[John Falco]: Sixth regular meeting of the Medford City Council will now come to order. The clerk, please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Dello Russo. Present. Councilor Knight. Present. Vice President Alunga. Present. Councilor Marks.
[John Falco]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Scarpelli. Present. President Falco.
[John Falco]: Present. Six present, zero absent. Would everyone please rise to salute the flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, that we suspend the rules to take 19-022. Offered by Councilor Knight. Updates on Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President. Councilor Marks. Mr. President, also we have a related paper 19-064. I ask that we also take that out of order in conjunction with the paper you just listed.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Seconded by Consul Dello Russo, 19-064 petition by Beverly O'Reilly, 16 Joyce Road, Medford Mass, to present a list of requests slash conditions that were made to Melrose Wakefield Hospital at a small meeting in response to their plan to build an ambulatory service center. Consular Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. We've received some notifications from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, the Department of Public Health at the state level relative to the proceedings at the site. At this point, I'd like to turn the floor over to representatives from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital to update us on the progress.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. If we could have your name and address for the record, please.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. Blake, could you shut that off, please? I'm sure the glare is bad enough without that.
[John Falco]: If we could have you name and address for the record, please.
[Fuller]: Yeah. Ryan Fuller representing Lawrence Memorial Hospital, 170 Governor's Ave, Medford, Massachusetts.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[Fuller]: Good evening. My name is Ryan Fuller and I'm the vice president of strategy and business planning for Lawrence Memorial Hospital in Melrose Bayfield Healthcare. I'm pleased to come before the city council tonight to provide an update on LMH activity since we last presented to you. Since that time, We continue to work with city leaders and department heads on the particulars of the site and permitting process related to the ambulatory surgery center. We are working with our architects and construction teams related to the specifics around building construction in preparation for the permitting process. And in response to neighborhood questions and concerns about the project, city department head feedback and escalating construction costs and other impacts of the extended project timeline. We recently hosted a meeting with neighbors specifically about their comments and concerns, which you will hear about later, around safety, the existing cut through between Holmes Road and the LMH campus, and the potential of new noise as a result of the proposed ASC. Many of these issues were raised following our update at last month's city council meeting. A representative from the nursing home was also present at that meeting, which proved to be helpful in identifying opportunities to address neighborhood concerns specific to the nursing home. It was also an opportunity for newly engaged community members to ask their questions about site selection. While we have been sharing information about site selection since November, it highlighted for us the need for further forms about the hows and whys of site selection. So we are planning a follow-up meeting to focus on this specifically in the immediate future. Sorry, cold. Next steps. As we continue to look forward, our next steps, we are working on the completion of the full permitting package for the city. Our plan is in the next three to four weeks to work with the teams to respond to the items described previously related to city department feedback, change in cost, and community concerns. We need to address those issues before we can move forward with the full permitting package. Once we address those issues and come up with the right solutions, we will then be submitting a full permitting package, which will be submitted to the city and include full traffic and parking study for peer review. We need to address the bigger issues. On another matter, as you know, we've been executing on the notification process required by the Department of Public Health for the emergency department closure at LMH. Transition planning to extend urgent care continues with notifications made to appropriate state and local departments. We have shared with you our comments received from DPH as well as our planning and communication filing. We continue to work towards the March 7, 2009 closure date, the same date as which the new extended urgent care hours go into effect. In conclusion, we continue to be excited about the future vision of LMH. As Mr. Bill Lawrence said in our last update to city council, Lawrence Memorial Hospital was created due to change, and these changes were necessary to ensure we continue to deliver high quality health care in Medford for many generations to come. We look forward to coming back before the city council in the near future to continue to provide you and the community updates on our progress. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Any questions from the Council? Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Mr. President, maybe if the gentleman could just give us an update. I know we just received a response from Melrose-Wakefield in the DPH letter that they sent out. regarding the closure of the emergency room. If you can just give us a brief update on where that stands right now.
[Fuller]: Yes, sir. And Lori Halley, if I missed anything, please, please jump in. But we're DPH has asked a couple of additional questions to our plan, which our CMO is responding to. It was around how patients will know and how they get to the other E.D.s. And our CMO is to the other E.D.s in the area. And we've talked to all the other emergency departments in the area who can handle the capacity from RED. So it's really a clarification that's going back to DPH, and we're submitting that response back this week.
[Michael Marks]: So I had a question. I'm not sure if you're able to answer it or not, but I had the opportunity to read through the response submitted by your organization. And I had just a question regarding travel times. So this is a response back to DPH, letting them know that when and if and when LMH does close its emergency room, that there are alternative plans, meaning other emergency departments in the area. And the report that I viewed mentioned about Armstrong Ambulance Service and the times it takes to get to different facilities. Do you know what percentage of emergency room visits based on actual ambulance service?
[Fuller]: I do not, but happy to provide that, get back to the city council with that information.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. I would assume the information that was in the report regarding travel times that the data was obtained from Armstrong Ambulance only included the ambulance at these particular locations. That's correct. So when they say that the drive time for Method residents to Melrose Wakefield Hospital is seven to 10 minutes, I assume that's in an ambulance that's going full-blown sirens, breaking many rules and regulations, getting to a hospital. Is that correct?
[Fuller]: Do you know the specifics of that? Do you know if it's licensed irons or ALS?
[SPEAKER_25]: If I may?
[Fuller]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_25]: Name and address for the record, please. Laurie Howley on behalf of Lawrence Memorial Hospital, 170 Governor's Ave in Medford. Let us get clarification on that question. That was data specific. So Armstrong Ambulance is the 911 provider for Medford, so they do track all of that data specifically. They can also likely provide us what percentage of ER visits come through by ambulance. So, we're happy to go back and bring that information forward.
[Michael Marks]: Right. I think it's important that, and I'm sure DPH will do their own homework, the Department of Public Health, but it's important to know how these figures were arrived at. And, you know, not everyone arrives at an ambulance ambulatory setting by ambulance. And anyone traversing this community knows that it could take you 10 to 15 minutes just to get from, you know, Wellington to Medford Square, let alone West Medford, which might be another 10 minutes. So I think these particular travel times are concerning for me as a resident and someone that potentially could need emergency service to know the distances between alternatives when we had an emergency service right in our own backyard. So that's the first point. The second point is based on just the annual emergency room data. And I've stated this publicly a number of times regarding the closure of the emergency room, that the statistics will bear out and the statistics that were provided show from 2016 to 2019, with 2019 being annualized, because it's not a full fiscal year, but it does show the volume in emergency visits to Lawrence Memorial dramatically decreasing. For instance, 2016, it was 12,514 visits. 2017 was 11,925. 2018 was 9,289. And if you annualize 2019, we're looking at about 7,520 emergency room visits. So you can see there's been a decline. But as I stated on many occasions, the decline is not due to the services that the hospital is offering. For many years, that hospital emergency room was a robust emergency room and provided great service to residents and people that lived in surrounding communities as well. But if you look back over the years, And for instance, in 2014, when the Health Policy Commission reviewed Partners Healthcare Systems' proposed acquisition of Hallmark Health, they mentioned, and this is September 2014, that Hallmark Lawrence Memorial Hospital would become a 30 to 40 bed facility for ambulatory care and short stay inpatient care lasting three days or fewer. operated under the MGH license. We know that never came to fruition. It also goes on to say Hallmark LMH would have an urgent care center, certain expanded outpatient services, and Parton is also committed to keeping LMH emergencies department open during at least the transition period of LMH's conversion, which they estimated take two or three years. So as far back as 2014, which are prior to the numbers I just gave regarding volume. Uh, there has been the word out there either was partners or Hallmark that there was a steady move to close the ambulatory care at Lawrence Memorial. And there was decisions made by the hospital to go in a different direction. And I think what we saw was services over the years, somehow start to filter over to Melrose Wakefield Hospital. And the decline was not because of a lack of service within our community or a lack of need. It was because of an administrative decision that was made to cut out ambulatory service or surgical ER service within our community. And that same article went on to say, Hallmark Melrose Wakefield would remain an acute care hospital under the Hallmark license. The hospital received an estimated $152 million worth of substantial renovation, including expansion capacity of their ER. 2015 Method Lawrence Memorial Hospital would likely close if Hallmark Health merger fails. And it goes on to say, in its August 2014 letter to the Health Policy Commission, Hallmark said it faced significant financial challenges and had implemented significant cost-saving initiatives in fiscal 2014 after seeing a 23% decline in patient discharges at LMH and Melrose-Wakefield Hospital over the previous two years. So it wasn't just LMH that was supposedly losing emergency business. It was also Melrose-Wakefield, according to this particular article. In 2016, Hallmark Health nears merger with Tufts Medical Center, parent company Wellforce. And in 2016, it says Hallmark Health, which owns Medford Lawrence Memorial Hospital, Melrose-Wakefield Hospital, Melrose, and a handful of smaller sites around greater Boston represents 295 million in revenue. The details of the Hallmark's merger with Welforce have not been finalized, but will likely include capital investment at Hallmark facilities. Hallmark officials hope to build a new emergency care wing at Melrose Wakefield Hospital that is at least three times the size of the current ER. So as you can see, there's a pattern over the years of taking from Lawrence Memorial and adding to Melrose Wakefield. So I think it's very disingenuous when we're showing DPHR numbers, strictly numbers saying, hey look, it doesn't appear that Method can support an emergency room. From a financial standpoint, as a hospital, we can't afford it anymore to have an emergency room in Method. And I think it's disingenuous to state that when clearly there was an administrative decision over many years to close the emergency room. at Lawrence Memorial, a thriving emergency room, and come out with an outpatient clinic that we're talking about now. So I just want to state that publicly and go on record that I don't think it was any lack of demand in this community. I still believe there's a strong need for emergency room. We have one of the highest percentages of seniors in the Commonwealth living in the city of Medford. And as you know, an emergency room is very important, not just to seniors, but to all residents. And this is going to have a real dramatic impact on our community. And I'm hoping still there's some hope with DPH that they will deny the closure of your request for closure of Lawrence Memorial Hospital. And then we can discuss other options about what's going to happen internally within the hospital, about other outpatient services, and also look at the proposal that you're offering regarding an ambulatory care. But I just want the record to reflect the numbers that were mentioned in your report, as well as the drive times. I think it's important to clarify the drive times also to these other emergency rooms.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. I want to thank Council Marks for his comments and for the research that he did. I appreciate them. With regards to, I know the last couple of weeks there's been no release of the traffic and parking study. So I just wanted to ask about a time frame on that. As I think, I mean, for me, one of the biggest issues is the parking. I have an issue with traffic. And I know a lot of people are worried about a garage. I got emails on that today that people don't want to see. The neighborhood does not want to see a garage, yet the parking plan doesn't seem adequate when I look at it. And I really would like somebody from the city to do an independent review of it when it is released.
[Fuller]: So thank you for that question. The study that was done by our civil engineering firm, the experts, VHB, will be submitted and done as a peer review that will look at the parking and traffic study on that. I cannot give specific on dates on when that will be done because we're addressing some of the other issues that I talked about previously as it relates to escalating construction costs, the concerns of the neighbors who you'll hear from later. and some of the department head feedback. Once we finalize those, because it may impact the parking study, we will then submit our parking study for a full peer review.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So do you expect to submit the parking study at the same time you submit the permitting package to the city? Or are you going to give time for the peer review before you submit your package?
[Fuller]: It is my understanding, normal course is that it happens at submission, submission of the permitting package. That is the normal standard, as it's been explained to me.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: In your time frame for submitting permitting packages?
[Fuller]: I want to be able to provide updates on specific dates for that. What I can commit to is that we'll come back and update you on progress we've made to those other issues, mitigating issues on the project. And as we work through those, as we understand and learn, we'll give a more detailed time frame on the permitting. I want to. We're committed to moving this project forward. I want to be able to give dates. I just can't yet. As soon as they become clear, I will let everybody know.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: But it's clear that you want to start construction sometime in the summer, so we can assume that the package should be submitted sometime in the spring? Or you can't skip?
[Fuller]: I cannot say that either yet. I apologize. It is not because I'm not trying to be coy. We have to address the issues that our neighbors have raised, escalation in cost because of the extended time of the project, and also department head feedback. OK.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And with regards to the neighborhood concerns, I know we've been trying to address a lot of the concerns. But with regards to especially the direct abutters, I thank you for having that meeting and allowing direct abutters to speak. last week or the week before, when will there be a follow-up meeting with regards to those questions and concerns, and how are they being addressed?
[Fuller]: Yep. So one of the specific meetings we'll have with our abutters is explaining the hows and whys of site selection. So we feel very confident in that criteria. But as we work through our other mitigating factors, the project may change. So we want to handle that so we can then provide more information. I'm happy to talk about our criteria with the abutters, but until we finalize the specifics of the project in case it changes, it wouldn't be a good use of everyone's time. But we're committed to meeting with them, continuing to talk with them. We're looking in the three to four week timeframe, but open lines of communication with the direct abutters. We have a community advisory group meeting scheduled in the next week and a half, which includes three direct abutters.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Those are my two concerns, the parking and the concerns of the neighborhood and the direct abutters, that they be addressed before any type of permit is requested by the city council. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Alongo-Kern. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. In reviewing your list of the health care providers here, you've got some things here. Is Harvard Vanguard Urgent Care, is that open to the public or just to Harvard Vanguard people?
[Fuller]: I believe it's just Harvard Vanguard patients. Okay, and the same thing with the Tufts... I don't work for HR, so I can't say that.
[Richard Caraviello]: Okay, but... I think so. And you've got Tufts University for the students of Tufts and the Tufts... I think maybe you should specify when you do your list that some of these places are specifically for, let's say, Harvard-Vancouver insurance people and Tufts students. And there is probably another couple of urgent care facilities that you left out. There's the Iona. on Middlesex Avenue. And I think he may have left out another couple there. But yeah, if you could update that list and let people know that these aren't open to the public, so people don't get confused and think they could just go into Harvard-Vanguard or just, you know, I live near Tufts and I'll run up to the student health services.
[Fuller]: Which is fair. So we can make that update. Our own urgent care, you don't have to be a patient of Hallmark Health or Lawrence Memorial Hospital to go there. We're open to anyone. So we can certainly make that adjustment. But we're open to anyone, no matter who your PCP is, or no matter what your insurance is, which is not always the same. So we can make that clear.
[Richard Caraviello]: I understand. Hallmark's not even on the list, so you should have yourself at the top of the list then. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, at this point, I believe we did have a resident from the community that I think maybe we should turn the floor over to her and see if there are any issues that have come up through the small meetings in the community that may be able to be addressed this evening as well.
[John Falco]: Thank you. So at this point, we'll take up 19-064 petition by Beverly O'Reilly, 16 Joyce Road, Medford, Massachusetts, to present a list of requests and conditions that were made to Melrose Wakefield Hospital at a small meeting in response to their plan to build an ambulatory service center. Could we please have your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_26]: Beverly O'Reilly, 16 Joyce Road. First, I want to thank the Councilors that attended our small neighborhood meeting last week. Thank you very much. Thank you to the hospital for meeting with us.
[John Falco]: I think the heat goes on every so often, and that seems to... So if you could speak really loud, I'd appreciate it.
[SPEAKER_26]: Some of you know me. I'm an abutter. I'm also the newest member of the community advisory group. There are three abutters that are on this group now. Last week, the hospital met with some of the neighbors on Holmes, Hutchins, and Joyce roads to talk about our concerns that we have with this project. We've been speaking out about this for a while now. So I was thanking the council members that showed up last week and thanking the hospital for meeting with us. Some of our neighbors met prior to the meeting with the hospital to generate a list of our concerns. And we made a list of requests to the hospital and presented it at our meeting last week as a result. Those concerns are from several of us neighbors, but certainly not all of the neighbors. And each of us has different concerns, so that list in its totality is what we would like to see addressed as part of the proposal to build this ASC. We would very much like for the hospital to make the proposal to this body, because we believe that you are going to best protect our interests over the zoning board or some other city agencies. So we're hoping that that request comes to you for approval. There's one thing that we did not list on the list that will be presented to you by my neighbor Tara after I speak, and that is that we would like for the hospital, the ASC, to keep their practices to weekday business hours only and not expand that into nights and weekends. Your comments tonight, wow, about how it was a business decision to close down the emergency room in the hospital. That's heartbreaking. None of us wanted to see the hospital go away in favor of an outpatient for-profit surgery center. We also ask that the ASC, when they make this proposal to you, do it with the respect of the neighbors and not at the expense of the neighbors. And again, and especially because it's a for-profit business and not a hospital that's serving only our community where they're basically going to create a supersized ER in another community that's not convenient for us. The site selection is not the preferred location. This is not ideally where we would like to have it. We are very concerned about parking, and you'll hear more about that. We feel strongly that all of the conditions in our list be met and addressed and not just cherry pick the ones that are easy, like build the wall. And we feel that there's, another thing is that there's been a lot of discussion about in and outpatient mental health services in the old building and that remains unresolved. We've not heard any answer as to whether they will not expand upon that. And my neighbor Tara is going to get up and present just the bullet points of this list that will be presented to all of you as well so that you'll have it on record. Thanks very much.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_27]: Hi, Tara Minor, 29 Hutchins Road. So as Beverly said, I'm just really going to read through this list and then we'll present it to you. But top of our list is concerns with the location, locale of the loading dock and the garbage receptacles and how that really backs up to our neighborhood. So a lot of the issues that we're raising here are related to that noise pollution but also related to the safety and the quality of life for our neighborhood. So first is the noise pollution. We're asking that the trash pickup be limited from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. in accordance to the Medford noise ordinance, and that any traffic that goes between the north parking lot of the hospital and up to the nursing home be limited to really to staff and patients of the nursing home, not be opened up to hospital traffic so that traffic can be minimized in that area. We are looking to minimize the resident parking or non-resident parking and traffic within our neighborhood. Kind of would like to start off with not having like restrictions and parking for the neighbors because we do like to park on our street, but instead put signage on the entry to the neighborhood to clearly indicate that it's not an entry to the hospital. We have a lot of people coming into our neighborhood thinking that it's a hospital entry. Let's see. And I'd like to see that the hospital has a robust plan to enforce park, like stickered parking for staff and students. Like I understand staff are not supposed to, you know, they're allowed to park on. premise, but once that gets full, they're going to be parking in our neighborhoods. So we'd like to see a sticker for staff, both staff and students, so that we can clearly identify if someone from staff, you know, the hospital is parking in the neighborhood. To commit to not having a parking garage, we'd like to see that in writing. maintain the safety of our neighborhood by making sure that the parking lot is patrolled throughout the evening. And also to work with the city to make sure that there's appropriate crosswalks across governors. There's right now, it can be quite dangerous if you're crossing, especially with the hill, you really can't see if someone is crossing the street there. The tree line that borders our neighborhood and the hospital, that that be fully maintained and not just maintained, but increased to cut down any noise pollution and so that we have more green space that's kind of separating the neighborhood and the hospital. That the light pollution be minimized. Today the light pollution is not that bad, but once you start really increasing the use of that parking lot, we'd like to see that the lighting selected be dark sky friendly. and have low illumination limits, that the aesthetic impact be minimized for the hospital. I would love to see the surrounding neighborhoods have input on what the building looks like, signage not be this glaring, basically that we don't have a strip mall next to our houses. And that there be regular mode of communication for abutters. And not just, I'd like to see, we'd like to see that that be a documented commitment to the communication that's taking place while they're building, but afterwards, what's that look like ongoing? And last, and we've started talking to them about this, is shutting off the entry between the Holmes Road neighborhood and our neighborhood and the hospital. There's a cut through that goes right through, right from the hospital the neighborhood of Holmes Road, Hutchins, and Joyce Road, that that be closed off with some kind of barrier, whether it be a fence or wall. I mean, we would have to work with the hospital on that one. But that barrier go from the nursing home right down to governors, and probably even take the corner there because there's the folks on governors are going to be impacted too. So that would help those to the left of governors minimize that. And that barrier that we put up, that there be an evergreen tree barrier that is facing the neighborhood so that we don't have to look at a big fence either. So with that, I'm going to just submit these. I have multiple copies.
