[Morell]: March 22 2022 is called to order. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. I wasn't Councilor carabiello presence. Council Collins present tonight. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng I see him online somewhere. Okay. Councilor Tseng he's present. I see him. President Morell.
[Morell]: County Councilor Tseng is present.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng, I see online. I just have not heard from him. I'm going to mark him as present since I can see him.
[Morell]: Okay, so I'm present, zero absent. The meeting is called to order. Hearing 20-568, Legal notice, City of Medford, Massachusetts, Medford City Council, Chapter 94, Zoning. The Medford City Council shall conduct a public hearing in the Howard F. Alden Chambers at Medford City Hall, 85 George P. Hassett Drive, Medford, and via Zoom on Tuesday, March 22, 2022. A Zoom link should be posted no later than Friday, March 18, 2022, to consider the recommendations of the Community Development Board and to take the following actions with regard to the zoning ordinance. Delete existing ordinance. The intent is to delete the entire existing ordinance. article one in general, and replaced with a proposed ordinance the intent is to replace the entire existing ordinance section one purpose and authority, Madam President motion to waive the reading and have a brief synopsis from our legal counsel on the topic was from tonight to waive the reading, saying my Councilor car VL with a brief synopsis from our legal counsel. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Yeah. You withdraw your motion. So we'll read it and then we'll also get a synopsis. Okay, resuming. Article two, administration and enforcement. Article three, reserve. Article four, use regulations. Article five, signs. Article six, site plan review. Article seven, development linkage fees. Article eight, vacant and foreclosing properties. Article nine, inclusionary housing. And then the zoning map. So to replace the proposed ordinance, the intent is to replace the entire existing ordinance with section 1.0 purpose and authority, section 2.0 districts, section 3.0 use regulations, section 4.0 dimensional regulations, section 5.0 nonconforming uses and structures, section 6.0 general regulations, section 7.0 special regulations, section 8.0 special residential regulations, section 9.0 special district regulations, section 10.0 development linkage fees, section 11.0 administration and enforcement, section 12.0 definitions, and the zoning map dated asterisks. The most recent version of the document is available for view in the city clerk's office and online. at the Google Drive account listed. Call 781-393-2425 for any accommodations or aids. By order of the Medford City Council, signed Adam L. Hurtubise. So, Attorney Boborowski, could you also provide us with a brief synopsis of what we're looking at here?
[SPEAKER_12]: Good evening, Madam President. Good evening, council members. I'm happy to do so. I want to thank, before I begin, the city clerk, Alicia Hunt and Amanda Centrilla for providing logistical support and helping me to parse through the city council minutes that reviewed community development board recommendations. I wanted to be sure that I understood and got those recommendations correctly embedded into the zoning. And I'm glad to say that CDB staff gave me the green light last week and I was happy to turn it in a day or two early. What we've done is essentially gone through the two minutes of the city council at which the CDB recommendations were considered. I believe that there were something on the order of 74 recommendations. Some were very simple typographical pickups that we corrected. Others were a bit more complex, but those have now all been included. in the ordinance. I made a track change version of the ordinance so that you could see the changes as they were embedded. I also provided a clean version of the ordinance. There were also changes made to the use table. There is both a tracked version of the use table and a clean version of the use table. The dimensional table only had two changes, so there's no tracked version, there is a clean version. And those are the three documents that you have.
[Morell]: Thank you, Attorney Brabrowski. As this is a hearing, we will open the hearing for those in favor of the paper. Is there anyone who would like to speak who is in favor of the paper, either online or in the chambers? I can use the raise hand function. Otherwise, I can also scan through. Anyone who would like to speak in favor of this paper? Lisa Honda, if you'd like to speak.
[Hunt]: President, councilors, we just wanted to thank you for all the hard work on this recodification. It was a lot of effort that went into it by the council. We were very pleased to see it. We do believe that this new version of the zoning will be easier to work with and easier to understand. We just wanted to voice our support for the changes that the council has seen fit to put forward with this motion. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this paper? Seeing and hearing none, this portion of the hearing is closed. Is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition of this paper, either on Zoom or in the chambers? One moment. raise their virtual hand or just flag me down on video. Seeing and hearing none, this portion of the hearing is closed. Any discussion from the council?
[Knight]: Madam President.
[Morell]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I'm very grateful that we finally got to this point. This is something that I recall taking up, I believe, in my second term as a member of the council. This evening, there's someone that's not a member of this body anymore who deserves credit for getting us this far, and that's John Falco. Madam President, John really made joining a priority during his time as the president. John worked very hard in bringing us to where we are to help us secure Mr. Bobrowski and his leadership. to get us to this point. We've met probably for close to 60 hours as a body on this topic over the course of 24 months to get us to where we are today. It's been a very open and deliberate process. It's been very transparent. There have been, I believe, nine draft documents that have circulated among the council that have all been vetted through public meetings. We've had the duly required public hearing with Community Development Board. Notices have been posted. The Community Development Board had an opportunity to vet this motion as well, and they came back with a series of over 70 recommendations that the council took up in a meeting, went through each and every one of them, addressed each and every one of them, and we finally came up with this document right here, Madam President. This is a document I'm very proud of. I think that this body should be very proud of this document, and in this young stage in our term, this work product that we're putting out so far is something that's great. And I support this measure that's before us wholeheartedly, and I vote for approval.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight. Any further discussion on the Councilor? Councilor Collins. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. I want to thank everyone who's put so much work into this process. I've lost count of the number of meetings, I think maybe 15, 16, somewhere in there, just of the Council, not including many meetings of the Community Development Board. I echo Councilor Knight's comments about the significance of this change and bringing us into the modern day and hopefully making a lot clearer for everybody involved what can happen and can't happen as regards our zoning. And I also see this as a foundation for moving forward, a way for us to much more easily make the tweaks and changes that we need as we are growing as a city, both to protect our community and to grow our community. And I think that's gonna be a lot easier now, especially with this group of people who have read so much and done so much and look so much into this code. Definitely much more knowledgeable about zoning now than I was three years ago. So thank you all for your work on this and I'm definitely supporting our work tonight and moving, you know, voting to approve this. Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Uh, thank you, Madam President again. I echo the sentiments from my colleagues. But again, Council Falco, former Council Falco president and Council marks. I know spent a lot of time with this, uh, this, uh, initiative. And, um, I'm also very proud of it. And I think that When the administration allows this body to look at representation, like attorney burrows key and having his leadership. I don't think. We've been, we've been in forums of other attorneys, but to work with Mr. Brabowski and his wealth of knowledge and the pieces that he shares from other communities that he has, he has fought with and, and changed so many, so many guidelines. And I think that, uh, you know, without him, um, I don't know if it would have been, um, can't say easy because it's been two years, but he really made it very educational and we appreciate his leadership with this process and we look forward to moving this forward. So thank you, Madam President.
