[Mike Caldera]: In this meeting, we are going to be discussing as a board the already closed hearing pertaining to 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway. We have a draft decision which we're going to review as a board, and then we will be voting on findings, waivers, and conditions. So for us to get started, first we're going to take a quick roll call.
[Unidentified]: Jim Tarani? Here. Jamie Thompson? Present. Yvette Velez?
[Mike Caldera]: Present. Andre LaRue? Present. Mike Caldera? Present. So all board members are present. We have a quorum. Dennis, can you please kick us off?
[Denis MacDougall]: Sure. On March 29th, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, which among other things, extends temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting on March 31st, 2025. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language is not making any substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. Thank you. And Dennis, can you read the first matter, please? 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, case number 40B-2022-01, continued from June 12th, 2023. The resumption of consideration of the petition of MVP Mystic LLC and affiliated Mill Creek Residential Trust LLC for a comprehensive permit pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B for multi-family, eight-story apartment development consisting of two buildings located in approximately three acres of land at 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway, property ID 7-02-10. This proposal will be developed as an approximately 350-unit rental apartment building containing a mix of studio, one, two, and three-bedroom apartments, with 25% of the total units being designated as affordable housing to low- or moderate-income households.
[Mike Caldera]: Awesome. Thank you, Dennis. So folks, as I previously mentioned, this hearing is already closed. So the board began the hearing back in late 2022, had a series of meetings over the course of many months. and has systematically reviewed this case with the applicant as the project developed. The city hired some peer review consultants that reviewed and provided feedback on the project in multiple iterations. The applicant presented every facet of the project that the board's considering tonight, answered the board's questions, public had multiple opportunities to participate along the way. I received a number of letters from department chairs and some verbal testimony from, sorry, from department heads and some verbal testimony from department heads. So today's business is there is a draft decision that the board will be reviewing as a board. We will not be taking public comment. The hearing is closed. Uh, we will not be hearing additional testimony. The hearing is closed. This is a public meeting. Uh, we will be going through this discussion in public. Um, there is a slight chance at some point in the process that the board might, um, have a clarifying question because perhaps someone doesn't recall exactly what was discussed in the hearing. And I see we do have some folks representing the applicant on the line. We may, in those select instances, elect to check in with the applicant. But by and large, this will be the board discussing itself. And so we will follow a process where we're going to screen share the draft decision. review and potentially live edit together. And we will be a little bit less formal in the early phases of this meeting where we just try to get the thoughts on the paper. And then towards the end of the meeting, the board will vote on any findings, waivers, and conditions to codify this decision. So that is what to expect for this meeting. I do see Mr. Alexander for the applicant came on screen. Just want to quickly check in with you, Mr. Alexander. Is that consistent with your expectation? Do you have any requests before we get started?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: No, no, Mr. chair good evening that that's consistent with our understanding and yeah we're obviously here if questions arise, but understand your process.
[Mike Caldera]: Wonderful all right sounds good so. I would like a volunteer to please share the most complete draft decision we have as of today. It is one titled Mill Creek-Mystic Valley Parkway-Metrodraft 40B. It's the one that was drafted by the city's 40B consultant that also reflects some items that were live edited in the prior meeting that did not make their way into the prior draft. So I believe this draft is what has previously been discussed and aligned upon. plus some content that was added simply for the purpose of turning it into a full draft. And so I would like us to review that as a board. So Dennis, is that something you could help screen share?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes, absolutely. And just for clarification, this was sent to us last evening by Attorney Rainier. So it's that document that we were sort of referring to. So this is the most updated one that we have in our between Among us, so I'm just going to just do a screen share.
[Unidentified]: And everyone can see it. Yep, I can see it. So.
[Mike Caldera]: Dennis, could you remind me if we view this in the current format, which I think is like the simplified markup, are we going to lose anything? Are there comments or other things that we'll need with the full markup version?
[Denis MacDougall]: I honestly don't believe so. This isn't my precise area of expertise, but track review changes are on there. So it should, well, what I can do is actually, what I just started noticing right now, this is me just more being dependent is that. And I think it added an extra red thing there, because I think there was just one line before. But let me just sort of go backwards. And yep, so it is at least indicating where changes are rated on the left-hand side.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, sounds good. And so this, I do want to acknowledge up front, this is a 32 page document so I don't intend for us to read out loud every word in it. The board has had a chance to review it. So my intention is for us to go section by section, talk through the high level content without reading all the words. And then I'll check in with the board at each step in case there's any requests to modify content or add or subtract content. And so why don't we start off with the procedural history? So, I'm not muted.
[Unidentified]: I can hear you. Yeah, sorry. So I think we'll get started momentarily. It looks like there's just some coordination happening. If I can ask, what are you trying to bring up?
[Alicia Hunt]: So you can't actually see the redlined edits. You're just seeing the dashed lines next to it. And so I was trying to make it display the way it displays on my computer, like what are the words that were inserted or deleted.
[Mike Caldera]: So I believe on the Review tab, that would be how you change it. So you click on the Review tab. up top. That's not the button.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah, the review. It's under the green bar that says your screen.
[Mike Caldera]: rather than simple markup, you select something like all markup or one above that.
[Alicia Hunt]: They're all markup. There you go. That's what we wanted. Okay. Sorry. I just, I really thought you wanted to see those.
[Mike Caldera]: I think it's, yeah, I think it's prudent to have them just in case. I do, I did have a chance to read through. I think all the edits that were made are are correct, but this way we have an extra glimpse just in case anything is missing. So, all right, let's lead off with the procedural history. So this is essentially an accounting of largely factual information surrounding the procedure that we adopted in this case. So in item one, there's some details about the application itself and some relevant dates. On item two, so it says the board opened the public hearing on the application on March 11th, 2020. I believe that was the first date we heard public testimony, perhaps? Wait, no, no, that's wrong. I think, so the board opened the hearing on, it was some date in November, like the end of November, 2022. Does anyone, I can, I can try to look at this actually, sorry to interrupt you, Mike.
[Alicia Hunt]: This is actually, if you keep reading, this is actually the whole, the whole thing. Yeah. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So, right. So, uh, the board, which actually had a number of different members at the time, open to hearing back in 2020, uh, invoked glam. and this immediately went to the courts. Okay, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. So yeah, so item two is just setting a stage of that earlier hearing. Item three is further detailing the involvement of DHCD. Item four, Uh, is DHCD decision based on the city's glam analysis and the applicants rebuttal. Uh, item five is the history of going to the housing appeals committee. And then item six is where this board, uh, shortly came in. So essentially the applicant and the city. While this matter was before the housing appeals committee, uh, agreed to a plan and the city, uh, uh, applicant in the city submitted a stipulation to that, uh, HAC, uh, with the terms of the revised project and, uh, requested to dismiss the matter and it was dismissed. So everything up till this point looks good to me, but we'll go through it as a board. If anyone has concerns that we could scroll down. Um, so then we had the amended plans. And, uh, so we reopened the hearing on November 29th as a board. And so we have all the dates of hearings listed, uh, in item seven. Um, and the, so June 12th was the date where we closed the hearing. And then in item eight, it says the board deliberated on the application on June 12th. Oh, and today, July 11th. We didn't really deliberate on it on June 12th, but I don't have major issues with that wording. So it's contemplating that we're doing some deliberation now. All submittals concerning the project on file with the Office of the Board of Appeals are incorporated herein. All waivers requested and votes taken are listed, that KK will be listed in exhibit A, incorporated herein. Then there's some details about the materials that were provided and who presented them. And so it references some of the specific teams that contributed to aspects of the project for the applicant. Uh, item 10 describes the peer review consultants and the role they played, uh, for the board. Uh, item 11, uh, describes, uh, the input, uh, the board received from, um, various individuals. Um, and so in item 11, so I have a paragraph from the, building commissioner related to the specific safety concern that might live in item 11. I don't know, but I think the list of entities is, it looks correct to me. And then item 12, this one will need to modify slightly. So it states that The five of us on today's meeting were present for the entire public hearing process. My understanding is that Jim did miss one meeting, but we've adopted Mullen's rule as a board. And Jim attested that he had reviewed the material for the hearing that he missed. So, yeah. So we need some language for item 12. It's unclear to me whether we need to add the building commissioner's language in item 11 or if that comes later in the decision, but I just want to check in with the board for thoughts and comments on the procedural history section. Is something you were expecting to see here missing? Do you see anything in here that is inconsistent with your understanding of what happened? Are there things in here that you don't think should be in here? Yeah, I'll open the floor to the board.
[Unidentified]: Does anyone have. Thoughts on this section, Mike, I'm just wondering whether.
[Andre Leroux]: we should do this section by section rather than point by point, just because it is such a long document. And since folks have had the chance to look at it, maybe we could ask whether people have questions or get into, you know, specifics. I just think that we may need more time for like the condition section. So wondering if we could go faster through these earlier sections.
[Mike Caldera]: Great. Yeah, great question.
[Unidentified]: Let me, I'm just going to scan through the document. So it's the kind of this background information seems to be the first.
[Mike Caldera]: and a half pages, and then we get into the conditions where I certainly agree we should be spending most of our time on that. The only reason why I was thinking of going through in summary form the earlier content is this is the first anyone, any member of the public at least, has seen it. So I just... I do agree from an efficiency standpoint. Maybe it would be best to still go section by section, but rather than summarize it, just check in with the board. Does anyone have feedback on section one?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Does anyone have feedback on section two? So I'm happy to do that.
[Unidentified]: So does anyone have feedback on section one, procedural history? Okay, I'm getting some head nods, no.
[Mike Caldera]: So then Jim, I just wanna check in with you on language for that last item. We'll have a city lawyer take a final pass at it. So I would rewrite this to say something to the effect of the following board members were present for the entire public hearing process. Chairman Michael Caldera, Yvette Velez, Andre LaRue, Jamie Thompson, period. And then in the second sentence, James Tarani was present for all but one session of this hearing. The board has adopted the Mullen rule. Jim or James Trani did a test that he reviewed the content of the prior hearing or something like that.
[Unidentified]: Does that language sound accurate to you, Jim? It does. Very much so. Dennis, is that something you can help live edit? I'm going to try to type it out, but. You're on mute. Mike, if you want, while we're doing when we're doing edits, if you want to speak it, I can type it into the chat that way.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds good. So yeah, I'll do that. Essentially, the first change would occur after Jamie Thompson, the colon would be replaced with a period.
[Unidentified]: Uh, and then the next sentence would be James Turani was present for all but one session of the public hearing and attested that he had reviewed the material
[Mike Caldera]: reviewed and familiarized himself with the material and testimony presented in that session, period.
[Unidentified]: And then the last sentence would be, the board has adopted the Mullen rule, which permits members to miss one session of the hearing in these circumstances. Thank you. Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So then, um, reviewing the other sections, I think the building commissioners paragraph belongs in, um, section four. So, um, let's move on. Um, the board has had a chance to review section two governing law. Uh, does any member of the board. have an item they would like to discuss regarding this section, whether that's to add something, change something, subtract something.
[Unidentified]: Looks good to me. I trust the lawyers to do the review of the details.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep.
[Mike Caldera]: Same.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have no comments on that section.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. All right. Moving on to section three, then jurisdictional findings. Um, so these are, part of what the board would need to vote on. We need to be able to find these things, but a lot of these are also very much so grounded in the legal domain. So essentially, well, I'll follow Andre's suggestion. So does anyone have any items they would like to discuss pertaining to the jurisdictional finding section?
[Unidentified]: Section three. Getting some head shakes now. Yeah, it seems accurate to me.
[Mike Caldera]: OK. Yeah, so the main thing that I'd just like to call out about this section is that it does require us to find that we don't meet the statutory minimum in the law for safe harbor.
[Unidentified]: It does clarify the stipulation that the city submitted. And then yeah, the rest is pretty procedural and straightforward.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So then moving on. So factual findings, this is a, an item, a section that I do want to go through item by item, um, just because these are things we did directly discussed in the case. So if any of these are. people take issue with the characterization. I think it's helpful to know. So item 14 is aspects of the site. Item 15 is a description of the surrounding area. Item 16, I think is the one where we want to insert the details from Commissioner Forty. The board heard comments from city staff boards and commissions in particular. Commissioner Forty was present for multiple meetings, provided input on construction, fire and safety. And then we talk a little bit about that matter. And so I have some language that Commissioner Forty sent me that I'm just going to paste in the chat that he is requesting the board consider. And it's just him characterizing what we already discussed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So this is not new. testimony. Am I just qualifying the placement of that? I've got factual findings starting with item 19.
[Mike Caldera]: Oh, I may be looking at a stale draft. So yeah, this would be item 21. I was looking I was looking on a local copy. So item item 21. Sorry about that. All right.
[Unidentified]: So then here is the language. It looks like that copied over.
[Andre Leroux]: Like this language, the language you're talking about, is it different than the language that's already in the document in number 21? It is, yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. It's just a little bit more descriptive.
[Unidentified]: Oh, I sent that to just Dennis by accident.
[Mike Caldera]: So I'm just going to read it out loud, because it's the first time anyone's seeing it on the board. So during the hearings, the building commissioner, in consultation with the fire chief, suggested that the zoning board order the petitioner to install the permanent sprinkler system simultaneously with the wood framing to reduce the fire risk during construction, citing that the proposed construction type, high rise wood frame, type 3A over type 1A, is highly combustible and poses a significant fire risk. The petitioner did not immediately commit to installing and activating sprinklers early citing the potentially high cost and insurance reasons. After consulting with the city's legal representation, the chair determined that the board should not impose this condition as such an order may be considered preemptive and could be challenged. After discussions with the fire chief building commissioner and petitioner, the parties agreed that a phased occupancy plan shall be submitted and approved by both the fire chief and the building commissioner in recognition of the fire risk posed by this construction type. So that is the proposed language. And I believe that will replace entirely the section in red. So I want to check in with the board. This is consistent with my understanding of the facts and what was discussed. And I don't think it is really overstepping presuming intent or anything of that nature. So I think this is just a factual accounting of what happened. That's a little bit more complete than the prior language.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But I want to double check with the board if folks would like to modify this in any way or revert back to the other language.
[Unidentified]: That looks fine to me as long as the petitioner doesn't have any problems with that.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. We can check in. Mr. Alexander, do you feel like anything in the purple text is a misrepresentation of the facts here?
