AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Meeting via Zoom

[Kevin Harrington]: Check mic one, two. Check microphone 1-2. Check microphone 1-2-1-2.

[Zac Bears]: 9th regular meeting Medford City Council may 13 2025 is called order Mr. Clerk, please call the roll Council Callahan, Vice President Collins, present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Council was our council lemon is absent, Councilor scrub Kelly, Councilor Tseng, President Bears present, please rise salute the flag or six present one absent please rise.

[Zac Bears]: And just to note, Councilor Leming is absent due to his military service. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports and records. 25-062 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution in memory of Mr. William Shane Horty. Whereas the Medford City Council deeply mourns the passing of Mr. William Shane Horty, a lifelong resident of the city of Medford who passed away on March 10th, 2025 at the age of 70. And whereas Mr. Horty was born August 3rd, 1954 in Vacaville, California, the beloved son of the late Charles L. and Carol L. Spencer Horty, and later made Medford his lifelong home. And whereas Shane graduated from Medford High School and went on to honorably serve his country as a member of the United States Marine Corps. And whereas Mr. Horty dedicated over 30 years of honorable and selfless service to the city of Medford as a firefighter serving with courage, compassion, and unwavering commitment to public safety. And whereas Shane remained a proud and active member of the Medford Fire Department community long into his retirement, frequently visiting his former engine six station and staying connected with his fellow firefighters. And whereas Shane leaves behind a legacy of love, service, and deep-rooted community ties survived by his loving wife, Mary Kelly Horty, daughter Kelly M and her husband Chris J Jenke, granddaughter Casey K Jenke, sister Dawn Foley, brother Mark Horty and his wife Maureen and many nieces and nephews. Now therefore be it resolved that the Medford City Council formally extends its deepest sympathies to the family and loved ones of Mr. William Shane Horty and expresses his profound gratitude for his service, friendship and lasting impact on the City of Medford and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be presented to the Horty family as a token of the city's respect and admiration. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate tabling this in my absence. Last week I was there two weeks ago I was very sick and trying to get over right now so I appreciate tabling it so I could share some kind words to the family. Shane was a remarkable individual, someone that worked hard for the city of Medford and saved many lives as a firefighter. He worked to support his amazing family. I was a former colleague of mine. His his amazing wife, Mary, and his daughter, Kelly. And I know that leaves a huge void in that family. The Hortys were mainstays in our community for many, many years as custodians and teachers and firefighters. And he'll be missed and we send our condolences to the Horty family. So thank you, Mr. President.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Calderon? Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Please rise for a moment of silence. 25-076 offered by President Bayer's Resolution to Recognize Food Allergy Awareness Week. Whereas more than 33 million Americans have food allergies, nearly 6 million are children under the age of 18. Whereas research shows that the prevalence of a food allergy is increasing among children and adults. Whereas nine foods cause the majority of all food allergy reactions in the United States, shellfish, fish, milk, eggs, tree nuts, peanuts, soy, wheat, and sesame. Food allergy reactions can range from mild symptoms to severe reactions, such as anaphylaxis, whereas anaphylaxis is a serious allergic reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death, whereas every 10 seconds, food allergy sends a patient to the emergency room. Reactions typically occur when an individual unknowingly eats food containing an ingredient to which they are allergic, whereas emergency medical treatment for severe allergic reactions to food has increased by 377% in only a decade, Whereas childhood food allergies cost us families $34 billion each year, whereas the food allergy research and education is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to improving the quality of life and the health of individuals with food allergies, and to providing them hope to the promise of new treatments be resolved by the Medford City Council that we recognize may 11 to 17 2025 as food allergy awareness week in the city of Medford. and that we encourage the residents of Medford to increase their understanding and awareness of food allergies and anaphylaxis. Be it resolved that we request that the mayor issue a proclamation to the same effect. And just to note, I believe the mayor did issue that proclamation. This was my item, just wanted to put it forward. That's an important issue and we often recognize different things, awareness weeks for different things here in this chamber. So the resolution otherwise speaks for itself. Does anyone else have anything they'd like to say on the matter? Is there a motion? on the motion to approve by Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. President

[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Records, the tabled records of the meeting of April 8th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Collins. Councilor Collins, how did you find those records?

[Kit Collins]: I find them in order and I move for approval.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in favor of one absent, the motion passes. The records of the meeting of April 29th, 2025 were passed to Councilor Leming, whereas he notified that he'd be absent, unless you wanted to say something. Okay. He looked at me like he wanted to say something. I did review them. I found them in order. If someone wants to move approval or had other comments on the motion approved by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng, President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Reports of committees, is there a motion to join? A motion to join by Councilor Tseng, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Reports of committees, 25-039, which was our committee of the whole on April 29th, April 30th, and May 6th. These were budget meetings when we heard preliminary budget presentations from several departments. 24-033 offered by Vice President Collins, planning and permitting committee, April 30th, 2025. Vice President Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. We had another long, substantive conversation on the draft proposals for Medford Square, West Medford Square, and the draft updates to the ADU's ordinance. We reported them out of committee, and later tonight, they will be up for a vote to refer to the Community Development Board for further discussion in public hearings. Move for approval.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Leming with Resident Services and Public Engagement. Is Councilor Tseng the vice chair of that committee?

[Peter Cushing]: Sorry about that. It's, I can't remember. We have 2469 24-354 and 25-041. All right.

[Justin Tseng]: So we met on three items. One will appear later on tonight's agenda. 24-069, I believe, is the updated HRC ordinance. We voted out a final draft for this meeting for first reading. 24-354, I believe, is sending out the most recent monthly newsletter. and 25-041 I believe is on the public engagement strategy for the budget process. We sent out a Google survey for residents to be able to give their input to us about what they'd like to see in the city, this budget season, what they want to see long-term and how we can best engage them as well. I encourage all residents at home to to fill out that form, and you can contact us if you have any trouble accessing it. We discussed preliminarily the results that we found. At the time of the meeting, we had about 92 results. We've since gotten 10 to 15 more, and we will continue outreach.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. And the clerk has confirmed you've got them all right. 24-057 offered by Councilor Lazzaro public health and community safety committee may 7 2025.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Not sure if you knew this but Councilor Tseng was valedictorian of his high school class so. Um, uh, I, the public health and community safety meeting on May 7th was about the, um, uh, uh, the report from the Medford police chief on, uh, body worn cameras, um, which is a required yearly report. And, uh, that was presented by the police chief and, um, we heard questions and comments and, uh, That is all moved to approve.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion of Councilor Collins to approve the joint committee report seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming is absent, sorry. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative, one absent. The committee reports are approved. Refer to committee for further discussion. Resolution to attend Veterans Department event as listening session by Councilor Lazzaro. 25-073, be it resolved that a city councilor join the Medford Veterans Services Director Veronica Shaw at the Veterans Coffee and Cookies Hour as a listening session to hear directly from Medford veterans and to answer questions, be it further resolved that this resolution be referred to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee on the motion of Council Lazzaro to refer to Resident Services.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. One of the things that we do monthly as part of our resident services and public engagement activities is we hold monthly listening sessions and other less consistent listening sessions. We hold monthly sessions at the senior center. And we hold other sessions in various places with different groups around the city. And when we were hearing from the departments about their budgets, we heard from the director of the Veterans Services Department, and she spoke about Veterans Coffee and Cookies Hour. and it was mentioned that it might be a good opportunity for a Councilor to join this event as a listening session, and I thought I would offer it here so that we can send it to the Resident Services Committee. This is sort of a formality, but also just a good opportunity for me to remind everybody that we do host those listening sessions at the Senior Center. I'll be there on May 29th at 12 o'clock noon. Anybody is welcome. It's really geared toward are Medford seniors and people who will already be at the senior center. But it's always the fourth Thursday of the month with a rotating member of the resident services committee, and it's a great opportunity to connect with the City Council and tell us what you're noticing and thinking about the city. And this will hopefully, eventually when we schedule it, be a great opportunity for us to have a similar conversation with our veterans. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to committee by Councilor Lazzaro, second, oh, sorry, Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Do you have a date Thank you. And I, if I may also remind people, not just that we have the senior center ones, but that we do listening sessions. So I want people to understand that we do listening sessions and for folks, you know, who maybe do not come to city council meetings, you know, the purpose is really to hear from folks who are not coming here. So just for residents to understand that, and if you have suggestions, we would love to hear them. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Great. I'll take that also as a second of the motion. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Callahan, Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lenny is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25-074 offered by Councilor Callahan, resolution to invite the Office of Prevention Outreach to a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting Whereas the Office of Prevention and Outreach offers many much-needed services to our community that residents may not know about. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite the Office of Prevention and Outreach staff to join us at a Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee meeting on a Wednesday night to inform the City Council and the public about their services. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. It really pretty much speaks for itself. I was talking to them and they suggested that they come here to City Council so that we could just get the word out about the services that they offer.

