commercial streets, can be set back further if possible. You want to, but he cannot have Parking in front of the building. Anymore.

Thank you. No further questions.

No other questions and motion on this item. First from Robbie. Second, Second from Drew, all in favor? And it passes.

Thank you.

OK. Next up, ZB application 226-19, Stanford Zoning Board text change. The purpose of this text 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. And Ashley will vote on this one.

So this is probably one of the bigger text changes we're undertaking from like the sheer volume of pages of zoning text that will be changed because obviously signs are everywhere and every district has slightly different regulations, but Conceptually, what we're proposing are sort of three major categories or buckets of changes. So the first one has to do with Section 11, which are the actual sign regulations, the chapter and the zoning regulations, the test sign regulations. And it has sort of general requirements for science. For example, it lays out which type of signs are prohibited everywhere and which types of signs are allowed. It sets standards for illumination. and so on. Changes to section three, section three B is the definition section. So we are adding a whole lot of definitions for different types of signs that were not defined before. Obviously you have to define something in order to regulate something. and also clarifying how certain things are measured. For example, what is the building frontage? How is the building frontage calculated when you have a building with a very crooked facade, for example, or sort of the building is not parallel to the street, but sort of at an angle, those kinds of things. And then lastly, the last big category is we are moving all the specific sign requirements for each district to the district regulation so that you don't have to flip back and forth in the book to find which types of signs are allowed in the RMF district, just as an example. And to illustrate that, I think generally we're tightening the sign requirements. So for example, for illuminated signs, we're saying that they have to be turned off either after the close of business or 11 o'clock, whichever is earlier. We are also prohibiting certain types of signs that are currently allowed, those box type signs, for example. We clarified that signs for cannabis dispensary and products, that they have to be very limited and not advertised product. but can basically only have the name of the property, cannot show any like symbology or anything like that. And what we're also clarifying is that no private sign is permitted on public property, which includes the rights of way. So that it's very clear which signs are permitted and which signs are not permitted. And we're also clarifying that any sign that is not specifically permitted is automatically prohibited. So if you think about gas stations or car dealerships with those inflatable signs, the guys with the wobbly arms, they are not defined in the sign regulations. Because they are not defined, they would not be permitted as a default. So once again, it's a lot of clarification that I think we're adding to the regulations. Then in section 3B, we add new definitions for certain signs. So for example, we introduced the idea of a storefront sign so that we can regulate where on the building facade the sign has to be. So currently we only define wall signs. So it can be anywhere on the building facade, but we say, that we want the signs on top of the store and not anywhere on the building on certain streets. Some signs were not defined. So for example, electronic displays is something that came up in the last couple of years that has not been dealt with in the zoning regulations and we also didn't have any regulations for murals and at the same time we wanted to make it easier to use the zoning regulations so we added illustrative graphics to the regulations and one example for the parapet And the penthouse signs is shown here on the slide. And then, as I mentioned before, we moved the sign regulations pertaining to each district to the specific district regulations. So currently all that stuff was only in section 11. So when you were reading about the RMF district or the MXD district, you had to know that you have to go to section 11 to read about the signs that are allowed in the MXD district. What we discovered in the process And that also actually applies to the MXD district that some districts didn't have any sign regulation specified. So we went through the whole exercise and went through all the zoning districts that we have. and made sure that they have sign regulations. And once again, this is an example for a specific district, but this is how it is set up for each and every district, very specifically what type of sign is allowed and what is not allowed. And obviously, the MXD district is a mixed-use district. In a residential district, you would have fewer types of signs allowed. And in a manufacturing district or large-scale commercial district, you might have more signs being allowed as specified for each district. And that's basically it. So obviously, this is one of those regulations where the devil is in the detail. And that's why the whole text change is about 50 pages.

I think I saw Ashley's hand first.

Thank you. So I see that some of the regulations are regarding the specific land use, such as the cannabis example that you mentioned. Is there a concern that this could be considered not content neutral and challengeable?

It is. Cannabis is a little bit different because there's this state statute that regulates cannabis, but all tax changes are also reviewed by the law department. And that's certainly something that we will hear about with their review. But cannabis is really the only instance where we might run into a problem, depending on what the law department opines. And obviously, if it is problematic, then we will take that provision out.