[Unidentified]: No, not necessarily.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: I think the new language is a bit duplicative with what is discussed later, I think, in the conditions section, if my memory serves. But I agree that it's factual.
[Mike Caldera]: Understood. Yeah. OK. And thank you for that feedback. I believe this was even when we were discussing it in public at the time, the Commissioner had indicated a desire to state, not just in the conditions, kind of what the conclusion was, but just to include details in the decision about what happened. And so I'm inclined to keep this language, even if it if it may be a little duplicative, we can, we can always walk something back if if it's a literal duplicate, but I think this just makes it clear that this was a focal topic and, you know, gives a factual accounting of it. So Jamie, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I guess my only question is, does the last statement qualify as a factual finding? It's an expectation, it's not... I think that falls into Mr. Alexander's point of that being covered in the conditions.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so you're specifically referring to the last sentence in purple after discussions with? Correct.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Yes, Chris Vernier, please go ahead. You just have to click all my buttons.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I think as to that comment about that last sentence in purple, I think it is a bit duplicative of the condition in D11. Okay, that's later that talks about the building commissioner shall have the authority to issue partial or temporary CFOs, a phased occupancy plan shall be submitted with the building permit application. And it goes on to say, may allow portions of the building to be occupied provided all life safety systems, including the sprinkler system and other life safety features for the portion to be occupied are operational and approved by the fire chief. So where, that last sentence I think reads a little bit more like a condition. There's a pretty carefully crafted condition later at D11 in the decision.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so maybe then we can modify this to after discussion with the fire chief building commissioner and petitioner, the parties agreed to the condition codified in D11.
[Unidentified]: I think that's a little bit more focused, yes. Yeah. I want to keep that in recognition of the fire risk. Oops. D11. Actually, if I could, Mr. Chair, I'm looking, it might be D12.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: There's a bit of version control going on right now. So Dennis, we might just have to, might just have to scrub that later to make sure it references the correct section reference.
[Mike Caldera]: That sounds good. Yeah. And I think as a best practice, we'll do that after the board votes today anyway, because it would be easy to introduce just like reference errors if if we're changing the numbering of things as we go. So yeah, so to Dennis, parties agree to the condition codified in D12 in recognition of the fire risk posed by this construction type.
[Andre Leroux]: And Mike, there's a minor typo in point 20. Okay. So McDonald's State Park should be Mac, M-A-C, not M-C. And you might as well put the whole title Torbert McDonald's State Park. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Torbert. Cool. Thank you. By this construction type. And then we can kill the whole portion after it in red. Great. All right. Let me just double check if there's anything else. Okay, so. Oops, I scrolled past it. Are we covering grammatical errors right now?
[Mike Caldera]: There will be an opportunity to clean them up later. We don't have to vote on. I'll skip it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, so, okay. Yeah. Um, hold on.
[Unidentified]: I lost my place. Jurisdictional findings, factual findings. Um, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: I might be looking at the wrong version. Okay. Oh yeah. So 20, 22. So, um, So we have some details on the engineering peer review. 23, we have some details on the architectural peer review. And that one calls out specifically the discussion on the active play space, the flexible play equipment, and lighting.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, then 24 just states we considered all comments on the proposed development and weighed them against local needs. So in this meeting, we're gonna have to vote on whether we believe this project as conditioned in the later section is consistent with local needs. Since this is a draft decision, it's assuming we've done so.
[Unidentified]: So we'll come back to that.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, the, we need to find also that any conditions we impose are necessary in order to address local concerns. So we'll come back to that as well. Um, and, uh, there's also some language surrounding if conditions, um, whether we think the conditions would render the project uneconomic and, um, Yeah, so a lot of this is typical language as I understand it. And then lastly, finding that the waivers that we're gonna review and grant later in this meeting are acceptable, even in light of some of the impact they might have on local concerns. So yeah, section four in totality, What other comments, feedback do we have from the board?
[Unidentified]: Would anyone like to discuss any of these items? Okay, I'm getting some head shakes now. Go ahead, Andre.
[Mike Caldera]: You said it's good?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, it just looks good.
[Denis MacDougall]: that decision, so. Actually, Mike, this is just another bit of pedantry, but you might be getting a bunch from me tonight, because that's sometimes how my brain works, but in section 25, local needs is capitalized, and 24 it isn't.
[Mike Caldera]: Good point. I think the convention we're using in most of the DACA is to capitalize, so let's agree to that.
[Unidentified]: It does have a known legal interpretation.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. So the decision section is very short. It just says, pursuant to the act, the board, after convening a public hearing and making findings back in this draft language grants a comprehensive permit to the applicant for the construction of the development subject to all the conditions of section six.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And so, yeah, so section six, I think is where we'll spend a lot of our time.
[Unidentified]: Um, anyone want to discuss earlier content before we move into the conditions themselves? Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so many of these we've already seen. And so, um, I don't. think we need to go through them in great detail. Because we're going to be voting on each and every one of these, I do think it's important that we briefly touch on each of them. So in terms of the general conditions, A1, I would characterize this as just codifying parameters we've already seen from this proposed project. So just describing the amenities and the number of units and the number of types and so on. Maybe at the end of each section, I'll check in with the board if they want to weigh in on particular items. A2 makes it clear that the building should be constructed in accordance with essentially the controlling documents or the approved plans for the project. So this just enumerates all of the specific plans that the board has already referenced and on the latest versions of them that govern the controlling plan or the approved plan. Then A3, Uh, this is a typical condition, um, for this type of 40 B. Um, so in the, my understanding is in the application itself to the subsidizing agency, the applicant indicated that there will be a limited dividend entity, um, managing this, this project once it's completed. And so this is just, um, codifying that in the form of a condition that essentially the entity that runs this will be the same as what was in the original subsidizing agency application. A4 is codifying that the affordable units should be interspersed throughout the project. This is something that the subsidizing agency has, um, a lot of control over. So it's just codifying the intent. So it is, it needs to be as approved by them. Uh, and then a five, this one's a bit wordy.
[Unidentified]: So it is essentially, um, just codifying that.
[Mike Caldera]: whatever waivers we vote to grant here were in fact granted by the board conditionally. And that those conditions are expressly incorporated into our conditions of approval. So we're gonna vote on some conditions. These conditions are necessary based on our assessment of local needs. And then we, that this is what would enable us to waive some of the requested items from the zoning code. And it also just makes clear that if it's not expressly included here, there has been no waiver of the building permit or inspection fees and so on.
[Unidentified]: A6 is just stating that
[Mike Caldera]: other than what gets waived, the product should comply with local regulations. A7 makes it clear that the building commissioner has the authority to enforce the provisions of the state building code.
[Unidentified]: A8 makes it clear that Um, that the city the relevant.
[Mike Caldera]: Folks at the city, which mainly the building commissioner, but some other department heads make reasonable efforts to review and respond to any submissions within 30 days. Uh. And talks a little bit about what to do in the case of an outside consultant being required. Um. A nine. says that this decision will be binding upon successors and assigns of the applicant so long as this continues to be a 40B project. A10 talks about project infrastructure and clarifies how City of Medford doesn't have responsibility to install, inspect, operate, or maintain this infrastructure that is located on the project site and being built here. A11, this is something we talked about as a board. So it has to do with snow storage. And so it makes it clear. where snow may be temporarily stored, and makes it clear that accumulated snow must be removed within 24 hours. And then A12 just empowers the building commissioner to designate an agent to review and approve plans for consistency with this decision. So that's the general conditions. members of the board, would anyone like to discuss any of these items or add items to general conditions or subtract items from general conditions? Like I said, all of these we reviewed in some form at the prior hearing, or we've seen at the prior hearing, so nothing material has changed here. I think there's some slight changes to A11. But yeah, what would the board like to discuss in the general conditions of A?
[Unidentified]: I'm good. Okay. I'm good with A. I just had one question on A1. I think it's A1. We had talked about the, there's no language that we're putting in here. I'm sorry, not A1. It was about the affordable units and loadings. Does it have to be documented whether they're floating or fixed or the language we have doesn't call that out?
[Mike Caldera]: So the language we have doesn't impose one way or the other. The applicant let us know that it would likely be floating. My understanding is that it's risky to be too prescriptive as a board about this item because it very narrowly falls in our purview. more general language, as long as the board is aligned with it, it tends to be the best practice as I understand it.
[Unidentified]: Understood. Yvette, section A, anything you want to talk about?
[Yvette Velez]: Nothing in particular.
[Unidentified]: It looks fine.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre, you good with section A?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I'm good with it. And again, excuse me that I'm off camera. I have to be standing up sometimes and lying down on the ground sometimes.
[Mike Caldera]: No worries at all. All right, great. And I just want to double check the footnotes here. So these will be removed, all the footnotes will be removed in the final decision. I think this is just clarifications and coordination. So this is essentially just saying that these are the conditions that we already talked about, and it includes some revisions that were sent prior to the closure of the hearing. So I think we're good. All right, so section B, affordability. So B1, codifies the minimum number of affordable units. This is governed largely by the application of the subsidizing agency. So it's something we've talked about a little bit. So this is 25% of the units at 80% of the AMI. And so, yeah, B1 is largely just describing that. We as a board, we did discuss whether other options are available, and the guidance was that would basically require a restart of the process. So that, yeah, B1 is consistent with what we've already reviewed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: B2 clarifies that the units that are part of this project
[Mike Caldera]: All of the units, 100% of the units of this project count for inclusion in the subsidized housing inventory for the city of Medford. This is governed by state law. And so it's just asserting what state law already allows.
[Unidentified]: B3, the applicant,
[Mike Caldera]: should obtain approval by the subsidizing agency for a permanent fair housing market plan prior to the rental of any units, and I'm sure the project complies with subsidizing agency's fair housing requirements. So this is something the subsidizing agency expects, so it's just codifying that expectation. B4 is requiring that the applicant provide a copy of the affirmative fair housing marketing plan, um, to the building commissioner and the department of planning development and sustainability for review and comment. Um, and then just asserts that the final terms and conditions, uh, will be determined solely by the subsidizing agency.
[Unidentified]: Uh, the five, uh, essentially states that the, this one's a bit technical, so that the subsidizing agency is responsible for monitoring compliance, that the city may request information that the applicant is required to supply to the subsidizing agency,
[Mike Caldera]: and might take steps allowed under the relevant laws. The applicant shall enter into a springing permanent restriction slash regulatory agreement with the city in a form substantially similar as that which is attached here to an Exhibit B. So we'll go back, we'll, we'll, we'll go to exhibit B later. Um, and just states, it should be recorded with the registry.
[Andre Leroux]: Just a point of inquiry on that. I'm not familiar with the term springing permanent restriction. Can someone just explain that someone on the call?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. So I think Alicia may have had to step off. Um, I'm not. that I could give a completely accurate description. Is there any, yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Looks like the attorney right here. Yeah, please go ahead.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Sure, just thank you, Mr. Chair and member LaRue. This text is really coming straight from Judy Barrett. So hopefully, I think she intends to join later tonight. So she can, I think, answer a lot of as the board's consultant, the intricacies. But what I'll just say, in my experience, sometimes municipalities get concerned that if for some reason mass housing, who's our subsidizing agency, were to go away and somehow extinguish the regulatory agreement that we will have with them that will be recorded and that will run with the land. And so there's no contractual enforcement mechanism. A municipality wants in their back pocket a springing regulatory agreement that would spring into effect if the primary regulatory agreement goes away. Judy can probably talk about that more articulately than I can, but it's really a belt and suspenders and then maybe an extra pair of suspenders.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. Andre, did that? Yeah, that's really helpful. Okay, wonderful. Thank you, Chris. All right, and so then B6. So this is something that we've talked about as a board. We haven't really deliberated on it. And so I do, since this is something that is a member of the board suggested we have in here, I just think we should have a brief discussion about it to make sure we can reflect all perspectives. It's something we can vote on later if we're not aligned, but so B6 is the local preference condition. So a local preference for the initial rent up of the project may be established subject to and solely in accordance with the requirements of the subsidizing agency and applicable law. the board acknowledges that the city will be required to provide evidence satisfactory to the subsidizing agency of the need for foregoing local preference and to obtain approval of the categories of persons qualifying for the same, and in no event shall the applicant be in violation of the terms of this comprehensive permit to the extent the subsidizing agency disapproves the local preference requirements or any aspect thereof. So essentially, as I understand it, The subsidizing agency has final say on local preference. The burden of proof is on the city to establish the need for local preference. The Department of Housing Planning and Sustainability provided an example in draft form just for the board's review of the type of case that the city frequently makes. And the applicant is amenable to as long as the city does its part as codified in this condition to go before the subsidizing agency and air this plan. So yeah, largely this would be us as a board asserting the desire that this local preference will be a part of this project so long as the subsidizing agency doesn't overrule us.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I see Jamie has his hand raised. Jamie, please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm just clarifying the item. As I read it, the majority of that is removed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Only the first two lines are currently retained.
[Mike Caldera]: So as I read it, the entire portion in red is added. It's just it was added in phases. So there was an earlier version that had just the first sentence.
[Unidentified]: Gotcha. OK. I read it back. It's red. It confused me. OK.
[Mike Caldera]: So would any member of the board like to kind of weigh in on this topic? Is this a condition we'd like to impose, should not impose? We haven't really drafted the language.
[Unidentified]: Jamie's in favor. Thoughts from the others on the board? I agree, we should include it. Jim was on mute, but it looked like he said the same. Andre, what are you thinking? I agree with that too, as well.
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think it's pretty routine to have a local preference. You can't limit all of the units to a local preference, but what the regulating agency allows makes sense.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, sounds good. Yeah, I think that the information the city provided about the case that they typically make, and it seems planned to make for local preference here, is compelling. So in terms of weighing local needs, local concerns, and just building in my own outside knowledge of the need for affordable housing within Medford and a lot of Medford residents worried about potentially being displaced, I think it would be appropriate. And the language has been heavily vetted by legal experts. So as I understand it, a poorly worded condition in this space could be problematic, but this makes it very clear and deferential to the subsidizing agency. So I don't anticipate any issues with this one. So I'm supportive as well. We don't need to vote on it right now. We can vote on things that match later, but thank you for discussing it.
[Unidentified]: Section B, what else should we discuss? Okay, I'm not seeing anything, so we can move on.
[Mike Caldera]: Section C, submission requirements. C1 clarifies that the applicant The form of the final plans that should be submitted by the applicant as part of the building permit process. And so it's got a bunch of items and just sort of clarifying the items it should contain.