[Zac Bears]: on the motion of Councilor Callahan to refer to the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Lending is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's an affirmative one absent the motion passes. Hearings 25036 petition to amend special permit 282 Mystic Avenue. Public hearing notice. City of Medford City Clerk's Office. The Medford City Council will conduct a public hearing on April 8th. 2025 at 7pm in the Howard F Alden Memorial Auditorium on the second floor of Medford City Hall at 85 George P Hassett Drive Medford Massachusetts relative to an amendment requested by clear channel outdoor on behalf of the property located at 282 mystic have Medford Massachusetts or 2155 the petitioner is seeking an amendment to a previously granted special permit. The petitioner is seeking the amendment to upgrade and replace two digital screens on the signboard located at the property and to ask for a review and potential adjustment reduction in the permit fee. A copy of the full text of the requested amendment can be viewed in the office of the city clerk from 103 Medford City Hall. Please call the Medford City Clerk's office at 781-393-2425 for any aids and accommodations by order of the Medford City Council signed Adam L. Herdeby, City Clerk. We have continued this twice now, but I will reopen the public hearing, continued from April 8th and April 29th. Do we have a representative of the petitioner from Clear Channel present? Please raise your hand on Zoom or let us know if you're in the chamber. Not seeing a representative of Clear Channel. Councilor Scripple, I'm guessing they didn't contact you.

[George Scarpelli]: Council President.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. But if the petition is not here and move to table again, keep it on file on the motion to continue the public hearing to our next regular meeting by Councilor Scarpelli and request review by the city solicitor seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Kallion, Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. It's the affirmative. One absent. The public hearing is continued to May 27th and we will request review by the solicitor. The public hearing is temporarily closed. petitions presentations and similar papers, 25072 petition for an amendment to a common victual or license the establishment. One second here. petition to the Honorable City Council Councilors the undersigned respected request amendment for operating hours on the common victuals license. All days, Sunday through Saturday, or Monday through Saturday. Brief explanation, we would like to extend our license to 1 a.m. We have events that go into a later hour and don't want to end early, sports games, et cetera. Business name, The Establishment Restaurant. Business address, 175 Rivers Edge Drive. And business owner, Matthew Greer II. Do we have the petitioner present? And I will go to Councilor Scarpelli in the meantime.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. Just for clarifications with the clerk, through you, through the chair, Mr. President. The hour is now still coming through the council. It's for approval.

[Adam Hurtubise]: I know that there's been for common. Well, it's an amendment. It's an amendment to the hours of operation under the common big life. So it comes back. Okay. Yes.

[George Scarpelli]: I know there's some big, some confusion, but it's no longer a special permit. Right. Right. So it has to come back. Okay. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: So, um, is the petition to him and could you raise your hand on zoom, Matthew Greer, or a representative for the establishment.

[Adam Hurtubise]: they were in last week at the office?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'm not seeing them present.

[George Scarpelli]: I mean, to be honest with you, I think that, I mean, we could wait for them next week, but I think that's just preliminary. I think that you're seeing one o'clock as a, as a norm where the establishment is located. It's, uh, it falls outside the range of the neighborhood. So in a sense, traditional neighborhood. Um, so I know that we've extended permits to one o'clock, but for multiple locations. Now this council is taking a stance on open up different establishments till one o'clock all over the community. So I think we, as I said in the past about keeping things consistent, I would recommend to award these hours with a 30, 60, 90 day review. Right.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve with a 30-60-90 day review, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak on this? Any objections or discussion? Seeing none, on the motion as seconded, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. That's a lemon is absent. I'll just kill him. I'll just saying, present affairs.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes motions orders and resolutions to 4069 offered by Councilor Tseng amendment to the Human Rights Commission, enabling ordinance. Motion to waive the reading in favor of a summary by the proponent. On the motion of Councilor Tseng the way of the reading seconded by seconded by Council is our own.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan, Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng. Yes. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. Councilor Tseng. Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: At a moment where I think a lot of residents are scared, concerned, afraid about their human rights, civil rights of their own and their neighbors, I think it becomes incumbent upon us as elected officials to do the most that we can to safeguard those rights here in our community. I think the city council has repeatedly shown over the last, especially over the last few months, but in the last few years too, that we stand on the side of human rights. And we stand on the side of our city being more proactive in reaching out to residents to let them know about their rights, proactive about solving inequalities and disparities in our community, and to do better in general. This effort, this particular effort, came about over a year ago, if not two years ago, with members, former members of the Human Rights Commission who, you know, reached out to me and let me know how the existing ordinance, the one that we have right now, is quite outdated. and has led to a lot of problems where the HRC can't do what HRCs normally do in surrounding communities as well. And a lot of these are basic functions that we really think that we would conceive of a human rights commission doing, like hosting events and letting residents know about their rights, stuff like that. And as well as creating recommendations and studying data that we collect in the city. In this day and age, I think it becomes important for us to act on that and fix those problems that we've seen in that old ordinance. And I'm so grateful to the hard work of a lot of our residents, a few of whom are here in the audience tonight, but I know a lot of folks at home are also watching this meeting. who, and, you know, this group of residents came together and we all worked together on a draft ordinance to update the HRC to make it fit for modern times. And I'm, you know, so thankful and grateful for their hard work because I know it was the labor of love. We've been spending a lot of time on this over the last few months, reaching out to our DEI director, to the mayoral administration, to different stakeholders, making sure that we have something that is ambitious and actionable. So that's what I want to say about this. In essence, this ordinance update reestablishes the Human Rights Commission and re-empowers it to do even more and to be even more proactive in serving our city. I know a lot of people who are even currently on the HRC have been pushing for this because the HRC is currently pretty defunct. And so I'm excited for the city council to finally be voting on this tonight. There are some small technical amendments for the most part that I would make a motion to adopt. And Mr. Clerk, I'll send these to you via email as well. But in section 50-62, because we changed the committee composition for the kind of the staggered terms at the very start, we just need to fix the language there. So instead of a third of members shall serve for one year term, a third, a third, I would amend that to read two members shall serve for one year term. Three members shall serve for two year term and three members shall serve for three year term. So that's the first amendment. The second amendment would be to strike the words administration in the public school system after the word city in section 50-66 in subsection B. And that would be in section 55-66. And then the third edit would be also in section 50-66 to strike subsection D2 and to renumber the subsections. That last edit is a little bit more substantive it's still mostly technical, that was upon request of the school committee who said that the DESE reporting isn't necessarily a complete picture of what we have at the schools. And so we shouldn't put it in the ordinance. So D2? D2, yeah.

[Zac Bears]: And then what was the language strike in 5626B1?

[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, in B1, just to strike the words administration and public school system, just to leave that.

[Zac Bears]: Advise the city, got it. I just have one question on your amendment. Yes. In 62 it says there's 11 members.

[Justin Tseng]: Yes.

[Zac Bears]: And then you named eight for the staggered terms. My math.

[Justin Tseng]: I think my math is off. Sorry. I meant to say 344. All right.

[Zac Bears]: All right, just make sure that gets corrected and what we send to the clerk as well.

[Justin Tseng]: I'm glad that I can always count on Councilor Bears to check my math one more time.

[Zac Bears]: All right, and on the process, this was in resident services? Yes, this is in resident services. And how many meetings did you have on it?

[Justin Tseng]: We had quite a lot, few, we had five at least, five meetings on this, five or six.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So on the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading as amended, seconded by councilor Lazzaro. Any further discussions by members of the council? Councilor Lazzaro.

[Emily Lazzaro]: I would just like to thank Councilor Tseng for his careful work on this project and thank the members of the current and former of the the committee, the commission, and just everybody who put work into this project. It's been careful process, and I appreciate everybody putting in this effort because it's an important process that deserves careful study. So I appreciate that, and I've enjoyed being a part of it, and I am eager to move it to the next step so it can be the best governing document that it can be. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Zang, just one other question. Did we strike all of D2 or just—okay. Great. And could you, in addition to sending the amendments, could you send a clean copy in a Word document? Thank you, just for the advertising. Any further discussion by members of the Council on the motion? Seeing none, we will go to any discussion by members of the public, either in person or on Zoom. You can come to the podium in person or raise your hand on Zoom, and you'll have three minutes. I see on Zoom, you have me near, give me one moment.

[Kevin Harrington]: Change the Zoom on me again.

[Zac Bears]: All right. I'm going to recognize you and please name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.