[Tseng]: You know, my colleagues have, have put it really well. And I just wanted to say, I think this is one of the things that shows that to make the change that we want to see in our community. Even in this session, we've had many meetings about these I know before our session of the City Council, the Council's been working hard on this, different community boards have been working hard on this. Neighborhood activists, experts have I'm proud that we are taking the thoughts to be able to vote on something like this. I also see this as an opportunity for us to, as I think Councilor Bears alluded to, move forward with more ideas and to open the conversation up about how we can develop our city so that everyone wins. How can we make Medford work for all of us? So I think this is a crucial piece to that puzzle. It's an important first step, right? It's an important step to get us all on the same page, to bring our code to the modern day to give clarity to everyone. And so we need that platform for us to move forward and for us to have those, you know, discussions about new ideas that we might or might not take up, but we need this first step first. So I'm happy to be voting for this.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President, President. This is a document I'm proud to be part of three different presidents worked on this nine city councils working on this. And we all stayed unified on this and know where we work for a common goal. And I think we did a real good job took some time and this is the first part. of our zoning and look forward to passing this this evening and moving forward to the next phase of the of this. So thank you everybody for all the time everybody put in and thank you. John Falco was not here. He was the original starter of this. So thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you for the discussion with the council. If I could just for a moment from the chair, I want to echo my fellow and thanking former Councilor Beto for really getting us to this point where we could carry it across the finish line in this term. We had countless meetings on this, all public meetings, and I think perhaps too often it's highlighted where we disagree in this body. But if you attended any of these meetings, it was all of us digging our heels in and doing the work and having the important discussions and representing the interests of the city and finding common ground. That happened among the council, it happened as we work with the Community Development Board and it happened as you know we had the department heads come in and have discussions so that we could get a document that I think we're all proud of that really represents the work of the council. We can get mired in lots of things but zoning is a major piece of the council and our responsibility and I think this is something that we're all proud of and that we've all been able to have our hands on it and represent different points of view and move Medford forward and also act, as many have said, as a first step to the next thing. So I'm hoping that, you know, the administration was able to empower us with Attorney Bobrowski, and I hope that they will empower us and fund us to continue this work because it's important work and this is what we've just begun. Vice-Presidents.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for your comments. I wholeheartedly agree. When Councilor Marks was mentioned, it reminded me that we should thank all the residents who participated in this process. I think he would be loudly voicing that. We had a lot of residents involved in our committee of the whole meetings, raising questions, some of whom are here tonight. And if you watched any of those community development board meetings, those are pretty resident focused as well. There were a lot of different residents from a lot of parts of the city finding typos and looking for commas and providing, you know, really substantive and helpful advice on zoning and planning and development. Um, so just wanted to add that to, to the record tonight before we vote. Thank you.
[Morell]: Uh, thank you.
[Caraviello]: Uh, I neglected to, uh, thank you. for his work, I mean, he's probably one of the finest legal minds in the state on this issue, and he made it a lot easier than it looks. But again, I just wanna thank him. I say, the man is a wealth of knowledge, and I hope we're able to bring him back for the phase two of this. So thank you, Mark, for your work.
[Morell]: Thank you, Congressman Carvella. Any comments from the public, either in the chambers or on Zoom? I'll give one more moment if anyone else would like to comment on the paper before us. Seeing none, on the motion of Councilor Knight for approval to be ordained, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: To be ordained. Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes. 74-0 in the negative, the motion passes. Motions, orders and resolutions. 22-073, this is for me unless any councilors object, I think it's read from the chair. report offered by President Morell be it so resolved that the city council approved and transmit to the general court for their consideration, the following home rule petition as originally introduced by the mayor, and as amended by the city council and committee of the whole. and act authorizing the election of a charter commission in the city of Medford. Be enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in general court assembled and by the authority of the same as follows. Section one, notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 43B of the general laws or the provisions of any general law, special law or regulation to the contrary, the city of Medford city council shall at the first regular city election or earlier occurring special election held on or after the 60th day following the effective date of this act by order provides for election of a nine member charter commission. Section two, the charter commission shall be composed of one commissioner elected from each of the eight wards of the city and one elected at large. In the event of a charter commissioner elected to represent a particular ward should move within the city during their term of office, they may continue to serve as the representative from the ward from which they were elected. The vacancy created by any commissioner who moves from the city during their term of office or who resigns may be filled by majority vote of the entire commission. Section three, other than as set forth here in the provisions of chapter 43B of the general laws shall be applicable to the nomination and election of charter commissioners and to the duties and responsibilities of the city and the charter commission elected here under. Section four, this act shall take effect upon its passage. As amended by the City Council and Committee of the Whole, President Morell moved to amend the language of the petition to fill any vacancy on the Charter Commission by replacing that member with the person who received the next highest number of votes for that position on the commission. Councilor Collins second. Approved on a roll call vote of six in favor and Councilor Caraviello abstaining because he had just arrived. Is there any discussion from the Council on this paper? Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. Just that I believe we should reflect the language of the amendment that you just read in the actual language of the petition before it is submitted. And basing that language on the language of the city charter of the city of Medford, that would be a motion to amend this to replace at the end of section two, the words may be filled by majority vote of the entire commission that would be struck and would be replaced with shall be filled by that defeated candidate who received the highest number of votes for that specific seat and is eligible and willing to serve.
[Hurtubise]: Can I have that? Sure. Can you can you transmit that to me in some way?
[Bears]: Yep. So I can have and that's that's straight from the city charter. Although it takes up the word city council.
[Morell]: Thank you. Any further discussion from the council? Any members of the public who would like to speak on this paper? Come up to the podium. I don't see any hands on Zoom at the moment, so. Name and address, please.
[Milva McDonald]: Milva McDonald, 61 Monument Street. Every city has the right to charter review. You've heard it before and you'll hear it again. The charter, the instrument that dictates how our city government is structured and implemented is a living document. Wisdom and smart governance would dictate periodic review. Yet Medford's charter has not been looked at for more than three decades. That means the last review happened before my 29 years as a resident and has been pointed out here before more than one member of this council was even born. Charter review has been attempted several times, for at least two of those times, the barrier has come from you, the city council, and you are the body that today will determine the fate of another home rule petition to initiate charter review. I started joining some of my fellow residents a few months ago to organize around the issue. We contacted each of you to hear your thoughts. To those of you who met and talked with us, thank you for the productive discussions and the chance to listen to your concerns. Some of you felt the elected charter review commission outlined in this paper might not be representative of all the neighborhoods in our city. We responded to your specific asks and we got word representation applied to this petition. Now, some of you who expressed support have flip-flopped for reasons ranging from complaints about social media comments to declarations that charter review should come from the people. First, I would like to say, councillors, you are the people. You are our elected officials, and we have spoken to you on this. I have here a letter, which I ask to be entered into the record, endorsed by 227 residents, urging you to vote yes on this paper. In recent years, nearly 5,000 people have signed a petition to get a Charter Review Commission on the ballot. That's well over 50% of the entire number of votes each of you received in the last election, and in many cases, it's closer to 100%. In addition, this paper will put candidates from each ward, as some of you requested, on the ballot to be elected by the people to a charter review commission that will engage the community in its 18 month process. Recommendations for modifications to the charter, if any, would go on the ballot before they could be implemented. In light of all this, how can you argue that this process would not come from the people? I ask that you honor the support you expressed to us and vote in favor of this paper. While it is not the only route to charter review, it is the most expeditious in the current moment. And it offers you a chance to respond to your constituents and show that you value their concerns and you value their civic engagement. For what better way to promote civic engagement than inviting every resident of this city to join in reviewing how their city government works. We are determined to partake of that opportunity, indeed of that right. Collecting signatures is not the only other alternative available. We are exploring all of them. And if this petition fails, we will pursue them as swiftly and as transparently as possible. Every city has the right to a review, and we will have ours. It is up to you to decide whether you will help to honor that right in this moment or choose to delay it. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Mrs. Powell. Any other, any further comments? Either on Zoom or in person? Please raise your hand if you'd like to speak, either on Zoom or, slide me down the camera. being no further request to speak from the public. Any further discussion from the council?
[Hurtubise]: Madam President.
[Morell]: Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: I'm convinced that the best path to ensure comprehensive and informed review of our city's charter is to follow the time-tested path of gathering signatures and complying with the various provisions of the general laws that surround that process. There are some that would disagree. And to them, I say that, you know, Charter is our local constitution, and in effect is a document that's far too important to allow an abbreviated review and to take shortcuts. The process established in the general law specifically establishing charter review is more than just a procedure. It's the right of local self-government, and the politicians shouldn't be deciding this for the people. This alone should give every resident the reason to pause and say, let's let this process unfold in its time-tested wisdom. the initiative petition process. Proper discernment is never rushed. A perfect example of this proper discernment was in November, 2015, when the people of Medford spoke at the ballot box and overwhelmingly adopted the Community Preservation Act. The success of this program can be attributed to the Preserve Medford campaign. Now this group could have came to the council and pleaded with us to take shortcuts and to put this matter on the council agenda and to put it on the ballot, to do a homeown petition and to send it forward. But instead, there was a grassroots campaign with efforts devoted to speaking to residents door to door, in the community, in the streets, at the parks, addressing concerns and issues, and raising awareness and educating the electorate about the CPA. And as a result, because people got a chance to talk, information was shared, concerns were raised, and it was time to vote. The voters were informed, aware, and knowledgeable. It was democracy at its best. Coming off a three-year pandemic, We have not had the ability to attend our children's games or school events. Graduations and proms have been canceled. There's absolutely zero sense of normalcy. We don't have the strong relationships with the neighbors in our community that we've had prior to the pandemic, and we need to build those back up. In a time when we have no sense of normalcy or stability, I don't think our child should be treated with any less care than the CPA. The residents of our city deserve every opportunity to absorb the information before they're asked to decide on whether to do anything to our child. And the initiative petition process meets this mark. I hope my position's not misunderstood, Madam President. It's an important issue, and my disagreement is not over the method, is over the method, and not over the motivation, and over the process, and not over the principle. But ultimately, this should be a grassroots effort that comes from the ground up, not the top down. The people shouldn't be making the decisions for the politicians. Thank you.