[John Falco]: Can I give those to the messenger, please? Thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: Excuse me. I don't mean to interject. Thank you very much. My name is John Tancredi, and I'm a 34-year resident of Governor's Ave. I live directly across the street from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. Literally, the view out my bedroom window is the parking lot the upper campus, the lower campus, and all the way down to the corner of Lawrence Road. I apologize for the way I'm going to say this, but what you just heard is the reason why I have been left out of the circle. I was supposed to be the next member of that council that they put together. The emails that I have said that they wanted somebody who can directly view the entire campus from Governors Avenue. They talked to me, they asked what I had for suggestions. As soon as they heard that I had suggestions that might cost them a little bit of money, I stopped getting emails, phone calls, and now I've been cut out of the loop completely, and I wasn't even informed that they had made a selection. And as far as these meetings, they were letting us know about these meetings. As of yet, we, again, they have cut us off completely from any meetings because once they heard that we had some demands, they were requests and suggestions, now they're demands, then again, they decided, hey, hey, hey, you know what? I don't like the way this guy talks. He's not really the kind of guy that we want to deal with. He knows a little too much. They say they want to breathe light back into the campus, and I think that's great. They're the reason, there's a lot of reasons why there's light taken out of that campus. But if they want to start this project, they need to take everything that everybody in that neighborhood has, every abutter, everybody that can view it. I can view it, smell it, hear it, taste it. I mean, when they did the nursing home, they cracked our foundation. It cost like $62,000 back in 1990 money. And I mean, we're asking questions and instead of saying, hey, this is your answer, it's, well, we're going to do this and we're going to put a committee and we're going to get... Well, if it's all going to happen, then this data talking about a summertime just doesn't make any sense to me because they haven't addressed any of the issues as far as I'm concerned. As far as what they need to do, it's being transparent without us having to tell them to be transparent. They only say stuff after I do. I even have it in emails. They only release stuff after I say, hey, we know about this. Then all of a sudden, an hour later, there's an email going out to everybody saying, hey, just a heads up on this. You know, it's annoying to say the least, and it's just bad, bad practices altogether. And for you guys to pretend like you don't know what's going on, that's lame. We need a list of what this ambulatory center is going to be comprised of, what the future steps need to be taken for these entities to get said permit, And not to mention a list of these entities. We don't even have a list of the entities that are supposedly pulling these permits, let alone any sort of guarantee that these will be the entities that will be there in any sort of perpetuity for any amount of time. Let's say three of them pop in. Who do we go to? Then it's past the buck. Well, it's not us. It's Chase. It's not us. It's Shields. It's not us. and then another one sublets it out, something to this one, and then they don't have to follow any rules and regulations of the property. I mean, they're just not listening to anything we have to say. So we'd like a list of all that. We'd also like some sort of list of all concerns by all the residents, all the city council members, any concerns that any Medford resident has about this new for-profit business just popping up in their city that's involved in healthcare. I mean, I'm sorry, but you'd do it for a bar, wouldn't you? I mean, come on. Think about what people are doing for these recreational marijuana facilities. This place is going to be doing surgery and they're making profit, not to mention it's in a spot that was deemed not for profit. I'm not going to get into that. Another thing, would like some sort of direct line or email that can assure that residents can get answers to these questions and that somebody's actually going to respond? And if not, then they can be held accountable because it's past the buck. Past the buck. Oh, well, you need to talk to this one. You need to talk to that one. And again, it's... It's a broken loop. It's a broken loop. We would like, again, as she had mentioned, an operation guide to this surgical center and what their hours of operation will be, what their time restrictions will be, what their parking situation would be. any sort of transportation vehicles? Because let me tell you, on Governor's Ave, as it is right now, and this committee, as far as that traffic study, I was told in no uncertain terms that the traffic study and parking study had been completed and that there would be a negligible impact on the neighborhood. Is that not true? Yeah, that's what I was told, thanks. Can you respond? Absolutely, go ahead.
[Fuller]: No, we shared our results for the parking and traffic study. They were preliminary. We have not submitted the full package because of the concerns that were raised. And as I've talked about the escalating construction costs, we're seeing what other mitigation strategies we can go into effect. Based on the current plan that has been put out there and the results that we showed from VHB, we do feel it was a negligible parking and traffic impact. That being said, we're going back, and we have to look at all the other factors we talked about to address the concerns that have been raised. And then VHB will submit the study, which will do a peer review.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_01]: I think that brings up another concern about the actual lot and the employees, sort of a good neighbor policy. The employees, some of them, they're very rude. And as far as the hospital security, absolute lax, to say the least. And if the hospital's operating right now at the lowest capacity they've ever been at, and these guys can't handle what's going on now, I hate to see it when it's slammed. I really do. That concerns me. The police have been there at least six times in the last three months, a couple times for irate people in the lot, a couple times for drunk employees. There's another concern that I'd like to talk to you after this. I'm not going to bring it up in front of everybody else and waste everybody's time, but I think you need to know about that. Again, the lots is not secure. There's people in the neighborhoods. They have these big buses and transports that nobody pays attention to. And they pull up because I have a large stretch in front of my house with no driveway. They love to pull up there and just idle, hang out there, wait, take their break, watch TV on their phone. And it rattles the windows. Not to mention, idling's against the law. But I've called the hospital. They don't care. I've called the companies. They don't care. Maybe if there was a security guard out there to say, hey, guys, knock it off. We got neighbors. When I was a kid, they were there. When I was a kid, they had security guards everywhere. We used to play Frisbee over there, and they'd chase us around. But now you can go over there and light a bomb. And you'd be lucky if someone popped their shade open. It's unsafe. It really is. And that doesn't even get into the concerns about The current light pollution, unfortunately, they don't see it from their side, which is good for you guys. But on Governor's Ave, especially since they put these, the hospital's bad enough with the security lights, and then they just put in these new LEDs on Governor's Ave that lights it up like Fenway. Me and my neighbors put in room darkening shades, and it's only from the hospital property. They only put it there because of the hospital property. It's like all the new curb stones that they just put in on the hospital side. Anyway, eyesore value on this new thing is going to be a big thing. They're telling me it's going to be slab construction. They're not going to have to drill. Not going to affect the water table. And all this research is already done, so that's what I'm assuming is going to be how things go. But if they're going to decide to put a parking garage in, that means nothing as far as who cares what that little building. If they're going to throw up this tower, who the hell wants to see that? Their solution, they told me that they were going to have all nursing school students, and I forget the other genre they threw in there, park off campus and shuttle bus in. And I say they got a better chance of seeing God. Because the people have been, I mean, come on. Think about that. Really? If they do decide to get this project approved, I'm more than happy to, you know, offer my advice on what they need to do. I think they need to hire local construction. They need to hire local contractors. It needs to be all green construction, 110%. It needs to have no eyesore value whatsoever. It can't exceed one story, like they said or they claimed, and that doesn't mean one story and then air conditioners and these big metal, they put this big metal fence up on top of the building on the other side. I don't know what the hell that's doing. But ever since that went up, it's interrupting cell phone service. That's another thing. We don't want drain on the power grid. We don't want cell phone interruption. We don't want any of that crap. And it does happen, unfortunately. I mean, they wouldn't want us turning on our cell phones next to the serotonin. And the other big thing, community engagement. They need to hire local people, give locals a job opportunity first. And they also need to maybe have some... Right now, everybody feels like it's just like, okay, well, they're dropping this in our yard and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. And then people are like, oh, we got a few people that are like, oh, well, let's try to work with them so that it's not so bad. How about do something for us that makes us go, yeah, hey, this is cool. We're getting this ambulatory surgical center. like it's for us, like maybe like a discount program, you know, I'm sure a couple of you need knees or ankles or something, right? I mean, I had an accident, right? I mean, come on, right? I mean, just something to make it feel like, right? I mean, something to make it feel like it's ours. They just got this great new machine out there. I mean, with all the noise pollution we deal with, I mean, because there is a lot over there from them grinding the pavement with the Sometimes, I even got pictures on my phone. I mean, they had landscapers out there. It was eight guys with leaf blowers just standing there in a row doing this. Like, absolutely. You've seen it, right? And it's horrible. It goes on for hours. And it's like, well, what are you doing to us? Oh, Jesus, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to go all into that. So they just got this nifty little machine that clears a sidewalk of snow, the entire sidewalk in about a minute flat, complete hill. Why don't they do the abutters? Why don't they do the entire sidewalk like Boston University Medical Center does? They do their sidewalk and the sidewalk across the street. It's just karma courtesy. So I mean, again, those were just some things that that I think definitely needs to be addressed on top of the whole fact that they're just trying to dance around it and dodge it, and they're not being transparent at all. That doesn't sit well with us at all. That doesn't sit well with me. I'm sure it doesn't sit well with any of you. If you were having something done in your neighborhood, you wouldn't want to get lied to and told, yeah, hey, we're going to get right back to you. And every time you call, the guy goes, yeah, no problem, buddy. We'll take care of it. Sure thing. Call me by my nickname. All right, Tank, buddy, have a good one. I'll see you. Who are you? Like, come on. It's patronizing. It really is. And it's not the type of thing that I want in my city. And unless they're going to make some severe changes between now and whenever they want this project completed, I don't want it in the neighborhood. And that's where I'm at right now. Thank you. All right. Thanks, guys.
[Robert Penta]: My name is Robert Penter. I reside at Zero Summit Road and a former member of this August party. You're probably asking why I haven't been here for the last two meetings, and I'll be quite candid with you. I believe it's just a done deal no matter what's going to happen, whether the emergency room is going to close or the ASC Center is going in. It seems to be it's going to go through. But what this council does have is a voice in the concerns that the determination of need does not have. I was asked by a couple of people, just as your position, how come you're always coming up here? You've got something to say. I mean, how are you going to prove it? Well, I'm going to go back, because I keep everything, as you know. I go back to 2012. It's a resolution offered by myself before the Medford City Council, 2012, asking about whether, in fact, the Lawrence Memorial Hospital is going to be up for sale or not. And subsequent to that meeting, we got a response back from Michael Sack, who appeared before the Medford City Council some time later. This was in March. I believe it was in September or October of that year. He indicated that Lawrence Memorial Hospital was financially blessed. We were going to see at least a minimum of $150 million worth of an infusion in the hospital. And it looked pretty good. But he did say, and I will give him credit, he did say, medicine is changing. And while medicine is changing, you need to be concerned. So at that point in time, what the concern was, it didn't go any further than that, other than coming here, giving us a response as to what have you. Now, the history of parking in the Lawrence Memorial Hospital goes back to 2000. and three in 2004. Once again, as a member of the council, I brought it to the attention of then Christine Candio and she was the executive vice president because at that point in time in the neighborhood, employees were parking all around Lawrence Ave, Summit Road, Crest Road, up and up over there at the lot of park. And she indicated at that point in time, what they were going to do in her letter dated September 16th, 2004, she said, pursuant to our conversation on Tuesday, September 16th, the services at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital have grown in the last few years. And she went on to say that on September 7th, we implemented a new employee parking policy, which includes 200 spaces of off-street employee and student parking shuttling. Now to get to this gentleman's point, I'm sorry, I don't know his name, But to get to this gentleman's point, relative to the parking, you're going to have a parking issue if they build 17,500 square feet of a standalone building and take away approximately 65 parking spaces. But we'll get to that a little bit later. Then we're going to go, as you can all remember, thanks to City Clerk, on November 27th of this past year, you got a detailed response back from, I believe her name was Norma Mann, after it took 87 days for the council's letter to reach to the Department of Health, but it states in the following, in their fourth paragraph, the Department of Need program cannot base its determination of a Department of Need application upon community concerns regarding parking, noise, and traffic. but any decision by the department on the application will not impact the rights of the city to enforce zoning or other bylaws to address these quality of life concerns. What I've heard here tonight are quality of life concerns that fall right within the confines of the Medford City Council. And you do have a position to speak up. And if the position by speaking up is enough to stop this from going forward, then bless you, because you're listening to what the concerns are of the neighborhood and what the people feel that you're getting paid for. And then if we go a little bit further, we go into... Wait a minute. No, that's not it. No. The MBTA. Now, there's nobody here from the MBTA that I'm aware of. What if they are? The rumor seems to be continuously running rampant that they want to run buses or strike that. The hospital is suggesting that buses run by the MBTA up to the Lawrence Memorial location because it's not a hospital anymore. Get rid of that word hospital after March 7th. As a result of that, you're going to be having buses and pollution and everything going through these neighborhoods for a for-profit business. Now, they never consider that for the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, when it was operating with an emergency room and 24-hour service and stays. Why? It's all about money, ladies and gentlemen, and we know that. And as Councilman Mox has alluded to, when you had $20 to $30 million sitting in your coffers in 2013, and it all of a sudden disappeared because you intentionally, intentionally made the Lawrence Memorial Hospital emergency room decline to transfer everything over to the Melrose-Wakefield, that's what happened. And as a result of that, this is the position that we're in right now. Now, we go further to turn around and look at the zoning yet to be declared. A representative from the city solicitor's office, Mr. Rumley, rightfully made an indication as it relates to a memo that was sent out on October 10th of last year regarding what if this ASC does come forward. And at that point in time, the building department made an assumption or an assertion what would need to be happened. And Mr. Rumley was right when he turned around and says, since we don't have it, I can't make a decision. But I guess we're getting closer to wanting to make a decision because if that ASC is approved, for which it already tentatively has been approved, then if that's the case, you folks on this council need to ask that question immediately. Does or does not zoning need to be changed at this particular location? And now the city solicitor can rightfully make his determination because it's now a done deal. It's a past fact. Now let's go a little bit further. When you talk about the hospital's use, the deed that goes back from Mr. Daniel Lawrence. I don't know if anyone's had an opportunity to read it, but you have to read it. Then if you read all the six cardinals, they'll go with it. And then if you go into the history of Medford and you understand that at that point in time, there was, I believe, two other locations that did hospital type services. But this one was granted under the cardinals between one to six for a hospital to come forward in the city for the particular purpose and only intention of being a hospital. Now the question maybe one of you councilors should ask our city solicitor, since it was specific enough to say a hospital and it's no longer being used as a hospital, and I think we all understand that medical services change through the years, but by changing through the years you've gotten rid of the hospital use because the hospital name has to go. The emergency room is gone. Your 24-hour service is gone. And many, many of the services that are there are gone. It's going to be called an urgent care. I don't know what the name is that's going to precede urgent care. Maybe Lawrence Memorial Urgent Care. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is simply this. It's going to be a for-profit business running at the expense of the nonprofit business that was there that gave you a hospital, an emergency room, and 24-hour care. And this is what you're losing. And this is what you really need to take into consideration. This is now where the ball is in your court, not the state. This is your court. And this is how you can make that determination. And we look at this report that came out in March of 2018. It's voluminous. It's a report that was a combination of USA Today and the Kaiser Health Care News. And it was a combination of California, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida, Washington, DC, and Virginia. That's where these reporters came from and they did a nationwide review of ambulatory surgical centers. And from 2013 till now, 265 people have died, unfortunately, because of going there. Now, I'm not trying to put it down, but I just think you folks need to be aware of the fact. Because one of the main reasons are they're not properly staffed. Some of these doctors have taken liberties to do more than ambulatory surgery. Some of these patients have gone home quicker than they should have gone home. And they don't come under the same rules and regulations in the Medicare that a hospital does. And that is unbelievable when you read that. The checks and balances are not the same. If you read a hospital report, you'll realize what they have to account for. But if you read a Medicare report on ambulatory surgical centers, it's not the same. They don't even come close to what has to be reported. And in some states, you don't even have to report a death that comes out of an ambulatory surgical center. It's not in there. That's some of the things that you folks need to hold this company that wants to come into our city, you need to hold their feet to the fire and be accountable for every single thing that they do and every single doctor that comes in there and what they're going to perform and how they're going to perform and what is the backup. Let's get to you, Counsel Max. You brought it up last summer. You brought that question up last summer that this lady says, again, she's going to get back to you on. What's the backup for an emergency that needs to take place if an ambulance needs to be called, if the surgery goes wrong, or something happens? That's probably the most important part of this whole idea that this is going to cut costs. Sure it's going to cut costs, because if you read the report, a lot of the doctors that perform at these ambulatory surgical centers wind up getting these patients as their private patients. It's all about money, and that's great, because this is what America's all about. It's not about cows that don't know how to fluctuate. It's about democracy, and it talks about business. And what good business is all about is good medicine. And if you have good medicine and good business, you'll have a good, healthy person. But you have to be cognizant as to what's going on. This report took months. It's voluminous to read, but the parts that stand out are the necessity of knowing what this ambulatory surgeon, none of us, including myself, we're no surgeons, we're not doctors, we're not professionals. That's why you really need, before anything goes further, to put your heads together, read the report, read what's going on, ask all these type of questions. Parking is important. Of course it's important. The garage is important. But the most important thing is they took away your hospital to put a for-profit business in. That's the most important thing that you need to understand. Second to the last issue. We've heard the hospital folks come up here and say, oh yeah, they're going to be paying taxes because Shields is coming in. Well, that's really not true because the question is now going to be, the footprint of the hospital is now going to have an attachment to Shields, which is a for-profit business. Now, the urgent care section is not going to be part of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital because it doesn't exist anymore. So one or two things can come out as far as you're compromising or you're negotiating tactics. A, Shields pays full taxes, excuse me, as if. It was a commercial piece of property because it is commercially run. Second of all, if urgent care is going to be questioned as it relates to being nonprofit, well, then they ought to deal with the city in lieu of tax payment every three years to be reviewed. Because every one of those doctors in there are making money. They're private doctors now. They're working privately. They're not working for a hospital. Hospital no longer exists after March 7th of this year in the city of Medford. And let me just leave you with this last comment. And I appreciate the time. You had a young lady here that worked in the local newspaper. Her name was Miranda Wilson. She was going to write a story for which she did write a story that talked about the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, A, an auditing report on their executive salaries, and B, an auditing report on their expenses, profit and loss. When she submitted that to her editor, the editor said, no, no, no, because the pushback came from the Lawrence Memorial Hospital. So, if you really think that this Medford newspaper is giving you the right information, think again. Maybe many of the employees are doing the right thing, but it's quite obvious that the people who are running the Lawrence Memorial Hospital, all these executives that are getting paid hundreds and thousands and millions of dollars during the course of a year, if they can control the newspaper to try to control the people that read the newspaper, that that's what's going into the newspaper, it's going to be the right thing for the city of Medford then we're all crazy. Okay. Please hold your ground. This is your time to hold your ground in behalf of the taxpayers of this community. I thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Hi. My name's Eileen Ginnity. I live on Governor's Ave in Medford and I want to thank, um, Councilor Knight, because in January at our meeting, he made sure to request at the end that we had this month or five-week follow-up. And I think these kind of follow-ups are so important. And I also may have missed some of the update, because when the blower goes on, it is really hard to hear back there. And I'm not sure it was going to be on the update tonight from the Melrose-Wakefield people. At the last meeting here at City Council, Vice President Lungo Coyne, among other things, said we would like some information about the ownership structure. And I don't believe anything of that nature was presented tonight. And I guess I would just like to say, let's not lose track of that piece of information. I know that that has a lot of spokes coming off of it, like revenues, taxes, and things that are important to the city in that way, but I really We know there are three major groups of partners, but I think people must be much more at a more formalized point that they can speak to us about that. In an email with Lori, I heard that the survey for neighbors or interested city people would be hopefully coming up by the end of this week. And is that on track? I'm sorry, I hadn't heard if that was in the update. Thank you. So there's a survey coming out, I guess, for any citizen to respond to. There's one thing I asked, and I think people are still trying to get the information. But at the meeting in January, and then with my email, I asked whether they could give the square footage of the nursing school building. So just in comparison to a 17,500 one-story building that will be like in front of it, could we just have an idea of, I just aesthetically and neighborhood-wise want to have an idea of where that is in the drawings. The new building looks much bigger. It may in fact just hide the whole nursing school. I don't know. I'm just looking for that information on the square footage of the nursing school to compare to the proposed square footage of the ambulatory services center. That must be in a blueprint somewhere that people can get.
[John Falco]: Just so we can all hear.
[Fuller]: Sorry, I was pulling up my phone. The gross square footage for the residence hall is 23,000 square feet, and the classroom is just under 9,000. So a total of around 33,000 square feet. It's two buildings. It's a residence hall, which is the higher structure, and then the classroom, which is the two-story structure. Sorry. In the residence hall, no one lives there. It's an old name.
[SPEAKER_08]: I'm sorry.
[Fuller]: The classroom is where? The classroom is just a tad under 9,000.