Okay. The murals could be a challenge, too. But I do support allowing them.

It's basically what we're saying is that if it's artistic, it's a mural, if it has any commercial speech on it, then it's considered a sign. And actually, the mural regulations we tried to do in an earlier change um, that change got appealed to the board of reps um for something else it was one of those like omnibus text changes and and i remember that one yeah so the mural the mural text uh change was actually not controversial during the approval process but it failed uh because of uh the the larger text change was was uh denied so we're trying it again it was reviewed then by the law department And they were okay with that. So we hope that they haven't changed their opinion in the meantime.

Thank you. No more questions. Ravi?

Well, you know, I'm not sure about this proposal because I understand the need to have at least some light touch regulation so that we don't have half a set of things coming up all over the place. But at the same time, this looks to me like regulation at a very micro level. And I'm not sure that is, I mean, it leads to more bureaucracy, but, you know, we want Stanford to be a fun and quirky place as well, not just you know, standardized, homogenous everywhere. That's no fun to live in a city like that. So when I see the extent to which you've gone about defining the signs, where it should be placed, which story, you know, second story, base level, and so on and so forth, I'm sure there's a lot of science behind it, but it looks to me that we are over-regulating on this matter. And maybe a better option could be to say what is not allowed. And then whatever is not disallowed is... That could be a simpler way of putting our thoughts rather than, as you also pointed out, there is 50 pages of regulations now.

I mean, it was a lot of pages before. So we're not necessarily adding volume. And I also don't think we're adding volume for volume's sake. I think a lot of it is just making it clearer what we're expecting and making it easier actually for applicants to understand the regulations and to apply them. uh the regulations i mean for a lot of the districts we worked with like um dssd for example they've been talking to us forever about sign regulations and some of the concerns with signs that they had and in particular like cannabis dispensaries and convenience stores that have like flashing lights and things like that and there was a lot of concern that that actually detracts from the nice businesses or nicer businesses in the street, if you have some gaudy convenience store with cannabis leaves flashing day and night that you basically can see from outer space. So, I think it's always sort of a balance between sort of over-regulating and finding the right amount of regulation. But a lot of the things, like in this example, it was regulated, it was just in a place where it was difficult to find for people to apply it. So I think, and I agree with you, we don't want to make Stanford a boring place, but also it allows us to differentiate between different districts, which under the current regulations was a little bit more difficult. So you can, in a residential neighborhood, be more restrictive than in a commercial neighborhood. And in downtown, maybe you want to be a little bit more fun than in other neighborhoods around town. But I think that regulation allows for that.

Yeah, no, absolutely. I think, you know, we want to be thoughtful, but at least from what I am reading here, it looks like it's got a very fine level of detail in terms of what the town wishes to see. As a principle, I don't believe in that. I think you might be better off just saying what is not allowed. If we cannot do that, then we don't know what we want. So that is my first recommendation. And my second question is, does it apply to residents? For example, elections are around the corner. And if I put a banner on my house yard or something like that, about some election campaign or something like that, do I need to come to the town for an approval?

No. So obviously that is free speech. So, I mean, and that's quite honestly a little bit of a gray area. So I think, especially when it comes to like election or political opinions or things like that, The city would always err off the side of free speech rather than forcing someone to take a sign down. I mean, there were some... In recent campaigns, there was some interesting messaging for different candidates. And it is my understanding that the city was very cautious to not create a situation where it could be construed as limiting First Amendment rights. And that's also what Ashley mentioned before about content neutrality. What we're really regulating is the size of the signs. It's not the content of the signs, because that would run with the exception maybe to a certain extent for cannabis. because that would get us very quickly in very, legally speaking, dangerous situation. With regard to basically saying what's prohibited rather than saying what is allowed, it's... The whole zoning regulations are permissive. So... only what is allowed is in the zoning regulations. So that's how they're set up. And that's also how the land use statute in the state statute is set up, that it's really defining what is allowed versus, and that's sort of a general principle of how zoning works, not only in Connecticut, but generally speaking.