[Morell]: Any further discussion? Vice President Bears. On the motion of Vice President Bears to approve as amended, as amended by Vice President Bears, seconded by Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight? No. Councilor Scarpelli? No. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?
[Morell]: Yes. Or in the affirmative, three in the negative, the motion passes. 22-282 offered by President Morell. Can I read from the chair unless there's any objections? Whereas, as a condition of the MBTA multifamily zoning requirement passed as part of the 2021 economic bond bill, the draft guidance released by the Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development must be discussed at a meeting of the Medford City Council before May 2, 2022. And whereas the public comment period of the MBTA multi-family zoning requirement is open until March 31, 2022, be it so resolved that the Metro City Council invite Director of Planning, Development, and Sustainability, Alicia Hunt, to present MBTA draft guidance on Section 3A of Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 40A, as required by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Unless there's any discussion by the Council, should we go to Director Hunt?
[Knight]: I do believe that this was raised Madam President some 2436 months ago with the question was asked to the city solicitors to whether or not the city's in compliance with the Municipal Monetization Act and these provisions that you speak of. To date, we have not received response from the administration. I just like to highlight the fact that our ability to conduct business is hampered when we are not provided with the tools and toolbox necessary to do such. And here we are some period of time later, now addressing an issue that we could have put to bed a very long time ago had we been provided with the support necessary for us to conduct our business. As we look at the work that we've done this evening, when we have someone in our corner that's willing to provide us with the legal advice that we need, we are able to put out a very good work product. When we don't have that, here we are. Before May 2nd, we have to do something. We've been waiting since the Municipal Modernization Act passed for an answer as to whether or not we're in compliance. So I'd just like to point that out. And once again, reiterate my priority for the budget for this year to have an assistant city solicitor dedicated to the Medford City Council.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor. I did err in not referencing your previous paper in this request. So I thank you for bringing this up many months ago, and hopefully Director Hunt can provide us some information.
[Hunt]: Councilor Morell, I have a presentation to share with you. Part of the answer to this is actually the city has been waiting for the guidelines from the state to tell us whether or not we are in compliance. We needed the guidelines. Draft guidelines were released in January. The draft guidelines were not clear. They are open for comments, and that's part of my presentation this evening. If I have permission on the Zoom, I could share the slides if that's the easiest way to do it. And I can explain what we are looking for clarity on.
[Morell]: Mr. Clerk, could you allow Director Hunt to share?
[Knight]: Is Mr. Mulkey on the call as well? With the zoning issue?
[Hunt]: I do not see him. I do not believe that he is on it. This is something that is being addressed by the planning directors and in meetings with the the state. So good evening, councilors, thank you for your time. I will try to be as brief as possible, but with as much information as we're able to provide at this time. I have the formal bill language, the draft guidance that was issued in January by the state, the timeline for when we expect to have final guidance and what the state is asking for us, the implications for the city, and then if there are any questions and comments. This page and the next slide are in fact the full text of the law. Would you like me to read this out? I know it's very hard to see. This is available and I'll provide these slides to all of you as well. Oops, sorry. And then so a quick summary of it is that this bill amended chapter 48. to include multifamily zoning requirement for MBTA communities. It applies to 175 MBTA communities. And the goal of the legislation is to encourage multifamily housing production by requiring municipalities to have zoning districts where multifamily housing is allowed as of right. The actual production of the housing depends on many factors and production is not required under the law, just zoning as of right. The draft guidelines that have come out state that we must actually the law states that we must be in compliance in order to be remain eligible for a variety of different grant programs from the state. That's important.
[Knight]: So multifamily, do we just do we know how much. with the dollar figure, the grant eligibility would be on the table that we lose access to. So is it $100 million worth of grant money, or is it $65,000 a grant?
[Hunt]: Madam President, there are about five to 10 different grant programs that are incorporated in this. The state named several in the law, and then the draft guidance actually included several more grant programs that you would need to be in compliance with to be eligible for. And many of these are economic development grants that do not have set rule set guidelines as to maximum amounts, but we've seen 10s of millions of dollars per community could come through these grant rounds so we think they're very valuable grants.
[Knight]: We've been receiving them in the past.
[Hunt]: Over the past 10 years, yes, I didn't get a complete summary but yes the city has done several of them. So under the law, the multifamily housing has to be permitted as right, no age restrictions, and the housing has to be suitable for children, minimum gross density of 15 units per acre, and no more than a half mile from a subway or bus station. All of this is in the law, all of this is straightforward, and our staff believe that under these specific guidelines, we're in compliance as are many, many communities. The draft guidance then goes on to issue a test to determine what reasonable size is and what the minimum multi-unit family capacity is. So these are items that are not in the law, the language of it, but are in the guidelines that we have received from DHCD. The minimum land area must be a zone that's at least 50 acres in size. within a half mile of the acre. The minimum multifamily unit capacity is determined by the number of units. So this is where I could put the chart in. If you are a subway community, rapid transit is a different number than if you are a bus or if you're an adjacent community. For the subway units, it's 25% of your current units in your community. And they actually have provided us with a chart because many of the planning directors said, wait, you want us to produce 25% of our current number of units within a half mile of the T station? And so they've provided a chart and that number from Medford would be 6,442 units. And that honestly, that didn't make sense. Yes, would be allowed as of right within a half mile of the T under the draft guidance. So we've been talking with other planning directors, and we have been talking with staff from the state. And we basically said, I've talked with Chelsea's planning director in Cambridge and Somerville and we've all said we either don't understand this, or it's unreasonable, because this doesn't make sense. So we have been encouraged to submit comments to the state by the comment period. Because 15 units per acre, not a problem. We're probably in compliance with that number. But this number seemed to be more than anybody could really rationalize. So anyhow, that is part of the sticking point and why I've been reluctant to come forward without having further conversation with the state before discussing it, because that's just stunning. So we asked then, okay, how do we calculate this gross density because they also talked about the minimum 15 units. How do we determine, many of you are now very familiar with zoning, and you'll see that we don't have anything in our zoning that talks about units per acre. We talk about heights, we talk about setbacks, we talk about lot coverage. So we said to the state, how do we determine what are the guidelines? And they said, oh, we have to create those guidelines. They don't exist yet. I asked very specifically, do we look at a current parcel sizes? And do we look at setbacks from parcel lines and lot coverage? And they said, please ask that in the open comment period. So when you ask me if we're currently in compliance, I'll tell you, it doesn't sound like it, and I don't think so, but there is no way to know until the state issues the final guidance. So the other thing, the one piece that is good is that they said they intend to create a tool that we could then apply to our zoning to tell us whether or not we're in compliance so that it would be standardized, but the tool doesn't exist yet. So that's a part where we have a lot of concerns. The next piece is determining suitability for families with children. That units cannot be age restricted. I think that we have no problem whatsoever with that in Medford, but they also have started to say that under the draft guidance, you cannot limit the number of occupants per unit. And that is something that I know that has been very significantly discussed by this council and by our planning board. So that is also something that we'll be putting comment in on. They did say that districts do not have to be contiguous and that they don't all have to fall within a half mile of the transit station. So that sounded hopeful that you could have some of your density within a half mile, but not all of it, but there's no guidelines as to what does that mean? What is not all? And then they will be developing compliance or criteria to determine if you're compliant with the law, but they have not yet provided us with that. So we ask for a timeline. March 31st is the deadline for public comments. We are preparing public, we are preparing comments. I'd be happy to take comments from the council as well. I'm also happy to provide you an email afterwards with the information on how to submit your own comments directly. By May 2nd, we have to submit a form to the state with some information about our current zoning. And on that form it, we need to give the date and the minutes that we attended a public meeting and that we presented this so this meeting right now is our compliance, such that for this coming year we are now in compliance with the state guidelines. This summer is when they said they'll be releasing the final guidelines and that by December, they would like an action plan from us that does not have to include exactly the zoning we're gonna pass, but rather what our process is for passing the zoning. July, 2023, they'll tell us if they have approved our action plan. And by December, 2023, they will ask that we have adopted zoning to bring us into compliance. So we'll need to do, that's the next real deadline with action in order to stay in compliance with this new law.