[Unidentified]: You can scroll down. Thank you. And then we can keep scrolling. Keep scrolling.
[Mike Caldera]: So all of these are procedural items that the applicant did have a chance to weigh in on. City had a chance to review, so just codifying process. Okay, so then C2, the requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit. So record this comprehensive permit with the registry of deeds. Submit evidence of final approval from the subsidizing agency. Submit a certified copy of the regulatory agreement and monitoring services. Submit final plans. provide board and building department with proximate location of all utilities, obtain and file with building commissioner all required federal, state, and local permits, obtain all electrical, plumbing, and other permits required, suitable areas for fire truck staging to be shown on the final plans, electric vehicle charging stations must be shown on the final plans.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so those are the plan requirements. C3 describes the certificates of occupancy requirements.
[Mike Caldera]: So it clarifies that this could be a phased occupancy. And so that these requirements are just pertain to the portion seeking this certificate, uh, engineer certifications of infrastructure, um, letter from the applicant civil engineer certifying has built project have been constructed in compliance with the final plans. Uh, fire department has accepted the testing of all fire protection systems. Uh, water improvements necessary to serve the project are complete, uh, and submitted to DPW for, um, your interim plans submitted to DPW for approval. Uh, stormwater management and certification, uh, is in compliance with the conditions of approval for the stormwater management system set forth in the conservation commission's order conditions for the project. uh, ASBILT plan provided with 120 days after issuance of the project final certificate of occupancy and then comply with section H. So just requirements on the occupancy or to get the occupancy permit. C4, um, requires, uh, is additional requirements for the final certificate of occupancy. So more plans submitted to the building department and building commissioner showing various items. Submit to the board all information relating to the management company. Submit verification that all components of the stormwater management system have been inspected, cleaned, approved by the civil engineer, the project civil engineer, board certificate of suppliance, all applicable terms and conditions, the comprehensive permit. Certification by the project engineer that off-site measures are complete in accordance with section one or I, yeah, section I below. And then a certification that all water systems have been installed, tested, and so on, and are in proper working condition. So more requirements on the final occupancy. What should we discuss in section C?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Would any member of the board like to discuss the language for an item in section C? Jamie, please go ahead.
[Unidentified]: The only item that jumped out to me on this was the submissions to the boards.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What are our actions with the materials being submitted to the board? Are those just for record keeping?
[Mike Caldera]: That is a great question. maybe Dennis can feel my understanding is it's fyi submission so we could in principle review this as a board and vote to write the applicant a letter or something of that sort but I think it's largely for for board record keeping that is that consistent with your understanding yes yeah like we will have the file we'll have everything on file with every
[Denis MacDougall]: every little bit of document and both paper copies and electronic and we'll just, you know, have it on record. So if someone comes and says, where is everything, everything related to this, we can just point them to the Google Drive we have and they can just review everything.
[Unidentified]: Gotcha. So it's just related to making sure that we have a full record of all the project materials. Great. What else would the board like to discuss in section C? Hey, I'm not seeing anything else. Nothing else stood out to me as needing to discuss. So let's move on to section D. Project design and construction.
[Mike Caldera]: So D1 makes it clear what should be contained in a construction management plan. My understanding is each of the individual items here are customary to include, so it's just codifying. what should be contained in that plan and clarifying that it should be approved by the building commissioner prior to issuance of a permit. D2 makes it clear that construction equipment must be offloaded on the property. Construction related to vehicles and equipment shall be on site during construction unless approved by applicable authorities. And so this one, I want to have a brief discussion over, because I feel like applicable authorities is somewhat vague language, but I know what this is referencing, so let's come back to it. But no construction equipment or vehicles of employees or agents of the applicant or the applicant's contractor shall be parked on any public way unless approved by applicable authorities. So as I understand it, this unless approved by applicable authorities language is in recognition of something we discussed at the final session of the hearing, which was largely that there may be valid reasons why construction does need to happen offsite. So maybe for a limited period of time, the equipment just needs to be somewhere in the public way. And typically these sorts of decisions are governed by the police chief, but then there was some back and forth about who should approve what, and should it be the building commissioner or should it be someone else? And I think that's where we landed on a less than less approved by applicable authorities language. I just wanna check in with, I don't know if this question is best directed at Mr. Alexander or Mr. Rainier, but is my recollection correct on this one? Is that what that language is supposed to,
[Unidentified]: account for. Yeah, Mr. Chair, that's, that's our understanding as well.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: For instance, if there, you know, the idea of the offsite improvements to the intersection, clearly that would require some offsite, technically off of the subject properties site. And so I think leaving that open to, you know, the folks who deal with this on a day-to-day basis, does the city seemed appropriate?
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, thank you for clarifying. Yeah. I'm wondering if there's a way we can make the language less vague while still retaining the flexibility, like unless approved by applicable authorities, such as the police chief, the building commissioner, and other state and local authorities. I don't know. I just, it feel like for the uninitiated that the current language just seems super vague. But I understand, we discussed at length the importance of keeping it flexible so that a particular individual doesn't become the gatekeeper of the bottleneck.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Mr. Rainier, please go ahead.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thanks, Mr. Chair. If I could, I mean, I think what this is saying here is that this decision is not in itself authorizing the offsite, you know, offloading of construction vehicles, whereas, you know, in connection with the offsite intersection improvements, unless approved by applicable authorities, which really I think sends this project back to the same situation that every other project is in, in the city of Medford, that in order to go into a public way, you know, maybe a truck is showing up on site and it's got some long pieces of rebar, and it makes sense to work with the city to get a temporary street occupancy permit to park it along a portion of commercial street while it's offloaded onto the site. That's not unlike any other project, and unless, Dennis or Alicia are able to tell us who those applicable authorities are. In some municipalities, that's the head of DPW that would issue that permit with the input and advice of the police chief. In some municipalities, it's the police chief that would do that. So I just don't wanna have a footfall here. And I think the unless approved by applicable authorities really gets us where we need to go, which is when Tim's construction affiliate needs to go in for whatever the applicable approval is, they'll go to City Hall and they'll run that process with the applicable people and they will get that permission just like any other project. So I actually think the language as written is both flexible and specific.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. All right.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Dennis, is there anything you'd like to add on this one?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, just sort of thinking about that. I think also because I kind of agree with that because there are two distinct entities who have control over the two roads that are adjacent. So they might actually need to get, you know, talked about, you know, DOT as well as city about certain, you know, points of access. So I think there might be a lot of agencies involved, but I mean, I think it's not the first time that, you know, someone's doing work there, you know, on the road there. You know, I think, you know, it's one of these things where a lot of times people start with the city and then the city will be like, okay, if you're doing work here, that's us there. It's DOT. And then they sort of help them out that way. So I think it's not, you know, and it's, it sort of happens. Oh, actually a lot. It's we've got a number of state, you know, state roads on here that, you know, we sometimes it, it, and, you know, we, we usually do talk to the state. So I think, I think the, I think the keeping it, I would, instead of vague, I'd say almost open-ended, not open-ended maybe, but, you know, keep it, keep it, because if you just, if you actually started listing agencies and then you didn't list one, and I think some people would say, well, you didn't list that one, then you didn't list that one. So I think just keeping it as simple and clear as possible.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: Fair call.
[Unidentified]: Other thoughts from the board on this one? I'm not seeing any. All right. I'm convinced.
[Mike Caldera]: So let's move on. D3, applicant shall implement all necessary controls to ensure that noise from the construction activities and not constitute a nuisance or hazard beyond the property. Upon notification from the building commissioner or other city officials, the applicant shall cease all construction activities creating noise in excess of state and federal standards and shall implement such mitigation measures as is necessary to ensure the construction activity will comply with applicable and federal and state requirements. There's a definition of construction activities and a clarification that all offsite utility works shall be coordinated and approved by the building department. D4. Applicant shall conform to all local, state, and federal laws regarding construction noise, vibration dust, blocking of city roads. Applicant shall at all times use all reasonable means to minimize inconvenience to residents in the general area. D5. Site utilities. shall be located underground, except as shown in the approved plans. The six construction activities shall be conducted between certain hours, Monday through Friday, and slightly different hours on Saturdays. The definition of construction activities, no work shall be conducted outside of the foregoing hours or on Sundays or following holidays, except as may be permitted by the building inspector and police chief. This is another thing we discussed in our last session of the hearing. D7, no disturbed areas shall be left in an unstabilized condition longer than 60 days. D8, applicant responsible for sweeping, removal of snow, sanding of internal driveways, providing access to both residents of the project and emergency vehicles. D9, construction and security fencing shall be maintained in accordance with the state building code. Uh, petitioner will submit a security narrative to the building commissioner for approval and consultation with the fire chief, police chief. D10, the retaining knee wall design and all associated details will be included in the final site plans. D11, trench design and piping included in the final plans. D12, uh, notwithstanding other requirements. So this is the one we referred to earlier. So yeah, it's, it's D dot 12 is what we'll reference in the earlier section. And actually we'll probably, I think it would be Roman numeral 6.d.12, but we can fix that after the fact. So notwithstanding other requirements of the decision, building commissioners shall have the authority to issue partial or temporary certificates of occupancy with approval from the fire chief. A phased occupancy plan shall be submitted with a building permit application. Building commissioner may allow portions of each building to be occupied, provided that all life safety systems, including the sprinkler system and other life safety features, for the portion to be occupied or operational and approved by the fire chief. And then it just reiterates this Nothing limiting the authority of the building commissioner to make final determination of phased occupancy or final occupancy within the terms and conditions in the order. So this is the one we incorporated by reference in the factual findings. D13, materials used for the facade of the building should not require regular maintenance. It clarifies the proposed material. Um, that it's, uh, pre-finished, uh, cementitious material, a 15-year finish warranty, um, and that, um, explains the details, um, Cliff Boehmer, uh, you know, pointed out to justify this, so the prominence of the structure and, um, the, the, uh, codifies the suggestion to maintain a maintenance budget to sufficiently, uh, repaint, um, building. D14 encourages the applicant to design the building to utilize electric utilities, recognizing fossil fuel power is necessary for the project's emergency generators. I want to come back to this, I mean a nitpick for me on this one is I feel like in encouraging something in the form of a condition is kind of pointless, but we can discuss it. It's definitely something we discussed at length with the board, so we should, maybe now is a good time to talk about this one. So the current language is the applicant is encouraged to design the buildings to utilize electric utilities, including but not limited to heat and hot water, recognizing that fossil fuel power is necessary for the project's emergency generators. So when we talked about this, there was an at length discussion about how perhaps the standards might change and the direction things are heading. The building is perhaps likely to be all electric anyway. There was the call out that it's important in any condition to clarify Emergency generators use fossil fuel power. I think we left it at there. So yeah, the current language encourages the applicant to design the building as such.
[Unidentified]: Thoughts from the board on D14? I'm in support of it. Care to elaborate, Jamie?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that understanding where the stretch code is going, if the city adopts the stretch code, that is going to be the direction the city is going in. I think that the wording, the language, and courage gives the applicant the option to evaluate whether it's something they want to pursue based on where the city is going.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the board on D14?
[Andre Leroux]: I'm fine with that language as well. Like Jamie said, I think it's going to be a lot of it's going to be covered by the new building codes requirements.
[Unidentified]: I feel the same way. Beth, what are your thoughts?
[Yvette Velez]: I have no issue with encouraged. I think the timeline actually supports what Jamie was talking about, letting the folks responsible figure out what direction they'll be going in. But Mike, I hear what you're saying. And so how would you, how do you personally feel like it? What would make you feel more comfortable?
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, great question. Thanks for asking of that. So first of all, with the encouraged language, I still think it's valuable, even if it's perhaps unnecessary to have this in the form of the condition in the decision, just in the sense that it makes it clear the intent or the desire of the board Um, how, where I land on it is, um, I would be comfortable with, uh, more restrictive language outright requiring it. I understand there's a risk, um, to that and that the applicant, uh, didn't raise massive concerns because I think many of us are, are of the belief that the direction things are heading, it's kind of moot, but did call out that, and I fully respect and understand this, you know, if the board does impose stronger conditions with good intentions and unanticipated circumstances arise, that it can make It can ultimately lead to inferior decisions and can complicate things for the applicant. So I acknowledge there is a non zero possibility that if we imposed a stricter condition, uh, it could end up backfiring.
[Unidentified]: Um, for me, I like, or I'm comfortable with a stronger condition because I do
[Mike Caldera]: think a move towards electric utilities is consistent with local needs. So essentially, the perhaps also low probability scenario that this is just the applicants encouraged, and then this is just like a gas guzzling fossil fuel model, not that that's the, expected thing, but that that's bad too. And so I think in the absence of a stricter condition that. You know, scenarios there. And so this is an area where the board could take a stance that, you know, this is what's important for local needs. Um, anyway, that's, that's my take. Probably not the hill I'm going to die on, but, um, that's my, that's my take. So I think I saw Andre's hand first.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I thought my understanding of the conversation was that we couldn't require something that goes beyond the existing state building code. So we could potentially reference the stretch code But I just don't know if it's even necessary. And I don't think we can go beyond it. I'm not sure we can mandate it. That was my recollection.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Jamie. Yeah, I'm agreeing with Andre.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We can't go beyond what the building requires. I think here is just a visibility of intent from where the board sees construction going and where the city sees construction going. The changes that are coming, if the city adopts the stretch code, there's benefits to being electric, there's benefits if you continue to use gas, just different requirements. I think it's important for us to have something in here from a visibility of where the boards direction is going in line with the city. I don't think it is a requirement for the applicant. I think encourage is the right word and we can't go beyond that.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts on this?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, would the board be amenable in the same part of the factual findings where we, um. Describe the. Building commissioners requests and the, um. Kind of my research and determination that we, um. Um. Extend that section to include, uh, that elsewhere in the hearing, uh, the. The idea of requiring an all electric building was discussed, and, um. The chair determined that. moving it from a requirement and conditions to a clarification. In addition to the condition here, which is an encouraged condition, it's in the factual findings that the board discussed this and reached a similar determination that any such condition requiring it could be challenged. Is the board amenable to adding some language surrounding that up above?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'd be open to language that basically determines that it's outside the scope of our purview and that it could result in a challenge to the decider.