Okay, last question I have. A few months ago, there was a proposal that if there is a temporary sign, we need to sign a bond for $5,000, something like that. Is it part of this? It's included in this now?

Yes. So that was we did that sign the temporary regulations because they wanted to put up like a big temporary banner for like the World Cup. So we fast track that to allow them to display that before the World Cup. But that is part of those regulations. So we're not proposing any changes to temporary signs. That was basically the first step as part of the revision of the sign regulations that we looked into. And yeah, like the temporary signs is actually an example where we make it easier. So you don't have to, like in theory, when someone puts out a banner, grand opening or something like that, in the past, they technically would have needed a sign permit um we're saying like look if it's temporary don't worry about it and and uh it's it's not going to be a problem so we also did those kinds of things when we looked at the sign regulations okay thank you jeremy

yeah so thank you ralph in reviewing this um you know i see some of the the flag um you know changes or ads here and if i'm understanding this correctly um you know the building downtown um you know adjacent to you know i-95 would be regulated by these new regulations am i correct in saying that yes okay

So it applies to the whole city, but it would be applicable to the whole district or the respective district that they are in.

So that flag would theoretically not be in line with this updated

regulation so if you if you talk about the the very big american flag yes on one building um that is so we we did not uh we basically exempted the american flag the flag of the state of connecticut of the city of stamford of any branch of the armed forces from the sign regulations or the flag regulations. So it wouldn't apply to those. I mean, there have been issues with that flag being torn off and basically interrupting power to Greenwich and parts of Stanford. But we think that obviously this is a national symbol that We should not regulate. Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

Any further questions? I have a motion on this item.

Jennifer, I'm going to abstain.

Okay.

Abstention from Robbie. Do I have a motion on the item? Okay, chat. First, you're on mute.

So someone has to, we have to make a decision one way or the other. So someone has to put forward a motion.

So motion for approval.

Sure.

Okay. Okay, second from Ashley. All in favor? All opposed? And abstentions? Okay, so three in favor, two abstentions. And the motion does pass.

Just for the record, Jennifer, my abstention, I think there's a lot of good in here, but as other members have said, I think there may be some areas where there is somewhat overstepping of some of these regulations. And while I do understand the concern of the illuminated signs within buildings downtown and what have you. I think some of this, I just need a little bit more time to really digest to make a vote in favor or against.

Ravi, did you want to add anything for the record regarding your abstention?

Yeah, I believe the city as a whole, not just on this topic, should simplify regulations and make the whole process easier. This is going the other way of micromanaging everything from the font size to the size of the sign to the type of lights, where it should be placed and so on. I don't think that's really worthwhile regulation. I do appreciate the good intentions behind this, but I think this could have an opportunity for us to go in a different direction.

So next on the docket is ZB application 226-20, Stanford Zoning Board text change. The purpose of this text change is to align the structure of the ML light industrial zoning district regulations to the other district regulations to add protections for abutting residential districts. and established urban design standards. No major changes to density and other bulk or use standards are proposed. Andrew will vote on this item.

So this is very much in line to the CN district regulations that we talked about before. Something went wrong here with the picture. So this is clearly not an ML district, but ML districts are light industrial districts, and they're mostly located along I-95. And the train line, so Glenbrook, Springdale, along the New Canaan branch, that's where we find most of our manufacturing districts. And in many instances, the ML, which is the light manufacturing district, serves as a buffer between sort of the heavy industrial MG districts and surrounding residential or mixed-use commercial. districts. So because they are oftentimes abutting residential districts, what we tried to do was when they abut residential districts, that there are increased requirements for setbacks and screening. So we don't care so much if within an industrial district building are close together or how they're set up. But what we tried to do was that when they about a residential district that there are bigger setbacks and design requirements to protect the neighboring residential uses. But with regard to the uses allowed, currently, we're not proposing any wholesale change to that. And actually, the bulk regulations are very similar. So same building height, same density, FAR. We are also, but what you can see in the table and the proposed is that when you are abutting on a residential district that you have to set back from the property line more than if you abut another residential use. And that's basically it for the ML district changes.

Questions? All right. Seeing none, do we have a motion on this item? True. Move for approval. Second from Ravi. All in favor?

Aye. Okay.