[Knight]: Question? Are they saying we have to change our zoning? Or are they saying if we don't change our zoning, you don't have access to these grant funds?
[Hunt]: Basically, they're saying if you don't change your zoning, you won't have access to the grant.
[Knight]: In essence, we don't have to do anything.
[Hunt]: That is correct. There, there are communities that are actually discussing that whether it is better to lose access to these grant funds, then to come into compliance.
[Knight]: I mean, that's what I'm what's the trade off how much money we get from these grants if we're not getting any money from the grants is it really worth creating 6500 units.
[Hunt]: We had looked at some of that, and really what we could tell you is sort of about the different grant programs. My inclination would be to not get into that right now, that we want to submit comments about our concerns, because the law as written is a perfectly reasonable law. It's the guidelines that we have significant concerns with. So my inclination is to submit comments and then to see what the guidelines are that come out over the summer. And at that time to make a decision whether the final version, because I will tell you that I do have not yet spoken to a planning director in Massachusetts who feels comfortable with these guidelines as they have come out. Not to mention the fact that they're not specific enough. We don't know exactly what we're measuring and how. So once we see the guidelines, that is an option.
[Morell]: Councilor Caraviello, I don't know. Oh, sorry.
[Caraviello]: Alicia I'm so I'm half a mile from the subway, but pretty much regulators to the voluntary correct unless the train station in West Metro falls into that or the new train station up at Tufts.
[Hunt]: Thank you for asking that. I actually, we actually had some of our GIS staff put a map. So this is a map of our zoning that's got color on it for the different zones. And then those circles are the half miles. Can I, yeah, you know what, that is an excellent- My glasses aren't that strong enough. Let me see.
[SPEAKER_18]: I'm sorry, I am using this lovely view. Actually. There we go. So sorry, I apologize.
[Caraviello]: So if you go back to so where would the purple circle be?
[Hunt]: So the purple circle that is the West Medford train station that qualifies into that that that qualifies and I will tell you that most of the housing around there is single family one and general residential.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Hunt]: We haven't straight up asked whether the Green Line stations will count, but frankly, they're supposed to open this summer. So we absolutely assume, why wouldn't they count? They will be open train stations at that point. And so looking at those areas- That's a pretty dense area. It is relatively dense, but interestingly enough, a lot of the zoning is single family, two in general residential. So what we have there now is stuff that is nonconforming, that is a higher density. The Wellington train station area is actually an interesting area to look at because there is stations landing, for example, is in there already. And there are other areas that housing is not allowed as of right multifamily, but honestly we should really consider it because there is a lot of multifamily housing in that area already in this room we have we have there's some room up there, there is absolutely room. So it's there, I mean there's potential here but the part of the question is the deep in the details.
[Knight]: Does it have to be within a half a mile from a train station located in your community or just the train station?
[Hunt]: So if you are a community that has one of these in your community, then yes. Um, we haven't, that's actually because if you're getting at the Oak Grove stations and stuff, what I'm saying is, I mean, say it's 6,500 units, right.
[Knight]: And that's more than half a mile of a station, right? The only circles that we have, but we have Winchester station, you have Oak Grove station, you have ball square station. You might be able to take those 6,500 units instead of slapping them right in Wellington circle, which is probably where they're going to end up going. Um, be able to spread them around.
[Hunt]: And that is something that we'll make a note of and ask for specific clarification of. I know that Cambridge was specifically saying to us that if they could spread the number of units they're being asked to allow as of right across all of the train stations in Cambridge, it's not so onerous.
[Knight]: I mean, I think the idea is that most of these stations like the Greenland, for example, isn't, it's not Medford train, it's a regional, it's for the region, right? So why should Medford bear the brunt of all the housing? Why shouldn't the region? If the train station is there for transportation needs for the region, and we're trying to meet housing needs for the region, then why shouldn't our regional partners that utilize this service that we have also feel some of the impact?
[Hunt]: Absolutely. So all of, and I will say Cambridge, Somerville, Malden, Winchester all have stations so they're all subject to this 25% number. If you have buses and some of the further out because there are 175 communities, they have lower percentages 15% and 10% for the for the less than further out communities. But this is one of the questions of clarity that we'll be asking, and how do we distribute this? And honestly, this 6,500 units as of right is a little surprising. Like it's high. I'm all for housing and I'm all for, you know, but that's not just a little, that's really changing the nature of the community. So, yes.
[Bears]: Madam President. Thank you, Madam President. The 6500 would include current units within the radii.
[Hunt]: So that's the other clarity that we're asking for that it's not whether it's new units or units units allowed as of right and the one thing that we did ask them we said to them, none of us have big open spaces that are undeveloped, and they said no we expect that it would involve you allowing them so that if somebody were to buy these properties, they could then develop this density of units would
[Bears]: And I'm sure if you haven't gotten there yet, that's fine, but would say triple deckers versus two families meet the per acre requirement instead of moving to five, six, seven story buildings.
[Hunt]: If you were looking at 15 units per acre. Yeah, the triple deckers and stuff that they would. Okay. If we're looking at 30 and 40 units 50 units per acre and it sort of depends how big is it a 50 acre zone, or are we able to spread it across all of this it's a lot more acres. then maybe we're talking 20 units per acre, 30. And honestly, these are not numbers that planners usually use to look at. We looked at floor area ratios and heights and setbacks. So we're all trying to get our heads around, what does this mean? It's not a measurement that you usually use to describe zoning.
[Bears]: Right, because I would think that would be a good tool in our toolbox. compared to say knocking down a bunch of two families and building an eight story, whatever, or whatever that would look like. Third question, just looking at Wellington, there's a lot of water in that half mile. How would that affect this minimum land area calculation?
[Hunt]: So that's a good question, and one that we're submitting. In the form that we have to fill out, it asks us to, it talks about what are the acreage within a half mile of your train station that is non-buildable, and they say specifically such as water. And so we know we have to provide them back with that information in May, but we don't actually know how they're gonna take it into account because it's not explained in their guidelines.
[Bears]: Right. And just the ball square station is technically in Medford, right?
[Hunt]: It is actually, yes.
[Bears]: Yeah. And then just, you know, I know it's right there on the corner of a corner, but you know. Yeah. Yeah. I'll leave it at that. But just to say that this whole, this did not go through the legislative process. If anyone was following it when this passed at the end of 2020, this was snuck in at the end of December with a bunch of other stuff that a year before one representative was able to stop because they tried to pass an informal session and someone stood up and said, well, hold on a minute. If you're going to do this, you need to give us these tools that allow us to protect people who are here and avoid displacement. And that never happened. And the negotiations were never filled. And, you know, I think we're suffering from that. It seems like DHCD is, you know, this was Governor Baker's proposal, it's Governor Baker's housing department. And he's really pushing the envelope here, it seems to me. So I'm frustrated with this, as I was frustrated when they passed this 15 months ago. Thank you.