[SPEAKER_08]: I think that's really all the particular factual stuff I wanted to bring up. But I did hear Ryan talked about escalating costs. I think that's the first maybe a lot of people are hearing about that, escalating costs due to extended time. I know you're not ready to give detail on that, but that concerns me. And it sort of concerns me for several reasons. One is at the very first meeting and from I've been at every single meeting, big, small, city council, drop-in, every single meeting, it was always that we can't retrofit and reuse the hospital because it will cost us an additional $3 million. So I certainly hope the escalating costs are not going to be around $3 million or more, because think of all the time and angst and neighborhood worry that would have been spent on this. So I would think that escalating costs, I guess, are getting presented at some future date. That's all I want to say factually, but I just want to say I wasn't I Also wasn't going to come tonight. I've been to every single meeting. I've emailed people I've Tried to keep up to date and then my neighbor miss mescal of retired school teacher who we are so happy lucky to have as our neighbor said we should go so I picked her up and we came and I wasn't gonna come because like I Councilor Penter, I feel like it's a done deal. And you get to a point in your life, you know, you have a lot of other things to worry about, family, your job, you're paying your taxes. And it's like, it's a done deal. CEO Sandberg comes there and she knows what she's doing and Ram ruts through. And I emailed the mayor to say, will the ambulatory service center go 24-7 now that the air is closing? And the mayor wrote back and said, no, I wish they had decided to. But where is it? So I may come. I hopefully will come again to other meetings. But I wasn't going to come tonight. I think it's important as neighbors we stay together and protect our neighborhood and do what's right and not be difficult. I don't think neighbors are being difficult or asking too much. Thank you. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_10]: Janet Dietrich, 38 Hutchins Road. Now, I was thinking when I was writing all these notes, which they're a mess so they're not in order, when the hospital was the hospital and doctors made rounds, they did not Majority did not have offices in the hospital. Now, this group is saying, the ASC, oh, it's going to be great. We're going to have the surgeries here, and then the doctors can go over to the medical building to see their patients. Yeah, that's not serving anybody. They don't have to. The surgeons are doing their surgeries. They're saving the doctors a trip from New England Medical Center to go to the hospital to make rounds. So they say outpatient when they go in for surgery, and they say outpatient, we'll go over and see them. No, the people are going home. They're going over to see their appointments that were made. Why can't this ASC be put on public property and let them go from surgeries up to the hospital to see their patients just like doctors have always done? The ASC does not need to be on the hospital property. you need to find property in the city that it can go on. And then they could still have the medical building for their offices. That's just one point. Let's see. Oh, OK. With transportation and parking garage, There's numerous Mass Bay Transportation Authority bus lines. We have number 80, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 108, and 134. Who knew? I didn't know until I looked this up. All right, so that's a lot of people coming and going and traffic with the buses. The bus lines to Wellington are 90, 97, 106, 110, and 112. The east side of Method is Wellington Station, the orange line. The west side of Medford is the Lowell commuter rail line stops in the west Medford Square. So you have people coming from, you know, going from Boston up to Lowell. The Green Line extension will bring the Green Line into Medford. It's under construction. We'll follow the Lowell commuter rail tracks ending near Tufts University intersection, Boston Ave and College Ave. A further extension to Mystic Valley Parkway, Route 16, is under environmental review. I didn't know that. You also have the Joseph Limousine. You have Interstate 93 from north to south through the city. State routes passing through Method include Routes 16, 28, 38, and 60. And we are now hearing that Hallmark Health is looking into the MBTA and a route to the hospital, maybe Forest Street to Lawrence Road, Winthrop Street to Lawrence Road. And I believe that is not for the ASC. That's gonna be for the appointments at the medical building. We cannot take a chance with this. This is a business they have. They don't care about the community. It's a Boston invasion. It's a small New England medical center. They can move it to another place. Now, urgent care, they have the elderly brainwashed. They think, oh, the emergency room is going, but urgent care is going to be open from 7 to 11. But they don't understand. The elderly would go up there for chest pain and such, not knowing that they don't have really anything up there to help them. You'd still have to call an ambulance to take them to Melrose-Wakefield. And you also have urgent care co-pay, which when I happened to go to one, it cost me $50. Well, I had to go to an ER. They couldn't help me, and it cost me $100. Now it's $150, and that's without an ambulance. How much is that going to cost somebody to go from the urgent care to Melrose-Wakefield? There's no doctor going to be there at the urgent care. Nurse practitioners, RNs, nursing assistants. Now, labs, they do, you heard, go out outsourced except for a few. X-rays, there was a pregnant woman that went there, eight months pregnant. They couldn't do an ultrasound. They told us she had to go to a hospital. Now, if you see somebody pregnant and she's having questionable problems, you know, please, we can't help you right here. Don't. Book her in and send her out. Now, and the other thing is the ER has closed. What's going to happen to the urgent care when that starts to decline in the number of people going? Because there's so many urgent cares now out there that they may need the space for more doctors. Who knows? And how are they going to bill for the urgent care? There have been issues that other places have billed outpatient hospital visits, which is a lot of money. The people are billed extra. for going to an urgent care that's in a hospital. Well, whatever it's called now. Yeah, they have a facility fee and a doctor fee. Let's see. Okay. Now, ASC, Method Surgery LLC, that's the doctors that own it. How many doctors are we talking about? How much money are they going to pull in? They were saying 30,000 procedures are going to be done in this ASC. Now, I talked to a GI doctor. He works six days a week. And he does seven to 10 procedures a day. Now, how are they going to divide these rooms up? They're talking about all these doctors going to come in and do procedures? Eventually, they're going to have to add on to bring in more outpatient rooms to be done. We don't know this. We're going to open this up and we're not going to know what's going to go in the medical building. They're not telling us anything. They know the plans. They know what they want. They know how many doctors are going to be involved. It's for-profit, taxable ASC. Now, let's see. I told you I don't have it in order. OK, this is a world-renowned New England Medical Center physicians. Patients will come to MedFed not from MedFed only, but from Massachusetts, also from New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. And you want to know why? I did it. My kids went to a physician at Children's Hospital for years. Before he was at Boston, he was in Arkansas. People from Arkansas, once a year, flew from Arkansas to Children's Hospital to see him. Then when he left, he went to Maine. I drove to Maine every six months because my kids had to be seen. I drove to Maine. So these are world-renowned medical center doctors. People are going to do this. It's not just Medvid residents. We have all these other communities coming in. Malden Hospital, it's been closed for 20 years. Well, the zoning changed, reverted back to a single zoning when it became vacant. The city allowed Hallmark to have it vacant so that they can determine their zoning laws, which it did go back to single. So they still don't know what's going on there. And again, how are they going to do the school and nursing, transport them over to the Malden campus when who knows what's going to go there? And they have been saying, oh, Lawrence Memorial employees weren't ever over there. They never parked there. Mr. Falco, President Falco, you want to know who parked in my driveway? He worked at the Lawrence Memorial kitchen, your cousin. He didn't want to be transported. He did not want to be transported. I'm not aware of that. Anthony Falco. I call him Falco. He parked in my driveway because he had little kids and couldn't take that silly bus over to the, wherever they go again, Malden Hospital. So, I mean, What do you want to say?
[John Falco]: I'm not aware of that, and I can't speak to that.
[SPEAKER_10]: I know, I know. But they're telling us this. They're not. I told them to park there. Yeah, you told them to park there. And then I have a cousin who worked there that parked in my girlfriend's driveway because she didn't want to take the whatever that thing is.
[John Falco]: Parking is definitely a concern. Oh, I know. We're all aware of that. And we're definitely concerned as Councilors for the neighborhood with regard to parking, without a doubt.
[SPEAKER_10]: Oh, yes, this is true. And I'm also hearing. They've been saying, oh, you know, there isn't going to be a parking garage. You know, oh, we're not going to do that. Well, yeah, not up at the ASC. We've been thinking ASC. They're planning on putting one in the emergency room parking lot, a garage. Yeah, well, this is what they're thinking. That hasn't been presented to us. Oh, I know. I went down to the... Who was it, the building or somebody down there at City Hall? He told me to check in every two weeks, because he can't believe he hasn't heard from them. Now, I want to know the curbing, the nice curbing that they put along Governor Zav's Island, going from the entrance to the hospital up to my street. Hutchins Road, isn't that funny? Hutchins Road, where Anthony Falco parked in my driveway. And I want to know who paid for that. Because they didn't go all the way up Governor's Ave. They only stopped from point A to point B. You know, if these people are going to be bringing this into our neighborhood, they should do all the way up Governor's Ave and make it look pretty. And with the parking, too, it's not going to just be employees and nursing students that are going to park on the streets. Patients are going to be parking on the streets because they're not going to have anywhere to park. You can't stop them. And security, they did years ago have security in the parking area. There hasn't been in years. I mean, they put flyers up. You know how you lose your dog, somebody takes your dog? A doctor, somebody took his 10-speed mountain bike that cost like $600 off the back of his car while he was working. I mean, it's crazy. All these people that just come into our neighborhood, and we don't know who they are. You people need to help us. You need to block this because it's undetermined. It's just open. They're not saying anything. If you allow the ASC, who knows what's going to go into the medical building? And the hospital, like Mr. Penta said, it's not a hospital. The hospital name, like I've said from the get-go, has to be torn away off the building, off the highways, because people for what, since 1929? No, that was a hospital. And they are still going to go there to the emergency room. That's not going to be open. And we don't want what happened in the Somerville ER, you know, with a girl on a bench, dead, because she couldn't get into the emergency room. Okay? So I think that's it for now, because my notes are a mess. And you are going to have more meetings.
[John Falco]: Of course, yes.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, before you make any decisions.
[John Falco]: Yes, we have a standing monthly meeting.
[SPEAKER_10]: Oh, and also, monthly meeting, not on vacation. April vacation, we better not be coming here. It always seems that these people book it either too early, because people are at work, or a vacation, or a holiday. And the transcript, they post, oh, you've got to go there for the health department. It comes in the transcript a week after.
[John Falco]: Point of information, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Let it be known that I moved to cancel both this week's meeting and the meeting during school week in April.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo.
[SPEAKER_10]: Yeah, thank you. Yes, okay. I'll back you. And maybe you could park in my driveway with Anthony Falco. Oh, okay. All right, I would have served lunch. All right, I think that's it for now. But I'll be back. Thank you very much. Yeah. Oh, it's also funny. When I went down to City Hall, just to let you know, I walked into the city clerk's office asking about something. And the man, I think that whoever he is, the head came out and said, hi, Janet. I didn't even know who he was. Oh, it was you. Adam, I see your name there. I was surprised he remembered me. Thank you, Adam. You scared me, but thank you. And I'll be down. Again, soon. Bye. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Mr. President, maybe if the gentleman from the hospital might want to address some of the concerns that were made this evening.
[Fuller]: So we appreciate all the comments that have been made. We strive to be a good neighbor. a good neighbor to everyone who spoke tonight. And we are committed to continue to engage. We have voluntarily put forth and always come here. We will continue to come here and provide updates. We will continue to have our butter meetings. Our email address is open for questions and answers. We want to address any questions that people have. And we are committed to continuing our engagement process. And we take the comments to heart. that were made today. And that's some of the work that our team, our experts are working on right now.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think a couple of questions are asking. I mean, one of the big concerns was, is there going to be a bus line going up there? Have you made inquiries to the MBTA about putting a bus in there? No one from hospital leadership has. And what about another concern was the parking garage. Is there plans for a parking garage down in the future of this building?
[Fuller]: So I thought this question might come. The revalidation of Lawrence Memorial Hospital campus will allow us to continue providing high quality, convenient care that Medford residents need. We have undertaken a thoughtful process to build this vision, including consideration of many factors of current and future services at the campus related to parking. For example, we consider the average number of patients, visitors, employees, and the duration of their visit, as well as other activities on campus to ensure adequate parking. Our study of this issue indicates there is no need for a parking garage on site. The best assurance I can give you is that the fact there is a robust city approval process for any future development on this site, as the ASC has shown.
[Richard Caraviello]: I think what some of the people are looking for is an assurance that there won't be a garage there in the future.
[Fuller]: Not able to give that assurance right now. The best thing I can do is that the robust city approval process for any type of that development, as this ASC project has shown. We look forward to coming back.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I'd just like to ask if Ms. O'Reilly and Ms. Minor could provide the city messenger with a copy of those criteria that they spoke of earlier in the meeting, so we can include that in the council record for tonight's proceedings. And I'd also ask that we reconvene in four weeks' time, Mr. President, for another monthly update.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Knight, just so you know.
[Adam Knight]: And if we have to check with Janet to see her schedule, that's fine with me, too.
[John Falco]: The clerk did receive an itemized list here, so what we'll do is we'll have a copy made and distribute it to everyone here. Yes.
[Adam Knight]: If we could have a copy of that included in the minutes for next council meeting, I'd appreciate it.
[John Falco]: Yes, if you could have a copy included in the minutes for the next council meeting. Ms. O'Reilly, is it possible to get a electronic copy? Thank you.
[SPEAKER_26]: So at the risk of being told that I've drank the Kool-Aid, I'm working with the hospital here and working with my neighbors. I'm very conflicted on this issue. I don't think any of us are truly happy about what's happening. But the hospital's not coming back. And I think we need to be realistic about this. The options are an ASC, abandonment of the property, development of condos or homes, which will be far more drilling and more disastrous to our homes, and much more construction over time. Or maybe a McLean's Hospital, I have no idea. But I think we need to be realistic about what's going to happen here. So I'm reluctant to push back so much that this project is abandoned. Again, I'm not happy, I'm very conflicted over this, but I think we need to be realistic and try and work together on this. I would very much like for you to work with us. You have some great ideas. Well, we'll work with you.
[John Falco]: Okay, Mrs. O'Reilly, if you could just direct your comments to the chair.
[SPEAKER_26]: Absolutely, so I just wanted to say that, you know, we are a pretty strong neighborhood. I think we've come together through this process. But I want to be moving forward and not be shooting ourselves in the foot.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you. Councilman, did you have any further comments?
[Adam Knight]: Just that we can reconvene in four weeks' time, Mr. President, for a further update.
[John Falco]: Thank you. On the motion to reconvene in one month, Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Just briefly. the hospitals being a much better neighbor than maybe they were in the summer, and there is some transparency. One thing that really stands out to me and that really would be helpful for the community, and I think it's something that us Councilors as well as the city and the neighbors need to digest, is that parking study. So I respectfully ask that that parking study be released prior to any permitting package being submitted to the I think that is something that is so extremely important. It's something that every single resident, neighbor, community member has mentioned and is concerned about. It's something that we need to digest and review, and I'm going to take the time to do it. So I don't want it to be submitted to the city, come to us the next week, and be a rush. That is something that really needs to come out. You have a parking study that's done. There's no reason to hold it off another three months when the people could be reviewing it now and coming up with ideas and concerns and a list of questions and trying to create a resolution now. So that's my last and final comment. That is something that needs to be done. And I really hope that we get a copy of that study.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. While we have representatives from the hospital here, I had a question regarding interaction with the Medford Fire Department. Has there been any on-site meetings with the Medford Fire Department in regards to the placement of your ambulatory care building and where it's situated in comparison to the nursing school?
[Fuller]: Not aware of any on-site meetings. We have received the feedback from the fire department specifically. The site location that we had we are proposing or have been proposing and we're taking that feedback into consideration now That's one of the serious Factors that I described that the team is looking at in addition to the community feedback in the overall budget concerns But there have been no on-site meetings specifically for this But we have heard for feedback and what look our experts are looking at ways to address that Is it fair to say that there's a concern?
[Michael Marks]: by the method fire department relative to the the placement of the ambulatory surgical center in front of a building that may not be sprinkled up to code?
[Fuller]: We'll certainly let the experts address that. There were some of the feedback had been access to the School of Nursing building. Is that something you can share with us, or is that something that? The extent that I know is there are concerns around access to that building because of where the ASC is proposed. And they're looking at ways to, the best way to, our teams are looking at the best way to mitigate that in a multitude of ways.
[Michael Marks]: As part of the mitigation, is it potentially possible that the building could be relocated?
[Fuller]: I think we're looking at all options that are on the table, so yes sir. So that is an option. Thank you. For a multitude of reasons, but yes.
[SPEAKER_01]: On that topic, I actually, according to Sean, the guy who represents them, the fire chief said until they figure out how they can access the dormitory building of the nursing school, there's absolutely no way that building will be able to go in as it stands. They cannot make the turn in the back of the building with a ladder truck or a fire engine. They have to come up Governor's Ave. which is another issue that I need to talk about, because that's been going crazy for the last 18 months to two years. But they have to come in through the front, and a standard ladder truck and or horse truck will not reach that dormitory building from the front over the ambulatory center. So either they need to figure out how to get a fire hydrant back there or something. I really don't know what they're going to do. but as it sits right now and the way things are planned out and you can check with the fire chief if you want. Um, yeah, that, that's, that's a, that's a real concern. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, uh, myself and council Lungo attended the neighborhood meeting last week and as part of some of the conditions that were raised by the neighborhood, There were a number of conditions that were raised that may not fall under the purview of the Lawrence Memorial Hospital and something we as a community could be looking into. I know signage was an issue on some of the roads on Joyce and Hutchins. There was talk about maybe resident permit parking, which would alleviate some of the concerns of people parking on those particular roads that may be employed or going to Lawrence Memorial Hospital. But there were a number of issues that we really don't need to wait on Lawrence Memorial. And I'm not sure at what point we as a council can forward some of these recommendations to either the traffic commission or whether it be the mayor's office to act upon these issues, because there's no reason to wait. So I would ask that as part of the committee report tonight, that we formulate a response that addresses some of the conditions within the neighbor's concerns and start working on those immediately, things that really don't need involvement by Lawrence Memorial Hospital.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Counsel Marcus. If I may, just to clarify, are you making a resolution that we need to?
[Michael Marks]: I think it may, I don't think we should do it here on the floor, but maybe a committee of the whole meeting or a subcommittee meeting.
[John Falco]: Okay, we can schedule a committee of the whole meeting.
[Michael Marks]: To talk about some of the conditions.
[John Falco]: Okay, sounds good. Thank you, Councilman Cox.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Councilman Knight, seconded by Vice President Longo-Curran, as amended by Vice President Longo-Curran, that we reconvene in one month Councilor Caraviello. No worries. Oh, you hit it by accident.
[Richard Caraviello]: I'm good, thank you.
[John Falco]: OK. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. We'll reconvene in one month. Thank you.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. While we're on the suspension, if we could take 19-056 for a common victims license and 19-059
[John Falco]: Petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 19-056. On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Capiello, that we recess for five minutes. All those in favor? All those opposed? We'll take a brief recess. Will now reconvene the meeting. Please have all consulars behind the rail.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Point of order, Mr. President. What item is before us?
[John Falco]: Councilor Caraviello has asked, while we're under suspension, to take up 19-056, but for a common vigilance license for five guys, burgers and fries, but they are not in attendance tonight.
[Fred Dello Russo]: I'm very disappointed, Mr. President. Let the record show, because that is the only fast food in which I enjoy.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. So is there a motion to? Okay, is there a motion to table 9-056? On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to table 19-056, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion's tabled. Let's see, while we're under suspension, Is it 19059, Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Petition to reverse signed denial by Reverend David Kilpatrick for West Medford Baptist Church, 59 Bosnav, Medford Mass. OCD application 2019-1 exceeds allowable size. Councilor Caraviello?
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. I turn it over to the Reverend Kilpatrick.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: I mean David, yeah. Thank you. I'm Reverend David Kilpatrick, senior pastor at the West Medford Baptist Church, where I've been the pastor for 25 years. And I'm here representing the congregation and the board of trustees, seeking a special permit to replace our 70-plus-year-old lighted sign, which has outlived its usefulness. It's one of those signs where you have to change the individual letters. It's very labor-intensive. Even though it's a lighted sign, it's very difficult to see from the street. And people don't really look at those kind of signs anymore anyway. So we're seeking to install a state-of-the-art programmable sign that can be programmed from any laptop, anywhere, wirelessly. You can put all kinds of messages, not only advertising things for the church, but a lot of other groups use our building for different events. For example, the New England region of the NAACP is meeting there in March, a meeting that's open to the public. We could let the neighborhood know that they're meeting there and they're welcome to attend. We have all kinds of community events for children from the neighborhood. We could let the neighborhood know we're having those kinds of things. The current sign is seven feet tall, which is one foot higher than the current code calls for. The new sign would be 7.6 inches tall, six inches higher than the one that's there now, and would basically fit in the same footprint as the current sign. So there wouldn't be a lot of change to the looks. It's been designed in such a way, I think you have a designer's version of it in the packet that I left for each one of you, on top of the seven foot six inch sign will be a little finial that has a cross on it, but the sign itself is 7.6 feet high. And obviously it does not meet the code, so we would need a special permit in order to have that. As I stated in my written statement, people don't walk into small Protestant churches these days looking to become members. We have to market ourselves. And this is a great way to market ourselves in the community by letting them know what's going on in the building, not only in terms of our own activities, but various community groups that meet there. For example, Medford Community Housing occasionally used the building for new homeowner, new homebuyers training classes. We could advertise that to the neighborhood that is being held there. So these are the kinds of things that we'd be using the sign for. I'd be happy to entertain any questions you have.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Reverend Kirkpatrick. Thank you very much. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Reverend, I don't know if you knew, but on High Street at the other church over there, they have, I'm assuming this is going to be an illuminated sign?
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: Yes, it would be similar to the one at the Evangelical Haitian Church of Somerville, which you granted a special permit to, but it will be a smaller sign than the one they have.
[Richard Caraviello]: You may want to talk to Mr. Bavuso. Because again, because when they put that sign in there, there was some neighborhood outcry about the hours of the operation and things that were on the sign. So I actually be cognizant of that. I'm well aware of that. But there was some neighborhood concern with the sign going on and the hours of operation on it. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor De La Ruza.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, thank you. I, uh, I endorse the sign and, uh, see no reason why not to grant this, uh, this, uh, special permit. Uh, I just hope that the, uh, Reverend, uh, avails himself as Councilor Caraviello suggested to some of the limitations, uh, regarding this type of sign. Uh, the council has in the past indicated that, uh, messages can't, uh, change in a rapid way, but must be consistent for periods of time before that they can change. So, he knowing that, I move approval of this special permit.