And it passes. All right. We're almost done. Next, we have CV application 226-21. I'll read both of these into the record, but we'll vote on them separately. So Stanford Zoning Board map change. Applicant is seeking a zoning map change. From the current BD Designed Business Zoning District to the CN Neighborhood Business Zoning District and ZB Application 226-22 Sanford Zoning Board Text Change, the purpose of this text change is to rezone the city's only BD district to CN and delete the BD district from the city's zoning regulations to simplify the regulations. And so we'll designate Ashley to vote on both of these, given their connection to each other.

So yeah, those are really companion applications. So speaking of simplifying zoning regulations, I totally agree. We should make it easier. And part of it is getting rid of zoning districts that we have that exist only where we only have one zoning district in the whole town. So this is one of those efforts to get rid of a zoning district. So the BD zoning district only exists around the Newfield Green Shopping Center. on Newfield Avenue down here is Oaklawn. And so it includes the shopping center itself, but also some properties to the south of it. They're also part of the BD district. So the BD district is very similar to the CN district. It had some additional design requirements that when we talked about earlier, the CN district regulations, we incorporated in the CN regulation. So it's not, we don't really need the BD district anymore. So by rezoning this area from BD to CN and from the uses, the density regulations and so on, as I said, they're very similar. By rezoning this area from BD to CN, we can then delete the BD district from the zoning regulations. So obviously, first, the map change needs to be approved, and then the deletion of Section 5B, which is the BD district, from the zoning regulations would follow. And there is actually a couple of other... applications moving forward that are trying to streamline how many zoning districts we have and making it easier. So there is at least, I think, two zoning districts we want to get rid of coming to you maybe already in the next meeting.

Any questions on this item? Just to repeat back for clarity, so given the addition of design regulations to CN, the specificity that's within BD is no longer required because it's been incorporated.

Yes, and quite honestly, the BD, even though it has some design requirements, it's very sloppy with regard to other requirements. So this is a district we can easily let go off. It will make things better, easier and better. Great.

Can't type a motion on this item.

Enthusiastically support.

Okay. First from Robbie. Do I have a second? Second from Ashley. All in favor? And it passes. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your patience and the interesting questions you asked. Sure.

Thank you for your staff's continued diligence pouring through all these regulations. So that concludes the zoning text changes. Our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are September 22nd, which will be a regular meeting. And then October, we will commence capital budget meetings, October 6th, October 13th, and October 27th.

Jennifer, before, I'm sorry to interrupt. Did we actually take a separate vote, two separate votes between items six and seven?

No. Oh, thank you. I think you're right. We only took a vote on item 6.

Right.

Thank you. All right. So we need a separate vote for a ZP application 226-22, which is the rezoning of the only BD district 2CN, which then deletes the BD district. So the first from Chet. We have a second. A second from Jeremy. All in favor? And Ashley's voting on this one as well. And it passes. Thank you. Thank you for catching that.

I see Ralph is still on the call. Can I raise a topic?

Sure. At the new business.

I just sent an email over the weekend on this, the Reddit forum discussions about Stanford. And I think a lot of residents were complaining about many eateries and small shops closing across the town. And actually, it is my experience also when I went and saw some of these newly developed properties with high occupancy rates. I was wondering, where are all these people going to eat and shop? I mean, do we expect them to Greenwich and Norwalk, to go to Greenwich and Norwalk to do that? So my request, and I read your mail to Jennifer, it's a very complicated problem in terms of the cost of labor and You know, etc, etc. So there is no magic wand to solve it. But would it be worthwhile for the town to take a survey of, at least on the eatery side, the restaurant side, do we have enough for a population of the size of Stanford compared to the neighboring towns like Norwalk and so on? And do we really have a problem or we don't? And I know, forget whether we can find a solution to the problem or not, but I have generally found that the town, you know, sees this as an issue and examines it, it generally improves the situation, right? So we have done studies for traffic congestion and parking, we've done so many studies. So should we conduct a, ask the town to see if they would like to conduct a study on eating spaces and shops, et cetera, compared to the growing population in Stanford. Otherwise, we're just going to have all this residents and I don't know what they're going to do during the weekends and, you know, that was my comment. So I just wanted to raise that topic here formally.