[Hunt]: Thank you, Alicia, with the air rights that wanted to be included in this, we could certainly use we would, we don't see why we wouldn't be able to include that. And I will say that we don't know, so we're not being told we have to build the housing, we don't have to design the housing, we just have to allow it to be built as of right. So what exactly does that mean? And like I said, I'm still trying to figure that out.
[Morell]: Councilor Collins. Thank you.
[Collins]: Alicia, thank you so much for this very helpful thorough presentation. I have just two clarifying questions to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. So looking at this map, to become eligible for these grants, we would need to create zoning that would allow within each of these circles for say 6,400 units of single family housing to be built within each circle. Is that my understanding?
[Hunt]: That was our original read of the draft guidelines. When we asked DHCD staff that specifically last week, they said, no, it could be spread further out. Portions of it had to be within a half mile of your train stations. And because I looked at them and I said, 6,500 units within a half mile of the train station, that's a lot. And she's like, oh, no, no, no, you wouldn't have to do that. It could be spread out. And I said, that's not how we're reading your draft guidelines. And her response was, please submit a comment stating that. So I will be writing that one up.
[Collins]: Great, thank you. And that gets at my second question, which is, you know, we have these radii here, but you also said the districts don't have to be contiguous. So it sounds as though that gets us the confusion that you just mentioned, which is it's not necessarily clear that all of that as of right housing has to be encompassed within that circle, but maybe start there. And so, of course, that's something I'd also That's that's part of what it exists, right?
[Hunt]: And that's part of what we're trying to understand. And we're trying to ask them where we are asking them for clarity on that. Um, they have sort they have indicated that and I think in the guidelines, it does say that it has to be partially within and it's but it's not completely clear how much within and then how far do you go? Because, for example, if you allowed as of right development throughout our entire community, um, that doesn't now this number is not sounding crazy. Um, not to say that it is crazy, but it is. But that, what does that look like? And then how do you measure that? Because if you asked us how much housing is allowed as of right, right now in the city of Medford, that's not a number that we know or even how we would calculate that. Because then we would say, well, do we respect all the parcel lines and ownership lines of current parcels? do we incorporate setbacks? How would you actually calculate that right now? And so we're waiting for that guidelines to understand.
[Collins]: Gotcha. Thank you. Appreciate that.
[Morell]: Alicia, if I could ask just a few questions. So forgive me, is there any affordability reference in this? So in theory, I think to Vice President Bears's point, this legislation, essentially, someone could buy up, a developer could buy up entire neighborhoods of two and three families. They all get kicked out. or they sell a property and now we have hyper dense luxury housing in place in theory?
[Hunt]: So we do believe and it is something that we should state request clarity that anybody who has inclusionary housing requirements would still apply. There's no reason there is nothing in here. And they have stated verbally that yes, your inclusionary housing guidelines and ordinances would still apply. This isn't negating those. So you would look at those numbers for Medford, but this is not requiring that any of it be affordable. And actually for communities that don't have inclusionary housing, it does not require that any affordable housing get built at all.
[Morell]: Yeah, I think I share a number of my Councilor's concerns and just also the vice president there is, I mean, this may, you know, if this were to go through, we were to opt in, do exactly the opposite of what it's intended to displace more residents and have city of luxury housing.
[Hurtubise]: Absolutely.
[Morell]: Is there any or could there be a comment on the fact that they're dangling this grant money? If a city were to opt in, do they have to opt in at first bite or could they wait and see what this money actually is? And in two years, say we want to opt into this program, perhaps we may have figured out what it is.
[Hunt]: It's our understanding that you need to do it to be in compliance. Therefore, at any time, a community could come into compliance with a regulation. I do agree that that might be something we should ask for further clarity on, and we will, frankly, because of the basis of being at this meeting tonight, we will be in compliance, because we will submit that form by May 2nd. Therefore, we are in compliance through December of 2023 right now. The question then is, past that point. So we actually do as a city have plenty of time to then look at the rules as they come out, look at the programs. I will tell you that it is our intention this year to apply to some of those grant programs. There's some of you may have heard of the one-stop grant program. It's all encompassing, that is part of this. And we actually have submitted letters of interest to that program this year.
[Morell]: Further discussion, Council Member Knight?
[SPEAKER_08]: have the city's ability to apply for grants would also impact the Housing Authority's ability to apply for grants.
[Hunt]: Off the top of my head I do not know if these are grant programs that they could apply to. I haven't looked at that.
[Knight]: I don't think Tufts University's property would be taken into consideration, right, at all for the density calculation.
[Hunt]: They do ask us on that form about institutional ownership of property within the circle, because it is actually an interesting question. Tufts University is currently zoned a department two. The difference is it has to be suitable for multifamily. And if they build housing, as a rule, it's dormitory, it's age restricted. So as much as we would love to see more dorms, take students out of the apartments in Medford and free up housing for families, it is our understanding that that would not comply, would not count.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Alicia, if the state were to accept one of the grants, what are we on the hook for? What does that, what do we have to do after we took the money?
[Hunt]: In terms of then, do we have to, it is my understanding, and I would want to sort of check the rules. And so to be clear, the state law of the past is the only thing that's legally in effect. They're the guidelines now, and those are subject to change. It implies that if we were to get a grant now, you have to be in compliance to receive the grant. But once you've been given the grant, then one would assume you don't have to stay in compliance. So if we had a grant that went through 2024.
[Caraviello]: What would we use the grant for?
[Hunt]: I'm looking at you because a lot of the grants are economic development grants. So some of the things, are you able to speak to that? So this is Victor Schrader, our economic development director.
[Schrader]: Good evening, 55 Cedar Street. The MassWorks grant program is mostly for infrastructure pre-development. I think at one time Medford considered MassWorks for the Governor's Ave garage. So that's one of the grant programs. Some of the others are for transportation planning, economic development studies, planning exercises. So that's actually what we've submitted through the One Stop program for this year is some funding for planning. economic development related planning.
[Morell]: Thank you. I had a few slides left.
[Hunt]: Um, that was actually the last slide was the the map there and there was just I think that was truly it.
[SPEAKER_18]: Yeah.
[Morell]: Further discussion on the council. Members of the public would like to speak.
[Collins]: I just wanted to thank Director Hunt for coming before us and explaining all of this. And as you said, if you could follow up with these slides and how to submit comments, I think that'd be really appreciated. But thank you again.
[Hunt]: to stay in compliance, to submit public comments, to hear your concerns. And then it's my expectation that we'll discuss this again once the final guidelines are out and we understand what this really, really means for the city. So thank you very much for your time this evening.
[Morell]: Thank you, Alicia. Will the council receive a copy of the MBTA information form that's submitted?
[Hunt]: We're happy to provide you with a copy of that. we'll figure out how we should save a copy of it. It's an online form, so I'm not sure if it'll be in screenshots or what, but we do have a PDF copy to review the questions. So yeah, we'll work on that. Thank you.
[Bears]: Motion to receive and place on file.
[Morell]: Second. On the motion by President Bears to receive and place on file, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: President Morell. Yes. 22-283 offered by Councilor Knight. He is so resolved that the Metro City Council request an update from the city administration and Tufts University relative to the March 15 2022 chemical laboratory evacuation at 62 Talbot Street.
[Knight]: Madam President, thank you very much. Yes, I just last Tuesday, there was a chemical spill, I believe, or an evacuation of the chemical laboratory at 62 Talbot Street. That's about all the information. I've been able to find out about this. I'm sure that it was an event that was handled appropriately by our first responders and by our friends at Tufts University, but it's nice for us to know exactly what happened, what went on, to be sure that we can provide a sense of relief to those that live in the neighborhood who are asking questions and have concerns about what they live next to and what risks they may pose to them. So with that being said, I'd ask the administration to respond to this, and Tufts University to respond to this request in a timely manner, and ask my council colleagues to support the measure.
[Morell]: Thank you for the discussion on the motion of Council night seconded by bears.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. That's a Caribbean. Council calls. Yes. Council night. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng, Yes.
[Morell]: Yes, seven affirmative, zero negative, the motion passes. 22-284 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Sure. Moving forward to 22-285 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it so resolved that Councilor Caraviello update the council on the library foundation and the library. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Is Barbara Kerr on the call?