[Munir Jirmanus]: Thank you. Excuse me. My name is Muneer Jamaris. I live at 3 Summit Road. And very briefly, I served for several years at the HRC between 2017 and 2022 and served as chair for four years. And in the fall of 2021, so several years ago, the HRC formed a subcommittee to generate a strategic plan for better definition of the role of the HRC. Since, as Councilor Tseng mentioned, the existing ordinance was outdated and it did not fully describe the role and responsibilities of the HRC. And very quickly soon after that, the HRC decided to disband this committee and accepted an offer from Safe Medford to establish an ad hoc committee to assess the effectiveness of the HRC and to provide recommendations. This committee included three HRC members along with several Safe Medford members. The committee conducted several dozen interviews of current and past HRC stakeholders and surveyed the missions, goals, and activities of human rights commissions in nearby cities and towns, and also reviewed the ordinance that established the Medford HRC. Next, the subcommittee discussed and agreed upon a set of recommendations regarding the goals and roles of the HRC and operating guidelines for their implementation. And in the course of this work and discussions, the committee concluded that to a significant extent, the HRC has been hampered by its current enabling ordinance, which was outdated, and it would need to carry out the mandate that the order defines. After presenting the recommendations of this committee to the HRC, the committee recommended that the new ordinance be generated clearly outlining the HRC's compositions, roles, and responsibilities, providing the HRC with independence and resources to fulfill those responsibilities. Subsequently, another group that included two previous HRC chairs, the previous DEI director, and several folks in Medford. We worked with Councilor Tseng, for whom we are really very grateful, and we worked to offer such an ordinance, which is now under consideration. I urge the City Council to adopt this ordinance with the edits that were made after discussion with the city administration. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Muneer. We will go now to the podium. Name and address for the record, please, and you'll have three minutes.

[Micah Kesselman]: Sure. I'm Micah Kesselman. I'm at 499 Main Street. First, thank you, Councilor Tseng, for bringing this. This is actually a great ordinance to bring, and it's timely, and actually super I'm excited to see it. I was not expecting it when I came, decided to come to the session today. So I do have some questions, though, that I would like some clarification on, I think. It seems like the data that is being written into this and being received from various departments is pretty limited in scope. And in particular, I mean, I think, you know, especially right now with what's going on in the world, police activity and its impact on our residents' rights, their fundamental rights, is extremely important to investigate and inspect and see what we can do to make sure that everything is as above board as possible. But as this is written, the only data that you really have that you get from the police are basically police stop activity. And I am just like, is there a reason that it's not broader than that? Like, why can't we just have a broad scope, broad net, the police have to, the Medford Police Department has to provide activity data over, you know, however many last few months or something on a regular basis, because I think that would go a lot further and enabling this committee to actually craft laws and policies to advise the council on.

[Zac Bears]: Any other questions? Or is that the main question?

[Micah Kesselman]: I know that that's me. All right. Good job.

[Justin Tseng]: Thanks. Thank you. Great. I recognize Councilor Tseng. I appreciate the compliment. Through the Chair, I think that's an excellent question. So essentially the data that is listed out here are things that we know slash historically know the City has collected. A lot of the data is honestly one of the problems with these types of issues in municipal governance is that we don't have a lot of the data we really should be having, which is why there's a whole section on requesting that the city council and the city administration collect data. Of course, I think it's just we could create a whole list. And we just wanted something from different, you know, we wanted examples of data points that each department could collect or relevant departments could collect. Police stops is the main thing that we know at least, we know that the MPD does collect and that we have used in the past to analyze disparities. I do hear your point, which is why in front of every list, we've made sure to add that these data points are minimum requirements, or at minimum, the HRC can request x, y, z. Or at minimum, departments should collect x, y, z and report x, y, z. So all that's to say that the lists that we're referring to right now, they're not exhaustive. They're just a starting point for the HRC to be able to work on in the future. I think there is also a lot of worry. There would be a lot of worry from the administration, at least from an executive viewpoint, of an ordinance asking them to collect data that isn't currently being collected. I think that would create some consternation in the corner office, which is why part of the negotiating process was to have data that or to have these categories that we thought were implementable. I also know that a lot of this comes from the basis of this version of the HRC ordinance is kind of like a collection of different HRC ordinances from different municipalities as well. So a lot of this is based on what other municipalities HRCs are collecting and reporting on. That was the long answer. I think the short answer, the short answer is this isn't an exhaustive list. The HRC can request that. That's more data from the police department. That's within their powers here. And we just kind of put into the ordinance data that we know the city is slash has historically collected.

[Zac Bears]: recognize you for, well, actually I have to go back to Jennifer and then we'll come back to you. Jennifer, name and address, record you have three minutes.

[Jennifer Yanko]: My name is Jennifer Yanko. I live at 16 Monument Street. And just in reference to this comment, there is state data that's available. I mean, arrests by race is available, freely available. So there's other data sources that can be used. That said, I just want to commend the council on, you know, hearing this ordinance. I think it's so important, as Councilor Tseng has said, right now, we're in a place where our human rights and our civil rights are really under threat, and it's extremely important, I think, that we have an active, effective Human Rights Commission. And I think this ordinance is very, very comprehensive. I did want to raise one concern and that has to do with, let's see, I think this is 5065B. We talked about having the resources to do the work that it would be called upon to do. And for as far as we know, I say we, as one of the people who's been working on the original recommendations, boards and commissions in the city of Medford do have a staff person assigned to them. It could be a full-time, a part-time, an intern, but someone who is charged with sort of doing some of the clerical work that's involved, distributing agendas, making copies, and particularly, all new members of the HRC will need to have training in running meetings and so on. And so someone who could organize that as well as keep up with the routine clerical and administrative tasks that are associated with the HRC, I think that will really empower the HRC to do a much better job. So I urge that section again, 50, 60, 50, 65 B, where it says the mayor shall assign a qualified city employee or city council liaison. I would ask you to consider striking or city council liaison to provide staffing support to the commission because I think it's a significant task and it would be good to have someone who is assigned and who has the time and who is hired to do that. So that was my one comment, but again, I'm really excited about this ordinance and thank you for considering it.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I gotta go jump over you to Gaston and then come back to you. Gaston, name and address for the record. You have three minutes.

[Gaston Fiore]: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I support the spirit of the Human Rights Commission. I have reservations about some specific sentences. So let me proceed to just quote excerpts and ask a few questions about it. So the first one in section 5062B, quote, appointments shall be made to ensure that no more than 60% of membership are of any one race or racial identity, end quote. This rule is imposing a quota based on race or gender. How isn't the quota based on race or gender completely against the purposes of the Human Rights Commission? How isn't a quota based on race or gender plainly illegal? So let me give you an example. So let's say that the commission already has 60% of its membership composed of Hispanics, Latinos, and I would like to get into the commission. then that means that because we're already at the cap of 60%, then I will be immediately disqualified just based on my racial identity. So the second one, section 5066B3, quote, request periodic annual reports from the city administration detailing employment diversity efforts, end quote. So my question is, how do we ensure that the employment diversity data is used to check that applicants were hired based on having been the most qualified for a job and not discriminated against based on the enumerations in Section 5061C? So that's the correct thing. Instead of using the enumerations in section 5061C to give some applicants extra consideration beyond their qualifications for the job. And the last one, it's also section 5066C, quote, the MHRC shall also exert its moral authority on the full range of laws, practices, and policies that might have an impact of human rights, end quote. Where's the definition of what's moral? Where's the definition of what's moral and what's immoral? The above gives wide undefined power to the commission. And there are several examples throughout history where governments have committed atrocious human rights violations based on moral authority. So those are just my questions. As I said, I support this Human Rights Commission spirit, but I would like to get some answers on my questions. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. And thank you for your job. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And we'll go back for a minute and then we'll, Justin, I hope is writing everything down. We'll answer all the questions.

[Micah Kesselman]: The Medford Police Department must collect more data than just police stops. And I understand that we can get arrest or arrest data from state sources and everything. But I mean, I just don't see why it can't just be like a broad net of like get data from them, like whatever they have. I mean, if they have records, they have data provided to the HRC council as an oversight board that makes sure that they're not violating any people's rights. But so I mean, it can always be fixed later. But the thing is, I don't see in this any requirements on the on the safe sources of data to actually provide it within a timely manner. I don't know if that's maybe just because there isn't for legal reasons went through review and that just isn't able to be put in here. But it would be, if possible, saying, if you request data from the MPD, you request data from the housing authority, they must provide it within 30 days of the request or something like that. Give some sort of timeline so that there's an enforcement mechanism to say when they have, by the black letter of what's in the ordinance, are in violation of it. Otherwise, you're setting yourself up to run into situations where you're gonna have malicious compliance or just straight up non-compliance because there's no reason for them to comply. Those are, yeah, a couple of my other sort of comments on that.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Barry and then I'll go to Councilor Seidert. Barry, three minutes.

[Barry Ingber]: Barry Ingber, 9 Draper Street. Thank you all for taking this up. Thank you, Councilor Tseng for leading the charge on it. I would like to just restate every word that Jennifer Yanko has said. And I also want to bring up one, including her concern about having an assigned staff person. I also want to ask a question, which I think is a concern. If I heard Councilor Tseng's amendments correctly. He was suggesting excising section 5066 number two. Is that correct?