[Andre Leroux]: I agree. And Mike, if you want to strengthen this point a little bit, maybe I would suggest adding a sentence saying the board further encourages the applicant to meet all stretch code requirements in anticipation or in the case of the city's adoption of such coding.
[Unidentified]: Okay. The board further encourages the applicant
[Adam Hurtubise]: to meet all stretch code requirements in the event that the city adopts them? Is that what you said?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, in the event that the city adopts such a code in the near future.
[Unidentified]: Such a code, OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hey, Mike, we should just finish with the council. She's going to be back on the call in about five minutes.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: This may be something we might want to hold off just for her to get back for this one.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, sounds good. I see Mr. Alexander raised his hand. Please go ahead.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, thank you. I was just going to clarify if that language does go in. And this is maybe where Director Hunt can weigh in, too. But I believe it's the enhanced stretch code, not just the stretch code, that would be adopted a local jurisdiction.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, so it would. Thank you for clarifying. So we'll run this by Director Hunt. But if I understood correctly, the accurate language we report further encourages the applicant to meet or exceed the enhanced stretch code requirements in the event the city adopts the enhanced All right. Thank you. So yeah, well, let's table this until informally table it. I don't need a motion for that until director Huntley joins us. Thank you. All right. D15. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall be installed to not be visible from the ground proximate to the project or shall be screened from view of the public if necessary to not be visible. So this was discussed at the prior hearing. The proximate language was added at the recommendation of the applicant just to acknowledge that from afar, lots of things were visible. D16, the applicant will submit a final traffic demand management plan to the building commissioner together with the final plans. So We will come back to D14 when Director Hunt rejoins us. Outside of that, would the board like to discuss any items or omissions from Section D?
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right.
[Andre Leroux]: Uh, let's move on to even sorry, Mike, I actually do have something that I've. Yeah, thinking about here, which is that, I mean, we, there's no reference I don't think in this document to the. Board of health, which usually requires submission of. Like, a waste management plan. And also a pest management plan before construction. So I'm just wondering whether somebody from the city could weigh in on that.
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't know if, Dennis, you... My understanding is that all is done in conjunction with the building department so that basically when they're there, it sort of is like, here is the steps you have to follow and everything you have to go with, you know, A, B, C, and D. it's it's part of that um i can do some checking and double check but that was my understanding was that you know it's like the you know road control and things like that are are sort of built into all new construction via the building department okay if you could check that that would be great we in in terms of a specific condition regarding sort of the uh
[Andre Leroux]: One thing we may want to call out would be that during any construction, the applicant must remediate any dust and clean the streets. So that's something that I've seen be a condition in other projects. And I'm not sure I see it anywhere here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Attorney Rainier, something you'd like to add?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you. I think if to address Mr. LaRue's comments, if we go back to condition D1, it calls out that the construction management plan to be submitted to the building commissioner will include things addressing such items as pest management and dust and noise mitigation. So I think that's where these issues of road control and dust control get wrapped into. that submission to the building commissioner, and then also practically the building permit issuance where he will presumably be talking to people internally at City Hall to make sure things like road and control are taken care of.
[Unidentified]: Andre, did that address your concern?
[Andre Leroux]: Yeah, I think that's fine. I mean, I guess I'd appreciate if Dennis still does just what we usually do in terms of city standards for this, but.
[Mike Caldera]: Noted, thank you. Sounds like a plan.
[Unidentified]: Other items from the board on section D. All right, let's move on to E then.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, E1, access and egress to the project shall be consistent with the approved plan. E2, internal sidewalks with ADA MAB compliant ramps shall be constructed as shown on the approved plan. E3, internal roadways to each building shall be designated and constructed as depicted on the approved plan. E4, appropriate directional and safety signage shall be installed and maintained on the internal roadway subject to review and approval by the Medford Fire Department. Stop signs to be installed shall be consistent with Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Standards and Guidelines. E5, Applicant shall maintain sight distance by limiting trimming vegetation consistent with the approved plans. Sight distance shall be maintained under city engineer supervision. E6 is highlighted, but I think that's just because we were live editing it in the last meeting. The one way approach on the internal central access drive should align with the westbound travel lane and not overlap with the approaching eastbound vehicles. Therefore the applicant shall show a safe travel way transition on the final site. I feel like there's a typo there on the final site consistent with the approved plans. including, because I think it was going to say final site plan. So therefore the applicant shall show a safe travel way condition. I think show a safe travel way transition consistent with the approved plans. That's probably the language I'd use, but including any additional pavement markings or signage to be reviewed and approved by the board's consultants. This would be the board's, which board's consultant. I think we might need to touch that up too. The applicant will explore utilizing a ground mounted or painted traffic calming mural or artistic element to delineate the travel way transition if recommended and approved by the project's traffic engineer and the city of Medford transportation department. So that's the part we talked about. in the last meeting. So yeah, I feel like the language on C6 is probably needing to be tweaked, but it's... Nothing major. E7, final plan shall include signage and or pavement markings indicating that the aisle and surface parking area adjacent to Mystic Valley Parkway is for short-term retail parking only. E8, loading and delivery spaces shall be clearly identified on the final plans as either short-term or longer-term and shall be clearly indicated by signage or pavement markings. Short-term parking spaces shall be... Page change.
[Unidentified]: Dennis. Thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: Clearly indicated by the signs to pick it out of final plans, E9 sidewalk to be installed in front of building one facing Mississippi Valley Parkway. It's obstructed by the proposed bike rack there for final plan shall show said bike rack relocated where it won't obstruct pedestrian travel. E10 final plan shall depict billboards or similar features along the sidewalk adjacent to the building. 11, bike room shall have minimum capacity of 132 bicycle parking spaces. Final plan shall indicate areas of the garage in which extended bicycle storage rooms can be installed should future demand warrant. As presented to the board, these areas are anticipated to be located on the third level of each garage directly above the bike storage rooms as shown on the approved plans.
[Unidentified]: Would any member of the board like to discuss items in Section E? Mike, if I could just jump in.
[Denis MacDougall]: I was texting with Commissioner Forte about the... Yeah. And basically I asked, you know, when things are submitted to the building department, do they go to the department in particular pest control health department? He said, yes. So when those things come in, they get distributed to the, uh, appropriate city offices to review. Thank you, Dennis.
[Unidentified]: All right. Uh, so items the board would like to discuss in the E.
[Mike Caldera]: Um, I'll just take this opportunity to say, I've talked at length about bike capacity and a number of meetings. Um, I am at peace with the proposed condition. I do think the applicant has demonstrated they have, um, plenty of, of, um, opportunity to increase the capacity of the bike parking spaces. I remain unconvinced that 132 is enough, but. In light of the ability to change that once hard data demonstrates one way or the other, I don't have concerns with condition E11.
[Unidentified]: So unless anyone would like to chime in on that topic, we can move on to section F. Police, fire, and emergency conditions, F1,
[Mike Caldera]: Applicant shall confirm final layout and location of all fire safety equipment with the Medford Fire Department. Step two, project building shall be outfitted with residential sprinkler system in accordance with NFPA regulations and shall submit final fire alarm sprinkler plans to fire chief for review. Step three, applicant shall provide appropriate lighting and security measures along the internal sidewalk located north of building two which security measures may include surveillance cameras and or signage. So on F3, since this is an item member LaRue weighed in on a number of times, I just want to check in. Andre, do you have thoughts on the language for F3, whether this condition is consistent with what you're looking for or whether you think this language needs to be modified in some way?
[Unidentified]: Uh, I think it's okay.
[Andre Leroux]: I mean, it's not very specific, but, uh, I think that's where we landed in the, in the conversation was not a very specific place.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, okay. All right. Thanks.
[Yvette Velez]: Items the board would like to discuss with section F. Um, so can someone remind me where we landed with, uh, like not plugging in electric bicycles in the unit. Like I know that's going to be written in leases and whatnot. But if that was going to be part of this condition or if it was just an assumption that it is now standard lease agreement information.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, so Yvette, I may be misremembering, but I think in one of the later sections, there's an explicit condition on that one. So I think it's just not in section F. Oh, OK. Yeah, so I'll make a note right now. If it doesn't come up, we can come back to it. But I think there is some language surrounding that.
[Unidentified]: Great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Other items the board would like to discuss on section F?
[Mike Caldera]: All right, let's move on to G. Applicant shall be responsible for designing the installation of all utilities. G2, all water infrastructure shall be installed in conformance with City of Medford requirements and applicant shall consult with Department of Public Works. G3, service size for domestic water service shall be verified by the Department of Public Works and information on the fire service size and requirements shall be verified by the Medford Fire Department. Uh, applicant shall submit some information on the size of domestic fire service as part of the final plans. Um, G4, stormwater management facilities shall be constructed as shown on the final plans. G, uh, G5, applicant shall comply with terms and conditions in order of conditions for the project issued by the Conservation Commission. Um, and then we can scroll down. Um, so that's section G. Would the members of the board like to discuss anything in section G?
[Unidentified]: Okay, seeing none, we can move on.
[Mike Caldera]: Section H, completion of infrastructure. There's a typo we can easily fix. H1, if the applicant's desire to obtain a certificate of occupancy before completion of the final infrastructure defined below, as security for completion of the infrastructure shown on the final site plan, but including blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Um, H two, no certificate of occupancy, which will be issued until, um, several conditions are met the entirety of X, which are on the final plans for writing correct access to the building. It has been installed. And two, water system, including fire hydrants, fully installed, operational, to the satisfaction of water and fire departments. H3, no certificate of occupancy for a building, which certificate of occupancy is being requested, shall be issued until all infrastructure necessary to serve the building, as approved by the board's peer review engineer, building commissioner has been constructed and installed, so it's adequately serves that building. H4, final infrastructure for the project, shall be installed prior to the issuance of final certificate of occupancy, describes some items that are included in the final infrastructure, and provides an alternative if the certificate of occupancy, the applicant wants to obtain it before that point.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, would the board like to discuss anything from section H? All right, let's move on to section I then.
[Mike Caldera]: Off-site improvements. I1, prior to issuance of final certificate of occupancy, applicants shall install the following off-site improvements. Commercial Street, Mystic Valley Parkway intersection, subject to approval and modifications as required by applicable permit granting authorities, wheelchair ramps, including separate ramps for each crossing with detectable warning panels, Pedestrian signal indications replaced with countdown type displays. Pedestrian push buttons and accompanying signs will be replaced. Crosswalk pavement markings will be replaced. Pedestrian crossing intervals, walk and don't walk will be reviewed and adjusted as necessary.
[Unidentified]: Any items the board would like to discuss in section I? All right, let's move on to J.
[Mike Caldera]: other general conditions. I think this was the catchall that's going to contain the item you referenced, Yvette. Let's see if it pops up here. J1, in accordance with 760CMR, conference of permit shall expire three years from the date the permit becomes final unless Prior to that time, substantial use has commenced or the time period is otherwise told in accordance with law. J2, the applicant shall comply with local regulations, unless specifically waived herein. J3, the decision prohibits the parking or storage of any unregistered vehicle on the site and likewise prohibits the service of any vehicles on the site except during construction. J4, landscaping shall be maintained in perpetuity. debt or disease planning shall be replaced within six months according with growing and weather condition. J5, North Courtyard shall designate active play space areas for younger children. The applicant shall maintain flexible play equipment or materials for use within the proposed North Courtyard. J6, I think this is the one you were referring to, Yvette. There shall be no e-bike or similar electronic personal transportation vehicle charging or storage in apartments other than mobility equipment required by disabled individuals such as a motorized wheelchair or scooter. Charging and storage for such e-bikes or vehicles shall be provided in the Type 1 rated portion of the parking garage or other areas of the project that is properly fire rated for such use. Such prohibition shall be specifically listed in each rental agreement. Yvette, since you brought this one up, any thoughts on the language here? Is it what you were expecting? Is there modifications you would propose?
[Yvette Velez]: No modifications. It's complete.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, awesome. I'm going to pause actually on Jay, because I see Director Hunt just rejoined us. Director Hunt, we did have one clarifying question for you about one of the conditions here. It was D14, I think, and some of the proposed language here. As it currently reads, there's a statement encouraging the applicant to design the building to utilize electric utilities and accepting emergency generators. We discussed as a board how outright requiring it might be subject to challenge and basically the same guidance applies as for the phase sprinklers there. So we're inclined to keep the less stringent encouraged language. We proposed adding language to further encourage the applicant to meet or exceed the stretch code requirements in the event that the city adopts them. And so we just wanted to check with you on the specific language we had in mind. So the full sentence is in the chat. It's the board further encourages the applicant to meet or exceed the enhanced stretch code requirement in the event that the city adopts the enhanced stretch code. So we thought that language was okay, but we just wanted to check in with you, whether we were referencing it correctly, whether you had any thoughts on this particular language.
[Alicia Hunt]: Yes. I just asked Dennis if he could just message me that because you can only see the chat from the moment at which you log in. And it is helpful to me. Honestly, I process things better reading it. So I just want to look at the sentence. I just posted it for enhanced stretch code requirements and stretch code right so it is my general understanding, and it is a legal question that we can't. I, I don't know that they're required to be. If we pass the enhanced stretch code or they require to meet it, this is good language. I would like this. I can tell you that our housing authority is designing buildings to passive house standards. These sorts of standards are becoming more and more prevalent and people are getting used to them. Part of the problems for a while is that Contractors and builders were unfamiliar with the equipment and the techniques. And I think that as we're getting more and more familiar with, more and more companies familiar with it, it's becoming less expensive. I think that that language you added is good. Okay. I wish we could be more strict.
[Mike Caldera]: Right. Yeah. We talked a little bit about this and where we landed. So the, counterpoint to having a condition at all as well if it just says encourage it doesn't really have teeth so why even have the condition and so the thought is that it would make it clear the board's intention. without veering into the territory that could result in a challenge and that might not be consistent with the board's purview. So that's the logic in having the first sentence that's currently in D14. That's the logic in putting the second sentence. I believe if the stretch code was adopted, it would actually be required already. This just sort of codifies that the board uh encourages that applicant to meet or exceed those those requirements um yeah so what i'm hearing is you you're you you have no concerns with the the proposed wording here and we can
[Alicia Hunt]: and add this. I just Googled it because people have been referring to it as the enhanced stretch code. The technical, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't misspeaking. The technical language is the specialized stretch code. Okay. And I just wanted to confirm that before I, suggested that the language you had was not correct. Yes. So what cities and towns are adopting is the quote specialized stretch code.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Cool.