[Morell]: I did see her earlier.
[Caraviello]: Is she still there? Let me know she's there. I just want to give a little brief report as the library, as the foundation, the fundraising end is pretty much coming to the end. I just want to give a little report of how much has been collected up to date. So, so far in total donations, we've collected, I mean, we've raised $5,846,846.11 in donations. We've had, $324,000 in in-kind donations, both from East Cambridge Savings and the Cummings Properties. So in total, the foundation up to today has raised $6,170,011, of which 3.5 million has already gone to the city toward the construction costs. And anyone who's had a chance to go by there has seen the great work that's been done in there. And at our meeting last week, Barbara said close to 10,000 people have gone into that library since it's open, and that's short of time. So I just wanna thank everybody.
[Unidentified]: More than that.
[Caraviello]: More than that.
[Hurtubise]: More than that.
[Caraviello]: I just want to thank all the benefactors that the community that, you know, they have reached out with the donations. And, you know, we are still, you know, collecting things, but we are sort of, you know, it's going to be winding down at some point, but just wanted to give everybody a little, sorry. And I invited Barbara to just give everybody a little update of what's happening inside the building.
[Kerr]: Hi, I'm Barbara Kerr, 35 Baker Place in Newton. We're doing really well. I think, as you know, it's been kind of chaotic for, oh, good heavens, I'm on a screen. Sorry. It's been very chaotic, but this last week was the first time I felt like we had actually finally moved in. We did have some shelving shortages, but most of it came last month. And as of today, the public areas are pretty much up and running. bigger the way we're supposed to be. And it wasn't 10,000 people. We've had a lot more than 10,000 people. Our circulation in February was 9,000 items above what the circulation was in November at Boston Avenue. And I looked and it's 6,000 above the average month in FY19 when we were back in the old building. So it went up 4,000 items in February, another five, no, 4,000 in January, another five in February, and we're still going. People are beginning to discover us, and the weather's nice, and the building is working the way it's supposed to. Children and teen are crazy busy and scary, kind of, and the downstairs is quiet, and we had designed the place for all sorts of different kinds of seating and tables, computer areas and people are using them the way we wanted them to. And this month we've started a pretty full schedule of programs and we have more than one program room now. So you can have five programs at the same time. So it's, it's going very well. It really is. If you haven't been down since January, come down because now it's, it looks a lot better than it did when we had green bookcases and everything was all over the place, but it's really, I'm very pleased with where we are right now. So please come and see us if you haven't been down recently.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Barbara. For all the naysayers who said libraries are irrelevant, no one uses anymore. This is pretty much a fact that people do use libraries and they are relevant. Thank you, Barbara.
[Morell]: Yep, thank you. Thank you, Barbara. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Knight to receive in place on file second by Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caribbean. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng, Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, certainly for zero negative motion passes. 22-286 communications from the mayor, the honorable President members of the city council, your present morale and members of the members of the council I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body Confirm the appointment of Robert Delfano, a 46 team app to the license commission to a term to expire June 1st, 2028. Robert will be present via Zoom and a copy of Robert's resume and appointment letter are attached. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter. Sincerely, Brianna Lindbergh, Mayor. I do believe we have Mr. Delfano on the call and I don't know if any councilors have any discussion before we hear from him. Sure. Mr. Delafano, we already have your name and address, so if you could just share, get a brief synopsis of your resume and work in this area.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, good evening. My name is Robert Delafano. I reside at 46 Hume Avenue in Medford, Mass.
[Morell]: Could you speak to your resume a little bit with regards to this position?
[SPEAKER_00]: Oh, sure. I'm sorry. I'm having a little difficult time hearing you, Madam President, I'm sorry. Yes, in regards to my resume, I recently retired from the fire department a couple of years ago, and I was on the department for 36 years. And prior to that, I worked for Charles Gilman and Son, which was a liquor wholesaler in actually Medford, Mass. And I was a sales representative with the greater Boston area as my territory. So I'm familiar with a lot of the ABCC rules and regulations. But again, that was quite a few years ago. But I feel as though I'd be an asset to the, to the commission. I should be able to help out. And I know one of the commissioners is retiring. So I had applied for the position from the council.
[Morell]: Thank you very much. Thank you number one for your service to the city of
[Knight]: It's people like you that make the city go around. Thank you very much for putting your life on the line for the residents of this community. I certainly as one member of this council don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. Relative to Mr. Delano's appointment to this position I think that, you know, basis, he is a resume that would enable him to meet the basic criteria of the job and I think that he'd be able to do a good job at it. He has shown us through his History is a firefighter that he knows how to serve the public. My issue isn't necessarily with disappointment at all, Madam President, my issue is the fact that right now we're in the middle of state election cycle. And we have candidates that are in the process of trying to get their nomination papers certified, but we do not have a board of registrars. in our elections office to certify these papers. So while I understand the importance of a liquor commissioner in this community, I don't think that that carries the same weight as a registrar of voters here in our community. And I think that the mayor needs to act on these appointments that are necessary for us to comply with state law so that we can conduct our state elections that are coming up. And so the candidates that are participating in these state elections can have the opportunity to get their paperwork certified. Now, all three of our registrars have stepped down in the past 12 months. We have no registrars of voters. Now we have a look at commissions retiring as well as an appointment that's backfilling that and I'm going to support Mr. Dolfano when the time comes. I certainly have no problem with his application before us this evening. However, I do have a problem filling appointments when we have a big void down in our elections office and we have a major state election coming up right now and we need a board of registrars down there. We have legislation pending in the city solicitor's office that we've been waiting on from the administration now, and I'm sure Councilor Bears can talk a little bit more to that than I. We've met on it, we've had Committee of the Whole on it, something that we all support in establishing an Elections Commission. So those are a couple items that I think are very important that should be taken precedent over some of these appointments that have come before us, Madam President. Mr. Belafonte, like I said, this has nothing to do about your appointment or your ability to do this job. It really has to do with the administration and the approach that they're taking in addressing some of these issues. Um, you know, we're looking at a board of registrars that's been vacant now for how long, Mr. Clark, can you tell me how long, Mr. Lasky and Miss Murray.
[Hurtubise]: The former chair, Miss Murray resigned on about. the 11th but we didn't receive the resignation letter until October. I'm talking about the 11th of September. We received Mr. Lasky's General Lasky's resignation on the day of the September preliminary election after the polls had opened in the Mr. Wade. Mr. Wade was was January because of illness and he's moving out of Medford. And the mayor has the mayor temporarily appointed Mark Crowley to take Mr. Lasky's General Lasky's unexpired term.
[Knight]: Okay, when was this appointment made temporarily?
[Hurtubise]: That was made late October right before the November election.
[Knight]: Is this temporary appointment allow us to comply with the Secretary of State's guidelines and standards?
[Hurtubise]: That brings that well. Registrar Wade was still on the board of registrars at that point. So there was a quorum which allowed the November election to be conducted. Now there is no longer a quorum now that Mr. Wade has resigned.
[Knight]: And Mr. Crowley still serves as a temporary appointee. That is correct. Thank you very much.
[Hurtubise]: And he's actually the chair of the board.
[Knight]: Only one person on the board. I'm still sitting ex-officio.
[Bears]: Madam President. Thank you. Yeah, and I appreciate council night's points. And again, Mr. Delfano, my comments here are not reflective of your appointment, but I do think when an appointment, this was advertised as an urgent appointment, it was advertised as important. I didn't see similar advertising for the board of registrars, first of all, but secondly, in general, I don't think that appointees should be coming here and justifying their own appointments to this council. I think that should be the process of the city of Medford and the mayor's administration to come before this council and present an appointee to answer questions on behalf of that appointee. and then allow the appointee to speak on their own behalf and answer questions as well. But there are a number of appointments. I just think the process here on a number of appointments, both why are things sitting vacant so long? What is the appointment process in general? You know, this council doesn't have the authority to confirm any appointments. The ones that it does have the authority to confirm are some of the most important appointments to boards and commissions in this city. And I just think that the process needs to be improved. I certainly wouldn't mind beyond the administration coming here and presenting the appointments themselves, you know, presenting the rationale as to why they appointed this person, the applications of the people who applied for the position and why they chose this eventual appointee. I just think there's a lot of transparency in the process that could be brought to this council, brought before the council, especially given the fact that we don't approve every single appointment to boards and commissions, but especially when it comes to the board of registrars and the fact that You know, we were having such delay there. I would move to table this until we receive further appointments as are so urgently needed in this community. And again, Mr. Delfano, this is not reflective of you. It's just reflective of where we are right now in terms of appointments to boards and commissions in the city. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Councilor Garabello, did you want to speak?