[Zac Bears]: 56D6D.

[Barry Ingber]: 66B number two.

[Zac Bears]: D2, so under research and reporting educational data such as school discipline rates and dropout rates from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education metrics on IEPs.

[Barry Ingber]: Oh, I don't know. I don't see that on here at all.

[Zac Bears]: It's D2. It's one page further. So it wasn't B2, the periodic.

[Barry Ingber]: OK. So it was not B2. OK. And what was the other change?

[Zac Bears]: I was not able to hear that. 25066B, the main section. Instead of reading the city administration and the public school system, it would just read the city.

[Barry Ingber]: OK. That's fine. I just want to state my support. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thanks.

[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng on the questions.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Um, there there's a lot so I'll take it one by one on the, the, the data from police department see authorities. I would support inserting a sentence in there to request timely information. I think the reason why we didn't is because there's not a neat place to put it, where some of the data that's under requests is more about requests rather than it is more about data that we might not currently have mixed in with data that we know we have. So it'd be good as well. So I think that's a good catch. Thank you. I will say that I'll have to, you know, the mayor's office will also have to sign off on this ordinance as well. So I would suggest reaching out to her office because her office is the one that will execute this ordinance. On the second resident's concerns about the city staff person slash liaison situation, this is something we talked about in committee as well. So essentially in committee, we discussed how currently there is no assigned city staff person to the HRC. Historically, it's been the DAI director, but the DAI director has said that she won't. be the liaison to the HRC. And so then it becomes, you know, it falls upon the mayor to decide who else will do it. That's something I'm working with the mayor on currently. And with the kind of people that we the city staff that we have traditionally kind of thought of to be well suited for this role. No one has, you know, no one has offered. And no one has said yes to it, which is why I'm part of. through conversations with the mayor's office and with the DEI office, we put in the words or city council liaison were relevant to give us the most flexibility to make sure that we can at the very least get this off the ground. And maybe once it's off the ground and up and running, we can get a city staff person to do that. I suspect this is also something that the Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee is gonna keep working on in the future as well, to make sure that we do have an assigned city staff person. But I would say that we shouldn't strike the words that were suggested, that was suggested to be struck, just in order to make sure that we give ourselves the most flexibility going forward with getting this new HRC up and off the ground. With regards to the Section 50-62B, I believe that most of us can agree that the role of a Human Rights Commission necessitates diversity on that commission, or that we have that flexibility to make sure that we have you know, the best qualified residents joining, but in this case, qualification includes life experience and diversity as well. I think we've seen in the past, especially with HRCs, but board and commissions in general, they don't always reflect the makeup of the city. And so this ensures the best outcome that we can get. And, you know, with regards to the policy advocacy work, the research and reporting that the HRC does, I believe that inherently human rights includes questions of morality, and that's something for a representative body of our city to get together and discuss. something that we did actually make sure that was in this ordinance was that the HRC statements will be in the name of the HRC. But you know, this is also a public forum for just like City Council is, although I'm sure with different rules, is a public forum for residents to talk about what what we see as human rights. But the fact is that so many of the human rights and civil rights that are under attack in our country right now are things that I would believe that at least 90% of the city believes in. And so I don't see that language affecting that work.

[Zac Bears]: So there was a further amendment to add language in 5066D regarding timeliness of reporting? Yes.

[Justin Tseng]: I can read it out. Sure. So at the end of the blurb in 66D, I would insert the words, the following list shall not be exhaustive and all requested information from the city shall be provided in a timely manner.

[Zac Bears]: And just a clarifying question. It sounds like staff. The mayor shall sign a city council liaison. She asked the Councilor to do it, obligated to do it. Is that correct?

[Justin Tseng]: Um, no, I, that would not be correct. Because, um, it's this is the kind of similar language as in other commission ordinances where, um, you know, she's asked, like, With the current HRC, for example, it's the same language. She's asked the DI director.

[Zac Bears]: They would not be obligated.

[Justin Tseng]: They would not be obligated. And I suspect this is something that the city council could also vote on, although that's not a must.

[Zac Bears]: So it could be a resolution to delegate that to someone. I guess what I'm saying is it sounds like you're putting that in to allow city councillors to be considered.

[Justin Tseng]: Yes, yes, exactly, exactly. Yeah, and that was a suggested language from the mayor's office. Okay.

[Zac Bears]: Any further discussion by members of the council on the amended amendment?

[Justin Tseng]: Seeing none... There is one technical edit that I forgot to mention when I was reading out the amendments. It was just cut off. I would add our standard severability language at the end of this ordinance. Okay. the standard language our city uses is the provisions in this ordinance are severable if any part or provision of this ordinance or the application of this ordinance to any person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue to have full force in effect. That was in an earlier draft and I just forgot to copy and paste it into this one. That would just be its own section then.

[Zac Bears]: Section 50-67? Yeah. All right. And please send the amendments on a clean copy. Yes. I'm going to go to Steve Schnapp, name and address for the record. Steve, you have three minutes. I'm going to unmute you, and I'll restart the timer.

[Steve Schnapp]: Thank you. My name is Steve Schnapp. I live at 36 Hillside Avenue. I really appreciate Councilor Tseng and the council moving on reestablishing the HRC. I just have one question. Is there another city commission that is not staffed by the administration?

[Zac Bears]: I do not. I mean, I don't know if any city commissions are not staffed currently. I don't, I certainly can say there's no city commission staffed by city council.

[Steve Schnapp]: So, it's curious to me that the city administration would not enable that. So I would urge the council to reconsider putting the language in that Jennifer suggested or striking the language that Jennifer suggested. But at any rate, thank you very much for finally moving on this. We greatly appreciate it.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? Seeing none, I'm seeing no discussion members of the public. We do have a motion from Councilor Tseng as amended to approve as amended by Councilor Tseng, is there a second on the motion? On the second by council Lazzaro. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: For approval for first reading.

[Zac Bears]: For approval for first reading as amended.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Vice president Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes, 16 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25.075 offered by Vice President Collins, proposed amendments to the Medford zoning ordinance, Medford Square District and West Medford Square District from the Community Development Board. This was referred from the planning and permitting committee to our regular meeting the initial proposal. The process from here is that the council is obligated to refer zoning amendments, rightfully presented zoning amendments such as this one to the community development board. The community development board will then hold a public hearing on the matter. They may choose to make recommendations to the council. The council will then hold a public hearing on the matter and consider any proposed recommendations from the community development board And then after the public hearing of the council is concluded, the council would vote to adopt or reject. With that, I will go to Vice President Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bears. Thank you for outlining the steps that this proposal will take after a vote to refer it out to the Community Development Board this evening. And just to quickly recap the steps that have been taken to get us to this point, like all proposals that have been generated in our comprehensive zoning overhaul this year, or this term, rather, Um, these proposals, the zoning proposals for West Medford Square, Medford Square, and updates to our ADU's regulations were all developed in the Planning and Permitting Committee, um, with committee members, the zoning consultant, Innes Associates, and, um, city staff members of the Planning Development and Sustainability Department. We met on this proposal three times between March and April. We had a public Q&A on the three proposals last week after they're referred out of the City Council this evening. They will then begin the public hearing process before the Community Development Board. So far in the process, the Community Development Board has been taking their time to hold as many hearings on the zoning topics as they have felt the need to, which I think is great and I'm sure they will continue to do. That is another opportunity for community members to ask questions and give comment on these proposals as they have been doing. when these proposals were in the planning and permitting committee as well. So there has been a lot of discussion of these specific proposals themselves. In committee, there will be a lot more discussion about the specifics of the proposals in CDB when they're gone into in-depth. So I won't do that yet again here. But if folks want to learn more about these proposals before the CDB public hearings, there is a lot of information on the city zoning website medfordma.org slash zoning. And I encourage all residents to continue to be involved in the planning and permitting committee process and to attend the CDP public hearings. With that, I would motion to refer the three proposals to the Community Development Board.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to the Community Development Board by Vice President Collins, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? No. Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, one in the negative, one absent. The proposal is referred to the Community Development Board. Communications from the Mayor, 25077, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn. Manfred Square parking lot development RFP evaluation committee update. I know that Director Hunt was stuck in a Traffic Commission meeting. We do have Economic Development Director Sal DeStefano with us. I see several PDS folks in here. Do we know where Alicia Hunt is? Still in Traffic Commission.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure.

[Zac Bears]: Is there a motion to table till later in the meeting by Councilor Callahan seconded by Councilor Tseng, Mr. Clerk please call the roll. Yeah. Oh, I already called the roll though. We do have to vote. I'm serious.

[Kevin Harrington]: I call the roll.

[Unidentified]: I don't think you have to.