[John Falco]: A motion of Consul Dello Russo to grant the special permit. Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Falco. Thank you, Reverend. With regards to this picture, this is the prior picture. That's correct.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: That's the current sign.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: That's a current sign. And then you provided us with a picture.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: There's an architectural sketch of what the new sign would look like.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes. We have the design. I just want to know, it looks like this is permanent. So it says West Medford Baptist Church, all are welcome.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: The top part is permanent. That would stay the same all the time. The bottom part is programmable. The bottom part is programmable. For example, you could put the date time and temperature on there when there's no other signs on there. But you can design any kind of a message to go on that.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: You can change that per the ordinance. That's right. OK, so my question is, what colors will especially the permanent section be? Because we just have a black and white picture.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: It would be the colors that are there. It would look exactly like that on the top.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So it's going to be black and white?
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: No, it's blue.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, that's what I'm asking. This is black and white. blue with yellow letters. Do you have a color copy by chance?
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: The Baptist Church is in yellow. The West Medford is in white with a blue background.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Do you happen to have a colored photo just so I could take a look?
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I think it's the same one you have.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Oh, no. Ours is in black and white.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: Oh, yours is in black and white.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yeah, that's why I just. I have one in color. I don't know about the rest of the councils. I just wanted to see it in color.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: OK.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: And then the bottom will always be yellow?
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: The bottom can be made any color that's programmable. For example, if someone designed a flyer, the flyer could be projected on that part of the sign.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: OK.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: You know, giving the time of the event and a couple of details about it, that type of thing.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you, Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I certainly have no problem with the application. I just ask that we attach a condition to the special permit that the approval would be attached to the applicant's preferred use, applied use, as opposed to the business address. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. One of the issues that I think Councilor Caraviello was alluding to was the fact that signs that are internally illuminated can pose a concern within neighborhood settings. And I know the other sign that was denied that was approved by this council, we requested special conditions on the special permit. And I'm not sure if you're willing to make that tonight, but that would be my vote for support. that the sign be turned off no later than 8 o'clock at night. I believe that was the special permit we put. And we could check with the city clerk, Mr. President, to see what conditions we'll put on the last sign.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: But I do know that that other sign at the other church is on 24 hours a day.
[Michael Marks]: Well, and we've called code enforcement on them between you and I, and now the whole city knows about it, but they were, they were in violation. And I want to make sure that we as a council are consistent when we approve these signs. I would prefer to sit down in the subcommittee meeting, talk about the sign, talk about the illumination, talk about hours of operation, and then move forward, Mr. President. I think that's a better way of operating where this was already denied by the billing department. We would be happy to meet any special conditions that you have.
[John Falco]: So you'd like to move this to a subcommittee on science?
[Michael Marks]: Business, economic development, and science.
[John Falco]: There's currently a motion on the floor to approve this special permit. Is there a second? There's no second.
[Michael Marks]: To approve. To approve moving it.
[John Falco]: There's a motion on the floor by Consulate Dela Rousseau to approve the special permit and to allow the sign. Is there a second for that? To approve the sign. Approve the sign. You don't want to approve the sign? OK.
[Michael Marks]: Subcommittee.
[John Falco]: If I may, if I may. There's a motion on the floor by Consulate Dela Rousseau to approve the special permit as amended by Councilor Knight, namely Councilor Marks. You offer the resolution Councilor Dello Russo, it has not been seconded. There's also, Councilor Marks would also like to move this to the business and economics subcommittee.
[Michael Marks]: Signs. Signs. To discuss with the petitioner the conditions that we'll discuss.
[John Falco]: Is there a second on Councilor Dello Russo's motion?
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Dello Russo, I'll mind.
[John Falco]: So there's no second on Consul Dello Russo's motion, so that fails. On the motion of Consul Marks that this be moved to the Business and Economic Subcommittee, Consul Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I certainly have no problem sending this to the Business and Economic Development Subcommittee. I'd ask that also a 90-day review be something that the subcommittee consider with pending approval as a condition, and also that paper 17606, which is the Evangelical Haitian Church on High Street, also be brought in to have a review. We had a 90-day review on that as well. The review never happened because they didn't illuminate the sign within the initial 90 days of permitting. So I think we need to do a little follow-up on that as well. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Okay, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate Councilor Marks' resolution. I think that this is important and I'd like to see it move forward, but I think that in all fairness, with the illuminated signs being a popular trend now, I think that we have to follow the same protocol that we have in the past because I think it is important. And what we're seeing right now with the High Street Church, that they're in violation. So I think it can only prove that we follow the same procedures. So I second Councilor Marks' resolution.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Marks, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, that this be moved to the Business and Economic Development and Science Subcommittee, which is chaired by Councilor Marks. It includes Councilor Dello Russo and Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? I'm sorry, I apologize, as amended. All those in favor? All those opposed? This will move to the subcommittee of business and economic development and science.
[w2qazGPKqcY_SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much.
[John Falco]: Thank you. A motion to revert to the regular order of business. Hearings. Notice of a public hearing 18-712. Notice of a public hearing. City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on February 19th, 2019 at 7 p.m. in the Howard F. Alden Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, Massachusetts to amend Chapter 94 zoning. to create an Inclusionary Housing Special Permit Ordinance. The purpose is to create housing affordable to low and moderate income households by requiring any development constructing 10 or more residential units to receive a special permit and provide the following percentages of affordable units. 10 to 24 units, 10%. 25 to 49 units, 13%. 50 or more units, 15%. Let me say that again. 10 to 24 units, 10%. 25 to 49 units, 13%. 50 or more units, 15%. The proposed amendment adds definitions, conditions, and affordability requirements consistent with the DHCD-LIP program. The full amendment is available at the office of the city clerk, Medford City Hall, room 103, by order of the Medford City Council, Adam L. Hurtubise, city clerk. City of Medford, amendments to the revised zoning, amendments to the revised ordinance, chapter 94, zoning. Be it ordained by the Medford City Council of the City of Medford that the revised ordinances of the City of Medford in Chapter 94, Zoning, be further amended to establish an inclusionary housing slash special permit process. Add Article 8, Inclusionary Housing, 94-501 as follows. Section 1, Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage development of new housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households. At a minimum, affordable housing produced through this regulation should be in compliance with the requirements set forth in General Law C40B section 20-20. President, motion to waive the reading and allow the Director of Community Development to give a brief synopsis as this has been discussed. Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. If we could have Lauren DiLorenzo from the Office of Community Development to give us a brief synopsis of the amendments to the revised ordinance.
[Laurel Siegel]: Thank you, Mr. President, members of the Council. I'll try not to be repetitive. OK, I shall. This is a formalization of a process that we've been using to require a percentage of housing units to be made affordable in accordance with a local initiative program. And the city council, and particularly through its zoning subcommittee, used a model from the Smart Growth Toolkit in order to develop this. And it follows in line with the site plan review process. The idea of that was, rather than creating a lengthy permitting process for development, which has been a criticism that that is actually a deterrent to the creation of housing, all housing in the Commonwealth, we decided, or the council decided, that they would combine the processes so that when a petitioner went for either a variance or a special permit for use from either the city council or the board of appeals, then this process would follow that special permit process. The hearings would be held at the same time. If there were no special permit from the council or variances from the Board of Appeals or special permit from the Board of Appeals, the Community Development Board would be the special permit granting authority. And so in this ordinance, you have, as the president has spoken, you have had basically what's pretty typical, definitional section. So they're modifying the definitions. You have basically the requirements, what constitutes a covered project, what projects will be subject to this requirement. And the president did go over those thresholds, which is basically the threshold of 10 units or more, whether they be in construction of housing or they be a subdivision, lots of plans. And the program would follow the local initiative program. Now, why do we choose that? That program goes up to 80% median income or less, and those units that follow those guidelines, This is separate than a Chapter 40B covered project, which would have some kind of state assistance in it and would have a greater percentage of affordability in order for them to follow the special requirements that projects under 40B can follow. So these are projects that are really done as you've seen in Medford with the market rate projects. And the reason why we really want to capture those units is because we can add them to the subsidized housing inventory. And the council, I think, was pretty clear. It's not really just to meet a requirement And so that we don't have the potential for it to be projects, it's really just that we should get credit for the effort that has been given. And then from there, you can change it once we meet that threshold of the 10%. We're at about 7%. It's getting increasingly harder to meet the 10% because there have been so many housing units that have been built. And so if we can even catch up to the status quo of 10% of these units, we'll still be a bit behind. almost all of the housing units to be built to be affordable in order for us to actually make that 10%. So it's a difficult threshold to meet. We should try to meet that. And I think the council in this presentation here has that included in it. And, you know, there were some decisions and discussions, if you don't mind, if I speak a little bit about the subcommittee meetings. There were some decisions in here that's not in lieu of fee. The reason for that is that a developer at this time, when the market is so hot, has the land, has control of the land, has financing, and is able to provide units much more quickly than the city could ever if it had to acquire land on its own, construct, and then sell property or lease it out. So that's why there's no one in lieu of fee. Now, one thing that the council did talk about in the zoning subcommittee meetings were that these things can change down the road if the council so desires to do that. You could simply prepare an amendment and make that change. when you feel it's appropriate. So again, I went over the maximum selling price and the regulations of how it would be administered in this ordinance is given to the Community Development Board to develop the administrative rules and procedures. Thank you. Okay.
[John Falco]: So at this point in time, I will declare the public hearing open. Open to those in favor of the petition. Anyone in favor of the petition Please approach the podium and give just your name and address for the record. At this point in time, name and address.
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you. My name is Roberta Cameron. My address is 12 North Street.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Roberta. At this point, we just need your name and address. OK.
[Roberta Cameron]: Got it. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Anyone else in favor of the petition?
[Curtis]: Mark Curtis, 89 Traincraft.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Mark.
[Laurel Siegel]: Alex Lassenhop, 28 Wright Avenue.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Anyone else in favor of the petition?
[Laurel Siegel]: Joan Cyr, 40 Cedar Road North. Thank you, Joan.
[Susan Collins]: Bedford Community Housing, 11 Salem Street.
[John Falco]: Thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Leslie Winslow Keats, 8 Billings Ave. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_27]: Marie Izzo, 29 Pilgrim Road.
[Mark Rumley]: Thank you, Marie. Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Anyone else in favor? Hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Anyone in opposition of the petition? Anyone in opposition of the petition? Hearing and seeing none, I declare this portion of the hearing closed. Now I'll call on the chairperson of zoning, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council. Council President. In discussions, if we can, this evening we were given following public hearing conducted, the Community Development Board had some recommendations. If our Director DiLorenzo can approach the podium again, can she possibly go through each one and help us understand so we can move forward with this with better knowledge? Thank you.
[Laurel Siegel]: As you know, the Community Development Board had a hearing in the spring and had a second public hearing just last week. And so some of these items were, they've been actually discussed and presented to the council in an orally correspondence. And the other additional comments were elaborated upon and added to this recommendation. So the Community Development Board, I'm going to just read it. And the letter is from John DePriest, the chairperson of the Community Development Board and its relative to the proposed amendment to chapter 94, inclusionary housing. Following a public hearing conducted on February 13th, 2019, the Community Development Board voted to recommend that the Medford City Council adopt the proposed amendment with the following changes. Number one, in section 2.0, definitions covered project, insert this sentence after the last sentence of that section, doesn't say that, I added that, but a covered project shall include projects that are incrementally divided or phased within a five-year period. Number two, in section 2.0 definitions, segmented, remove the words 24-month and substitute five-year. Number three, in section 3.0 applicability in 1A and 1B, insert the words over a five-year period following the words dwelling units. Four, in section 6.0, mandatory provision affordable units, correct the following typographical error. Change A to C on the bottom line. Number five, in section 6.0, mandatory provisions of affordable units, add a subsection three, all covered projects that comply with the following. Now this gets a little wordy, so I'll just read that. Fractional units, where the required number of affordable units results in a fraction of a unit, The required number should be rounded up to the nearest whole number. B, phasing. Affordable units should not be the last units to be developed or occupied in any covered project. And C, non-avoidance by phasing or segmentation. A development shall not be phased or segmented in a manner to avoid compliance with the section. The Special Permit Granting Authority shall not approve any covered project that results in 10 or more dwelling units if the land or parcels of land were held in common ownership, including ownership by related or jointly controlled persons or entities, and were subdivided or otherwise modified within the previous five years to avoid compliance without complying with this section. This section shall also be enforceable against purchases of land previously held in common ownership with land that received, after the date of adoption of this section, approvals or permits for development, to the effect that units developed under such previous development shall be counted toward the calculation of number of units under this section." Finally, at the end of the letter, it says, additionally, the board recommended that, while reviewing the proposed ordinance, the city council consider recommendations that may be presented by the Housing and Method Coalition. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. John DePriest, chairperson. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Scarapelli, did you have questions regarding this? Or I know Councilor Locarno did, but I want to make sure. You had the floor.
[George Scarpelli]: No, I think that if I could, I know that the Housing and Method Coalition have done an unbelievable job. We've reviewed what their changes and what they would like to see happen. I think that what I'd like to do Council President, I would like to adopt and vote this section in. And then I would like to hold a subcommittee to meet with and review all of the additional information from the Housing Method Coalition program and looking to that as we move forward.
[John Falco]: So, Judge, I want to make sure I add this right. So you would like to basically make a motion to approve this, uh, the ordinance with regard to include the changes that were put forth by the, uh, by the, um, correct. And that have in a meeting, uh, at a later date, subcommittee or committee.
[George Scarpelli]: I'd like to committee of the whole. I think this is important. Um, if the council doesn't want to do that, we can go with the zoning subcommittee. I'm gladly chair, chair that program. So,
[John Falco]: and later have a committee of the whole meeting to meet with the, or talk about the recommendations of the Housing and Mental Coalition. Correct. Okay. On that motion, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you.
[John Falco]: Seconded by Councilor Dello Russo, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I'd like to also amend, I think it's important, I think our Office of Community Development Director, Lauren G. Lorenzo said it right, that we are adding, as a community, adding a lot of housing units to Medford, and that's been going on the last several years, leading to, number one, the council asking for some help, money for a consultant to review our zoning ordinances. That's number one. But also to, there's been an issue with affordable housing in Medford. developers are sticking to that 10%. So for me, I just want to make it clear that I believe this alone is a good tool to solve a problem that we have in Medford, which is affordable housing. I think we have enough units and apartments, and we have 350 more going up on Locust Street. But what we have, and the mayor has signed on to, Governor Baker's initiative to create more housing, which, you know, is a plus for Boston, but I don't believe it's necessarily what Medford needs. Medford doesn't have a housing crisis. Medford has an affordable housing issue. And this, I believe, addresses that. I want to make clear, when I reviewed it, and we spent a number of meetings reviewing it, Councilor Knight, Councilor Falco and I, There was no intention, especially, I can speak for myself, no intention for this to be a tool to allow more development in areas, say, single family districts. That's not the intent of why we did this. And there is language in here that specifically states that, the last sentence, the provisions of this ordinance shall be considered supplemental of existing zoning ordinances to the extent that a conflict exists between this ordinance and others, the more restrictive ordinance or provisions therein shall apply. So I want to just make that very clear. And I think we need to just add, and I make the amendment to add a few words under section one, purpose and intent. And I'll read it for my colleagues. The purpose of this ordinance is to encourage development of new housing that is affordable to low and moderate income households. And I'd like to add in applicable zoning districts that require site plan review. I know it's in the last sentence of the ordinance, but I also want to make it clear in the purpose and intent of what we're doing here as a council. We want, if a developer comes in, wants to put up apartments in apartment one, apartment two, or wants to apply for a variance, and is given a variance, that we want, obviously, more affordable housing. We need to keep the character of our neighborhoods as best we can. And I just want to make it very clear that that is not my intent. Neighborhoods are number one. I think you've seen this council fight for neighborhood issues and rights when it's surrounding development. So I want to be very clear where I stand on this. I'd like to hear from the citizen committee that has also reviewed this. And I know the recommendation is to take up some of those issues in committee. I've been in discussions with the group and I agree with some of the changes, so let's see how it pans out. Thank you.
[Laurel Siegel]: May I speak on council? Yes, please. So this is certainly not to, you know, it's within the prerogative of the council to adopt any change they want, but I just want to clarify a bit of the concern that you raised. The affordable housing can be proposed in any district, just like site plan review could be any district. We don't really have the control of preventing a property owner from petitioning for something, whether it complies with zoning or not. Certainly, the action of its approval can be denied if it went through that process. I don't know if I'm making this a little bit more confusing, but I don't know that you have to make that discernment. Site plan review projects, projects 10 or more, it's not allowing the use, it's not defining the use, it's just saying if something like that is proposed and it requires a special permit or variance to do that, then it must provide these units. So it's not allowing or permitting the particular use that's in the zoning ordinance.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Do you have any further questions? Just that one amendment right now, and I'd like to hear from people.
[John Falco]: We have a couple of councilors that have questions, so we're going to Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I'm very pleased to see this matter reach the council floor this evening for a public hearing. This is a product of work that the Zoning and Ordinance Subcommittee worked on for a period of time for about two and a half years, at which time we split the Zoning and Ordinance Subcommittee to a Zoning Subcommittee to an Ordinance Subcommittee, and through a team of You, Councilor Longo, and myself were able to come up with the language that's included here. I think Director DiLorenzo gave a great breakdown as to how we came to this point. This ordinance establishes criteria as to when inclusionary zoning is applicable. It establishes a three-tiered system for when a developer comes into the community looking to build a development of ten units or more, that certain thresholds need to be met for affordability. I think it's really a great step in the right direction. We are formalizing a process that was done previously by negotiation. And the language that we used was based upon best practices that were put out through the Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance. It's been determined to be a best practice across a number of municipalities here in Massachusetts municipal government, so I'm very pleased about that. The paper's also going to go on legal review, Mr. President. It's been reviewed by a city solicitor previously prior to introduction. The councils vote on it a number of times, probably five times, if I can remember correctly, between subcommittee, committee of the whole reports, subcommittee reports, sending it to the CD board and the like. So I'm really excited about this, and I think that Councilor Scarpelli's directive was the right one, that we adopt the recommendations that have been made by the CD board to include them into this ordinance, and that we move forward for a first reading on that. And then we can take up the other issues in the committee of the whole meeting or a subcommittee meeting. Personally, I feel as though a subcommittee would be more beneficial. However, I defer to him as the chairman as to what direction he'd like to go. So with that being said, Mr. President, I support Councilor Scarpelli's direction that this should go in wholeheartedly. I think that we should move for a first reading this evening after adopting the requirements that were made by the CD board. I certainly have no problem adopting the amendments that Councilor Longo has offered this evening because I feel as though the way that she's articulated and expressed it is a direct reflection of the discussions that we had in there. We were deliberating and vetting this material over that period of, you know, two and a half years. So with that being said, I would second Councilor Scarpelli's motion and move forward with the matter.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I've said what I had to.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks. Thank you, Mr. President. I was just wondering maybe if the Director of Community Development could share with us potentially some of the reasoning behind some of the figures that were arrived at within the Community Development Board's recommendations. For instance, the number of units that they arrived at was 10 units.
[Laurel Siegel]: in the site plan review ordinance, but actually these numbers were actually proposed by the zoning subcommittee. So the community development board agreed with those.
[Michael Marks]: They agreed with the number. Right. So maybe my question is to my colleagues then, because it's been mentioned to us that most of the surrounding communities start off at six units rather than 10 units. Why did we start off at a much higher number of units where affordability is I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but if the surrounding communities are all doing it, you know, why would we start, you know, at probably 40% higher than what they're doing?
[Adam Knight]: For consistency purposes, Councilor, ultimately we want our court of ordinances to read consistently from point A to point B to point C to point D. And when you look at our court of ordinances, the projects that require site plan review, our projects of 10 units or higher. So we decided that it would be in the best interest for continuity purposes to keep that same criteria and same threshold as 10 units.