[Caraviello]: I was going to a motion for his appointment. And I do respect Council business is this comments here but I hate to hold this up for that for that so I mean, that's you know that's what that's the wall of the party that's fine. But again, if we let this sit, then we leave another commission open. And as I sympathize and agree 100%, the Board of Registrars is a very important thing, and that should have been done also. That should be done too. I don't know what we're waiting for after that.
[Bears]: I would be happy to amend my motion to table for one week, just to get a response from the administration.
[Caraviello]: I don't care. Mr. Dolfano, he's a good person. He's a good volunteer in the community. And again, this is no reflection on you. I know you and your family for many, many years, and you're good people, and we will support you.
[Morell]: So the motion table isn't debatable, but I do see Chief of Staff Nazarian has her hand up.
[Bears]: I'll withdraw the motion. Temporarily to hear from the chief of staff.
[Morell]: Chief of staff in his area.
[Nina Nazarian]: Thank you very much, President Morell and members of the City Council. I am happy to look into the points that have been made this evening regarding appointments and the registrar of voters in particular. I would propose that the City Council, given especially the fact that Bobby Delfano is here this evening, has spent the time, propose the fact that the body move to approve or confirm the appointment of Bobby Delfano. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Chief of Staff Nazarian. Vice President Bears.
[Bears]: Is there a more significant commitment that the Chief of Staff could make relative to a timeline for when registrars will be appointed? Other than that, what will it be looked into? Madam President.
[Nina Nazarian]: Madam President. Thank you. At this point in time, I would like to look further into it. I don't want to make commitments that I can't keep. You know, it's frankly that one of the resignations is a little bit new to me, but allow me please some opportunity. I'd be happy to write to the city council this week with further information once I've had an opportunity to look into it.
[Knight]: On that, Madam President, I do believe, looking at the general laws, that I think these appointments to the Board of Registrars are supposed to come through the City Council as well and be appointed by the City Council for confirmation. So, I'm not sure that the Mayor has the right to appoint Mark Corrales to the Board of Registrars without confirmation. Temporary or not.
[Morell]: I would agree.
[Knight]: I have I talked about the need for this Council to have a lawyer by any chance this have I have I spoke about that at all ever because I mean the left hand doesn't know what the rights doing and no one can scratch the head across the hall. All right, I don't know what's going on. But I mean, ultimately, I'm looking at the general law right here and in the first section says the position shall be filled nearly as reasonably as possible. and it should be confirmed by the council, unless that charter says something different. I'm just, I'm at a loss. I'm at a loss to the inaction on easy items that keep us in compliance with state law. Easy items that keep us in compliance with state law. Now, Bob, I'm gonna vote for you. I'm gonna vote for you. I support your resume. I support your appointment. You know, however, I don't support the antics and the human resource nightmare that we have going on across the hall.
[Morell]: The clerk is offering to provide some clarification.
[Knight]: Council night to clarify a little bit on what you can ask the court with all due respect I don't think it's your job to clarify the actions the administration. I appreciate what you're trying to do I really do my frustration level on this is like going through the roof because, you know, we all take an oath to comply with the law to withhold the laws of the Commonwealth of Constitution the ordinances of the city, and I feel like it only, it only applies when someone's looking. Sometimes, it only applies when someone's looking at if no one points out it's just going to continue it's just going to continue just going to continue. It's very frustrating, but but please continue I do apologize for interrupt.
[Hurtubise]: Thank you. I appreciate that and I understand, I understand what you're saying. Back when when General Lasky and former chairman resigned. We actually did meet with the city solicitor, and we spoke with with representatives of Secretary of State's office to make sure that we could get temporary registrars in place so that we can have quorum. both offices, the city solicitor and Secretary of State's office, that temporary appointments can be made as long as they're, I mean, a permanent appointment would absolutely require council confirmation. I mean, that was made very clear to us on both sides, but a temporary or emergency appointment would not require confirmation. And the reason there is a difference there is because there is a definite, I'm sorry, there's a definite expiration of the term which the term would expire on the confirmation of the successor.
[Knight]: It's curious also that it just so happened to be like right before an election. And, you know, we still, we're just finding out now, right, the chief of staff just finding out now about a resignation of a member. Now, now, but it was in November, right before the election, right. And it was an appointment that was made temporary. And that person still never before the council made permanent and it's been well over 90 days.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Bears]: I would motion to table for one week. And I would hope that the long awaited issues both around the Elections Commission and the potential appointment of a registrar would be on our agenda next week. Thank you. So motion to table for one week.
[Caraviello]: Thank you. Along with this opening and other ones that know many people have reached out to me about boards and commissions that are holdovers for a while and they're saying that. they've tried to contact the administration on whether they want them to continue on. Yes, you want me to stay. No, you don't want me to stay. And they're not getting any feedback either way. So just to say, I mean, if you look at the list, there's many, many holdovers on many important commissions. So again, that's something that I don't know why people aren't getting back. If you want to replace them, replace them. If you don't, then ask them to stay on.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to table for one week, and what's the additional language?
[Bears]: I didn't have my microphone on, but my answer to the president's question was there's no additional amendment to the paper other than tabling for one week. Other than that, I would hope that papers to address these concerns would appear on the council agenda next week. Thank you.
[Morell]: On the motion of vice president bears to table the appointment for one week seconded by second Councilor Collins. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The only request is tabled for one week. Thank you, Mr. Delafano. I think we can work through the chief of staff or the administration. You came out tonight. Hopefully they can speak on your behalf next week if needed. But of course, if you want to come back, come on back.
[Knight]: I, for one, as one member, I wouldn't require Mr. Delfano to come back. I don't think this is an issue about him. I think it's more an issue about what's going on across the hall. That's why I voted not to table, because I don't feel as though he should be held victim for his boss's mistakes. But with that being said, I'm satisfied for him to not have to return.
[Morell]: Mr. D'Alfano, if you didn't catch that yet, don't feel like you don't have to come back next week. We've heard from you, this is more of an issue with the administration, nothing to do with you. So thank you for taking the time tonight.
[SPEAKER_00]: Well, I thank you tonight for your consideration and I understand.
[Morell]: Thank you. 22-287. The Honorable President and members of the Medford City Council regarding food truck permitting. Dear President Morell and members of the Medford City Council, on behalf of the below entity, I respectfully submit to the Medford City Council the following request for a food truck permit in the city of Medford. In addition to city council approval, vendors are required to adhere to health department food safety requirements. The sausage guide dates and times April 30th, 2022 at 7 p.m. May 14th, 2022 at 7 p.m. May 20 2022 at 7pm June 17 2022 at 7pm July 2 2022 at 7pm July 23 2022 at 1pm location Hormel Stadium event Boston glory ultimate Frisbee season. Thank you for your kind attention to this matter sincerely Brownling O'Connor, Mayor and President move approval.
[Scarpelli]: approval pending commission.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve pending approval of the formal commission seconded by Vice President Bears. Any further discussion? Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor Caraviello. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Dolores Carroll and her recent passing. Mrs. Carroll was the wife of the founder of Carroll's Restaurant. She was a longtime benefactor for many community charities and organizations. Her presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. For those of you who don't know, Mrs. Carroll is the matriarch of the Carroll's family. Many, many years, a wonderful woman. She's been involved in many charities and organizations for other communities in her lifetime, and she passed away this past weekend. Just want to, condolences to her family for all her work that she's done over the years.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Tarbell. Further discussion? Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: If I may, to the Carroll family, my deepest condolences. I know Maura, I know Tommy, and Leslie and Jill, and, you know, One thing you can always say is that Mrs. Carol and the Carroll family have always been involved in the community they've always been people that have been giving to the city of Medford, and she's in a better place now I wish her family all the best. She rest in peace.