[Adam Hurtubise]: This is a vote to table. Yeah. We'll waste a roll call slip. I'm sorry. Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Peter Cushing]: Wait, no.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng. President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: No. One in the affirmative, five in the negative, one absent. Motion fails. Is she coming down here? Okay. Well, I can just get us a little bit of preview damping while we get there. So the update that we're receiving from the RFP Evaluation Committee tonight is regarding the awarding of the proposal submitted by transom. So we do have here from the mayor, dear President Bears and members of the Medford City Council, the evaluation for the request for proposals RFP for lease and development of real property has completed its review and evaluation work. I respectfully request and recommend that council permit a presentation to be made to your honorable body on the proposals received the evaluation process and the committee's vote for the preferred developer director planning development and sustainability Alicia will be present at your meeting to present on behalf of the committee thank you for your kind attention to this matter sincerely Brianna Lugo-Curtin, Mayor. We, the city, has had several plans on Medford Square over the past 20 years. All of them have talked about activating these surface lots behind and adjacent to City Hall. And last fall, an RFP was drafted regarding those lots, requesting that proponents the City of Toronto. Um submit proposals for the redevelopment of those lots based on a number of conditions. The city did receive two proposals. There's an evaluation committee of which I was a non voting member. The mayor was a non voting member. Um and city staff and our Chamber of Commerce president were voting members that the two proponents, and then eventually, after review, and there's also a scoring sheet based on a bunch of objective criteria, the committee made a recommendation to award the proposal submitted by transom, and Director Hunt is here to share a little bit more about that. The next steps from here are that now the city will be able to enter into negotiations with the proponent. The proposal is a starting point, not a final product, so city staff working with the proponent will be able to tune that proposal, hopefully make some changes that I know the city has wanted to make. And then once a final agreement has been drafted, the City Council will need to vote to approve the lease agreement for the city-owned land that these new developments would sit on. And with that, I think I provided some useful information and used the time well. Could we allow Director Hunt to share her screen? I'll recognize the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability.

[Alicia Hunt]: Good evening. Thank you. And I do, I just feel the need to be very clear that I wasn't being rude writing in my office to be called down. In fact, I am a member of our traffic commission and we have been meeting since five o'clock hearing petitions. And I just told them that I am in favor of the rest of the petitions on the agenda and I had to now leave. I just, I felt it was important to say that, that that's, that was not me just not being here.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you.

[Alicia Hunt]: So I don't normally share from Adobe, but I think there's a full screen option here. I think that's what you want to see.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, it didn't change anything for us. There's a little thing in the bottom right, just a little paper.

[Alicia Hunt]: This one?

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Does that do anything? No. I don't know.

[Alicia Hunt]: When I go to full screen mode, it doesn't change it on your end. I think I need to reshare. I need to put it in full screen and then share the screen. So sorry. My apologies.

[Zac Bears]: Do you have any tips?

[Alicia Hunt]: Full screen mode. And? No, that doesn't work either. Sorry.

[Zac Bears]: We do have our Medford Community Media Director, Kevin Harrington, to help out.

[Alicia Hunt]: Do you know how to do it, Kevin? It's Adobe. I do have a PowerPoint version, but I have to go find it on my computer.

[Kevin Harrington]: So you're just doing the window, right? Yep.

[Alicia Hunt]: My apologies. And I will, as we start, I didn't catch everything that President Bears said, but as we get this started, we were supported by a grant from Mass Development. There have been a couple of grants, and I'll get into that, but one of them was to support us with a consultant to write the RFP and to help with all of this. And in fact, the reason I'm in Adobe is because our consultants prepared the presentation for us in this associates. You may recognize their name from the planning study. And I'm going to tell you that that is a pure coincidence. We asked mass development to please, would they support this effort of leasing out these lots and doing this development? And they said, absolutely. You did the diff with us. You may all remember that, the development incremental financing. that was a prelude to leasing out these lots. They said, we want you to be successful. We have on-call consultants that can help with an RFP like this. Have you ever heard of a consultant, Emily Innes? We think she'd be a good fit for you. And I said, perfect. We're already working with her and she is aware of the needs and the preferences of the city. So that would be a great. So actually she has other staff, support staff that you all have not met through the zoning process. that were the consultants on this. Should I just flip to the PowerPoint version of this? It's not open. Share the whole screen and then go into... Yeah, so nobody text me. I didn't turn off my notifications.

[Zac Bears]: I don't know that we can promise that. All right.