[Unidentified]: So Dennis, could you just append that sentence I put in chat to D14? Awesome. Thanks, Director. You're welcome.
[Mike Caldera]: All right, so let's go back down to J. I think we're on J6 or thereabouts.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, okay, J7.
[Mike Caldera]: Applicant and projects will be subject to all city inflow infiltration requirements. In effect, as of the date, of the application are hereby that are specifically not waived by the board. J8 has a number of items. Final plan shall be revised to include the following. And I think this is a list of items from the peer review letters. So gap in the sidewalk. Southeast corner of building one shall be eliminated. Parking spaces in front of building one adjacent to Mississippi Valley Parkway. should be replaced with a section of radius curve. Oh no, sorry, they have a right angle curve, it should be replaced with radius curve. The hydrant at northeast corner of building one, shown connecting proposed domestic water service, should be shown to instead connect to the fire service, catch basin, CB5, is to be shown connecting the infiltration system rather than infiltration system to discharge manhole. The lighting plan shall depict lighting in the proposed loading area outside building two. Up to six street lights shall be located along the project side of commercial street within the public way subject to receipt of necessary permits and approval. So this is one of the things the board had requested and you know, for public safety. The existing curb cuts along commercial streets shall be removed and the new granite curb shall be clearly shown. Proposed interior amenity areas or ground floor commercial space. I feel like it should say shall not. I don't know if it really matters, shall or may, but it says may not include a commercial kitchen grease trap or black iron vent for cooking. So this is something that Cliff Bomer talked about in the architectural letter. Applicant was worried about more stringent conditions because that could hurt the marketability of the space, but this requirement not to include a commercial kitchen grease trap or black iron vent, which none of which are included in the plans to begin with, the applicant was amenable to.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So that's what this one's all about.
[Mike Caldera]: Then I, the design and content of the public art elements, which may include historical materials to be installed generally in the areas shown in the plans will be refined and developed in consultation with the Medford Historical Society, First Nations as appropriate, and other local cultural organizations. The final location for such art elements will be depicted on the final plans, and the final content slash narrative of historic material will be reviewed with the above organization's prior installation. And there's a reference bit there we'll have to pull out, but we can come back to this one. I know we talked about it at length. J, landscaping to be installed outside of areas subject to Conservation Commission jurisdiction. Include a biodiverse palette of adaptive and native species depicted on final plans. K, applicant will pursue the installation of a blue bike station in the area of the project site, or alternatively, if a blue bike station can be incorporated on the project site, applicant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Wait, I'm confused.
[Mike Caldera]: The applicant will pursue the installation of a blue bike station in the area of the project site, or alternatively, if it can be incorporated on the project site, the applicant will incorporate such station and the board will grant such necessary waivers or modified waivers as an insubstantial change in order to accommodate such station. And then the last one here, the signage or plans for the project retail signage shall be provide. I think it should say provided to the board when ground floor tenants are identified, which plans shall conform to applicable city of Medford ordinance unless specifically waived herein or is approved by the board in accordance with 760 CMR. So Uh, there's a bunch of items here. A number of them, uh, were specifically discussed, um, throughout the hearing. So I'll start by opening it up to the board. What items would the board like to discuss in section J?
[Andre Leroux]: I feel like many of the ones that we discussed in our conversations, we kind of hatched out the language there and what I see here seems to reflect my recollection of those. So I'm fine with that.
[Unidentified]: Other thoughts from the board? So the one item
[Mike Caldera]: I think we should talk a little bit about, especially since it even contains a note stating that we're checking with city staff on the concept language. So item I, I think the intention behind item I, I am fully supportive of. I think it's a great idea. I'm a little reluctant to accept the language as written because it is very specific about certain elements and parties involved. It does have some, call it wiggle language, the as appropriate, but I just, I have some reservations about being overly specific about the entities involved, especially given the potential sensitivity surrounding certain ideas and the lack of... I made best efforts to kind of check in and try to get clarity on who we should consult with. And I just haven't gotten really... where I'm at a point where I'm content, and so I don't have no brain or language here. I'm just, I'm a little, like we haven't talked to First Nations, for example. I know it says as appropriate, but that's where I am right now. I do have, I did check in, so Director Hunt asked about, my discussion with the city's director of diversity, and I do have some details from her, but I wouldn't call it, I don't think the two of us got to a full-fledged solution.
[Unidentified]: So broadly speaking, essentially,
[Mike Caldera]: So Francis Nwaji, our director of diversity in Medford, I shared the proposed language and sought some advice on how to proceed. recommendation would be was to work directly with group organizations, working on behalf of indigenous people to, to get an opinion on the language so that we would get direct guidance. This is me paraphrasing. And so as a board, we're not at that point, we don't have that direct guidance. So that that's where I have some reluctance. I'm wondering if there might be some language that preserves the intent of this proposal, which I'm fully supportive of that is a bit safer, but that still empowers the parties that beat out of the right discussion so that this isn't just sort of rushed under the rug. So one idea that comes to mind would be to align on who's going to be in charge of the actual development of the consultation and the development of the art elements. And so right now it states Medford Historical Society and First Nations and quote other local cultural organizations. But I'm wondering if in some other context, I think the Medford Art Council is often consulted. And so I'm wondering if we could identify a set of local groups that customarily have shown the competency to assume these roles and then make it clear in the in the condition what we would encourage those groups to consider. So like, for example, encouraging whoever is involved in the consultation to develop a process that highlights or where they encourage individuals or like artists from, I don't even know the right language, but I just want to call out, I'm a little reluctant to accept the current language as written and just wanted to get the board's take on that. I'm certainly open to reconsider my My view, but the high level concern is somewhat prescriptive. Even though there is the wiggle language, I'm just not sure we have the level of buy-in that gets me to a place of comfort that this is the right language for this condition, if that makes sense.
[Yvette Velez]: So Mike, I think what I'm hearing you say is you want a bit more structure so in my head I think like to declare that it needs to be like a formal call call to artists application process versus the developer just picking something working with these specific groups right like it needs you want it a bit more open to the public yeah application process so that it's like more representative of the larger community and other elements.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, that's right. And actually, apparently, I did, at an earlier date, take a crack at this. I just forgot. But yeah, I think it was pointed out to me by a member of the board. They can reveal it if they'd like. But the city of Boston, for example, some process in place, which, yeah, I would broadly characterize the way you did, as it would be requesting that the applicant work in consultation with some expert art entity to solicit proposals for art. So there'd be a call to artists with equity-led selection criteria. So we could put in whatever encouragement we we think is appropriate. You know, we could weight it towards local indigenous artists, we could, you know, ensure appropriate review by the relevant entities that be within Medford. But yeah, by by sort of having a bit more of a process where we we let the experts help to select and we just make it clear the intent. I think that might ultimately help from a process standpoint.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see Attorney Regnier has his hand raised. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: And I'll invite Tim to weigh in as well. My recollection of where we started on this is You know, we have an area on the building where there might be a mural that I know Mill Creek is very excited about. And then there's an area on our property, the corner of Commercial and Mystic Valley Parkway, where we're designing a parklet that will provide a moment of respite for people crossing Commercial Street or Mystic Valley Parkway to and from McDonald Park. I think really the concept that had been discussed was Mill Creek advancing some art elements in those areas, including some historical materials. And as when we were thinking about what that content might look like to be respectful and appropriate and guided by other input, people were brainstorming some organizations that we could talk to. And I'm wondering whether the Medford Arts Council is maybe just a little bit more focused and we identify that organization as maybe an umbrella through which people could provide feedback on the proposal that Mill Creek is bringing forward for the mural or the parklet elements and the historical elements in there. It was never discussed that we were going to be issuing an RFP for hiring artists to install public art. This was about soliciting feedback and input on those elements that Mill Creek would be advancing, which could include historical elements. I was picking up on a comment that member LaRue said early on in the hearing. I think we're getting a little afield from what the intent was of this condition. And I think maybe running the process, the consultative process, the input process with the Medford Arts Culture, or I'm sorry, the Medford Arts Council may be a way to really focus and simplify it some way, but still allow for that dialogue, that consultation. Tim, is there anything that you'd like to add?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I might. So Chris, I appreciate that. I think we're generally on the same page. So we're very much in favor of the idea, the concept, the, the, the vision for this, but given that it is just at that stage, I think we want to make sure that we don't make it too prescriptive at this early stage and that when designs are furthered and there can be greater consultation. And I do agree that from what I heard, the Medford Arts Council is probably the right, in addition to maybe a city department that handles this type of scope, probably the right organization to work through. But I do wanna be careful that this doesn't turn into something that's more akin to a public works project with, that level of solicitation and input when it is still part of a private, if you will, development.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you. I do think that's a fair call out. Never in the public hearing did we discuss turning it into a call for artists. So I do think that's a fair call out. I do think irrespective of that element, you know, there's there is still a question of the specific language.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And so yeah, I'd love to get thoughts from others on the board. I'm trying to modify some language I drafted to Back out the whole call for artists. Just so that we have 1 candidate option, but I'd love to get.
[Yvette Velez]: Other thoughts from the group, so I think where I think though. Folks are making a broader assumption that, like, this call for artists means. More than it could mean, because I think there's part of that is writing what that what that looks like. And that doesn't necessarily mean it's a full on all community. An initiative, but more of like. A basic understanding of again, making sure that there's there's just. If the work is going to be representative of different groups that those groups are. are in the space. And so I think we need to maybe think about it in that lens and not necessarily in the like, oh, we're having too many cooks in the kitchen. And also, regardless, I'm going to push back on the whole, because it is public art. So while we may not have said, use that language previously because it is on the building facing the external, I mean, that's what it is. And so we need to be really mindful of that, right? And so I would also just maybe add to my bringing up the city of Boston, and they just have really clear language of what that could look like. And I don't think that's, it's not reasonable is my point.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks for that.
[Unidentified]: Other thoughts from the board. Well, I guess my only thought is that.
[Andre Leroux]: I'm not an expert in this area, and we haven't had sort of a. Like, up here resource in this area, and I think. know, I don't know what the intention of Mill Creek is, but I would assume they would need to hire somebody who could navigate the space and sort of figure out what the content will be and how to interact with the appropriate community groups about that, particularly if, as I suggested early on, it's you know, has some theme to do with the local Indigenous history. So that, I guess, would be my only thought. I think, you know, trying not to be too prescriptive to give them the opportunity to do that. I don't know if we could reference, you know, hiring a kind of a cultural you know, resource expert, and that way we can just kind of leave that person to identify the process and not try to involve ourselves too much.
[Unidentified]: Thanks, Andre.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, to your point about the consultant, I don't know. We could talk or ask about that. But yes, I think in providing your thoughts, you kind of touched on my high level desire, I want to, I want to defer to the experts to the extent possible, which I don't think are us, while still making it clear the opportunity and the intention here. So I don't want to dilute the intention. I want it to be crystal clear what we think would be you know, really high value add use, you know, for this opportunity while being very deferential to the actual authorities on the matter. So any language we can land on that kind of puts us in that domain, I think would address my high level concern with the current language. I see Attorney Regnier has his hand raised.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Tim and I have been looking at the second drafting that you had of the proposed condition in the chat, and I think it does the trick. It would require refinement and development of the art in consultation with the Medford Arts Council, but it also brings in uh, the not only the Medford Arts Council, but the Medford Historical Society and the Medford Department of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, uh, to review the final content and the narrative of historical materials. So I think that does bring the experts into the room in terms of that content. Um, it's not prescriptive in requiring Mill Creek to hire another consultant, uh, to develop that. content, it may decide it wants to, or needs to do that, but that would be, you know, at Mill Creek's election. So I think, and Tim, I think you agree that the second revised condition that you drafted, Mr. Chair, does the trick here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Rainier.
[Mike Caldera]: And so just for those who may not have the benefit of seeing the chat, so I had drafted independently some language in my discussions with the Director of Diversity. which I pasted into the chat. I pasted one version that was the original language I drafted for the board's consideration, and then I pasted another version that removed a particular sentence that was prescriptive about The call to artists so so that specific language states, the design and content of the public art elements which may include historical or cultural materials to be installed generally in the areas shown on the approved plans will be refined and developed in consultation with the Medford Arts Council. the final location in which our elements will be depicted on the final plans, and the final content slash narrative of historical materials will be reviewed prior to installation with the Medford Arts Council and Medford Historical Society and the Medford Department of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. One thing I will say just as an aside is the sentence I had to delete for that version is would state that, so the art would be developed in consultation with the Medford Arts Council through the issuance of a call to artists with equity-led selection criteria that weight towards local Indigenous artists as appropriate. So I do think the removal of that language checks the box of removing the outright requirement for a call to artist. I do also think some of the intention was lost in the removal of that sentence. So the new language doesn't reference anything about local indigenous artists. It's a one third alternative. that I propose that I think would kind of merge the two ideas. And I fully expect the board to want to iterate on this. I'm not saying this should be the language. It's just one candidate set of language that I think addresses my high level concern would be so the design and content of the public are elements which may include historical or cultural materials to be installed generally in the areas shown on the approved plan will be refined and developed in consultation with the Medford's Arts Council period.
[Unidentified]: Um, the, um, the applicant is encouraged, um, to consider issuing PB, David Ensign — Herndon, he's not here.
[Andre Leroux]: PB, David Ensign — He's not here.
[Mike Caldera]: Andre to be honest, which I like. So I'm bought into your high level idea. I'm worried that that language the applicant said that'd be amenable to, well, the side effect of removing the sentence that was problematic from their perspective is that we lose some of the intent. And so I'm trying to reconcile the two. So a third version that I'm wondering the applicant would be amenable to uh, states the design and content of the public art elements, which may include historical or cultural materials to be installed generally in the areas shown on the group plans, be refined and developed in consultation with the Medford Arts Council, period. The applicant is encouraged to consider issuing a call to artists with equity-led selection criteria that weight towards local Indigenous artists as appropriate. The final location for such art element will be depicted on the final plans and the final content slash narrative of historical material will be reviewed prior to installation with Medford Arts Council, the Medford Historical Society, and the Medford Department of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. So it's essentially the same language the applicant said they were supportive of. with the additional sentence encouraging the applicant to consider issuing a call to artists with equity-led selection criteria that weight towards local indigenous artists as appropriate. So it does not require it, but it makes the board's intent clear if that's the board's intent. So I just wanted to throw that out there as a third possibility.