Yeah, I think we are certainly aware and I think you raise a very important question. The city or the economic development office, they actually did a retail study for downtown and the south end. which looked into a lot of those issues and made recommendations. And also what I think was very valuable in that study sort of assessed the role of Stanford. So what sort of stuck in my head when they were talking about the study is that Stanfordism in between location. So we have a very fancy mall in Norwalk, and we have a very fancy mall in White Plains. So that basically cannibalizes the need for a mall in between, which would be Stanford. So what can we do to make Stanford more attractive and provide exactly those kinds of services that you mentioned and There are some recommendations in there, and if you don't have it, I'm happy to share that study with you. So you can have a look, but obviously we're also interested in implementing some of the proposals that were made. in that study. And some of them have to do with zoning, others have to do with other tools that the economic development office is looking into. I mean, one big issue is also, especially in downtown and the south end, the lack of a supermarket. I believe that the board of representatives, they're working on legislation that would create a tax incentive um for uh for a supermarket so i think the city is very aware of the issue and is is working on uh um solutions because yeah i fully agree it is it is a very important um

Can you get us a link to the study or get us a report so we can go through it?

I'm not sure if it's, it wasn't our study, so I'm not sure if it's posted anywhere, but We can certainly share that study with you. Lindsay, maybe. I'm brain dead by now, if you can remind me to send around that study. I'm also not actually quite sure if it's 100% completed, but we'll get that to you. Thank you, Dan. Thank you.

I wonder given the level of public interest and the issue, if it could make sense to at some point, uh, have a presentation to planning.

Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Thank you very much.

Noted. Thank you.

Um, all right. So again, our next regularly scheduled planning board meetings are September 22nd, uh, And then capital budget on October 6th, October 13th, and October 27th. And will we, Lindsay, be joined by, or we've at least invited board of reps and board of finance members?

Yes. Yes, we have. And nobody's, at least for the board of reps, nobody's been nominated for that subcommittee yet, but they've been invited. All right.

One last item, I'm sorry to interrupt. With the fast approaching capital budgeting process, is there a way that we can get some of our new members some exposure to these, the process through participation?

Yeah, I think there is... One specific opportunity, if anyone is interested, so part of the capital budget process prior to the public meetings is a series of pre-meetings with each of the departments and agencies and bureaus. So Chet and myself are covering many of those. And we do not actually currently have coverage for the, well, I guess it's specifically the a date, Lindsay, right? But I think we're seeing if we can swap for that.

Yeah, and Chuck did respond that he was available on the 16th for the operations pre-planning meeting.

Okay. All right. Okay. I need to...

But aside from availability, I think we need to share the wealth a little bit.

Oh, sure. Yes. So yes, I mean, in general, if there's anyone else who is interested in either being part of those presentations, they're a good opportunity to kind of dig a little bit more into the weeds of specific proposals and ask questions. And the purpose is really to streamline once they come for the public meetings. And then throughout the capital budget process, and as we receive information, in the last couple of years, it's been Chatna and myself who have been analyzing the items and doing some relative ranking as well as assessing the total amount of a given proposal to then put together a recommendation for which ones to prioritize for funding and to then go on to the Board of Finance and the Board of Representatives. So if anyone is interested in being a part of any piece of that, certainly welcome. your participation. I know it can seem like a lot. So if kind of dipping into a piece of it is appealing, you know, that is welcome. We have typically the Board of Education takes up a pretty significant chunk. And there's actually a lot of exciting stuff going on with the Board of Education. So that's a good slate to to dig into and take a look at, um, in addition to the many agencies and needs that we have. Um, typically we have, uh, more, so the, the requests are typically more than twice the available capital budget available. Um, and so we do, um, prioritize items that have some sort of external funding attached to them or that have some, um, short or long-term cost savings attached to them. And so kind of assessing the benefit and also veracity sometimes of the cost benefit is something that is also really helpful as we make the tough decision to figure out what to prioritize. Well, the invitation stands. And thank you, Chuck, for leaning into that process in the last couple of years. With that, I think we can go ahead and adjourn our meeting.

Good night.

Thank you very much. Bye.