[Morell]: Thank you.
[Scarpelli]: Again, thank you. I reiterate what my colleagues have already said but again, when we talk about. the members of our community that have given so much and now have left us. And for one, Mrs. Carroll has handed those traits off to her children and Omari is always the first one to step up when the city's in need. I remember the process when the food truck at the fundraiser for the Andrew School backed out, Omari quickly jumped in and offered fundraiser for the Children of the Andrews right away. And that's typical for what the Carroll family has done for years, and she will definitely be missed. And we send our condolences. Thank you.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Council Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. So any firms here and I get the motion passes. I have a motion to take papers in the hands of the motion of public are below seconded by Scarpelli papers in the hands of the clerk.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Council KVL. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng yes.
[Morell]: Yes, seven affirmative, zero negative, the motion passes. 22-288 offered by Councilor Caraviello. Be it so resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of Carol Sharpton on her recent passing. Mrs. Sharpton was a former member of the Medford School Committee and active member of the West Medford Community Center. Her presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. This was a tough week in the city of Medford for many people passing away. Carol Sharpton was an icon. in the West Suffolk community and the West Suffolk Community Center. She served on our school committee for a time. And again, you know, as Councilor Scott has mentioned many times, these are people that made our community great and helped bring us to where we are today. And we don't see people stepping up to fill the shoes of the Carroll Sharpens or the Mrs. Carrolls and other names yet. And again, And I'll say, these are people, they're icons in the community, and they've done so much good work, but I'm gonna say, Mrs. Sharpton, she was a good woman, always involved with the West Surface Community Center, and again, she's another person that'll be missed in our community if you don't support her family.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion? On the motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Vice President Bears, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Collins]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[Morell]: Going back 22 to 289 offered by Councilor Caraviello, be it so resolved that the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences on the family of James Shenna Jr. on his recent passing. Mr. Shenna was a longtime owner of Tough Square Tobacco in South Medford. His presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President. Again, James Shenna is a longtime business owner in our community, owned a store in Medford and a store in Boston. His tough square at the back has been a long time meeting spot for a lot of people in the mornings for coffee and cigars and things like that. Again, the Shetter family has been around a long time in Medford. Again, they've stepped up to do many things. Again, condolences on his passing.
[Morell]: Thank you, Kevin Caraviello. Any further discussion? Councilor Knight.
[Knight]: Yes, Councilor Caraviello, thanks for putting this measure on. Linda and Jim, both great people. You know, growing up, having a lot of friends that lived down near Tufts Park and Tufts Square Tobacco, that was always a place where kids could go to find work. And I have a number of friends of mine that going through elementary school, junior high school, and high school would be over there doing side jobs at Tough Square Tobacco for Jim and Linda. Two of my close friends actually ended up becoming employees there through high school, working at the East Boston store, selling cigars. They became cigar aficionados, working with Jim Schena. They're great people and they're real neighborhood people that took care of the kid next door that would be sitting on the front porch and watching the kids play in the street, making sure that nobody was causing any damage to the neighborhood, no one bothering the kids. Real neighborhood people, real good folks. And he's gonna be sadly missed. His presence in the neighborhood's gonna be sadly missed. Post Street won't be the same.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Knight, for the discussion. On a motion of Councilor Caraviello, seconded by Councilor Knight. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes, Council carry on. Yes, Councilor Collins. Yes, Councilor Knight. Yes, Councilor Kelly. Yes, Councilor Tseng, Yes, present Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, I mean in front of zero negative emotion passes 22-to nine zero offered by Councilor Caraviello, it's a result of the Medford City Council send its deepest and sincere condolences to the family of William Casey on his recent passing. Mr. Casey was a method attorney and Vietnam veteran and former Commodore of the Medford boat club. His presence in our community will be missed. Councilor Caraviello.
[Caraviello]: Thank you, Madam President again. Bill Casey, a long time Medford attorney, the dad of a policeman, Joe Casey. Bill served his time in Vietnam, always a president of the community on a lot of things, comment on the bowl club, just a good guy and community boss here again. It's been a tough week in the city of Medford, a lot of people have passed away this week, a lot of good people. Condolences to the Casey family.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Caraviello. Any further discussion?
[Knight]: Just if I may add my condolences to the Casey family. Joe's become a friend over the years, and I only didn't know Mr. Casey personally. His reputation preceded him. He was a man that was well respected in the community, and if his children are any indication of what type of a person he was, then he was a great gentleman as well.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Sparkelli.
[Scarpelli]: Thank you again, Madam President. Thank you for Councilor Caraviello for bringing this forward. Mr. Casey, another strong member of our community. I know that he raised a great son in Joey that now gives his life and his profession as the Medford police officer, and he will be missed in our community. So send his deepest condolences.
[Morell]: On the motion of Councilor Caraviello second by second. Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes, sir. Negative. Motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. Reports of committees 22-058 subcommittee of the whole on public health and community safety, March 16, 2022 report to follow. Chair of that subcommittee is Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins.
[Collins]: Thank you, President Morell. Last week, myself, Councilor Caraviello, Councilor Tseng, along with Police Chief Buckley, members of Medford People Power, some folks they've been working with at the ACLU, and Attorney Austin from KP Law met to discuss the proposed community control over public surveillance ordinance. We had a very productive first discussion, and I look forward to further meetings of the subcommittee to continue going over questions and concerns related to the ordinance.
[Morell]: Thank you, Councilor Collins. on the motion of Councilor Collins to approve seconded by Councilor Caraviello. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears? Yes. Councilor Caraviello? Yes. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Councilor Tseng?
[Morell]: is highlighted.
[Hurtubise]: Yes. Thank you. There's a world.
[Morell]: Yes, I'm the firms here in the negative. The motion passes 22-073 committee of the whole meeting March 16 2022. This was a meeting to discuss the Charter Review Commission that came before us tonight. I have a motion on the floor on the motion of our system bears to approve the report seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears Council carry on. Council Collins. Yes. Council night. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng trying to say yes but it looks like the internet hates him today. I was back again. Okay. I don't know. I will. I will count him as temporarily absent. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. It's an affirmative one. Temporarily absent. The motion passes public participation. There any members of the public in the chambers or on zoom who would like to speak for public participation? Please raise your hand or come to the podium. Any members of the public who wish to speak? Okay, seeing and hearing none, first records. The records of the meeting of March 15, 2022 were passed to Vice President Bears. Vice President Bears, how did you find them?
[Bears]: If I may ask before that, have you received any updates on the reports that were requested? in the reports due, did we receive any updates?
[Hurtubise]: I have not, but I had not as of the last time I checked, but that may have changed in the last couple of days. I will check again first thing in the morning.
[Bears]: Great. It would be, if you could maybe send them another reminder, if we could maybe try to have those by next week and then we can, thank you. In terms of the records of March 15th, I found them in order and I move approval.
[Morell]: On the motion of Vice President Bears to approve the records, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes, that's a carry on. Yes, Councilor Collins. Yes, Councilor Knight. Councilor scrub Kelly. Yes, Councilor Tseng, yes.
[Morell]: President real firms here and the negative emotion passes on the motion of night to adjourn second by bears Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.
[Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears. Yes. Councilor caviar. Yes. Councilor Collins. Yes. Councilor Knight. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli.
[Morell]: Yes.
[Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng, Yes. President Morell.
[Morell]: Yes. In front of zero in the negative the meeting is adjourned.
|
total time: 20.59 minutes total words: 3230  |
total time: 13.65 minutes total words: 2872  |
total time: 7.7 minutes total words: 1370  |
total time: 2.49 minutes total words: 347  |
|
total time: 1.78 minutes total words: 232  |
total time: 7.29 minutes total words: 1182  |
total time: 1.52 minutes total words: 278  |
|