[Andre Leroux]: Um, I don't think it's much different, although I'm, since the applicant was fine with the way it was before, and it was, it's a little stronger, you know, in terms of. Through the issuance of a call to artists, like that was suggesting, I think, you know, that is certainly fine by me too, but I don't know if that would.
[Mike Caldera]: So, so Andrew, just to be clear that the applicant was not, um, or express some reservations with requiring the call to artists. So that the language they were in favor of has that, that sentence removed.
[Unidentified]: Chris, did I, did I miss that?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Did you? Yes, Mr. Leroux.
[Unidentified]: I think we were,
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Originally, I think, picking up on the idea of there being historical content that could be included in the art, and that historical content could include content, you know, reflective of Indigenous input or First Nations origins, but it was The original concept that had been discussed was talking more about the content that could be within the art installations. This newer concept is one that is, I think, just coming up tonight, which is some sort of call for Mill Creek to hire artists to develop the content. Maybe the architectural team has someone on staff that is able to develop the content and review the content with the Medford Historical Council, Medford Arts Council and the other departments identified. And people say, yes, that really hits the nail on the head in terms of the content. So we were proposing, Mr. LaRue, that the call to hire and create art was something that we were suggesting be eliminated from the condition. And we would still commit to work with the Medford Arts Council, the Historical Society, and the Department of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on what that content would look like.
[Yvette Velez]: But I recall going through the information you provided that said how much per square foot would be allotted and things of that nature. And I think that, and again, I'm sorry if I misunderstood, because that to me doesn't sound That sounds really limiting to have just someone on your team to pull together a public artwork that's going to be facing the whole community for multiple years. And it wasn't going to be. And I actually previously didn't hear any wording of a touch of history Like almost that to me, you're going, you're stepping backwards than what our conversations had already been spoken about. And if anything, to Mike's point of like clarifying and solidifying this condition, again, I think y'all are, you know, the call to artists in, you know, definition is not, I think you've expanded it to be more than what it is. I mean, it's a literary call to artists, but you put the criteria. So if you've already allotted a certain amount of money, why is it that you can't do that, I guess? Because again, I think even if you've asked the Arts Council and the Historic Society, in all honesty, as a city, sometimes we mess up too, right? And we, we can name those times, but. So, so, I guess I'm, I'm struggling with your resistance to that terminology. That's all.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: And look, sorry. Yeah, I actually don't think we're that I think we share the same vision for sure on how this public art should. of what we want this public art to be. My concern is that, and I think, I certainly feel this way, and I don't wanna speak for the board, but I think none of us are versed in how to actually accomplish this process. And so that's why we're more comfortable with deferring to folks who deal with this on a regular basis, such as the Medford Arts Council or similar, Um, groups. Um, so I just don't want to be, I'm concerned about being too prescriptive in how the process should work. Um, when we, you know, we've outlined the vision, but we don't really know how we're going to make that vision a reality. Um, so I, I think the way share share caldera has drafted it, the, I think it's in the bottom of the chat now, um, is. makes a lot of sense, right? It encourages us as the applicant and the proponent to, I don't, we can even say, you can even take out the word consider, right? So we're encouraged to issue a call to artists. local indigenous artists as appropriate. We don't know if that will ultimately be the best thing for the project, for the Medford Arts Council, for the other folks who are part of the review and sort of approval, if you will. But I think that makes very clear what the vision is of the board and what was discussed during the hearing.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you for that suggestion. I think that's a straightforward change and improvement on that language. So, so yeah, I mean, that my take is, I do think that I share your belief that in a scenario where the applicant is taking it upon themselves to create the art themselves, and that's plan A through Z, that's risky. That's assuming a lot. That's not necessarily a recipe for success. On the flip side of things, I do think that since these are interpreted as legal requirements, whenever we use language without the wiggle words in there, We run the risk of someone has a better idea and can't execute on it because we didn't leave the room for them. So I'm personally open to, um, include language requiring it. I think it's generally understood to be a best practice, but I'm also personally Okay, with this scenario, I do think it gives a little bit more leeway and grace to the applicant to proceed with good intentions. If we just make it crystal clear that this call for artists with equity-led selection criteria, we think it's a good idea as a board. We also make it clear that the art will be refined and developed in consultation with the Medford Arts Council. I feel like Medford Arts Council, if they see this language, they're going to understand the intent. And they're the experts. And I think they'll be able to duly consider that with the applicant. And if they have a better idea, then they have the room to do that. If they don't, then maybe their consulting advice to the applicant is, hey, yeah, a call for artists is the way to go here.
[Unidentified]: What are your thoughts? If the board as a whole agrees, I'm good.
[Mike Caldera]: But it sounds like you'd prefer to just state there shall be a call for artists.
[Unidentified]: I agree with you, Mike, on that, if I may. Because I like the idea of it gives them the option if they feel they need to go outside. and get that extra expertise that they needed. So I like your idea. Okay. Incorporating that extra language.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks. Thanks, Jim. So just Yvette, just to clarify. So if I understood you correctly, you would prefer that it be, you basically prefer of the languages that I shared here, the first instance where it's, refined and developed in consultation with Medgar Arts Council through the issuance of a call to artists. Is that, that's the version you're most in favor of? Is that right?
[Yvette Velez]: Yes, that would be the one I'm most in favor of, but it's also, if there's agreement between the, everyone on the board, you know, I could be easily moved because I don't, again, it's, I think it's a standard practice to do a cult artist for public art. And I don't think it necessarily means it has to be as involved as one could assume. If you wanted it super involved, you wanted it over a length of time, and everybody included in a cost, that could be the case. But this is it. You have already created. Uh, some limits in regards to, like, amount of money and location and dimensions, like. You know, a good bulk of the criteria in my head is already built in. So I don't see that as being too restrictive at all. Um, but. If the board feels differently as a whole, it's fine.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, 1 of the nice things is as a board, we can vote some of these things. So. But let's see, Jamie, what do you think?
[Unidentified]: So I do understand the applicant's pushback on this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I do feel that for a public art display with the intention for historical or the aspects that we've been looking for, there was an assumption that there would be outreach and that would be done from a community perspective. With regards to the cost and things like that, there are opportunities, I believe, as part of a project like this to request funds through outreach for grants and things like that to support this type of activity.
[Unidentified]: Now, if there's a concern for that aspect.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think you know I do agree that there was an assumption on my part that there would be an outreach to the community for this activity and the development of that art.
[Unidentified]: Okay thank you Jamie.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the board on this topic?
[Andre Leroux]: I'll just say so a final comment. I totally agree with Yvette. I think that it's just typical to kind of you create your design guidelines of what you're looking for, and then you, and a budget, and you kind of get that out to the arts community, and you might get some really great things back that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. That being said, I could live with, Mike, your language as you propose as a compromise.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thanks, Andre.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, I'll just say at this point, I guess all four versions of the language are mine, so I haven't shared what my favorite is, but I think we've had a good discussion. I'm inclined to have this be an item that the board breaks out and votes on individually, just so we can make sure we have we identify sort of what the board's will is on this particular item. But I think just for the efficacy of this meeting, we should do all the voting at the end. So yeah, so then we're no longer screen sharing. We had gotten to the end of the, Um, conditions. One thing I noticed, um, and I don't know if I was working off of a different version or if I just inadvertently glossed over it. Um, but in section I, there was in one version of the document, um, a condition surrounding, um, linkage. which is in the current version crossed out. And the part that was crossed out is linkage. Need more information from applicant regarding the waiver of the zoning ordinance section 9410.1. Will they be getting credit for offsite improvements? And so I think this was like a draft version. And so last we left things, the board hadn't deliberated on the topic of linkage. The applicant provided a lot of detailed information and engaged in back and forth discussions with the city surrounding the elements of the project that would be potentially subject to linkage credits under a 40A process. I also clarified that 40A and 40B are fundamentally different and that the board is not bound by how things would work under 40A in terms of its consideration of granting a full linkage waiver or a partial linkage waiver. And I think where we landed last in discussion with the applicant was that the applicant I honestly, I don't want to put words in the applicant's mouth, but I think the applicant still did request a full waiver of linkage, but acknowledged that based on their calculation of the items that they felt would qualify for credits under 40A, that by that analysis, the linkage fee would be somewhere on the order of like $200,000. I forget the exact number. I just want to check in with the applicant and make sure I'm not inadvertently misrepresenting anything. Mr. Alexander, could you just clarify the current position on linkage by the applicant?
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, if I might. Maybe, Chris, you could do just a quick overview given that you looked at it last.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Sure. I think, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that, we had had some conversations with the city solicitor that encouraged us not to think of the linkage waiver in the context of 40A and as trying to fit into a construct of a credit that are allowed in the zoning ordinance, but really think about them as a waiver request in that 40B construct. So that was the more recent email that was submitted, and it is the board's records that was back in, I think, June 8th, that went through some of the rationale for the linkage request and what they were, recognizing the board had already agreed linkage was properly waived 25% affordable units and the small amount of ground floor commercial. So we were talking about in that email, the linkage waiver for the 262 market rate units. And we had in the spirit of working collaboratively with the board, we're not requesting a full linkage waiver for the remaining 262 units. We had put together a cost exercise for five different buckets of work, and then had provided some backup information for what that would cost. And that included some of the Mystic Valley Parkway and Commercial Street intersection improvements, some I&I mitigation work that would benefit the city generally, the adding lights to commercial street where they do not exist today, the creation of the pocket park at the corner of commercial and Mystic Valley Parkway together with the public art that we've been discussing, and then the blue bike improvements. And so I think as I understood it, the board and maybe its consultant, Ms. Barrett, were going to consider that email request, and that was, you know, again, not requesting a full linkage waiver for the remaining 262 market rate units, but was requesting a linkage waiver of some amount less than that as set forth in those materials.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, Attorney Renier. Yeah, that's consistent with my recollection. So essentially, there the board has some detailed information backing up some kind of broad category level cost estimates. So in particular there was so the board had found that in the absence of any waiver that it would be the market rate units, the 262 market rate units that would be subject to the linkage under the ordinance. And so I don't remember the exact amount of that, but it was on the order of a million dollars. And then there were, Yeah, so a number of categories, which you referenced the Mystic Valley Parkway slash Commercial Street Intersection, the I&I scoping and lining of the offsite municipal sewer line, commercial street lighting, offsite enhancements, the pocket park, including the history elements and the public art mural, and then the blue bike improvements. And so, yeah, I think considering those in the totality is where we landed on that. it was 200 something K number. So I wanna get to, okay, here we go, yeah. So the calculated linkage fee in the absence of any waiver would be $1,022,840. And then the items identified in the latest request in aggregate would amount to $758,000. The difference between these numbers is $264,840. So if the board were to apply this sort of analysis and essentially carve out credits for each of the listed items, none of which is required under 40 B, the board should be weighing local concerns. Um, and, uh, you know, the feasibility, like the wanted to avoid rendering the economic, the project on economic. So those are the real. considerations here, but, um, but yeah, if we were to apply this, um, calculation at essentially the, the, the ask is for 758,000 of that 1,000,020, sorry, 1,022,840 number, uh, to be waived from the linkage. So the, the applicant under this scenario would be paying a linkage fee of 264,840. Uh, does that sound right? Attorney Rainier? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Awesome. Um, so yeah, that's another item that I'd like us to discuss as a board. I think this is the appropriate time because my thought is we've talked through, uh, the factual findings of procedural findings. We've talked through, um, the conditions. It seems outside of the specific choice of language for the, um, for the art mural item. This is the only condition that we've talked about, we haven't really discussed already. So I think hopefully once we're aligned on conditions, the waivers, the conditions will sort of imply the waivers. So I'm inclined to talk about this now. I'll just reiterate, So if the board did nothing based on our prior finding, the applicant would be expected to pay this $1,022,840 number for linkage under 40A. 40B is different. 40B comes with some local and regional benefits. Also, we need to make sure that we're not inadvertently rendering a project uneconomic. And so the board has a number of reasons why it might rationalize granting some linkage waiver. As I understand it from talking to uh, city legal, um, in general, uh, offsite improvements in particular, or you could sometimes, um, try to get them, um, like in the four suits to if an applicant under 48 were to do offsite improvements, that would sometimes be the incentive for a waiver. Uh, I'm sorry, a credit. of linkage, as I understand it, under 40B, generally offsite improvements should not be included in the typical scope of a project. So there shouldn't be an expectation of offsite improvements. Yeah, so why don't we do a quick temperature check with the board? I'd love to get thoughts on what folks think is and isn't reasonable and why on this particular topic. I'd like to move towards the hopeful alignment on what level of waiver we think would be appropriate, but let's just start by polling the group.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Andre, please go ahead.
[Andre Leroux]: Thanks, I feel like this is pretty straightforward. I would be inclined to provide the credit or waiver as the applicant has proposed. I think this is something that the city routinely does provide credits for mitigation that developers do, public benefits that are provided. And I think the one area that was a bit contentious was the infiltration infrastructure piece, the INI, and that I would be inclined to provide a credit for that as well, because I think it is of general benefit to the city and other parcels besides this particular parcel.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you, Andre. Other thoughts from the board? I'm in line with Andre's statement. Yvette, Jim? I'm in line as well. I have, I have no issue with what was proposed by the applicant. All right. Well, I will share my perspective. So, um, I am inclined to treat almost everything Rick, uh, requested here as, um,
[Mike Caldera]: items for either the applicant in recognition of local concerns or at our request is, you know, is doing work to make the project better for the benefit of the project residents and the general public in ways that have added costs, you know, that should, you know, would be justified to remove from the linkage. My understanding, and I've had extensive discussions with the city engineer, is that, the I&I scoping is not in any way going above and beyond. So there's not precedent under 40A of this level of I&I scoping and lining given the legal requirement for a project of this size. forming the basis for a credit. And when I think about it instead through the 40 B lens of the benefit it's providing to the, um, the, you know, the, the general area, it's not providing any benefit, uh, above and beyond what would be expected of any major project adding, uh, this much, you know, volume, um, to the, uh, you know, to the SOAR.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, um, I don't really.