[Michael Marks]: Okay. So my recommendation would be, and we could do with this at any point, but I agree with the lessening of the units. I feel very strongly that especially where Winchester, Arlington, Everett, Somerville all start off at six units, that we should be also starting off at six units regarding the affordability component. Also, Mr. President, it's mentioned, you know, the term affordability. And when you talk to different people, I actually work for the Department of Housing. And when you talk to different residents and you start talking about the median income and what exactly does affordable housing mean, it's not very affordable, affordable housing. And I think anything we can do as a city to open that up to residents and truly make it affordable, I think that's what we should be exploring. especially in an economy, Mr. President, that, you know, we're looking at outrageous amounts for a one-bedroom, a two-bedroom. You can almost guarantee any new construction for a one-bedroom in this city. You're close to $2,000, maybe even $2,200, $2,400 for a one-bedroom. You know, and then it goes up as the number of beds, naturally, rooms increase. But I think those are the tweaks that we need to look at. And I'm not opposed to doing it at a later time. I just would hate to have to reinvent the wheel and go through the whole process again where we can make some tweaks now. So I'm not opposed to making some tweaks now to this. Mr. President, this may not be the appropriate forum here, but I'm not opposed to making some worthy tweaks that really address some of the affordability issues in our community. You know, I hear all too often people can no longer live in our community, and that troubles me. It really does, not just for younger people, like my own kids that would like to live in the city someday but probably can't afford it, but people that are actually living here, seniors and families and working people that can no longer live in a community that they grew up in. And I think these are the issues that we have to address. And maybe it's small in stature by changing the numbers and so forth. But I think every little bit helps. And so that's what I'm going to be pushing for, whether it's tonight or this meeting that Councilor Scarpelli called for.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. To follow up with Councilor Marks, I think that having our Sorry, our organization come on up that has worked so diligently. I think that the group has had some great initiatives, but I think to wait and table this issue and this chapter right now, I think it'll be prohibitive for us. So I think that moving this forward and then set up a subcommittee meeting And again, I welcome our organization to come up and talk in a minute and share some of those initiatives that they're looking for. One of those issues is moving from 10 to 6. So I think it's something that moving to the subcommittee meeting as soon as possible. But what I want to try to do right now is get the information we have and move forward to what we have right now so things don't pass us by because that's happening very quickly. So thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I also think it's important to point out that the date that this paper would become effective would be the date that it's approved by the council and signed by the mayor, right? So any applications that come in between then and now would not be covered under the Zoning Act. It doesn't become effective until it's signed by the mayor, which is very important because I know that we have a number of large developments that are going to be coming into the community that have not submitted applications for permitting at this point in time, but there will be very, very soon. And with the introduction of this bill, I'm sure that's going to be also speeding them up a little bit to get an application into our building department prior to the approval of this. So I really do think it's important that we act on the languages before so we can get something on the books so that we can hold these developers and the community accountable to this threshold. We can go back to the drawing board if we need to, to modify it, twerk it and tweak it, that's fine. But for the purposes of getting something on the books, I think it's very important that we do so because it will not take effect until it's signed by the mayor and all applications thereafter will be covered by it, but not previously.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Just if I could, knowing the process and the number of readings it has to go through, would it be feasible to have a subcommittee meeting while this is going through the legislative process and amending it now, rather than going through a whole other process to tweak something that we may all be in agreement with right now, because it has to go to a second reading where it gets published, a third reading. It may be worthwhile for us to do it while this process takes place, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Marks.
[Mark Rumley]: City Solicitor Rumley. Yes. Good evening, Mr. President. Mark Rumley, City Solicitor, 50 Woodrow Avenue in Medford. One of the things, and I'm probably preaching to the choir here, but we have just opened a public hearing. Now, subcommittee meetings and all that can happen at any time whenever they're scheduled to think about, discern, and to understand better the nuances of particular issues like affordable housing. But a public hearing once opened, either gets continued to another council session, as you know, a continued public hearing. So that we have really two separate ships. If the idea was to adopt at this public hearing, the inclusionary housing ordinance in its present fashion, even as amended by the planning board, and then to take additional ideas, requests, data, for example, your idea to go down to six units. If you wanted to handle that separately at a subcommittee meeting, you could do it, but you can't join the two because one's at a hearing and the other would be at a meeting. Well, actually I was thinking about that. The way your witnesses go for zoning under the statute, this has already gone through its three levels. It's come from the launch pad, which is the council to the planning board, which is its first place of discussion and public hearing. back to the council with recommendations, which is tonight. If the council passes it, and I'm just saying that tonight, then it would go to the mayor for signature.
[Michael Marks]: Correct.
[Mark Rumley]: Because there's a little nuance or a twist there from.
[Michael Marks]: So it doesn't require a posting then?
[Mark Rumley]: A what?
[Michael Marks]: A posting.
[Mark Rumley]: Oh, it's already been, there's already been a public advertisement on it before it went to the planning board. And it's also, this hearing has been advertised by the city clerk.
[Michael Marks]: Okay, so you're saying this is the 13th?
[Mark Rumley]: Well, actually that's not a bad analogy, but technically the statute 48-5 doesn't say three readings the way it would with ordinance adoptions. So I just wanted to point out, which you already knew, I know you know well, the difference between a hearing and a meeting. And this is the opening of a hearing, so it either gets continued to another night to keep the hearing open, or it doesn't, one of the two.
[John Falco]: Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: So our option tonight, I was under a different impression, but our option tonight is either to tweak and make changes, which is our prerogative to this, or approve it as Councilor Knight mentioned, and then at a later date, move towards some amendments to this, which, you know, hopefully will be quick, but who knows? You know, who knows? That's why I was hoping we can try to put some of this stuff through tonight. So that'll be the druthers of the council if they. OK.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight, did you?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I'd like to move the question as amended.
[John Falco]: So there was actually, I believe, Councilor, Vice President Lungo-Koehn and Councilor Scott Cawley, did you want to hear from anyone else? Or you could?
[Roberta Cameron]: Thank you very much. Again, Roberta Cameron, 12 North Street. I wanted to at least give a couple of moments to explain why we're here today. I'm working with the Housing in Medford coalition that was mentioned earlier. We are a Medford resident initiative. We've been meeting since last fall to look at ways to address the affordable housing needs in the community. So I just wanted to make that clear, who we are and why we're doing this. And the reason why inclusionary zoning in particular is so important, it's only one of many tools that we need to look at as a city. But inclusionary zoning ensures that where there's new development, it's going to have some income diversity in the new development. it's only luxury housing that's being developed. And inclusionary zoning is ensuring that at least some of the units and every new development that's subject to it are going to enable people who work in the community or people who traditionally lived in the community to continue living here. And another reason why inclusionary zoning is so important is because the state has a requirement that every community in the Commonwealth has a responsibility to provide 10% of their housing as being affordable. As long as we're not holding our developers up to that standard minimally, we're subsidizing them. We're taking on the responsibility of providing that affordable housing without requiring of the developers that they contribute to that affordable housing. So this is really holding, just having inclusionary zoning is holding the city at no harm from additional development in terms of affordable housing. So that's basically what I wanted to communicate to you this evening, why we're looking at wanting the city to pass inclusionary zoning. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Name and address for the record, please.
[Curtis]: Mark Curtis, 89 Traincroft Street. I'm here with Roberta and Alex and Susan Collins and Barry Ingber and a number of other members of the coalition. I had the pleasure of serving on a technical subcommittee of the coalition along with Roberta and Alex and a number of others. And we've been meeting since December to review the proposed ordinance. We looked at the most recent data on rents and development costs. We did an exhaustive comparison of inclusionary zoning ordinances in other communities. And we also created a financial real estate model. in order to examine the effects of different affordability requirements on both developer returns and also project feasibility based on a whole range of factors. So we really kicked the tires and looked at what was proposed and looked at what we thought was feasible with the goal of trying to maximize the benefits that Medford gets from these developments. That was our simple goal. Based on our analysis, we feel like the ordinance as it's drafted is quite strong and is going to accomplish really good things. We do think that there are some relatively minor tweaks that could be made that would make it even stronger. And we think that you should consider those either now or in the future. I'm just going to very quickly mention them in case there are any questions. We'd be happy to answer your questions. The first and probably most important suggestion is adding that small 5% band of affordability at 60% of median income. And what that does is it broadens the affordability of the project and allows more Metro residents to qualify for those affordable units without increasing the total number of affordable units. And we did a feasibility analysis and found that it had a very small 0.25% impact on developer returns. So didn't flip from feasible to infeasible. This is affordable to the developers and it's affordable to Medford residents. So we think that makes sense. We also wanted to tweak the project size categories. in order to affect that additional affordability band. So we are starting at 20 units or higher having 15% affordability. Third, we wanted to go down from 10 units to six units because our model shows that that is financially feasible. And also we know that it's been road tested in other communities and that it works. And finally, we wanted to suggest adding that 10% of the units in larger projects be three bedroom units. Again, because we're trying to increase the diversity of housing that's available in Medford and having housing for families as well as individuals is important. We know that a lot of these developments are getting built with a lot of one bedrooms and two bedrooms. So I'm just gonna conclude by saying We need an inclusionary zoning ordinance. We need it now. It's essential that this gets approved with all reasonable haste. Right now, we're vulnerable to additional development, as Adam says. And we're not getting the community benefit that we should be getting from these projects. So let's get this done. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpell.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you again, Mark. Again, the Housing in Medford Coalition is a great venue when you look at what's brought together and why it's done. I think it's so important that as a council we look at different concerns and different issues that we're not professional in to make such difficult decisions. And that's why For example, I'll use that we've asked the mayor for some help with financing, bringing in someone to look at our zoning and our ordinances so we can review those processes. I think that what we're seeing right now is a great indication of the great professionals we have in our own community. that spend their own time looking into very serious lapses that we have in our city and try to make them as beneficial to our growth in our future here in Medford. I applaud everything that you've done. I think that this is a great step forward. But again, I think that it's important that we get what we have in front of us as our third reading and move forward with that. Call for a subcommittee with the stakeholders, you included, that we can look at some of the – and all of these additions that we can add as amendments as we move forward. So again, I applaud your effort. I wish we knew, for my colleagues who put so much time and effort into this, that when you were meeting in the fall, it could have been great to have that piece together. So again, that's where maybe a little common dialogue would really have gone a long way here. the mayor's office meeting with the city council's subcommittee on zoning and all the hard work they were doing in another room, you're doing the same job and with more, I think, with more backbone in the sense with the knowledge of what's happening. And I think that I'm going to stand moving forward with this option that I put forward and then I look forward to in the relatively near future to move to a subcommittee with all the stakeholders involved. So thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Council. Scarpelli, Vice President. Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Falco. I, too, I want to thank the Housing in Medford Coalition for a group of people to work tirelessly, obviously, to the same goal as the council. It's pretty admirable, and I appreciate that. I, too, wish that when we were discussing it in subcommittee that we knew about the Housing in Medford Coalition and we could have worked together, because I I like these proposals. I like the 60% changing the 80% and adding the 60% for five out of our 15%. I have no problem with looking at six units. It looks like there are a number of communities that do do it, and there are a number of communities that, a couple that do have the 10, Cambridge and Chelsea. But I like the 12.5% versus the 10%. Some of these things I would be willing to vote on now, but at the same time, I want to respect my colleagues, people we've worked on it for quite some time, and I do want to move something forward. So I'm looking to move this forward tonight as amended with regards to what the Community Development Board proposed, as well as my amendment to the intent and purpose section. I think we've worked very hard on it, and it's something that is definitely needed quickly before any I would just add that when we do have a committee meeting or committee of the whole meeting, that we do it in the zoning subcommittee, possibly, and group it in with the council forming a community advisory board with regards to development and zoning. We've asked for that a number of times. The administration will not put that board together. So I think the council needs to do that. We've discussed it in the past. I'd like to see it in the future. do that and review these changes at the same time, hopefully sometime in March. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President Lungo-Koehn. And if I just may add really quickly, thank you to the Housing in Bedford Coalition for all your thoughts and ideas. When I was on the Zoning Subcommittee when we began working on this a while back, And it's been a long road, a lot of meetings. But I always looked at it as a beginning and not an end. So I think there's always room for improvement. I think Councilor Scarpelli, by bringing this to subcommittee, we could talk and really talk about the different ideas that you have and how they'll work. They sound like great ideas. But I think it is imperative that we pass something sooner than later. But I just want to thank you for all your hard work and definitely look forward to working with you all in the future. So thank you. We just have a quick question.
[Susan Collins]: I was wondering if we could get a copy of the proposed change to the amendment that hasn't been made public, that was brought up by the community development board.
[John Falco]: You mean the recommendations by the community development board?
[Susan Collins]: Yes, we have a project currently that we're using community preservation funds for in pre-development stage. And we want to be sure that those funds are not going to be jeopardized in the process of these changes.
[John Falco]: There's a lot of feedback in the microphone, so I apologize.
[Susan Collins]: I haven't seen the changes that were proposed.
[Adam Knight]: Oh, Councilor Knight. The majority of the changes just result to a timeline that the projects would have to be done within five years, that segmentation couldn't occur within five years. But I think if you give your name and address to the city messenger, well, you could take that right from the city solicitor right there. You might have it. Instant.
[John Falco]: OK. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli. seconded by Consul Dello Russo and amended by Vice President Breanna Lungo-Koehn that the Medford City Council adopt the proposed amendment with changes recommended by the CD board in the February 19th correspondence. As amended by Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Would you please call the roll?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Dello Russo? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Vice President Lungo-Koehn? Yes. Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco? Yes.
[John Falco]: Seven in the affirmative, zero in the negative. The amendment is adopted. Thank you. Motion to revert to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Knight. 19-053 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council ask the DPW to move the 30 minutes parking sign in front of 451 High Street, as it has no spot since the bump out was installed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, President Falco. As part of our Smart Street initiative, the bump outs were put into West Medford Square. And unfortunately, the bump out is where the free 30-minute parking spot was. So if I could ask DPW to either remove one meter and move that sign up so the residents, so the business community can get that free 30-minute parking spot, it would be appreciated.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. 19-054 offered by Councilor Caraviello be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that our state representatives petition the DCR to install no truck parking on the Route 16 bypass as this has become a parking area for tractor trailers for several days at a time. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, President Falco. I don't know if anyone's noticed this, but over by the, by the DBW at Route 16, that's now become a, Tractor trailer parking spot, three, four, five days at a time. There's not been as many as three there. Car carrier, so it's bad enough that the former chief allowed the parking for the trailers on commercial street. Now we're having it on main thoroughfares. So I ask that we, where this is a state road, that we have the DCR put up no overnight trucking, no overnight truck parking in that area over by the DPW. Again, it's an eyesore to the community and say, we're not a truck stop. And like I said, it's bad enough that the former chief allowed the parking for trucks on the other street, but let's cut it down as much as we can.
[John Falco]: If you could please clarify, do you want the parking,
[Richard Caraviello]: No overnight truck parking.
[John Falco]: Overnight truck parking. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. 19-055. Offered by Councilor Knight. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council extends its deep and sincere condolences to the family of Thomas Kreatz on his recent passing. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. Recently, Mr. Kreatz had passed away. We all know the Kreatz family, having been involved here in Medford politics and government. Sister-in-law Kathy's on the school committee. Brother Danny is a firefighter. A number of nephews on the fire department as well. Tom was a great guy, a good stand-up member of our community. He'll be sadly missed. He's been taken from us too soon. So with that being said, Mr. President, I ask that my council colleagues join me in offering sincere and deep consolences to the family during their time of need.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Council. Offered by Consular Marks. Be it resolved that a moment of silence be held for a longtime resident, Josephine Gilberto, on a recent passing. Consular Marks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. Josephine was a longtime Method resident. She was a beloved wife, mother, loving grandmother, and great-grandmother. And she was truly a tremendous woman, and she will be sorely missed in this community, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. If we could all please rise for a moment of silence. Councilor Dela Rousseau.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, last week, we were to have a presentation by representatives of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority to discuss the temporary movement of bus stops to accommodate for a changed bus route with regards to the Green Line project and the closure of the Broadway Bridge. Could we have that representative now out of order since he's been waiting here patiently for over a week?
[John Falco]: Thank you. So are you referring to, 19-058? I am now.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Okay, thank you.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Dello Russo to suspend the rule, seconded by Councilor Scarapelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? 19-058, petition by the MBTA Service Planning Department to request four temporary bus stops for the diverted Route 80 bus route. Could you please have your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_22]: Hi. My name is Andrew Smith. I'm with the MBTA Department of Plans and Schedules. The address of the Planning and Scheduling Department is 45 High Street, Boston, Massachusetts. My home address is 73 Martin Street, Cambridge, Mass. Get this into focus here so everyone can see. So beginning, and sorry earlier for flashing the projector in your eyes. I didn't mean any offense on that. Beginning March 22nd, 2019, the Broadway Bridge in Ball Square is going to be closing. And it's going to be closing for approximately one year due to GLX construction, which means we're going to have to divert two bus routes that currently operate over the Broadway Bridge. One of these includes Route 80, which operates between Arlington Center and Lechmere. And the second route is Route 89, which includes two variants running to Sullivan Square from both Clarendon Hill and Davis. And that operates in Somerville only. So the T has developed diversion routes or detour routes around Ball Square to deal with this disruption for GLX construction. And we're going to be using minor arterials in both Medford and Somerville. The diversion routes are scheduled to take effect March 22nd, about a month from now. And these diversion routes have been tested by the bus training school so that in order to make sure that the turns work that the streets are wide enough to accommodate service. So we already have the new Route 80 on the spring schedule card with the Diversion Route shown. So the Diversion Route 80, which will be in effect for one year, is, you know, it's going to operate via College Ave, Main Street, and then down to Magoon Square, where it will resume the existing alignment. So what we're here to ask today is to locate a series of temporary bus stops in the city of Medford, four of them. One, the first series of temporary bus stops you'll see are in South Medford at Albion Street. They're those two stars that are just above Magoon Square. So on the inbound side, we're proposing one temporary bus stop with an actual bus stop sign, again, to be in effect for about a year on the far side of Albion Street. And then on the outbound direction, diagonally across the street on the far side of Hagen Street. And the berths will extend 60 feet forward from the corners to allow enough room for a single 40-foot bus to pull in. And this impacts about approximately three parking stalls on each side. The parking stalls aren't marked, but typically, you know, you want to have about 18 feet for a vehicle. That adds up to about three parking stalls. The second set of temporary stops, and let's just go back to the map here, is up on College Avenue near the Tufts Gymnasium. You see those two stars that are just to the right of the Tufts University icon. And those stops are going to be located on the inbound direction, mid-block in lane. So there are actually no parking impacts on that one. That's located, I'd say about 150 feet to the west of Frederick Ave. So it's in kind of a planted area with lighting alongside the fence for the Tufts University parking lot. This would be a 40-foot berth in lane. There would be a temporary bus stop installed. And again, there would be no parking impacts on the inbound side. On the outbound side, we are proposing a temporary far side stop. It would extend about 60 feet forward from the Elliot Pearson School driveway. And this temporary berth would require about one to two metered parking stalls to be removed. It's the kiosk style metering. The kiosk, I think, is right in front of the stairs that lead up to the Tufts gymnasium. So this would impact a couple of parking spaces, but we felt that this would be probably the most appropriate location for temporary bus stops. And just to kind of go over the reasoning for the temporary bus stops, The reason for the temporary bus stops at Albion Street is because Route 80 service center around Ball Square is going to be disrupted, so we want to make sure that People who live in South Medford near Tufts Square, near Albion Street, have an easy way of getting on the bus, Route 80, to go to Lechmere or to Arlington Center. And then up at College Ave, it gives anyone who lives near Tufts University the option of boarding the Route 80 and College Ave. So that is the presentation. If you guys have any questions, feel free to ask.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, these changes have had ample time for citizen input, and the Citizen Advisory Committee that serves for the Green Line Extension Project Consideration was given to great detail as far as service area radius, the number of riders who board these buses from their sources and was given due consideration by the route department of the MBTA with their efficiency that they're known for. And I think we have a good plan here and they just take The only reason for these four, I should say, temporary spots is because they're where the buses are being rerouted. These are the only areas that don't have bus routes on them, so they need temporary spots. My only recommendation, Mr. President, is that we set a limitation for these temporary bus stops at one year. And if they need an extension, they may approach the city council.
[John Falco]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. My question to ask my colleague, I have those residents that live in that area that will be affected, if they've been notified by the T, not by some social media or Okay, I understand that, but have we gone directly to those affected? That'll be right in front. Have we given those people the ample understanding that this is happening in front of their homes? No, no. I have a tough time moving anything forward, and I appreciate social media, I appreciate the meetings, but the truth of the matter is, the majority of some people that are in that area, unless it doesn't affect them, they're really not going and really not paying attention to this. This is affecting them, they don't even know it. So I think that we need to do a better job. I'm not comfortable moving forward with this without those individuals, especially directly involved, are informed by the team that this is what's happening. So other than that, I know that there's some other concerns about some, are there other stops that are being excluded that have no effect from this project in that area? Or is it? There is. Could you explain, do you have any detail on that? I think the city traffic engineer has better knowledge of this, because I got a notification through an outside source, and there were some glaring omissions in this meeting that there has been some changes that should be highlighted. So if maybe the traffic engineer can expand on that.
[Todd Blake]: So I will try. So what we did not mention is there are a number of white dots on Main Street that are existing bus stops that already serve the Route 101. So the starred locations are just to supplement bus stops that are already on Main Street and George Street. So the existing Route 80 goes down the dash section that he has on the map. So those little Xs outlined, correct me if I'm wrong. Those are the closed stops. Those are the closed stops that are on the current Route 80 route that eventually ends up at Tufts University call out up at the northwest corner. So this route, The T had come to the city before and proposed option A through G I think it was for routes for the 80 and 89 and this was the most palatable to the community. with the limited options that are available. So for instance, at one point, there was an option to go down Harvard Street, but considering all the issues on Harvard Street, it was deemed to go this way instead. So the added temporary bus stops are just to close the gap between where the existing stops are on Medford Street in Somerville and Boston Ave in Medford. There are stops on Main Street in the middle of that map that serve the 101 that would also now serve the 80. And the gold star areas are the section that they were deemed to be gaps between existing stops that were too long for the community to walk. Does that address concerns a bit or explain it a bit better? So the Route 80 currently goes along the dash line from Magoon Square to Tufts University College.