[Alicia Hunt]: Well, I've warned people. OK, so this evening, so we this is the. the space and the evaluation committee as we were discussing the mayor and President Bears were non voting members we were advised by Fiona our procurement officer Fiona Maxwell, as well as Emily in this from in his consultants and actually Claire O'Neill for mass development attended all of our meetings in met separately with Sal and myself as we went through this process. And so then the evaluation committee was myself, Sal DiStefano our Director of Economic Development, Nina Nazarian the Chief of Staff, Tim McGiven our Commissioner of Public Works, and Andrew Mather as the President of the Board of Directors of the Medford Chamber of Commerce. I will not read everything on all the slides but I did feel that that one was important. So this is part of a much longer process for those who have not been involved in Medford politics for a long time. There have been many Medford square master plans but we specifically referred back to a 2017 one. And in 2019 there was an evaluation of the real estate development potential of the city owned properties done by gamble associates. So that helped inform this process as well. The housing production plan called out these parcels as a good location to bring more housing and more development into the city. There was, we then did a process that some people may remember with the MAPC, where we went to the senior center I got yelled at a lot we went to the library we talked to people a lot we did a bunch of outreach, talking to people about what they would want to see what were the concerns. Because when the city owns the parcels, you can ask for things. You could ask them to just pay you money and you can sell them. Or you can ask for community benefits where they provide things that the city wants to see that is not necessarily cost effective to the developer. And if we lease the land, if we do it this other way, then we can get some more benefits, community benefits out of this. And then based on that work, and from what we had heard from the community, we went and prepared an RFP for the lease and development of real property. So then this RFP process, we put the proposals out, we got those back. We actually got those back, yes, in late December, but there's been a lot of work that's gone into this since then with reviewing them. Innis as well did evaluations on these. We also, we then scored these. We also had another firm do an economic development review of the proposals as well. And we requested additional follow-up information from the consultants, and we interviewed them as well. And so now we are here making this recommendation of the preferred vendor, the preferred developer. We will also need the city council to formally declare the property surplus to municipal requirements. We did not prepare that for this evening, but that is one of the legal steps. We are looking to meet with the developer next week to follow up with our lawyers who have also been involved. So there were sample leases and sample agreements in the RFP that were prepared by our lawyers. So everybody is clear, I realize that it's not always, not everybody sees maps the same way I do. To orient you, this is Medford City Hall, this is where we are right now. This long strip is 93, and so the Salem Street Rotary is up here, Vita Real is here in this corner. So the city owns this lot, and then That's the pink lot, and that one we have been calling Lot C. B is the lot behind us where you often see the buses stopping. There's a bus stop there. We've incorporated that into it all along. We said that's important. Oops, I didn't mean to go forward. And that's where the post office trucks are. We don't own this little small building on the corner. It's a three condo building and we have not been able to incorporate it into the project. And then there's the this yellow lot down here is a lot a it's the one closest to the river. So to orient you here is the Peace Garden and the Senior Center. Our taller buildings are down here. This is the river. I will not spend this much time on all the slides, but I do really realize that people don't always see the maps the same way we all do. So these are some of the criteria that we talked about and the things that we rated them on. And you can see things that are very important to the city you see affordable housing and parking and what their management plan is and what their financial capacity was that's one of the things we brought in an outside consultant to review them and make sure they had the capacity to do this. And what was their vision. So we got two responses, the Davis Company's response and Transom Real Estate's response. Both of them had architects. Interestingly enough, they both had the same legal counsel with them, and Transom also brought along landscape architects and Beyond Walls, which is a placemaking. They do a lot of large art. So this is the two proposed programs. You will see, yes, Davis proposed more housing than Transom. Transom proposed a higher percentage of affordable housing, which was one of the things we were looking for. They both proposed the same amount of commercial space, but that was also notably different when you get down into it. And Davis had more parking but less parking per unit when you look at the total number of units versus the number of parking spots and parking and having available parking for the community was very important to us. I don't want to spend too much time on all of this. And I think that the punchline, most people have already seen the punchline of my proposal, which is that we selected one of them and which one we selected. So this was Davis and they had three residential buildings. They put the parking underneath each one of them. They talked about pocket parks and they had a building over here that was a proposed pavilion that would have more space for businesses and would also be sort of a recreation type space. This is the transom proposal. The transom proposal has a large residential building in the middle, and then a parking garage over on the right. Some of their images of the parking garage, this is where they bring in beyond walls, is to make it not look like a parking garage. So your first thought is, that's art. And your second idea is, oh, that's parking. You may have seen some of this at Assembly Row. I've seen that kind of thing all over the world at this point. And then the third building closer to the river would also have residents will have three stories of housing but under that would be a large grocery store 14,000 square feet. It also has open parking closest to the river, and that's actually interesting and very strategic. So first of all that parking is directly across from the senior center and how we would treat that and how we would arrange the traffic flow would we put in a crossing there or further up at the corner that's something that we would look at, but it's very strategic because we have something that's called chapter 91 land chapter 91 is water is land that used to belong to the river that used to be water land. And it comes with a very, very hefty permitting process that can take upwards of 18 months. And so the idea here is that they would like to bring in this grocery store. They would like to make some commitments early on. It would be one that is of a modest size. This would not be a very large grocery store. So it's not a chain that specializes in very large stores. But because this land would remain public parking, which is its current use, there would be no change in use of the Chapter 91 land, which would allow this project to move dramatically faster. Anything that involved a building or change of use on this area would require an 18-month permitting process. So it both satisfies the desires of the senior center, but it also would speed things up and allows them to make some commitments down here around the business that would go in there as well. So here are some conceptual drawings. These are all available. We can share the whole slide set out as well. They're in the proposals, some interconnected pocket parks. This was Transom's vision. They actually, what they're showing is you're standing at the Peace Garden, and on your left would be the grocery store, and on your right, there would be a cafe. And that's how they would activate Riverside Ave. Part of what we were looking for is that for people who come to the hotel, that right now they stand there and they look at a dark alleyway and they don't think they necessarily want to go down there. And if there was a grocery store and a cafe there, they would be drawn down into Medford Square where we have a number of businesses and restaurants down the block. This is, if you see here, this is this idea of a parking garage that actually is covered in art and doesn't really look like a parking garage. So then we reviewed the proposals. Oh, there was one other thing that I did want to highlight. It's a little bit here, is that this area between City Hall and the building they're proposing would be a bus stop. So we have been working with the MBTA on getting some rapid transit lines from Medford Square to various locations. One of them that is planned is from here through Sullivan Square to Kendall Square every 15 minutes at all times and every eight minutes during rush hour. And part of what the MBTA needs is some facilities for their bus drivers at the end of the line. And so Transom has agreed that there could be bus driver facilities available in this building for them. So all the members scored them. And people have asked me, particularly the two developers who I notified, Is there any one thing? And basically I would tell everybody that transom across the board scored higher and all the people who scored them, there was something else. It wasn't one thing in any one of these, but across the board, there were various things that were important to various people. And that's where we ended up with transom having better scores across the board than Davis did in the various areas we were rating. Like I said, we did the interviews, we had questions, we did a final meeting, FXM associates did a final evaluation of the fiscal impacts of both proposals to help support what we were saying that there were no financial concerns on all of them. And then the city said that we should designate transoms the city started the team recommended that the city should designate transom as the team as the preferred developer and begin negotiations. So, the long term lease is the part city council would have to vote to approve that. But we're at the point now where we would start negotiating the details of this, and all of this could change and there's some concern is this the right place for a parking garage and the parking garage move. How do we manage that in their proposal, they are actually proposing that they should build the parking garage. They would like to guarantee revenue in that parking garage by leasing back spots for some of their apartments, but they would like to turn the parking garage and its management over to the city for ownership. We asked what about putting some offices in there, and they said yeah if you want to put us to put offices as part of it so we're picturing maybe the parking office might want to have their offices directly in the parking garage. We talked with the parking director. They are comfortable with running a parking garage. I mean, they don't have the staff now, but by the time it is built, that is something that they could do. And there would be guaranteed revenue because the buildings would lease some of the spaces back. and then some of the spaces would be available as public parking, as well as I mentioned earlier, that open lot closest to the river, at least for now, would remain open parking. Some people have said to me, could it later be developed? Yes, we would still have that. It would still be. But it would take that 18-month permitting process for Chapter 91 in order to build something on that back space. So that's part of the, all of this could move a lot faster if we leave that as the open space back there, or the open parking. So we do need to go through detailed negotiations on exactly what we would have. So the next steps, well, we have formally notified the designated development team. We decided that they shouldn't hear from the press. They should get phone calls from us. So actually, both teams have heard from us. We will need to declare the property surplus to municipal requirements in order to actually sign a lease. That's a formal designation. We'll negotiate the development program, negotiate the terms of the lease, and then the lease needs to come back to you for approval, and then we would execute that. And that is the last slide. Questions.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Director Hunt. Do we have questions or comments from members of the Council? Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. I appreciate the hard work and I know this is a long time coming but I think that I have just a few questions as we go through the process and I know this is so important because this is one bite at the apple and I'm so glad that we're doing it. So, so kudos to taking the bite, we should think it's very important but I, you know, I know that there was there was questions that we looked into the drip different talking about those discussions and maybe looking into traffic flow with the rest of the square and how that would impact. You know this this development we if we talked about is ring road still available because I'm sure in your field you realize that it's a laughingstock across the Commonwealth that. The joke is, what is the only city that has an access road that leads away from the center of your town? And I think that that's what we're doing. So I'd like, you know, it'd be something nice to use the water and develop that area. Have we, you know, the other questions I would have is if we talk to... I'm gonna forget all your... Yeah, no, no, I appreciate it. You know that looking at the... We met with the other owners of the other buildings in Medford Square and worked with them about maybe finding a way to look at the totality of the square and working Riverside Mall and using and talking and working their vision to try to you know, uplift the rest of that area and try to truly make it a truly redeveloped area. The other question is probably the biggest one and you said you, you talked a little bit about it because you, you know, you're going to get the biggest complaints and concerns and issues from our seniors right now. I think that the biggest fear right now is the parking. I don't think the parking is enough that's there. I know that we've had in different municipalities that I've been involved in We've worked on some creative ways and maybe possibly talking about meeting with the seniors and implementing a plan that makes sure that maybe setting up a shuttle service from even though it's just right down the street, it's a huge difference when you're a senior citizen and you're disabled in any way to try to make it from right across the street to behind the hotel. Maybe I think and I think that'd be important is really reaching out because I've been contacted by a bunch of the seniors from the senior center and they're in an uproar and you know, they, you know, they have we talked about for instance, one young lady came tonight and asked, have we talked about maybe making sure that the parking goes up first. yeah sorry yeah talking about the parking first so and I'm glad to see that we're being creative with the parking garage something that we talked about in the past if this is something that's willing to do how about have we entertained possibly doing a bubble on the top floor of the parking garage where it's a recreational space to bring in more revenue both as a recreational space and and a revenue generating source, if we're given the freedom to do that. So, you know, on the highway side, I wouldn't mind going up an extra story to put something like that in for the fact that it's creating revenue, it's creating a recreational space for our youth, especially, and a vital space that we know that we need here. So, I mean, these are some questions I think that, you know, You know, everybody who looks at me like I'm going to be the negative person and I'm going to talk negative about everything I think we need to move. And this is a good step, but I think that being cautious that this is one bite of the apple and making sure that we've exhausted everything possible and the community is really part of it. I know I've said that from the beginning of the rezoning you know that. And I think that being more proactive, especially with the seniors and getting your butt kicked a little bit, it's part of the job we all know that, but really making our senior citizens feel like they're part of this process, not alienating because the room is, again, keeps coming to Council Scarpelli, the rumors that I'm hearing what people think that there's rumors out there saying that maybe possibly we're going to lose the senior center completely, which is a farce, but it's something that I think having the meeting there and bringing it to that backyard and trying to find avenues to just to calm everybody down and say listen we're thinking of you these are options and our number one priority should be our seniors in their, their safety in their comfort in their, you know, state of mind. So, I know that's a lot, but I appreciate it's the first time I could speak on it so I'm really excited about, you know, the designs I was. I was I was fortunate enough to have said it 1000 times that when may occur to Tony back in 2008 started this little little project that he brought me to this little despicable piece of land and he opened up a trailer and showed this amazing plan that went from one end to the other and that's still growing. So, and I think that's why I bring up the fact that I'd love to see what what options are moving throughout the whole square. So thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Just if I could really quickly to Councilor Scarpelli's point, something that, you know, having talked in the council in general and looked at the plans and worked with the team, in the RFP before we got proposals to the request for proposals, we did include some additional language around the city owned parking lots behind the strip along Riverside Avenue and also the City Hall property itself to see if maybe we could encourage some potential expansion and renovation of this building. And we spoke with Atrius Health to see if we could leverage the parking garage. And we spoke with Hamilton, well, not me, but you spoke with Hamilton companies about all of the property that they own on Riverside. So those were included in the process. And I think, at least for me, as I continue to participate in the process, going back at bites at those apples and really trying to see if we can get them on board is going to be a priority for me. And Davis had also done some preliminary designs on potentially some upgrades to this building, which I think would be really great that maybe we could try to incorporate as well. So I just wanted to put all of that out there that those were some things that I raised as part of the process that are still going to be a priority for me. But thank you for giving me time and Director Hunt, I'll turn it over to you.