[Mike Caldera]: I'm not really bought into the notion that this is a compelling reason for a credit to be granted. And so for that reason, but actually what I was thinking about this last meeting, my initial inclination Andre talked me out of, I was actually gonna go through the detailed item level stuff and try to basically back out, here's the exact credit as, you know, at the finest level of detail for all of the things that, you know, narrowly fit the, you know, the definition and my understanding of what, you know, would and wouldn't constitute going above and beyond in the context of 40B. I think Andrew made compelling points at our last meeting that talked me out of that. So I don't intend to do that. I think the intersection improvements significant portion, if not all of these, you know, because it's off site, you know, I think are fall into the above and beyond. Ditto on the commercial street lighting. I think the pocket park, I think you could probably zoom in and maybe arrive at a different number than the full 140. But I don't intend to go through that bottoms up analysis here. What I will say is like, I don't really see any basis for including the I&I in the waiver. So I would be in favor of granting a waiver of the $758,000 minus the estimated $409,000.
[Unidentified]: which is a waiver of 349,000 off of the 1,022,840 number in recognition of the
[Mike Caldera]: material improvements that do benefit the general public, many of which are offsite that the applicant is agreeing to do as part of this project. So $349,000 is still a lot of money. And I think that's a testament to the value that this project is bringing to Medford and the goodwill of the applicant. But I personally don't currently think I could support granting the full 758,000 requests. I just don't think it's well grounded in the law and the notion of going above and beyond.
[Unidentified]: I'm happy to agree to disagree on it, but just wanted to share my perspective on that one. other thoughts or discussion from the board on this one.
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I appreciate your perspective and I understand why you have that perspective. I would just say that, you know, Medford is the only city in the state that has a linkage ordinance like this and Usually in places, in most other places that have some kind of, you know, compensation to the municipality, you know, like in Boston or in some other places, that usually takes the form of providing affordable units. This project is providing a very high level of affordable units, 25% of the units are gonna be affordable. So that's why I would be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. And I think, you know, they've made a I think a good faith effort to still contribute about a quarter million in linkage fees. And I, I think that's a, you know, it would be kind of a win win for for everybody.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Andre. Other thoughts from the board? I'm not seeing any.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So one other thing I'll say that I forgot to mention, I do also think that the current waiver request has an element of double counting in it in the sense that a full waiver is being requested for certain items.
[Mike Caldera]: when a waiver of all linkage was already granted for 25% of the units.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I also think the waiver request is higher than perhaps it should be on that basis alone. So whether you think the I&I should or shouldn't be included, if you were to apply the 75% factor to the requested linkage waiver, it would be close to a $200K difference. It would be $758K is being requested and
[Mike Caldera]: the portion of that that would be attributed to the 75% of the units, the market rate units would be 568,500.
[Unidentified]: So just wanted to call that out as well.
[Mike Caldera]: Especially when we think about something like I&I, it's not just like a binary thing. It's like, why do we as a state require I&I? you know, because we're trying to guard against the risk of sewer-related problems from the introduction of large amounts of additional sewage. You know, so that's the size of the I&I mitigation expected and required as a function of the number of units, or the sewage created, which is then indirectly a function of the number of units. So I think something like that, to request a full waiver when there's already full waiver or full waiver of the INI costs on top of a 25% is already being waived on account of the those units being affordable, I think is double counted.
[Unidentified]: So I just wanted to throw that out there as well. All right, so it sounds like in
[Mike Caldera]: Members of the board can chime in if I'm overstepping or if they disagree with this assertion. But it sounds like we've already addressed in line and informally agreed to some of the minor edits we made through reviewing the conditions. Sounds like there's two conditions where there's stated disagreement as to the language that should be used. the art mural language, and then there's the magnitude of the, um, the linkage waiver granted, which I, my understanding, actually the linkage, I guess we can grant a partial waiver up. So I don't know if we need a corresponding condition. if we're just granting a partial waiver. I may be wrong on that. I'd appreciate it if someone could check me on that. But yeah, so I'm a little on the fence. I'd appreciate any suggestions from the board as to whether we should try to settle those two issues and then move on to the waivers, or if we should move on to the waivers and then do everything at the end. I do think the conditions will imply the waivers but it's possible in reviewing the waivers we may realize that oh there's a missing condition or something of the sort. Does anyone have thoughts or preferences? Should we try to align on these particular items now or should we proceed through the waivers and then do all the voting at the end?
[Unidentified]: All the voting at the end is what I think would probably be best, but.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, Jim, you can say something.
[Unidentified]: I'd like to move on and then do the voting in the end.
[Mike Caldera]: OK, great. Sounds good. So Dennis, let's please move on. I think we've finished the conditions.
[Unidentified]: So the waivers.
[Mike Caldera]: So I think these, we'll try to go through them a little bit faster unless there's something that's materially different from what we're trying to capture in the conditions themselves. So essentially they're at the front and the first part of this table, there are some waivers of the general provisions, which we discussed last time that are in fact technical waivers. So essentially We have the controlling plans. And so there's portions of the zoning ordinance that just simply don't apply if we're already kind of aligned in the building type. So for example, the first one, this is a multifamily and commercial use and structure. And the particular language they're requesting a waiver from states that that.
[SPEAKER_04]: Mr. Chair?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, please go ahead.
[SPEAKER_04]: Hi, Mike. I think the board, didn't the board already go through all the waivers at a previous meeting?
[Mike Caldera]: We reviewed them and asked questions. We didn't deliberate on whether or not to grant them.
[Unidentified]: I see. Do you have any suggestions to spare it, or should we?
[SPEAKER_04]: No, I just thought that this part of the permit had already been settled.
[Mike Caldera]: Well, I do intend to give it a quicker treatment because I don't anticipate misalignment on it, but no, we didn't deliberate on it in any way, so I just want to make sure we have that opportunity. But I'm going to speed up the pace. I don't want to go through all the nitty gritty. So on this page, I'm not really seeing anything here that isn't already captured in the plans which we've reviewed extensively. So these are just kind of carrying through to that. So let's continue on to the next page.
[Unidentified]: Dennis, thank you.
[Mike Caldera]: On this page, Same, it's like dimensional waivers, all of which are already captured in the plans we reviewed. So I think we can move on to the next page. The first half of this is more dimensional waivers. The intercourts, yeah, intercourts and dimensional requirements, all of these are, again, implied by the plans which we reviewed extensively. The some more technical waivers and more, um, you know, dimensional waivers, all of which are captured in the plans. Um, the. And we've already discussed, like, the plans show that, um. The, the, the building does, uh. Uh, have some, um. Differences in the park permit parking spaces and compact spaces relative to what the ordinance requires And so we've already reviewed those at length so we can go to the next page More on parking all of which are captured in the plans So the first signs The waiver is requested for the entire signs ordinance, but then as we talked about, the signage for the retail space will be separately submitted. And so I think in the conditions, we make it clear that that needs to happen. Unsightly uses, yeah, we've already reviewed the screening, performance standards, we've already reviewed Um, solar energy systems. We talked about this one at length. And, uh, my understanding, uh, from the applicant director hunt is that, um, uh, the applicant. Uh, oh, yeah, this has been revised accordingly. So originally there was a request for the entire waiver from the entire, um, solar energy thing, and now it's from the procedural and timing components, but the applicant otherwise intends to comply with this portion of the ordinance. So that's reflected here. Inclusionary housing, you know, this is another technical waiver, linkage fees. So this is the one that I think, and I actually wanna check with Ms. Barrett on this. So perhaps before you joined or shortly after you joined, we were uncertain in the, so the applicant has proposed a partial linkage fee that they would pay based on their own calculation of some of the items that they believe should receive credit from the linkage under Medford's ordinance. It was unclear to us if we were to grant a partial waiver from the development linkage fees, either for that amount or for some other amount, if there would need to be a corresponding condition, or if merely granting a partial waiver would be sufficient.
[SPEAKER_04]: Granting the partial waiver is sufficient as long as it's clear.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful.
[SPEAKER_04]: You know, the issue around a condition might be when the linkage gets paid. But as for the amount, if that's being dealt with in the waivers, that's fine.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, wonderful. Thank you. So we can come back to that. I think the board agreed we'll do that at the end. But it sounds like whatever the board decides, we could handle it through the waiver process. It looks like the waiver is from the payment obligations rather than any of the procedures. So I think it might be pretty straightforward for this one. We can come back to that. Permits. So waiver. Uh, yeah, so there's a lot of language in there already, uh, making it clear that the applicant does need to do certain things for building permits and occupancy, uh, permits. And so, you know, in light of that, I think we have the right safeguards in place for this. So this is a technical waiver on the permits. Site plan review, same deal. You know, we served as a site plan review authority effectively here. Um, moving down to the next page.
[Unidentified]: Uh, there's some, uh, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So yeah, there's a requirement involving director of public works. We have language in the conditions surrounding, um, the, the requirement to consult with, um, relevant authorities for, for use of public streets. So I think we're good there. Uh, the, Duplicative waiver request with this from the solar ordinance. So the applicant's gonna provide the solar assessment.
[Unidentified]: Okay, then the street and sidewalk opening waiver.
[Mike Caldera]: So I think the building commissioner is now gonna be in charge of that with the conditions we have.
[Unidentified]: Um.
[Mike Caldera]: We have a landscaping plan, so I think we're good there so we can keep scrolling down. The municipal street opening. Yes, we've already kind of got that covered in the comprehensive permit, laying water and sewer pipes.
[Unidentified]: We have creating plans, and I think we have some review checkpoints in there in the conditions as well. Cross-connection control. I honestly don't know what the purpose of this waiver is.
[Mike Caldera]: Could the applicant speak to this? What's the need? Okay, I see Director Hunt has her hand raised. Yeah, please go ahead.
[Alicia Hunt]: Um, Mike, I was actually wondering if you had, we had gotten some feedback from DPW and the engineer about concerns about waiving the needs for these permits because of the, what goes into these permits and sorry that the text is a little small on my screen so I'm trying to. I have it open on my computer. So do you have their comments on it? Because the one honestly that caught my ear was the street opening permit. I felt like they said they couldn't waive the need for street opening permit because they need to go through all the plans and the safety checks with the contractor and make sure like all the police and the safety issues are in line. They can't just say, you don't need that permit. And I assume that that same message that we have from them talks about things like the water permits, which I don't know as well, but I would be very hesitant to waive any permits that involve having our water superintendent review the plans and make sure that everything meets Medford standards.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Director. I see Attorney Regnier has his hand raised.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you, Mr. Calderon, and thank you, Alicia, for reminding Tim and I and Louise of that email. I think we just, we had, in our markup, we were focused on the conditions that we hadn't gone through and eliminated those three waiver requests, which would be, I'm looking at the screen, the street opening permit, the laying of water and sewer pipes, and the cross-connection waiver. So I think those could be, eliminated, we still need the wetlands one, but I do now remember Director Hunt, that email from the city engineer.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Raniere. So your recollection is it was just those three or were there other ones in here that perhaps should have been removed that just accidentally were not?
[Alicia Hunt]: I did just pull that email that we're, and it's it at that time they were labeled 10 34 a 42 and one 41. I might have to read through the details to see if those correspond to these three that we're looking at. Cause they're, they're all renumbered, aren't they?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: No, I think, I think the other ones are just on the other screen.
[Alicia Hunt]: Oh, okay.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah. Just the way.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right, one was the trench permit.
[Unidentified]: 34A. Yeah, we just, if you go back down, there's 34A. Okay. Yeah, I think we were okay eliminating that one. Okay, so let's delete that then. Okay, and then what was the next one, Director Hunt?
[Alicia Hunt]: I see it's section 14-42. Okay. And 74-141. Okay. The other ones were good though. He did not mention those. I would say, so we sent him the entire list of waiver requests and he responded to these three he took issue with and none of the others.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay. Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, so yeah, I still don't know what cross connection control is. I probably should, but I don't. Um, so what's the, how does this one pertain to the project?
[Unidentified]: What's it, what's it required? for?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: This is just, I think, seeking a procedural waiver. There's a requirement, and we don't have our civil engineer on the phone, so Tim, if you can help me out as a standby civil engineer, but these are devices that are installed on plumbing lines so that the fire supply line doesn't sort of backfill the drinking water line. It's called a cross connection. And so in this waiver request, we clarify that we will comply with the substantive requirements of the ordinance to protect against cross connections. And of course, we'll be filing building permit plans and plumbing plans with the building inspector that will show compliant water fixtures.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you, Attorney Rainier. And just to be clear, so should the board be interpreting this, the applicant intends to comply language in a few different places as essentially carve-outs from the waiver being requested? So wherever I see that language, I should be interpreting that as this element of that section is not something that the applicant's seeking a waiver for, is that right?
[Mike Caldera]: Um, so director had a question for me or everybody, but, um, so there's a question about, is there a request from having the city engineer review and comment on those plans? I guess this pertains to the, um, I don't know which waiver does this pertain to, Director Hunt? I thought of the one.
[Alicia Hunt]: I meant for the water one. So is this request then asking that the city engineer would not review and comment on those plans? And it's nice to say that we'll submit things that are compliant, but frequently, the city engineer reviews plans that then need to be edited and amended, and that's standard practice.
[Mike Caldera]: I see. So the clarifying question is when the language says the applicant tends to comply with the requirements, would this include the opportunity for the relevant department head to actually comment on those? Or is it just that, hey, we'll submit it and we think we comply, but not allowing for that conversation?
[Unidentified]: Is that the clarifying question, Director Hunt? Okay.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Yeah, I think, yes, the engineer will be able to comment on the plans. I think the fact that the engineer received this entire list of waivers and only called out three that were of concern is important to note. So this didn't seem to be one that he commented on back to the board is to be deleted. I think that's helpful.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you. So I believe that's it for the waivers. So amongst the waivers, what requested waivers would the board like to discuss? I do echo what Ms. Barrett said earlier, we have had multiple opportunities to review these. I think many of these had already been discussed and aligned upon, even though we didn't deliberate on them. But please, if there's a particular waiver in here that you would like to discuss, now would be the time for us to do it.