[George Scarpelli]: Right. So were there any stops eliminated in Medford that will divert to the new stops?
[Todd Blake]: I believe all of those are technically in Somerville. I'm looking at this map right here because the city line is is in the vicinity of Dearborn Ave and College Ave, which is just north of those two yellow stops. So the two yellow Xs under the Tufts University call out. I believe those are the College Ave and Dearborn. Dearborn and Professor's Row. Which I believe is technically Somerville. The line is right in that vicinity, so it's very close to Medford. And on the Magoon Square end, I believe the two Xs close to Magoon Square are technically Somerville as well and Broadway. So they're all along Broadway, and the city line, as most of you know, is maybe 20 feet back from the back of Sidewalk on Broadway, most of the way. So I'm just looking here. Yeah, I believe those are all some of those stops. But for folks, depending on where they live in Medford, the old stop may have been closer to them than some of these new stops. And we realize that's a trade-off, but given the limited streets to choose from. So if someone lives on, say, Bristol Road, it'll be a longer walk than they normally would have. But if someone lives on Albion off of Main Street, they'll have a closer walk because there'll be a new temporary stop there. So you're definitely, you know, Frederick, Pearl, all those side streets will have a better access to Route 80, whereas they normally would have had to walk up to the corner of College Ave and Boston Ave. So there'll be some that are a little further away, and some of Medford residents will be closer, if that helps. The Route 89, obviously, Andy mentioned earlier, that's fully contained within Somerville.
[George Scarpelli]: So the Route 90, that has nothing to do with this right now?
[Todd Blake]: No, Route 90 would not be affected. No. Oh, so the route. Yeah, now I know you're mentioning, Councilor, I'm sorry, that I didn't put the two and two together. There's a separate process other than what's being presented tonight. This is only for GLX-related diversion for the Route 80 in relation to the bridge closure.
[George Scarpelli]: OK, so the better bus program has nothing to do, which isn't better bus for Method residents? Is that? The better bus. This has nothing to do with this, then?
[Todd Blake]: This has nothing to do with that. But it's, you know. It's good that you brought it up because we could... Well, I have you here.
[George Scarpelli]: It's tough. No disrespect to you, but as a transportation subcommittee chairperson, we've asked many times for the T to come to us, and many times that didn't happen. And it's been a little frustrating, to be honest with you.
[Todd Blake]: So now that you're here... So for those of you who don't know, there's a better bus program that the T is proposing. So it involves... upwards of 45 route changes, but in Medford, I believe it's maybe a handful, half dozen. One of them is the Route 90, and that does definitely have impacts to city of Medford residents. The 90 currently goes from Davis Square to Wellington Station, and it stops off at Sullivan and through assembly area. And the proposal is to truncated at assembly. So go Davis to assembly and not to Wellington station.
[George Scarpelli]: Just for the sake of time, is this something that's going to, you're bringing this to us, Mr. Blake, is this something that we can call for a subcommittee so we can inform our constituents that this is happening? Cause this is, this is more of a, uh, a daunting, you know, um, issue than what we're talking about today. So I don't want to muddy both.
[Todd Blake]: I could speak for myself. I'd be happy to attend the subcommittee meeting. As far as the MBTA, I did make a request through the senior director of service planning to have a public meeting in Medford about better bus program. And the response I got was, unfortunately, they're a bit booked up, but there's several existing community meetings in the area that Medford residents may take advantage of one I think is involved in?
[George Scarpelli]: I don't know how my colleagues feel about that, but I'm not comfortable voting for one and getting that response about something that's more important on our streets later. So maybe we wait and bring them all together and we talk to, you know, get this, get all the answers we need at one meeting if that's the case. I'm not, I'm not willing, if that's, unfortunately that's what it seems that we have to, you know, have one for the other to have them sit in front of us, because I think the better bus route is something that's going to affect more of our residents than this diagram. This diagram, this proposal, I think if we reach out to those two or four families, I don't think it's just making them understood that in front of their homes for a year, there'll be a bus stop now, and letting them understand that as an amendment, I wouldn't bark at that. What bothers me more right now is the fact that representatives from the T have told you that they can't accommodate a meeting in Medford where this is affecting Medford and our residents. So maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. Maybe my colleagues can tell me I'm wrong, but I feel strongly about this.
[Todd Blake]: As a point of information for timing, I believe the Better Bus Program, they were hoping to go to their board in April. So whatever we have internally should be coming up soon. I've been trying to spread the word out about the better bus program to solicit feedback. The T has it on their website and some other sources to solicit feedback from the city as a government agency, but also from the residents.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can though, it's important that we know because there's a lot of people watching this in that area. And it'd be nice that the Councilors who talk to people on a daily basis understand that this is coming about. Because we get the calls. When it's all said and done, it's us who sit behind this reel, we'll get the phone calls and say, hey, what just happened to my stop? Why is this? Why is x? Why is z? So again, I apologize for my intense attitude, but it's something that we've seen in the past that it's, it's, it affects our residents. So I know some councilors a little irritated with that, but I, you have to understand that at this point right now, that's where I stand. So I will not support this.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli, Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Falco. My questions were along the same lines as Councilor Scarpelli's, because if you, if you look at the fourth request, It seems like the only, no spots are being impacted, no parking spots, and I'm assuming that you've discussed this with Tufts University?
[Todd Blake]: Tufts University has a member on the community working group meeting, Rocco Durico, so he's aware of it, and they attend regular community meetings with the GLX project, so I believe they are, yes.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: So for the fourth one, as long as Rocco and Tufts is aware of this and you're not losing any spots, it seems logical and it seems like something that can be discussed and reviewed. The third request seems like it's probably the second minimal impact with regards to neighborhood or parking. Maybe it's going to affect some traffic flow because that's not as wide as you'd hope a bus route would be. And if there are any residents, you can't really see in the picture. It seems like you're almost getting to the area where the homes begin across the street from Tufts. So I would want them to be notified. I really think there should be a public meeting with regards to that one, if there's any resident homes that are being affected, as well as Main and Albion. Six parking spots being impacted on Main Street and Albion. That is an area that I don't think can afford any lost parking spots, so I would definitely want notification to the residents in just some sort of public meeting. I know we're on a time crunch, because the bridge is closing in, jeez, 32 days. Yes, the bridge is closing. So I'm not sure why this is coming to us so late. I wish this was a couple months ago, because even if the council did the due diligence notified the residents and brought them in to discuss concerns. I think that's something we could do or the subcommittee at least could do. But where you have 30 days now, it's really unfortunate that resident homes are going to be affected. And now we have this time crunch issue. I think they need to be notified. I think they should be notified as soon as possible so that at least they have a place where they can voice their concerns and questions and at least know that their homes are going to be affected, their parking spots are going to be affected. They could come to the council with concerns so we could try to resolve the issues. So that is my concern, too. It's unfortunate that we're getting this 30 days prior on something so serious. And it probably definitely needs to be done when you look at the rerouting due to the bridge closure. So I just want to second Councilor Scarapelli's concern and hope that a public meeting with notification to those specific residents on Main Street, Albion, and College Ave be addressed. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Vice President. Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, President Falco. I'm glad that he's in a rush tonight, because I'm not in too much of a rush for this. You know, you're talking about moving the bus stops. I think in our haste to do all this work here, nobody has informed the people that live in Pearl, Stanley, all those in George Street, and all those little side streets there. They have no idea that College Avenue is not going to be a major thoroughfare. I've talked to people over there, and they're saying, what are you talking about? Someone's got to notify all those residents of all those stairings and all those side streets there. along College Ave, that this is happening. Those people have no idea. Never mind the bus stop. But when I talk to people, and they're telling me about all the constant, they say, what are you talking about? They have no idea that this is even, that in 30 days, that College Ave is going to become a major thoroughfare there. And I don't know why no one has reached out to those people and informed them about this. I went to Councilor Schiapelli and Councilor Lungo. Until there's some notification for these people about what's happening here, I can't support anything here. I mean, I don't know why the T waited so long to come to us to do this. I mean, Councilor Scarpelli has called the T on multiple occasions, and we couldn't even get a return phone call. And now you're here today in a rush. I asked to, I'm on my third week here, asking for a sign to be moved. And a sign has been moved.
[SPEAKER_22]: Which one?
[Richard Caraviello]: on High Street and Medford and West 7th Square. We put in for that. And I said, all I had to do, it's a 10 minute job to move two signs, to move the bus stop back to where it used to be. And again, I say, I'm not supporting anything until the people on all those streets off of College Ave get some kind of notification on what's coming their way for the next year.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, thank you very much. I'm going to preface my statement by saying I'm very excited about the Green Line coming to the city of Medford. However, the planning process is a very difficult one. So with that being said, is there any indication that by putting these stops temporarily in the city of Medford that they'd have an impact on our annual MBTA assessment?
[SPEAKER_22]: No. No, they would not have an impact on the assessment.
[Adam Knight]: Confident in that answer? I'm sorry. You're confident with that answer? Yes. OK. Now, ultimately, this is the route that you're proposing. Boston Ave, George Street, Main Street, Medford Street. Boston Ave, College Street, George Street, Main Street, Medford Street. And you're asking us to put five temporary stops in, right?
[SPEAKER_22]: Four.
[Adam Knight]: Four.
[SPEAKER_22]: Four in the city of Medford. That fifth one is in Somerville.
[Adam Knight]: And if we don't put them in, what happens? Is that still the route? Is the route still going to be the route, whether or not we put the temporary spots in or not?
[SPEAKER_22]: Route 80 must continue between Lechmere and Arlington Center on some route. And we felt that this was the most appropriate course of action, given that George Street and Main Street already carry MBTA bus routes. George Street carries Route 96, and then Main Street carries 101. College Ave does not carry a bus route.
[Adam Knight]: Yeah, but I mean, ultimately, this is the route. This is what you're going with. Regardless of whether or not we give you these bus stops or not, this is the route you're going with.
[SPEAKER_23]: This is the route we would like to go with, yes. And I can touch base with that.
[Todd Blake]: In the GLX process with the internal technical meetings, the public meetings, and the community working group meetings, this is the route that was flushed out of that process.
[Adam Knight]: OK, because I mean, and looking at the 80 bus route and the direction that it goes in, and I'm pretty familiar with Somerville. You know, I worked in Ball Square for a long time for Charlie Shannon. pretty familiar with the MBTA and the way the MBTA works, but ultimately, and I'm familiar with the 80 bus route because I'm from West Medford. So ultimately, if you look at this, right, you got a bus coming down Broadway and it gets to the Broadway Bridge and it can't go over it anymore. But right before Broadway, we have Cedar Street, which is an emergency way in the city of Somerville. And I don't understand why a bus couldn't be diverted down Cedar Street and then take a right on Morrison Ave and then be diverted right down Willow Ave and you'd be cutting out two blocks where the Broadway Bridge is instead of sending this thing for six miles through the city of Medford.
[SPEAKER_22]: That's a valid point. We looked at that. Um, Cedar street is actually going to carry route 89, um, on it's the version.
[Adam Knight]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_22]: So, well, you talked about the city, the streets, the Alderman and Somerville were, were opposed to using those, those, those, those local streets.
[Adam Knight]: Cause the Councilors in Medford are opposed to this plan right here. Okay. So, you know, ultimately, I guess Mark need a gang in his opinion about diverting this thing through Medford for this huge duration of what looks like one, two, three, four, five, 12 or 13 or 14 or 15 stops is the plan because the alderman in the city of Somerville was opposed to it. So they're going to divert it through 15 stops with the city of Medford. When the bypass that I just gave you would bypass two stops in the city of Somerville and put it right back on track in the 80 track. I'm no engineer. I'm no traffic engineer. That's what you guys are for. You guys are the big brains in the room. But in looking at this thing, it doesn't look like it makes any sense to me at all. So ultimately, if we don't approve the temporary bus stops, you're still going to go full with this route. So this route's going to cause the impact on the community. If we don't approve the bus stops, we don't approve the bus stops. I don't understand what the big deal is, but it doesn't look to me like the bus stops that they're putting in there are going to be servicing a Medford population that was previously using the 80 bus line anyhow. So I don't see anybody from the city of Medford being impacted negatively if we deny the temporary bus stops at this point in time, based upon what I can see on this. I think that the rerouting of the 80 bus and the route that you came up with is absolutely ridiculous. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.
[SPEAKER_22]: Well, it wasn't our preferred option going in, but this was the result.
[Adam Knight]: So with that being said, I don't support the temporary bus stops. The route's going to be the route regardless. I don't think we need to make any other amendments or altercations to it to allow for it to happen.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Marks.
[Michael Marks]: So just so I understand, who ultimately has the final say on a bus route?
[SPEAKER_22]: Who has the final say on the bus route? Right. Well, MBTA plans and schedules has the final say, but we want to consult with local stakeholders before we make the decision on where to put bus stops and where to put routes. It's just due diligence on the part of the team. And through the GLX process, we vetted these routes with the public, and I feel that this was the most reasonable outcome.
[Michael Marks]: So is the city of Medford signed off on this particular route that you're showing us tonight?
[Todd Blake]: Yes, in the GLX review process with those internal technical meetings and community work group meetings, and including a public meeting in July where we vetted some of these options and a series of public meetings that were held in Somerville by either the city of Somerville or GLX. This is what came out of that process. At one point, I'll point out again, that is the shortest route that Councilor Knight pointed out. But for whatever reason, you know, it wasn't agreed upon. 89 is going that way, but not coming back up below. In Medford, it was thought that the 80 does eventually end up on Boston, up Medford. So it was thought that some of the South Medford community folks thought that 80 served Medford folks more than the 89. and it might be actually beneficial to some folks, so this was, and it was gonna take a little more direct route through Harvard Street, take a left from Maine onto Harvard, but then given the issues that were on Harvard Street with some of the gas issues and the thought of extra burden or load on that street, it wasn't deemed that that was something that the city wanted, so this is the next option in the Medford side of the line that includes major streets, minor arterials versus local streets. Right.
[Michael Marks]: So, so, so you've already received approval from the city to use that as a route, this temporary route, correct? And you're coming before the council because it's the council's jurisdiction to create bus stops, right? To approve bus stops.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yes.
[Michael Marks]: So you would think that when the city was doing their due diligence, they would have notified residents in the impacted areas, and said, hey, this is what's going to happen. And I appreciate all the meetings you're saying took place in Somerville and so forth. That has not happened in our community, not from the phone calls I've received. So just so you know, the input has not happened. And that's very alarming to me that a route could be created like that without proper notification of the public. So I just want to say that. The second point, you know... Well, it is a detour route.
[SPEAKER_22]: It's in effect for a year. It's not a long-term change. Well, I... It's a temporary change. Right, but... And my feeling on that is that we don't really have anywhere else to put the route, and the only other option is to discontinue service. So you have two options. One, discontinue service on Route 80, which would be really negatively perceived by the community, or two come up with a route operating on minor arterials that would be... What community though?
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, what community are you saying is it? Because you said it yourself that you thought that the other way through Somerville wouldn't impact less. Correct?
[SPEAKER_22]: Our thought was that Route 80 through Somerville would impact less because it would result in a lower running time for Route 80. This diversion adds about 10 minutes of the trip. It's long, and I can understand why the members of the council would feel that it is nonsensical. It was not the ideal solution, given the fact that there was a great deal of opposition from folks in Somerville, the aldermen in particular.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, if I could.
[SPEAKER_22]: Councilor Mark says the floor.
[Michael Marks]: So, Mr. President, clearly from day one, Somerville has been driving this GLX project. It's no secret. Medford has taken a backseat every inch of the way. And I think what we're seeing now is some of the results of Medford taking a backseat. We have an advisory board that's done Yeoman's work, but the city administration has been nowhere on this issue, Mr. President. And Somerville's driving the bus. Somerville is driving the bus. So when they say we don't want it to go down this particular street, as Councilor Knight said, We'll have it go through six miles of method.
[SPEAKER_22]: Willow Avenue is a local street. It's not classified as a minor arterial. Neither is Morrison Avenue. Morrison Avenue is a collectorate.
[Michael Marks]: But it's temporary. You just said it's temporary. You made it sound like it's temporary. We're doing it temporary because it's temporary. So, Mr. President, I think part of the frustration, you just happen to be bearing the message, so don't take it personal, but part of the frustration... Don't shoot the messenger. Part of the frustration is this council has requested to meet with the T for years, and they've blown us off for years, and they only come before us when they need something. We've asked the T not just for moving bus stops and so forth and signage, we asked about bus shelters. You can count on one hand, in a city this size with all the bus routes, how many bus shelters we have. So we'll have, not many is right. So we have routes where hundreds of residents stand when it's pouring rain, snowing, and we can't get a bus shelter. We can't get the T to recognize a stop in Medford Square, West Medford, Haines Square. And that's a shame. It really is a shame that we can't work in cooperation with the T, who's charging us millions of dollars off our cherry sheet every year to operate the T in our community. We pay for this access. We pay. It comes directly off our cherry sheet. So I think this is, and I'm not directing this. I know you're here. I'm not directing it. Part of the frustration is that the T's unwillingness to meet with us, talk about issues. We don't want him here every night, but when we ask him to talk about an issue, they should really present someone and not just blow us off. So I think that's part of the- I think that's another issue. It is another issue, but unfortunately, you know, you're here tonight requesting something of us. So, you know, I hear what you're saying. This needs to go somewhere. I just think the lack of notification, in this community is appalling. We get calls every day, reverse 9-1-1 calls, telling me about things that I really don't care about, to be quite honest with you, but something that impacts that there may be a new route on your street. Those are the type of notifications that should be going out. This is not to you. This is to the city that are laxing, and they can fall back on meetings. This was how, let's face it, you know, people don't attend meetings for the most part, unless you're directly impacted. So, uh, Mr. President, I think I'm going to join my colleagues tonight, uh, not supporting this unless the T can come back with us and say other options were explored, uh, about routes. And I'm very disappointed that the city of Medford, this administration would sign off on a proposal, Mr. President, without even talking to this Medford city council, who has direct authority over bus stops, and mention and have a dialogue with this council. Very disappointed, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Todd, you worked over in the City Assembly for a period of time, correct?
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Adam Knight]: Did you work on this project at all?
[Todd Blake]: Let me see. It may have been the planning stages way back then, possibly.
[Adam Knight]: The planning stages of the Broadway bridge closure, or the planning stages of the geode?
[Todd Blake]: No, no, no. I worked there. I ended working there in 2004. So this, yeah, that wasn't a detail that was even near on the table at that point.
[Adam Knight]: And Todd, can you tell us in terms of the process? And I know it's difficult for you to come in to this so late in the game, where the council had requested that we hire a traffic engineer. I think two budget cycles passed that we funded it before you got hired. then you got hired, and now you're here. So as they like to say, the train was rolling down the tracks well before you got involved in this circumstance. But based upon your opinion, what type of feedback have you been able to give in terms of this route, in terms of the administration's position on this alternative route? And I mean, obviously, they signed off on it, so it must be something that they're supporting. But I mean, from a traffic engineering standpoint, what challenges do you see if, in fact, this route does go through the city of Medford looking at these roads, these major arterials, I guess they're called, you know, Mr. President. Oh, minor, I'm sorry, minor arterias. You know, but ultimately Main Street has a significant parking situation. One thing we have to remember about Main Street, it's an emergency artery. All these are emergency arteries, and our emergency arteries are swept once a week. So there are parking restrictions that are already in place when the street sweeping program is implemented in the good weather. So with that being said, you know, What type of feedback input have you had? And what type of coordination of efforts with the DPW has taken place to ensure that if this route does go through the city of Medford, which it sounds like it's going to do, that our day-to-day operations can continue in the fashion that they have in the past?
[Todd Blake]: At various meetings, including public meetings, I've heard I believe there was one held in this chamber in July, and then, again, as I mentioned, there was one in College Ave, there was one in St. Clements, and at those meetings, I have heard from the public that they don't want to lose the Route 80 service, they want to maintain 89 and 80 in this vicinity, not that anyone had mentioned losing it, but by kicking it slowly over into Somerville, they were concerned that it would be further away from them, it would be less usable to Medford residents, so that was one.
[Adam Knight]: Who was the person that was bringing or raising these concerns, these community residents? Were they community residents that lived in Somerville that was so wholeheartedly concerned about their neighbors over in Medford that they said, we better make sure this bus goes through Medford so that our Medford neighbors can get it? We don't want it to come down Cedar Street? Or were they people that lived in Medford and expressed the concern that said, I'm not going to be able to get access to my bus if I'm going to work?
[Todd Blake]: I truly believe they were city of Medford residents. They were. And one in particular, Jim Silver's on the community working group. And he's obviously very involved in this community in South Medford. I believe he's in support.