[Alicia Hunt]: respond to some of those. So I'll just build on that quickly. So we have been talking, as President Zack Baer says, to a number of the property owners in the area. I will tell you that I met with the owner of the Hamilton Company as recently as late last week. Theirs is the building that has Ebisuya that people know about, that it does look like it needs to come down. Um, and in fact, I have asked him to please have his his architect contact me as soon as he has somebody on board because they should not be designing to the zoning that exists. But actually, we would like to work directly with their architect on what they're thinking. He is open to redoing the entire stretch. He actually owns the entire set of buildings facing the river. I don't know how to describe it off the top of my head but from here from the parking lot, the building that exists the health building, all the way down, not the bank building so short of the bank building so all of that, being able to work with them would really open up some opportunities we have a river street that would be great if it went all the way through his building to river street. And that's one of the things we want to talk to him about is how could we leverage some of the city parking, some of the city spaces, to open that back up, getting access to having River Street going straight through to the river, to the ring road, as you name it, the Clippership Drive, as people know it now, would really help us facilitate changing the directions of the roads. We asked the developers if they had thought about that, and they kind of said yes, but things were a little too rushed for them, even though they had three months to respond, to really dig into that and they're open to it, we still want to discuss it. There are a couple of very creative solutions. I don't know if it's easier for me to point to the map, but one of the things that we have thought about is could you actually redirect the main flow of traffic instead of sweeping around and coming between that building and the senior center to actually cut and come up to this street here that is between City Hall and the medical building, have that be the main route. And then the area that's between this new building and the senior center, have that be emergency access only. Maybe it's just a bus lane and emergency access. And so that the seniors would have the open parking there behind the buildings by the river. And then it would just be an open, more of a bus lane that they're crossing and not a road. that they're crossing to get over to the senior center. That would change up a lot of the traffic flows. That would also allow us to make this area over here between this building and the new garage more of a plaza area. We have to look at exactly how the traffic would flow, but we'd like to be creative with this and think outside of the box. It is we do understand now that one way streets can be a real killer for for economic development for business districts. And so this may be the time to change the traffic flows of these streets. I do think that working with the Hamilton company is going to be necessary to part of that. So all of that to be said is absolutely part of this discussion and negotiation that we're still having. We did hire a consultant to do a first look past design for the water area. And that's part of what ended up with this pop-up park, because one of the things that really became aware is that anything permanent we wanted to do between Clippership and the water was gonna have to go through a chapter 91 process. Bill putting in benches or a water a dock, putting in a seating wall and stuff. And that meant none of that was going to happen in a short time frame, anything we were going to go over to over there was going to take a long time. So we would like to do that and we do have some draft ideas that we've put together we've put out to the public a couple of times some ideas. The other thing is that we did this diff that which takes any a portion of the tap the new revenue taxes that would come from anywhere in the square into a special account to feed back into the square, so that could help pay for some of the permitting that would be needed for the, the park area. for some of the things like a new dock that we could capture some of that money there. So that's some of the, and that's part of what is absolutely can be, is under discussion and we'll need to be discussing with them. We did think, we did ask about like space around a garage. I like the idea of a space on top for recreation. We had talked about how could we build a gym in basically what we need to do is how do we get enough community benefit out of this to make this amazing for the city without killing the project, right? What is their pain point where they say we can't do this anymore? So that's where we are looking at this. We had thought about could we put recreation offices over there? Could we put a gym? Like how does this look? And I think these are all the kinds of things that we want to be talking about with them. Um, and I think I'll just wrap it up by saying that both developers when we met with them felt very strongly that us doing this project is going to be transformational between this and the rezoning of Medford square which is now being moving its way through the process, that will absolutely open up and get developers interested in this. I've had other property owners, smaller buildings, approach me and say, but what do we do if we have no parking? And so that's part of what we need to figure out. The Hamilton space is frankly big enough that they can be doing real parking for their spaces and they can be putting residential and stuff in there. So how do we make this work and how do we make that building face the river and have plazas? You can have outdoor dining facing the river and not facing Riverside Ave. Absolutely. It's a separate project, but it is very much on our radar and something that we're looking to work with. We've also, the Hamilton company has indicated that Potentially, if there were other developers interested in partnering with them, they're not closed to that idea. They were not ready to make any kind of agreement in the short window that had from when we released the RFP to when the RFP had to be closed. But they're not closed to that idea. So in fact, they had a development partner who was closed to that idea, and they bought them out. Anything else?

[George Scarpelli]: Thank you. This is a great question. One thing that as we talked about, you know, mainstays and the, you know, the, uh, you know, the, um, gateways, uh, is the money been exhausted? I know there was money years ago for the parking garage that failed behind Colleen's. Cause I think that that might be having two types of two types of anchor parking. I mean, we would hate, honestly, to waste spot, people tell you in your field, you know that putting a parking garage is frowned upon because it's valuable space in a sense, but where we already have parking

[Alicia Hunt]: have we there's been any discussion again to rebuild that parking garage behind Colleen's so there was a grant I'm gonna say it was roughly 2010 I do have files on it but the city the council at the time which none of these members including yourself were on the council at the time voted not to accept that grant so that would have to be plus it was 15 years ago So it would have to be sort of re approached a project like that. It is an interesting question whether they're behind the Colleen's is the right location for a second parking garage, or whether this would be sufficient for all of it. It's certainly something I think that if we move this project forward. because it's ready and built this garage and said, we have parking pressure on the square and we could have more development if there was more parking. That's the kind of thing that you go back to mass development and you say, we need more city infrastructure in order to unlock more development in the city. And that's, we would go back to them for it. I think my instinct and Claire's not here, right? If we, She might be online, but she had tried to make it to here this evening. If we were to ask them for that money right now, they would say, do you have a parking study? Can you approve it? Do this project first? Like, what's, you know, where is that? That doesn't mean that we wouldn't ask Mass Development for money. I will just sort of jump in there with, you can get Mass Development for infrastructure needs in order to unlock development potential. and that is part of where that RFP support came from. We have checked with our water and sewer, Tim McGivern was on this committee, and there is no concern about the city infrastructure that we own around water supply, sewer, et cetera, storm drains, being able to handle this. I know some people have sort of asked, but we are confident on that in this location. And if we were looking for money, it would be around redoing the streets and the layout of the streets lights and stuff like that.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I'll go to Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. This is a very exciting project. I'm really quite happy to see these plans coming together after so many years of work. Just a few comments and then a couple of questions. I know that in one of the master plans, there really was an analysis of Medford Square and the very specific types of businesses that we have there and the difference between the types of businesses that we have and the types of businesses that create a really walkable, safe, a kind of vibrant square that I think everyone here talks about and wishes for. And many people even look back to 30, 40 years ago with warmth about how it used to be more that way when there were bookstores and other places that people frequented. So I say that because I'm very excited about the grocery store coming in. I'm also very excited to see a coffee shop coming in. And, and I really also do appreciate all the work that you do in talking specifically to developers. I recently got, you know, an email from a resident, asking if they can if we can stop a bank from coming into Medford Square. Because they they're like we can't have more banks and insurance companies and places where you don't you know need to go or enjoy to go. And please, I hope no one is offended by my mention of those two specifically but I think there are there are many in Medford Square that are. not the types that were identified in that master plan as being ones that are going to create the vibrancy we want. So I do appreciate all of the work that you are doing too, because we cannot simply dictate as a city council what people rent to and what businesses come in, but we can talk to developers and try to encourage them to bring certain types of businesses in. So I appreciate all your work there. I did want to mention also that I think one of the benefits, and I think this came up in a conversation that we had about this particular project, one of the benefits of having a garage that is not underneath the residential units, that is actually a small bit away and maybe you have to cross the street, is that I certainly hope that the residents who move in will hesitate to jump in their cars just a little bit more and be more likely to walk to walk into Medford Square, we're talking, you know, obviously, those who are young and able to do that, but hoping that people that this creates naturally just a little bit more of a walkable square. and lowers our need for like people get very concerned about the traffic that's caused by new development and new residents moving in and new housing. And I hope that that will be a little bit ameliorated by the fact that the garage is not underneath the building of the residence. So I really appreciate that as a very thoughtful way to approach some of these things. I had a couple of questions. One is about the parking. And I do understand that there are a lot of some of the seniors who are concerned that the senior center parking will not be as large. And I'm curious if any of the parking will be designated for seniors or how many of those spots will be designated as handicapped spots. That might also help for those seniors who really do need to have a spot that is very, very close to the senior center. If we have a larger number of handicapped spots because it is directly across the street from the senior center. So I wanted to ask about that. And then this is more my curiosity about your opinion based upon a lot of the zoning that we have done. But my second question is really about step a step back. So looking at the sort of envisioning diagram that they, the picture that they painted of what it might look like when standing in the memorial garden, that it does create a little bit of a sort of a corridor, like one of these wind tunnels of height. And I was curious, because in my mind, the step backs where you start off like coming up from the sidewalk, but then the top couple of floors are actually backed away, that that might help to reduce a little bit of that feeling. And I was curious about what your thoughts were about that.