[Unidentified]: Not seeing any
[Mike Caldera]: call outs from the board. Yeah, and I'll just say there was an earlier version of the waivers, which the board did have some feedback, and I think City Legal did have some feedback on, and we've had multiple iterations with this. So, yeah, I appreciate the effort put into revising this and making it more specific. My read is it's consistent with what we've already discussed, so I'm not seeing anything that stands out as surprising here or inconsistent with what we've already covered. All right, so we've reviewed the doc in full. I'm going to check in with Ms. Barrett just to make sure procedurally everything we're doing is on the up and up, just to make sure. I'm going to reiterate something I said earlier. shared info. So essentially the board has reviewed the entire document. There were a handful of places where the board made some live edits that the board was already aligned on. I think there was one request that we, I had made in writing that the board seemed amenable to, but we haven't yet had it, we haven't yet added it to the factual findings. So there's some language surrounding essentially the legal advice about the safety concerns and how a condition might risk being challenged. And I just wanna add some language to that section. So it's way up in the doc, Dennis, essentially adding the same applies to the requiring the building to be all electric. So this was before the waivers. It was in the factual findings. So up some more. Oh, we're still on the waivers.
[Unidentified]: We're still in the conditions here. The conditions, sorry. Yeah, still up. It's OK. It's like page four or five, Dennis.
[SPEAKER_04]: It's back in the findings of fact?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_04]: So Dennis, keep going. Yeah.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah. Yeah, 21, 21. It probably merits its own item.
[Unidentified]: Well, hold on, the board heard comment. OK, so it highlighted the D.
[Mike Caldera]: Uh, 12, I think that could be changed to Roman numeral six dot D dot 12.
[Unidentified]: It doesn't need the regular six. Just, yeah, there we go. And then, um, Um.
[Mike Caldera]: I don't know the best way to fold it in. I think I think I might be okay just not having it. Um. So essentially, the idea there's a there's a sentence. Um after consulting with the city's legal representation, the chair determined that the board should not impose this condition as such an order making me considered preemptive and could be challenged. It's the same rationale for the not requiring it to be all electric. Um. But I, I think I'm actually good with the condition. I don't think we need to add a factual finding unless someone else feels, feels strongly to the contrary.
[Unidentified]: Okay, cool. So then, uh, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So that's, so we're just going to punt on that one. Um, the, so then essentially there are only two points where the board. in its review flagged an issue and had differing perspectives on a particular item. One was a condition, one's a waiver request. So the condition was the one pertaining to the mural. And so I think we narrowed it down to two proposed wordings. They're very similar, and they're all in the chat. But essentially, since some folks joined a little bit later, I'll just repaste them.
[Unidentified]: So wording one, requiring call for artist.
[Mike Caldera]: It's like, so the applicant has concerns. This may not be sufficiently flexible. And then there is a minor revision. And actually, now that I think about it, I think there was a slight suggested improvement to the wording, which I haven't carried it through here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But wording two, no, actually, this only applied to the one I'm about to paste. So encouraging call for artists, which is this one.
[Mike Caldera]: So they're almost identical all the way through consultation with the Medford Arts Council in the stronger wording. says the art would be refined and developed in consultation with the Metro Arts Council through the issuance of a call for artists. And it provides no guidance as to what that means. So as Yvette mentioned, it doesn't need to be a super drawn out process. There's a lot of discretion in what a call to artists would be. So there's one version which says, find and develop in consultation with the Medford Arts Council through the issuance of a call to artists with equity-led selection criteria that wait towards local Indigenous artists as appropriate. And then the second language is identical except it says in consultation with the Medford Arts Council period, the applicant is encouraged to issue a call to artists with equity-led selection criteria that wait towards local Indigenous artists as appropriate. Everything else is the same. That was one where the board had differing opinions. And so I want us to, as a board, to align on that one. And then the other area was the magnitude of the linkage waiver. And so I'll check in with you, Ms. Barrett. So procedurally, how do you recommend the board determine these two issues where there was kind of differing views. So like are these things that we should be voting on? Should we try to get to alignment before a vote? I don't even know for issues of this magnitude whether it requires four of us or three of us. And then more generally I'm also interested in procedurally how we vote once we've bottomed out these issues, how we vote on the rest in a procedurally correct way to codify our overall decision as a board in terms of the findings and the conditions and the waivers.
[SPEAKER_04]: So you need a simple majority vote because it's a comprehensive permit.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[SPEAKER_04]: So we can start there. I have certainly seen boards get down to a point where you have a couple of issues that people don't agree on and they vote on those issues and then they vote the whole permit. And it might be easiest for all of you to simply take that approach.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you, that helps. And so my understanding is that This majority, so I was aware of, yeah, I guess. Perhaps I should have deduced this on my own, but so essentially not only is the vote on the permit itself majority based, but any smaller element, it's all majority. So everything we do is majority. Okay.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. And some boards don't even, you know, when you've got a couple of issues like this left, some boards don't take a formal vote. They just sort of do a sense of the meeting, if you will. And then they just take a vote on the permit. You can do it either way. But I think it might be good to just make people take a position and move on.
[Mike Caldera]: Sure, I think I agree with that. So I wanna check in with the board before we move in this direction, but my proposal based on what Ms. Barrett just shared is that, so first on this topic, and there's two wordings in the chat, I think we should take a vote on which wording to use. And so what that will require is for someone to make a motion that we use one of these two wordings. And then the board would vote on yes, no, whether to use that wording. In the event the votes no, We would still vote on the second wording, but it would stand to reason that that member was in favor of the other wording. And then we would do something similar. The chair would await a motion in terms of the magnitude of the linkage waiver. uh you know we would discuss it if so desired and then we would we would take a vote and kind of same procedure so that's what i'm intending hopefully once we bought his bottom out these issues we can then just proceed to the like overall vote i see mr alexander has his hand raised and so i just want to give him the opportunity to weigh in before we proceed thank you mr fair yeah i was actually just
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: If I might, I was just rereading your two options for the public art process. And I think you noted earlier, they're very similar. And I think more than likely, as we get into a process with the city and other councils, the organization, that a call to artists is warranted and and like i said more than likely so if it just to make it easier hopefully for the board um the applicant can can get comfortable with your first option there which doesn't just encourage but requires that call for artists okay thank you for the update and uh for your um your willingness to consider that that viewpoint so thank you um in light of that information
[Mike Caldera]: And I want the board to check me if I'm misstating anything. My understanding of the earlier discussion is that some members of the board had indicated a strong preference for wording one. Some members of the board had indicated that they were comfortable with wording two. I don't recall any member of the board indicating opposition to wording one. So in light of this information, Shall we just proceed with wording one, or would someone like to make a motion?
[Andre Leroux]: Mike, I'd like to make a motion adopting wording one around the public art installation as proposed.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, do I have a second? I'll second. All right, so we're gonna take a roll call.
[Unidentified]: Andre? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jim. Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: Mike. Aye. All right. The motion passes unanimously. So we will adopt wording one. And so this replaces the item that, yeah, that Dennis is hovering over right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So we can just paste that in. Cool. Thank you, Dennis.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. Great. So then moving on. to the only other item where there was some misalignment in the earlier discussion, the linkage waiver request. So it seems the applicant is supportive of us granting a partial waiver. And I don't see any reference to a requested, um, waiver from the procedure. It's merely a requested waiver from the payment itself. So, uh, I believe all we need to, um, identify as a board.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, there we go. So this, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: So actually it might be. Now that now that I'm rereading this, I think the official requested waiver is in the middle column. And then the more like a human understandable description of the rationale for the waiver is in the right most column. Is that, is that accurate? So the formally the waiver being requested here is from the requirements, procedures, and standards applicable to development linkage fees. And then this list of specific subsections and items, is that right?
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: That's correct. Those, Mr. Chair, are the sections that call out the specific payment amounts, I believe. Actually, those might have been the provisions that allow for the credits in the, because earlier when we first made the application, we were talking about credits, and now we're talking about waivers. But we could update this to just reference generally the sections in the ordinance related to development linkage fees, more generally in that middle column. And in the right-hand column, it could state that it's a waiver requested for the linkage obligations applicable to the 25% affordable units, the 2,000 square feet, approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial uses in the building. And then we could go on to see the linkage waiver that's given that the board now needs to discuss. And I'm not sure that any of the procedures that are called for potentially in the linkage section of the ordinance necessarily come forward. I can't recall off the top of my head when those linkage payments are made. whether it's a building permit or CEO, but as to filing any forms with the building inspector or doing any of that stuff, I don't think that that would make sense. I think it's the linkage waiver is given and then we pay the money when the money's otherwise due.
[Mike Caldera]: Yeah, yeah, right. Thank you. Yeah, so I don't want to In an effort to get it exactly right, make an accidental mistake and be very specific about the sections. I think we can talk about it in the plain terms of the intention. So what we're, what the board is considering a partial waiver from is, um, the, uh, from a portion of the payments, the linkage fee payment that is required under the Medford ordinance that pertains to the market rate units only. The rest were already subject to the exclusion. And then waivers from any procedural requirements that we rendered you know, inaccurate by changing the amount. So I don't think it would be, I don't think it'd be a lot, but I don't know. Ms. Barrett, do you have a suggestion? I really don't wanna like do a comb through the ordinance right now to check every last item. I think the request is pretty straightforward. The ask is to waive a portion of this fee. I just want to make sure that if we vote on that, that we have the latitude. If there was an accidental error in the exact set of sections listed here, that that could just be corrected on the back end before we file the decision with the clerk.
[SPEAKER_04]: I don't see any problem with that.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, great, great. So in light of that, so like we talked about, There was some, uh, the applicant has requested a waiver of 758,000. Uh, from the linkage, um, which in the absence of any waiver would be $1,022,840. Um, if this waiver amount is granted. The implication is the applicant would still pay $264,840 under the linkage ordinance. So that's the applicant's proposal and something they have agreed to. That's one proposed partial waiver that the board would grant. And then as we discussed, well, essentially, Not all members of the board were aligned with including the INI work in that. And then there's also the question of whether it's double counting to take the full cost of the project when part of the project is already receiving a full waiver from linkage for those units. So yeah, that's where we landed. Similar procedure here. So let's have some discussion, but ultimately we'll discuss and then someone will make a motion and then we can vote on it.
[Unidentified]: Andre. Thanks.
[Andre Leroux]: So to reiterate a little bit of where I was standing, I think my position hasn't changed. I believe that because the, of the public benefits that this project offers, including the 25% affordable units, 88 units that are included in the project as a result of the public benefits through some of the offsite improvements that the applicant has agreed to. I would be inclined to support the proponents request for a partial waiver of $758,000 from the linkage payment and I would just additionally add that I think we've had a very positive process this whole time over these months and I'd like to end on a high note and the fact that the development will be paying property taxes and to the extent of millions of dollars a year to the city, I think that's really where the benefits of the municipality and the bottom line of our budget will be. So I intend to make a motion to that effect whenever discussion is done.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Would any other member of the board like to contribute to the discussion before someone makes a motion? I'm not seeing any,
[Mike Caldera]: one, and so I will just stay for the record since we haven't really materially discussed it in any way beyond what we already did. I'm personally, I think the I&I item is just not going above and beyond, you know, and even considering the local benefits of the project. I just don't see the use case for granting a waiver of that magnitude. Linkage fees exist for a reason. It's in recognition of some of the added demand on public services and added cost of public services posed by large projects. I do think that consistent with the ordinance, we're already giving credit for the affordable units. That's already factored in. I think that we're already aligned on a number of projects that the applicant clearly is going above and beyond where it makes sense, you know, to grant, to reduce the waiver. And so I think there's 349K in the requested waiver. That isn't really an issue. That's the number that I'm personally comfortable with, but I don't really have anything to add beyond what I've already said.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I'll just say that.
[Unidentified]: for the record, and the chair awaits a motion.
[Andre Leroux]: I'd like to motion to adopt the partial waiver of linkage payments on the order of $758,000 as requested by the applicant, and I believe it's their June 8th email.
[Unidentified]: All right, do we have a second? All right, we're gonna take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Beth? Aye. Jim? No. Jamie? I'm sorry, Jim, that was an aye. No. You were a no, okay.
[Mike Caldera]: Jamie was an aye. Mike, no. So the motion passes 3-2. And so the partial waiver of 758 is granted. All right, so I think we have addressed the only areas members of the board disagreed on as we did our review of the document. So my understanding procedurally, and I'm gonna check in with Ms. Barrett again on this one, is that we would first, if someone were to make a motion to, I don't even know the right wording, essentially, I'm just gonna paraphrase, to, find all of the findings in this document to impose all of the conditions in this document and to grant all of the waivers full or partial as outlined in this document. I think we would procedurally do something to that effect and then we would need to do an additional vote to authorize me as chair to work with to finalize the decision and sign it? Is that right?
[SPEAKER_04]: So you really don't need to take votes on specific sections of the decision. You can take a vote on the decision, which by virtue of doing that encompasses everything that's in it. And then if you, as part of that motion, the board could authorize you Um, and, you know, staff to kind of go through and. You know, make the, uh, the corrections or something in the decision as voted by the board tonight. So it's very clear. That what the board voted is, in fact, what's going to get signed and then authorize you to sign it. I think that's fine. Okay, that would be fairly standard.
[Mike Caldera]: Okay, awesome. Thank you. So that in that case, I believe the chair awaits a motion to approve the decision for 4000 Mystic Valley Parkway as outlined in the document we reviewed today. and to authorize the chair to work with city staff to correct any errors in the current iteration of the doc to reflect what the board discussed tonight and to sign that decision on behalf of the board.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The chair awaits a motion for that.
[Unidentified]: I was gonna repeat that, but I'll just say so moved. Do I have a second? Second. All right, we're going to take a roll call. Andre? Aye. Yvette? Aye. Jim? Aye. Jamie? Aye. Mike? Aye.
[Mike Caldera]: All right. So we've approved the decision. Yeah, and so I will work with city staff to finalize that, make the edits, get it on file. It's been a journey. I know we talked about this a little bit prior to closing the hearing, but just want to reiterate what we said when we closed the hearing. We really appreciate the responsiveness, the participation, the good faith dialogues with the applicant throughout the process. I do think this is a good project for Medford. I think we landed in a good place. Appreciate the partnership.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, and best of luck with the project. So thank you, everybody.
[B3oaa8YVtBA_SPEAKER_16]: Thank you very much for everyone on the board and staff for your hard work and late hours and diligence to this. We're very happy with the outcome and very much appreciate your hard work. Thank you.
[MCM00001600_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, well said. Thank you all. We appreciate it.
[Unidentified]: Awesome.
[Mike Caldera]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Chair awaits a motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn. Do we have a second? Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, awesome. Thanks, everybody. Have a good night.
[Mike Caldera]: Thanks for all your effort in this. You put a lot of time in. Yeah, thanks, everybody. It takes a village. All right. Take care. Have a good night.