[Adam Knight]: I mean, there are a variety of special interest organizations in the community that are interested in certain things to happen. I mean, we get that, you know what I mean? But ultimately this is a quality of life issue for neighbors. And you know, if we're taking away three or four or five pocket spots in front of somebody's house so that we can put a bus there, that's going to temporarily temporarily service the community. We're going to have people that for a year, we're going to get used to taking the 80 bus and they're going to for a year, lose the pocket spots in front of their house. Then God willing, this project gets finished. That bus is gone. Now they gotta go say, oh, geez, well, that was convenient for a year, but now let me change my whole commuting style. I gotta figure out how to get in the 80 over in Somerville. Now it's a mile and a half away down the street. You know, I just don't think it makes sense, the route, but you're not here for the route, you're here for the bus stops, and I oppose the bus stops.
[SPEAKER_22]: We did hear from residents in that corner triangle there from Goon Square, who did live in Medford, that they wanted convenient service to Lechmere, and so we thought it would be a nicety to put temporary stops, you know, at Albion Street, Given the fact that we also have a temporary stop at Magoon Square in front of the CVS, maybe those two stops at Albion Street aren't necessary. It sounds like the Council is concerned about parking impacts in an area that's parking-constrained, and rightfully so. And that's why we want to bring this by you and know very directly what the parking impacts are because I know that in Medford parking is highly coveted. But it was really a nicety so that folks who lived in those streets near the Somerville line who are accustomed to boarding 80 on Broadway, just east of the bridge closure, would be able to board on Main Street in Medford. It wasn't to cause any hardship. It was to simply make their lives easier. Seniors, in particular, who are dependent on Route 80 to get to Lechmere and ride the Green Line into town. So it was well intended. And I hope you reconsider that.
[John Falco]: Any further questions, Councilor Knight?
[Adam Knight]: That'll do it for me, sir.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you. Sorry to talk again. Just after hearing from all my colleagues and the TE and our traffic engineer, for me, the main concern is the Main Street and Albion Street. If Tufts University is aware of If this is going to be the route, whether we put a stop or not, I think Councilor Caraviello is correct that we need to notify residents that live all along that street to let them know traffic is going to be impacted. But with regards to the bus stops, where it's not impacting parking spots, nor bothering residential homes, I feel differently of the two proposals. That may be something that we could vote on tonight where the Main Street and Albion Street proposal is something that, yes, I would want community engagement. So I mean, I just wanted to throw that out there as almost just a way to try to possibly solve two of the four. But again, I mean, I agree with my colleagues, especially on the Main Street and Albion Street. I just wanted to kind of figure out maybe, not necessarily a compromise, but wanted to voice my opinion again on where my concern is. Losing six spots on Main Street is a concern of mine, and the residents should be aware of it before we take action on it. On College Ave, you're not losing spots. It's just in front of Tufts University, so I don't have as much of a problem, and I think that's something I could move forward tonight if my colleagues felt the same. Is that a resolution that you're making? Just to kind of throw it out there. I'm trying to just bring the conversation back because we're all pretty upset that we've requested meetings. That's obvious. We've requested meetings to discuss this and we've had lack of attention there. We're upset that we're kind of last to know. We're upset that we've been given this 30 days prior to the closure of the bridge. So there's a, you know, we're acting, you know, I'm upset about that myself. So I just feel like if there's residents in Medford that use these stops and that is going to need a bus stop, we need to really take a good look at what we're going to do tonight because it's going to be affected in 30 days. And I feel strongly about losing six spots, and the community should be involved in that. But with regards to College Ave and Frederick Ave, just trying to think about it reasonably. And if we have residents on Pearl and Stanley that use the College Ave stop, College and Boston stop, and it's no longer going to be there, they're going to need to board and exit the bus. on College Ave.
[SPEAKER_22]: And when we were out there, we didn't see any vehicles parked at the proposed locations. I think as you move down Main Street going towards Harvard, the parking situation becomes a bit more congested. But we were out there on a weekday, and we didn't see any parked cars in the street. So we thought this was the most minimally invasive location while serving those residents of South Medford who typically board Route 80 on Broadway east of the bridge or Magoon Square. So I'm not sure that the parking demand is particularly high at this location, but we'd probably have to go out at night to see what the utilization is then because nighttime parking tends to be It tends to be a different situation, but your point is taken.
[Todd Blake]: It truly was meant to be a benefit to the City of Manfort residents, so those two stars at Albion you know, it's a shorter direct walk down Albion from, say, Winchester at Albion location. If you currently live on Winchester near Broadway and you use those stops on the east side of Broadway Bridge, you know, now you could just shoot down Albion. If those two stops aren't there, you have to go to Tufts Square and Magoon Square. So it was really just to cut the difference between the Tufts Square and Magoon Square stop to make it a little shorter walk. But, you know, if the council, you know,
[John Falco]: If I may, what happens if this is not approved tonight? Does the bus just roll through Medford but just doesn't stop?
[SPEAKER_22]: Well, I mean, it's typically the practice of MBTA buses to stop at any revenue stop. So the 101 stops and 96 stops that are on Main Street and George Street would continue to, would also be served by Route 80. So, but those are already, those are stops that are already in existence. So, I mean, it's really, I don't think it's really the end of the world for the MBTA for these stops to not be approved. And I am really dismayed by what you're saying about Medford not being consulted by the MBTA and other processes. And that is concerning to me. And that is something I will take back to the senior management to discuss with them.
[John Falco]: If you could do so, we would greatly appreciate that.
[SPEAKER_22]: Yeah, I understand that. And I know there's a lot of history there. and that I've not been a part of and I can understand why you might be reluctant to approve this proposal in light of those past dealings. So, but yeah, I mean, this is the route that really we would like Route 80 to take. There are other routes that maybe could be considered at this point, but considering that we already have it on the published schedule card, this information has already gone out to the public or will go out to the public in spring. You know, in a month from now, you know, this is really what we'd like to go with. If we can't get the temporary stops because of the parking impacts, then that's something we will have to live with. But this is the route that I think we should take.
[John Falco]: Okay, thank you.
[Todd Blake]: Just to go back to impacts to the City of Medford residents. I mean, the thought was if both routes got diverted down Cedar Street to Highland Ave to College Ave, that it would be a burden on Medford residents that do use the 80 that they'd have to walk all the way down to basically Davis Square to get the Route 80 bus or in each direction, Tufts University, Magoon Square. So it was really meant to be to be a benefit of the city of Medford residents to have the 80 on the Medford side of the line because it continues on towards Boston Ave, Medford anyway. So it was really, it wasn't meant for any ill intent, at least on my part anyway, so.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Motion to deny the petition, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: OK. There's a motion to deny that petition. Councilor Knight is made. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: If I can, Mr. President, I know that I'm not happy with this. But again, it just keeps coming back in my head that we do have residents that don't. I don't know if it would behoove us to table this to next week. and have the city have the opportunity to reach out to the abutters that Councilor Caraviello talked about and for the Albion Main Street people that maybe we can meet to make sure that, you know, that this is vetted out just a little bit more before we just say no. I think that, you know, the frustration comes in with lack of history. with issues with history and the effect that the administration waited for tonight to bring this forward. And now we have this thrust upon us. I think it's important that maybe if my colleagues indulge me that we table this to next week. We call for a subcommittee on transportation and ask that the city administration reach out to those abutters directed making sure they all know that this is going to happen in their neighborhood, and that we bring this back to the table next week, if that's possible.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor. Scarpelli, Councilor Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I agree. I think maybe even table it for two weeks, have a reverse 9-1-1 call, and I would suggest we do it at our 7 o'clock meeting, let people, or subcommittee on transportation, but let people come up and have the opportunity to plan accordingly, come to the meeting, I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, with regards to people that live in those two areas.
[John Falco]: Well, Councilor Knight has a motion on the table to deny the petition. Do you want to reconsider? OK. So the motion to Councilor Scarapelli has made a motion to table, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight is in opposition. Please call the roll.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Motion to table. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Dello Russo? No. Councilor Knight? No. Vice President Langley?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Marks? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. President Falco?
[John Falco]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. The motion is tabled. For two weeks.
[Todd Blake]: President Falco, can I just add that I'll take responsibility. My apologies. I could have coordinated and pushed for this meeting to be held earlier than it has been. So my apologies. We've all known Somerville Medford at least meetings and the employees know at the same time all these coordination meetings we go to. I've attended up to 50 meetings with the GLX. No, that's what I was going to say.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, just a resolution. So with that, if we can make a resolution that every first night one goes out to the residents in the affected areas to inform them about meeting in two weeks.
[John Falco]: We've already tambled it.
[George Scarpelli]: So, OK.
[John Falco]: That's what we did. So, thank you. Councilor Scarborough. Mr. President, motion to revert back to the regular order of business. OK. On the motion of Councilor Knight to revert back to the regular order of business, seconded by Councilor Cabrera.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: No, I'm against. If we could just take the residents that are in the audience, the CPA, and I believe the tree Resolution of Counsel and I Degrees 19-063 and 19-057. What would you like to take first?
[Adam Knight]: While we're in petitions, presentations, and similar papers, 19-057, CPA Annual Report. Annual Review and Introduction of the 2019 Application Process.
[John Falco]: Thank you very much.
[Roberta Cameron]: the Council for allowing the CPC, the Community Preservation Commission, to come to the Council this evening to report back on the process that we undertook at the end of 2018, which was to undertake an annual review of what the Community Preservation Committee has done over the past year and to look forward as to what our goals are going to be next year. So we circulated to the Council and we have posted on the Community Preservation Committee's website our annual report and this contains an activity summary from 2018 and a summary of the funds that are anticipated to be available in the next funding round. This is also information that we shared with the Council last December when the council approved the projects for funding for last year. In addition, the annual report serves as an amendment or an update to the 2017 Community Preservation Plan. And that plan serves as our guide for how to make our recommendations for funding throughout the year. The 2017 plan is still going to be our guide, but with some additional points that we learned through public process that we undertook last year. So as required under state law, the committee has a responsibility to evaluate community needs, coordinate with city departments and other boards and committees, and to hold an annual hearing to gather input from the residents of the city. So from October through December, we carried out a public survey gathering input on what are the most important assets in Medford and what kinds of improvements people would like to see the CPA funds be spent for. And some highlights of the survey responses that we heard. is that, first of all, Medford's open space resources are highly valued for recreation, environmental benefits, and residents would like to protect and expand these resources to make them more visible and accessible. We heard that recreation and athletic facilities are in need of updates. In particular, respondents would like to see more walking and biking paths. throughout the city. This was something that was mentioned frequently in open-ended responses, more walking and biking paths, outdoor gathering places, and facilities to serve a broader range of community needs. The support for affordable housing remains mixed, although in the most recent survey, it was a higher support for affordable housing. And there's still a recognition that there needs to be more education around what affordable housing is what kinds of projects would be paid for, supported with CPA. And finally, respondents largely are supportive of historic preservation projects, in particular the Brooks Estate and other city-owned assets. We also held meetings in December of 2018, including one during the daytime to which we invited city staff from many different departments, and we held a public hearing at one of our regular evening meetings. From these events, we heard feedback that informed revisions to our application process, which I'll discuss a little bit more in a moment. And with respect to the program area and priorities, the annual report highlights that we acknowledge that the city is in the process of preparing an update to its open space and recreation plan, which will identify new priorities for the next several years. With respect to affordable housing, there have been several new initiatives in the past year that will contribute to the city's resources, including the inclusionary zoning that we've just passed this evening, the Metro Mayor's commitment to increasing affordable housing supply, and the Housing in Medford Coalition, which I spoke on behalf of earlier this evening. Due to the cost and complexity, the potential infrequency of affordable housing proposals, the committee may recommend with council approval to transfer available, to transfer to the housing reserve additional funds beyond the required 10%. depending on the availability of funds after the project recommendations have been determined. So what the meaning of that is, is that if the housing, if the requested funds for housing within that grant year are, fall below the, what is equivalent to the other project areas, about 30% of the program funds for that year, And there are funds remaining after all of the projects have been committed for historic preservation, open space, and recreation. We would like to have an option to transfer some of those additional funds to the housing reserve to ensure that there will be funds available for future housing projects. If in the future an affordable housing trust were to be established, those funds could be transferred to an affordable housing trust rather than held in the CPC reserve. With respect to historic preservation, the CPC found that some of the priority projects for which applications were received in the past year lacked readiness to align with CPA eligibility criteria. There's a need for further strategic planning and more detailed inventory of assets and their condition. to identify recreation or preservation needs that would constitute eligible projects. And so that's generally what we see as the modifications to our understanding of what the community needs are. The next important thing that's covered in this annual report is the application process. A couple of key changes that I'd like to highlight in the application process. First of all, we have looked at ways to improve coordination through the mayor's office for any projects involving city property. This is to ensure that there's alignment between departments that may have similar projects that they'd like to fund so that there's streamlined one funding proposal for the same project rather than the potential for different departments to request funds. And where we saw it the last year, a lot of community members who initiated projects through CPA, that was wonderful. We had some great projects that we were able to fund that way. But we'd like to ensure that those projects are going through the appropriate department and the appropriate person in the department so that everyone knows what the route is. So that was the intent of that change. And secondly, we've initiated a rolling application process for small grants. This year we intend to offer up to $50,000 throughout the year for projects requesting less than $5,000 of CPA funds. And we have a brochure that we've prepared that describes the small grants process, the small grants application process. This brochure is available through our office, which is located in the treasurer's office. And it's also, there's the brochure is located in the welcome desk on the first floor of City Hall, and it's available through the library. So there are ways that you can learn more about the small grants application process.
[John Falco]: Roberta, if I may, is there also a PDF copy on the website?
[Roberta Cameron]: Not yet, but we should put a PDF. Yeah, we'll put a PDF copy on the website.
[John Falco]: Just thinking a lot of people hit the website.
[Roberta Cameron]: The actual small grants application itself, there's a PDF on the website. And so finally, I'd like to review with you this evening some key dates. These are mostly but not all mentioned in the annual report. Page 28 begins the application, and on the first page of the application is a timeline. And the timeline is also available on our website, which is preservemedford.org. But the important dates upcoming just next week, we have two public meetings. The first public meeting is on Monday evening, February 25th, and that is a general CPA information night. Any questions that people have about CPA, what is it, what is it, What is the surcharge on my tax bill? How can I apply for an exemption? The assessor will actually be there to answer some of the questions about application, and we'll be there to answer questions about what are the funds able to be used for and how does it work. So that's occurring on Monday evening here in the council chambers at 7 p.m. on February 25th. On February 28th, there's going to be at our next regular CPC meeting, which is going to take place at the Medford Media Center at 6.30 p.m. We are going to invite prospective applicants to come with any questions about the application process. So that's on February 28th at the Medford Media Center. And then the further deadlines to be aware of, April 26th is when the eligibility determination forms will be due. And for any projects, as I mentioned, that involve city property, we'd like to see that those be coordinated through the mayor's office before those eligibility determination forms are submitted. So we would encourage that communication to occur by the end of March in order to make sure that the coordination is in place before the eligibility determination forms are submitted. And then in September, the full applications will be due. Then there will be a community meeting in November for the applicants to present, have a public presentation of their proposals. The committee is going to deliberate and make decisions about the funding proposals in December of 2019, and we're going to send our recommendations to all of you. for the Council's approval in January of 2020. And following that, we'll begin our next year's annual review process. So that concludes my presentation. I appreciate your indulgence of time at this late hour in the evening. Any questions, I'd be happy to answer your questions. I meant to introduce members of the committee who came here this evening, John Sear and Casey Haggerty, as well as our coordinator, Danielle Evans. Thank you for being here.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you very much, and thank you for staying for the meeting. We have a few questions. First, Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, Councilor De La Russa took the words out of my mouth. Ultimately, this annual report is in line with the ordinance that the Community Preservation Commission Ad Hoc Subcommittee was able to author, one of which Ms. Cameron and Ms. Sierra were members of. We've reaped great benefits at this point in time as a community from the Community Preservation Act and the appropriations that we've made from the fund, Mr. President. And I'm very excited to see us go through a next round of grant funding proposals. But I'm also very excited to learn about these changes that we've made to the application process, especially the coordination of efforts between city departments and applications for city land. So with that being said, thank you, Roberta. And thank you to the members of the CPC for their hard work and dedication. This started out as an idea that turned into a ballot question that turned into a reality. So it's really something that I've been happy to be a part of. And I want to thank you for the work that you put into it.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Again, I want to thank you and your committee for the hours that you put in. I'm sorry we're keeping you out so late tonight. I think we all want to go home. Quick question. How much have we given to affordable housing since we had the CPA?
[Roberta Cameron]: Off the top of my head.
[Richard Caraviello]: I know we've given some money, but I don't think some of it never actually came to fruition.
[Roberta Cameron]: Correct. The Medford Community Housing has a project that is in the planning stages right now that will create If all goes according to plan, three affordable units with our funding. And the Medford Housing Authority has a proposal that is going to make the housing more affordable and safe through a CPA grant last year. And that project was held up because of the national grid lockout.
[Richard Caraviello]: That was for something else, but for actual affordable housing.
[Roberta Cameron]: Right. So the Somerville Community Corporation had a proposal that we have funded, or committed funding to, to create 29 affordable units at buildings that are redeveloping, or not redeveloping, they're adaptively reusing existing properties that are owned by the Archdiocese.
[Richard Caraviello]: That did not come to fruition?
[Roberta Cameron]: It is our understanding that the Archdiocese has pulled back on the offer to have a long-term ground lease with the Supperville Community Corporation, and that project is on hold. We have not withdrawn the funding in the hopes that maybe they'll change their mind. So we'll hold the funding through the end of this year. to see if they're able to go forward with having site control again.
[Richard Caraviello]: Well, I've heard the same thing that the Archdiocese has pulled back on, not that, but all projects, all the real estate projects they've pulled back on. Yeah. But I was hoping that we could combine all the unused funds and maybe do one substantial project for affordable housing.
[Roberta Cameron]: We will honor the commitment that we made through a year is a reasonable amount of time for our project to get off the ground. So we will honor the funding commitments that we've made, and if after a year there has not been any forward progress on a funding commitment that we've made, we will consider as a committee whether to withdraw that funding commitment and reallocate those funds back to the general funding that's available that can be committed to another project.
[Richard Caraviello]: And I want to reiterate on something Councilor Mark said a few weeks ago. I'd like to see the waltz shared a little more.
[Roberta Cameron]: You'd like to see?
[Richard Caraviello]: I'd like to see some different groups get in on the thing, rather than seeing the same names that we keep on saying.
[Roberta Cameron]: do as much as we can to ensure that groups throughout the city are aware of the availability of these funds. And so we take any suggestions that you have about making sure that there is awareness that these funds can be used and to invite groups, departments in the city, residents to inquire about whether projects that they see are eligible for CPA funding.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Thank you. Roberta and members of the CPC that are here tonight, thank you for all your hard work with regard to the CPC for the annual report. We greatly appreciate it and of course look forward to meeting with you in the future again. But the motion of council tonight to receive in place on file, seconded by Councilor Caraviello. All those in favor? All those opposed? Report is received in place on file. Thank you very much. While we're into suspension, 19-063 offered by Councilor Knight. Whereas many trees are being lost without replacement, incident to demolition of existing buildings in order to construct new buildings and lock clearing in connection with the construction of new buildings of previously undeveloped land, and whereas trees have been lost, severely damaged, or disfigured through other than natural causes resulting in a net loss of the tree population in the city, and whereas the city has an obligation to create policies that adequately preserve, protect, and provide for the replacement of trees, the preservation of private tree canopy, and the planting of replacement trees to enhance the quality of life in the environment of the city. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council requests the city solicitor, in consultation with the appropriate department heads, draft an ordinance to establish a permitting process for removal of certain protected trees that includes requirements for tree relocation, replacement, or payment into a tree replacement fund as a condition of permit approval.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight. Mr. President, thank you very much. This has been a topic that's been discussed a number of times at the council rail. There have been individuals that have circulated petitions to save certain trees that are located on private property. And what this resolution is as a request for the city solicitor to draft a zoning ordinance that would define what a certain protected tree would be. In some communities, they would define a protected tree as a tree that is 12 or 18 inches in diameter at four feet in height level. And in order to remove a tree on private land that meets that requirement, they'd have to go through a permitting process. And as a requirement of the permit, you'd have to come up with a plan to replace the tree. to replant the tree at a different location or to pay into a tree replacement fund to ensure that the community can continue to maintain the number of trees that it has grown accustomed to. We all know the benefits that trees bring in terms of environment, also curb appeal. So I thought that this was a step in the right direction for us to begin vetting a process, Mr. President, to protect the trees and private canopy of trees in the community of Medford. There are a number of communities that have done this, Brookline, Newton, Cambridge, for example, I've taken the liberty of forwarding copies of draft ordinances from other communities to the city solicitor in anticipation that my council colleagues would support this endeavor and asking him this question. So with that being said, I would ask my council colleagues to support this resolution asking that the solicitor draft us an ordinance for proper review and vetting that would govern the removal of trees on private property and establish replacement requirements thereof.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Vice President Lungo-Koehn.
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: Thank you, President Falco. I just want to thank Councilor Knight for bringing this forward and mention, I think back in 2009, 2010, Roberta, Cameron, and I did work on a tree ordinance. We looked at a number of different cities. We drafted one ourselves, basically. At that time, we didn't have the support of, I don't believe, the administration. wasn't very helpful to moving it forward. And I didn't have all the council's support, so I couldn't get it passed. But I'm really interested in taking another look at this, as well as any other full tree ordinance. I think it's time we kind of backed down, because we did at the time hire Curtis Tudin's mom, Aggie, who came in excited and knowledgeable. willing to do what needed to be done to protect our trees. So I think we, at that time, felt confident and kind of fell by the wayside after I couldn't get the votes. So I look forward to working on this in the next several months. Thank you, Vice President Alango-Kern. Consul Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, if I could, through the chair, ask my esteemed colleague if he could help come again at me, because I had a moment of distraction as you were speaking. I apologize. Were you saying that this will treat trees on private property and that the city will govern the care and requirements for trees on people's private property?
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, that is correct. Councilor Delaro was always correct. And when I brought this forward, one of the things I was thinking of was a lot of land across the street from the gas station on Winthrop Street, for example, where there were 50 or 60 trees there that were clear-cut for development. And those trees are not going to be replaced back into the community. Those trees are gone. The development never happened. So now we have a gigantic, blown-out rock wall that looks like it's a rock-climbing wall over there. All the beautiful trees that were there are gone. It's a main thoroughfare. The trees were helping our environment in terms of pollution because of the amount of cars that travel down Route 68. So, yes, Councilor Dello Russo would govern. the demolition of trees on private property and it would define a certain protected tree as one having certain characteristics or criteria relative to its size.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, if I could comment on that. Firstly, I'd like to say that I don't find the area on Withrop Street at all to be like a rock climbing area. I find it more to be like a prison yard and perhaps something else that I won't say in public. uh, firstly, secondly, uh, in all seriousness, I, uh, I'm concerned about this, Mr. President, while I, uh, maintain trees on my, uh, commercial property and, uh, expend amounts of money in their care and consult among knowledgeable people as to, uh, what's best for them. Mr. President, I also feel that I would be at liberty, whenever I choose to do so, as someone who owns private property in the United States of America. that country we invoke when we make our Pledge of Allegiance to the republic for which that flag stands, I can do as I please with my trees, and I will not impede anyone from doing anything with their trees. Even if they own a majestic copper beach, I will not inflict laws upon them with how they should care for their trees. I think people should be at liberty to exercise good judgment on their own property and exercise their free will with regards to their possessions, Mr. President. So I understand that the Councilor's sentiments, I understand other people's sentiments, but this Councilor will not destroy people's liberty.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Dela Rousseau. Mr. President, if I may,
[Adam Knight]: In my reading and researching of this in other communities, nothing in the proposed ordinance or the intent of this proposed ordinance would preclude somebody from doing whatever they want with a tree on their property. What it would do is require them to either pay into a fund to get a permit to remove the tree or to produce a plant of the tree wood that would be sufficient enough to satisfy her needs in terms of this replacement tree would, again, one tree's gone, one tree's up, it's a one for one. If they can't put the tree on, relocate the tree, or replant a tree on their private property, then they could pay into a tree replacement fund to the city, and the city could use that to enhance its streetscape, and it would be a funding mechanism thereof. But I can certainly understand Councilor Dello Russo's concerns about this, because it does infringe upon the liberty of private residents. That's why I'd like the city solicitor to go through the process of drafting an ordinance, and we'll have the opportunity to properly vet it.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Dello Russo?
[Fred Dello Russo]: Uh, and I don't want to turn this into a rebuttal at this late hour because I, more than anybody behind this rail, want to leave. Mr. President, um, I want to, uh, end this, uh, with a story. When I was a young man, uh, we had a cottage in Lebanon, Maine on a lake and it was a beautiful place and I enjoyed it very much. We don't have it any longer. Uh, my parents sold it and moved to the coast of Maine where they enjoy the ocean. Maybe that as it may, about a mile through the woods up this hill was an old farm area, an old farm up there that was owned by this old Yankee family that was there from colonial times. And there were old houses that were all dilapidated and cow barns and sheep herd. And they had all these beautiful fields that had been farming fields and pastures that had been cleared from the forest. And all the stones were taken out to build the beautiful, typical New England rock walls. But they stopped working that farm. And 30 years later, I went up there, and you know what those fields are? Forests again. There are trees all coming up. So that family exercised its American free will to take out the trees and enjoy the fruits of the earth. And then when they gave up that pursuit, guess what nature did? It took it back.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo. Councilor Locks.
[Michael Marks]: Thank you, Mr. President. And, you know, some time back, a few years ago, the city was looking, and I think it was Roberta Cameron at the time, offered a suggestion about adopt a tree. And it was actually having the city plant trees on private property. So if I was a homeowner and The city approached me and said, we'd love to put a tree at the corner of High and Elm Street or wherever it might be. Would you like to have it on your property? We'll pay for the tree and so forth. It never went anywhere, the program, but I thought it was a great suggestion in increasing our trees in our community. I, however, have a problem with creating a permitting process to remove a tree on private property. Now if it's a new development that's in an area that as Councilor Knight referred to, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with telling a resident that there may be a list of certain protected trees that you want to remove one. And we're looking at either you may need to relocate the tree, and who knows how much that would cost, depending on the size of the tree and so forth. You may need to replace it. You may need to pay a permit to have it removed. I think it's a very slippery slope, Mr. President, that we're going down when we start getting involved in people's private property. We're all in favor of shade trees and doing whatever we can in this community, Mr. President. But I think it's an overreach, to be quite frank with you, to start dictating to people whether or not they can cut a tree down on their own private personal property. So I have a real problem with that. If you're talking about new development and maybe just that angle, I could support the city solicitor looking into that. But a general broad brush, Mr. President, of saying that everyone now has to go through a permitting process to take down a tree or make sure it's not a particular tree or relocate a tree, I think it's a burden on residents of this community and something that I could not support, Mr. President. So I appreciate what the council is trying to do, but I think there may be other ways, as I believe it's called Back of the Curb. Roberta may be able to speak to that program. I think it's called Back of the Curb program, the city would go in and encourage private homeowners to plant trees. And I think that's an excellent concept and I would support that, um, you know, uh, in order to increase our, uh, trees and the different types of trees in our community. But, uh, you know, uh, you know, reaching into someone's personal property, Mr. President, I have a problem with that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Marks.
[John Falco]: Councilor Caraviello.
[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I think, if I'm not mistaken, I think there is a program in the city right now on new construction that if there were trees there that you took down, they have to be replaced. I think Mr. Student instituted that some years ago. So I think you may have something already in place that when you take a tree down on a new construction, you have to replace it. And I remember about four years ago, I was involved six years ago, we were involved with the chamber. Myself with Aggie, too, and the mayor. We did a buy a tree, get a tree for the business community. And I think we put up about 18 trees around the city. So it ended up working out pretty good then, too.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Name and address for the record, please.
[Curtis Tuden]: Hi, I'm Curtis Toon, I live at 38 Early Ave, and I'm here tonight to speak for the Medford Energy and Environment Committee. So just real quick, thank you, councilors, for making trees a priority. Medford's tree canopy has been in decline, so protecting significant community trees is more important than ever. Knowing how critical trees are to public health and ecology, a subcommittee of the Medford Energy and Environment Committee has worked on a report about local tree protection and other aspects of the proposed resolution. It will be completed soon, so for now there's just one request that the resolution create a general tree fund and not just a tree replacement fund. This would address the need to grow our community tree canopy and not only replace what we have left. Overall, we look forward to collaborating as the process moves forward, so thank you again.
[John Falco]: Thank you. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, in the research that I've been able to perform relative to other communities that have implemented this, some other communities have put criteria on it based upon the duration of home ownership to ensure that an individual that's applying for a permit to remove a tree isn't a developer. They can show that they've lived at the property for an extended period of time. Nothing in the ordinance, again, would preclude somebody from removing a tree that was on their private property. It would just establish a certain criteria. for us to establish a funding mechanism to replace trees in the community that are taken down on private properties. As everybody likes to say, there are two things that nobody wants to see be made in this world, a sausage and a law. That's why we asked the city solicitor to draft this and then we'll have an opportunity to vet it. I asked my council colleagues to allow the solicitor the opportunity to come up with a draft ordinance for us to go through. And if we can reach a consensus for something that works for this community, that's great. If not, that's okay too. That's what we have.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Council. Councilor Dello Russo? Mr. President, I've grown tired. Thank you, Councilor Dello Russo.
[Michael Marks]: Councilor Marks? Just if I could, because once we ask as a council, the city solicit to create an ordinance based on what's being submitted to us, I have a concern with the language that's in this, because the council is saying not to preclude someone from taking down a tree, but it also says there's a permitting process and certain trees are protected. So I don't know, are there certain trees that you're never going to be able to remove? Are there certain trees that you're going to have to relocate? Everyone now is going to, if you want to remove a tree, you're going to have to pay a fee. Here goes another fee. You know, that's, we have a water fee. Now we've got a fee on everything. That's create a fee to move a tree or take down a tree on private property. Next they'll charge you for cutting your grass. Uh, if you, anytime you want to cut your grass, we'll charge you a fee for that too. Um, you know, it really is. It's just another way of generating revenue. Um, and, uh, if the mayor wants to create a tree fund, she can do it overnight. She can do it overnight. If she wanted to create a tree fund in this city, there's plenty of revenue streams right now that they could dedicate, uh, towards a tree fund. If that's what the mayor's intent was to do. but to add a permit charge on someone that wants to remove a tree for a host of reasons. Most people that contact me about trees and so forth on private property, after I'm done discussing, it's usually because the tree's ill or sick, and they're taking it down for a particular purpose. And they're not just taking it down because they don't like trees. So I just, again, Mr. President, I'm not going to have the city solicitor spin his wheels on drafting something an ordinance that I'm just opposed to reaching out to people on private property and requesting that they pay a fee, permitting fee, to remove a tree in their own property. So, you know, we got to remember, we're looking at the snow shoveling ordinance now shifting the burden, requiring people to shovel intersections and pedestrian pathways. If they don't do it, guess what? They're going to put a lien on their property. I mean, we're really going down a slope here, Mr. President, one which I don't appreciate, to be quite frank with you, of how we dictate to residents rather than work with residents, Mr. President. And if the intent is to create, you know, more trees in this community, all you have to do is look at the city. It was this council for years, the city abused trees in the city for years. They used to use them just to put postings up throughout the community. I mean, you go down the square, there was 10 dead trees there for years in the square alone, right? Everyone reckoned, and how many resolutions did we put forward to replace those trees or put trees that were more suitable for thoroughfares and so forth? I don't know, Mr. President. I just think we've got to be very careful when we start looking at creating more permitting fees and making it difficult for someone on private property to do what they'd like on their own property, Mr. President. Very careful of having solicitors start creating ordinances and then present them to the council. And you're going to be hard-pressed, Mr. President, to do something with it, let me tell you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilman Marks.
[Adam Knight]: Ultimately, Mr. President, we're debating the merits of an ordinance or a draft ordinance that doesn't exist at this point in time. That's why I've asked that the council support me in asking Solicitor Rumley to draft something for us to review, at which time all of these valid and salient points can be addressed and vetted properly.
[Unidentified]: So just to clarify.
[Michael Marks]: Counsel Marks. So based on what we're submitting here tonight, you're giving him a framework to draft an ordinance, correct? This is a framework. Correct. And your framework talks about permitting making people go through hurdles to cut down a tree on private property. So that's what he's going to draft. He's not going to just come up with something different than this. So if that's the council's intent, to charge people on personal property to cut down trees, then you would say, solicitor, please go ahead, forward, and draft something. I don't support that. So I don't feel comfortable saying, go ahead and draft this, because I don't support this concept. If we want to look at other concepts, I'm more than happy to. But this particular concept, I don't support. So I will not vote on it tonight to have the city solicitor move forward, because from the language I see here tonight, I don't support that, Mr. President. Thank you, Counsel Knox.
[Adam Knight]: Councilor Knight? Mr. President, the gentleman has debated this issue vigorously, more so than the sponsor of the resolutions put forward. With that being said, again, I would ask that the solicitor be given the opportunity to vet it. Obviously, he has the opportunity to amend the paper. which he has not offered an amendment on, and he has the opportunity to vote against the paper. I would ask that the paper be brought to a vote, and the gentleman can vote which way he sees fit.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Councilor Lungo-Koehn. Councilor Clarks.
[Michael Marks]: This council creates ordinances. To just pass a resolution off to the, an open-ended resolution off to the city solicitor to have him draft something, I think we're shirking our duties, to be quite honest with you. If the council is that interested in it, Have them send it to a subcommittee. We have plenty of subcommittees. Have them look at language. Mr. President, at this point in time, I will withdraw my position.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, if I could finish my point. Please. We are the legislative body, Mr. President.
[Michael Marks]: So to put out a resolution asking the city solicitor to craft an ordinance that conceptually I don't agree upon, and I think it's so open-ended that I don't think anyone behind this reeling could tell me how it would work, and then to take what he drafts and work that as a framework, I don't think makes any sense at all. Have a subcommittee, get down, start brainstorming, put stuff down like we do with city ordinances, and then come up with something. So that's the only thing I'm saying, Mr. President. So I don't want my colleague to take exception, but that's the only thing I'm saying.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I mean, at this point, I think it's moot, because the paper's been withdrawn. We'll reintroduce that at a later time. That's fine.
[John Falco]: So the paper has been withdrawn. It's not going to come to a vote. And Councilor Knight will move forward in the way that you said.
[Adam Knight]: We'll reintroduce it next week with language.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Did you want to?
[Breanna Lungo-Koehn]: I was going to bring up the same type of idea. How about meet in committee and discuss it and maybe look at a few other cities and towns and see what they do. It sounds like we're going to do that. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Councilor Larkins.
[Michael Marks]: Whatever the committee is, we should have the tree water in there. We should have anyone that's interested in this issue, Mr. President. So it shouldn't be just the council meeting on this. It should be the city administration, because we're eventually going to need a buy-in from the mayor and the city administration on this, if that's what they're interested in.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion of Council, I'd like to revert back to the regular order of business. OK. Vice President Lungo-Koehn has made a motion to table 19-060 and 19-061, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? All those opposed? Those resolutions are tabled. 19-062, offered by Councilor Knight, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request the city solicitor give an opinion on the following question. The city council has a longstanding practice as a safeguard to protect the neighborhood. In attaching the condition when granting a special permit, the permit is valid only for the business that has submitted the petition for the special permit at the address on the application. The condition is brought forward by way of motion from the council floor. Does the city council have the authority to require that this condition be automatically attached to all special permit applications requiring council action by adopting an amendment to the council rules.
[Adam Knight]: The special permit, when granted, would go to the business and not to the actual address. If we grant the permit to the address, we'd need to go forward and rescind the vote. But if the business changes hands, then the new business would have to come before the council and, again, reapply for that special permit, whether it be signage, extended hours, a drive-through window, or whatever it may be. This council and past councils have found that to be a best practice. So what I was wondering was, based upon the language of Chapter 48, Section 5 in the Special Permit Granting Authority, that's outlined in our zoning regulations, I think it's 22094. Can the council adopt a standing rule in the council rules that would attach this condition to every permit? Every permit that's requesting special permit granting authority before the council would come in here and it would be submitted under the fact or under the criteria that it's going to be with the business and not with the address so that we don't have to go through the procedural process of attaching that motion every time we adopt a rule and that's attached automatically When the paper comes up for council action, it's taken up under council rule 37A, which says that this condition is automatically attached to the paper. We wouldn't be precluded from attaching other restrictions to it. And we also wouldn't be precluding from waiving restriction from waiving that entirely. But it was something that I wanted to ask the city solicitor in an official capacity as to whether or not the council does have the authority to take this action by an amendment of its rules and require that all applications for special permits that are submitted to the council that are under council purview have this condition attached to it by way of rule, as opposed to by way of motion from the floor. Okay.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? The motion passes. Let's see. On the motion of... Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello to take papers under suspension. 19-065 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it resolved that the Medford City Council have the administration contact Planet Aid to empty the donation box on Mystic Ave as it is currently full and the surrounding area of the box is lidded with debris. Seconded by...
[Richard Caraviello]: Mr. President, just again, you know, we talk about the curb repeal of the city, you drive by there and the box has been overfilled for like two weeks, not the first time, and there's all stuff all over the ground. So motion to have someone from the administration call Planet Aid and clean it up. Thank you.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello.
[Michael Marks]: Also in the Fells Plaza, right across from Modell's, there's a drop-off box that's manned eight hours a day, seven days a week. And it's getting to be a business over there. And neighbors are very upset that live on the Fells Way. because I don't think the intent is to run a drop-off business of items there. And like I said, it's staffed eight hours a day. So there's someone there, there's a big bin, they open the door up and they get deliveries all day there. And then drop-offs at night, weekends, and it's becoming a real eyesore and a nuisance to the neighborhood, Mr. President. So I'd ask in the Fells Plaza that that be looked at by our code enforcement officer.
[John Falco]: Okay. Sounds good. Thank you, Councilor Marks. On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Vice President Lungo-Koehn, as amended by Councilor Marks. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. 19-066, offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it resolved that the Medford City Council request that the Park Department remove the Adirondack chairs that are in the Riverside Plaza for the winter.
[Richard Caraviello]: Councilor Caraviello. Yes, President. There's probably about two or three Adirondack chairs I've been left in the plaza for the winter. I don't think anyone's sitting out there in this 20 degree weather. If the park department could have someone go by there, pick them up, put them away before they crack and we'll have to buy new ones.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Knight.
[Adam Knight]: Mr. President, I'm hoping Councilor Caraviello can help me out in understanding how citizens here in the city of Medford that want to enjoy the Christmas lights on City Hall can look at them if we're going to take the Adirondack chairs out from the Riverside Plaza. Where else are they supposed to sit to look at the beautiful Christmas lights that we have on here at City Hall? But then no one's going to be able to see the beautiful lights we have on at City Hall still for Christmas. Maybe, Mr. President, we could also request that the Christmas lights at City Hall be removed in the interest of energy and environment? So I would like to amend the paper and also request that the city administration take the appropriate steps to remove the Christmas lights in front of City Hall so that we no longer look like the Griswolds.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli, as amended by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor De La Ruza, that we take papers in the hands of the clerk, offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that the City Council discuss audio concerns in Council Chambers. Councilor Scarpelli, if... I... If I... I... What?
[George Scarpelli]: Oh, sorry. If we can, I know that these awful buzzing, I believe it was Councilor Knight's laptop that was making the buzzing noise. But if we can really look into that, it was when my ADD kicked in and I started hearing the buzzing. took me off my game. So if we can really focus on trying to get that fixed, I think there've been some community members that have been head, you know, straw warts behind this effort. And I think it's time that we really look into it. Thank you, Mr. President.
[John Falco]: Thank you, Councilor Scott. If I may mention really quick, I had a meeting with the mayor of last week and we're going to be scheduling a committee, the whole meeting soon to go over our 2019 legislative priorities. And during the meeting, I mentioned that the sound system in the chamber is a definite concern of all members that needs to be addressed. And, um, uh, she was definitely open to that. And, um, so that's something that we will discuss in an upcoming meeting, but she wanted to give you an update with regard to that. Councilor Dello Russo.
[Fred Dello Russo]: Mr. President, I just noticed that it happens after Non-council use happens in this chamber. People go back there to adjust the sound that they might not be using it for the sacred purpose that the council uses these chambers for. I made an effort to adjust it in there, but I'm afraid my skill set is not for that.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo. All those in favor? All those opposed? The motion passes. Let's see here. Reports of committee 18-611, February 6th, 2019. We had a committee, the whole report to discuss polling locations. At. Okay, on the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, to adopt the Committee of the Whole report for 18-611. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, to waive the reading of the report and accept the Committee of the Whole meeting report for 19-016. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? On the motion of Councilor Knight, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, We have the committee, a reading of the committee report and accept the committee report for Youth and Recreation Affairs Subcommittee on Tuesday, February 5th at 6 p.m. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Motion passes. Records. The records of the meeting of February 5th, 2019 were passed to Vice President Lungo-Koehn. Vice President Lungo-Koehn, how did you find those records?
[Adam Knight]: Second.
[John Falco]: On the motion of Vice President Lungo-Koehn to accept the record, seconded by Councilor Knight. All those in favor? All those opposed? Aye. Motion passes. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Dello Russo, that the meeting is adjourned. All those in favor?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, is there a community police meeting this week?
[John Falco]: No, it's not for a few weeks. But before we sign off, I received If anybody's watching, I received a call from the DPW today. If you have or if you see any potholes, please feel free to call 781-393-2445 to report your potholes and get them filled. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Caraviello, that the meeting be adjourned. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Meeting adjourned.
|
total time: 35.63 minutes total words: 2276  |
total time: 32.39 minutes total words: 1602  |
total time: 20.01 minutes total words: 2224  |
total time: 17.17 minutes total words: 991  |
|
total time: 8.16 minutes total words: 859  |
total time: 13.15 minutes total words: 212  |
total time: 6.54 minutes total words: 551  |
total time: 12.92 minutes total words: 993  |
|
total time: 0.77 minutes total words: 108  |
|||