[Alicia Hunt]: So I will say it's sort of the detailed exactly how many spots are here and there and how many are handicapped. I really feel that that is part of the detailed negotiation that we start to look at as we get further into it. It would certainly be some part of the site plan review and is something that we'll be looking at and considering. But I certainly couldn't like, oh, this is how nothing is set in stone at this point, but this is where we're looking at it. For the step backs, it is true that when you put those are more expensive to build than building straight up. Just in the details of building the building so developers never propose those to begin with, that is the kind of thing that we start looking at shadows and we asked them about and look and feel, and that's the kind of thing that you push into, and it's the kind of thing that we really will need to think about. where do we want to push them for community benefits? Is a little bit larger parking garage with a few more spots, is that more important? Or is it the step back? You know, like, is it another affordable unit? Like, where do we like all of these things have costs? Can we get recreational space out of it as well, which is honestly is something that has been on our minds and something that we have been floating around. So it is something that we'll be talking about, we'll be looking at as the details of this. We'll have a lot more say in this than we would in a building that is 100% privately proposed and developed. So those are the types of things that we will be looking at. I think that I hit the things you'd asked about. So, yes. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any other comments or questions from members of the council? I just wanted to note along those points, too, that I think the flip side of some of this is How much bigger do certain elements of the project get to allow for more community benefits? And also, what is the financing capacity of the entity that we're working with? And so those are two of the other things that we're working through.

[Alicia Hunt]: I will add that we are interested in seeing if we can do more housing and so more units. Some of the stuff that plays into this, and I've seen floated around, And I'm afraid that I'm going to get the numbers wrong off the top of my head. But there's a certain. So if you go over five stories. Now you're getting into steel construction. And so you can do two stories of concrete, which may be like your parking garage, and then five stories of wood. And if you go bigger than that, you're in steel construction, it has a completely different costs. So one of the things that I have been generally hearing is why aren't we going taller? And I will tell you that we were very clear with the developers that all the guardrails were off. They should not be looking at our zoning, that they should be proposing what they really think they can do here. And as you go more units, you kind of do need some more parking. It is unreasonable to think that people will live immediately next to an entrance to 93 and not own a car even if what they use that car for is for weekend travels, right? So there is some of that. We'll ask for zip car spaces and things like that and Uber lift drop-off spaces as well. But it is actually true that they don't wanna go too tall because then they hit other things with the building code and it suddenly becomes a lot more expensive. And we hear you about the banks and can I say something about the spot that's back up the loop? So there was a bank coming to Medford Square and the real estate agents are now looking for a new tenant for that space. So yay. And yes, it's the vault is back on the market. And so the real estate agents do know that we would strongly prefer some other kind of business in that space.

[Zac Bears]: A restaurant. A restaurant. A fully functioning restaurant.

[Alicia Hunt]: with a bar that is open after the Chevalier ends, you know, we all want to stop out for a drink afterwards. So we're hoping and we try, but you're right, we cannot prevent them from coming. But we try to push for them.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's the five over two and even Davis, they proposed three, five over twos, but didn't go above that, even though Hyatt Place is obviously taller and the Medford Housing Authority buildings are obviously taller. And even the zoning we are gonna pass is gonna allow more in those spaces or zoning that's been proposed is allowing that. So, yeah, it's a tough, tough one. Councilor Lazzarodo and Councilor Tseng.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Councilor. Um Councilor Tseng has okay. I just wanted to note that sometimes when, um. Our residency are zoning proposals where there are allowable taller buildings. Um it gets a little concerning for residents because they say, Well, that's going to be so many big tall Um, something is allowable and it doesn't immediately happen. So just it's it's expensive to build. I mean, it's It would be really hard to make something like that happen. So this is a great case in point. Um, and I just got an email from somebody who had found out that there was a bank going in where the vault used to be and asking if I could do anything to stop that. And I asked her if I could call her because I wanted to explain the reasoning that I've heard from business owners about why banks are a great thing to have as a tenant. clean. They pay their rent. They're really consistent. They're never bad tenants. And it's not up to us to say no. to an owner of a space. But of course we listen to our residents and we live here too. And we know what it's like to live in a neighborhood that is adjacent to a business district that is full of banks. We do. We all need banks for a variety of things, but we don't we don't need that many of them. That being said, thank you for your work on this. I think it's a lovely proposal. And I do appreciate that it's still a moving picture to some degree. So thanks. And I would, has anybody, motion to approve? Oh, okay. I guess I would do that. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: never a bad tenant until they need a bailout.

[Justin Tseng]: Councilor Tseng. Thank you. I know you all have been working really, really hard on this. I've been hearing updates here and there, and every time I hear an update, it's even more exciting. And I've just gotten so many positive comments about this happening in the city, and people are really excited. I mean, even if people have questions about parts of it, I think overall, there's just this enthusiasm. I think I want to remind everyone, I mentioned this a few meetings ago, but the first time it was knocking on doors, Medford Square came up alive. And I think at the time people asked us, or asked me at least, when are we going to stop planning and when are we going to start doing? And I think this is us doing, and I'm really, really excited about that. And I think a key point is, I think with any big redevelopment project like this, you're never going to get 100% of what everyone envisions Medford Square to be, because we all have different visions and different needs and priorities too. But I actually think that the transit proposal reaches really high marks on what people who have very different lived experiences are asking of Medford Square. I think that's really impressive. You know, I think you've addressed a lot of what I've heard most tonight. I think I'm hearing a lot from seniors about parking, hearing, and I'm glad to hear that, you know, we're getting that parking lot and that it's not just gonna be any parking lot, that it'll be a parking lot that the city has some say over, that they'll be public art integrated to. Vic Schrader joked to me, because there are residents who are concerned about increasing parking too. And Big Freighter joked to me that with Alicia Hunt leading the charge, we're going to get the most environmentally friendly, most artistic, beautiful parking lot we can get.

[Unidentified]: I never heard that.

[Justin Tseng]: And if the renderings are anything to go by, I think we're definitely heading in that direction. So I am grateful for that. very funny comment from him. With the riverside, I think that's the riverfront opening up that capacity. I think that's something I hear just as much, to be honest. I know it's really important to let folks at home know that, you know, the City of Medford is not in itself a private property developer, so we can't build the buildings the way that we want to see it, but we can work with developers and work with property owners to nudge them in the direction that we want to see, to work with them to make sure that, you know, their vision is aligning with what our vision is. And I'm grateful that you guys are doing so much of that hard work reaching out to, I guess, to that point. I think it was really important for residents to hear tonight that we are working really hard to try to reorient the square towards our natural features, towards our strengths. I think it's also important to hear the timelines and the permitting processes that go behind a lot of these. It sounds like most of these permitting steps are state law requirements. Is there anything besides what's in the current zoning update on our front that is adding to that timeline delay?

[Alicia Hunt]: So it's my hope that will, as we finalize the zoning for this that this will be coming as a right building, so there won't be any need to go to zoning board, because of the size of it it will need to go to site plan review. It is my hope that we will negotiate this so Danielle Evans and I the senior planner. We advise the Community Development Board. We understand what they're looking for in projects. It is our goal that this project will be legally advertised as site plan review. We'll go in front of them. They will look at it. It will not be the first time they've ever seen it because it'll be all over public meetings and the press, and they'll say, right, this is perfect. We're good with this. Let's go. keep going. We have had projects in and out in one meeting. When the developer is good, when the architects are good, I'll tell you Herb Chambers was in and out in one meeting because their stuff, they knew what we were looking for and they provided it up and we were done. It's only when it takes many, many iterations, the site plan review could drag out for months. It's usually not because we're dragging it out. So I don't see any. We are keeping this as of a scale. It's not on state roads that require MEPA permits. So we do think this will be able to move quickly. And actually, Chapter 91 is one of the reasons why Clipper Ship Connector took so long. And we have a couple other shared use paths projects that we're doing with that DOT that have been hung up in state permitting projects along the river. that's really get bogged down by state permits. So, and ones on state roads. So we're hoping, I don't see any reasons why this should get bogged down other than now us negotiating the terms of this lease and the details of this project. So they asked if we could meet next week. Do we have a meeting next week, this week? We're setting it. Yeah, we were talking to them so sell our economic development director has been talking to them trying to get a meeting set up within the next week to get this this ball rolling.

[Justin Tseng]: I'm glad to hear that I think it's really important that folks at home know that, at least on our side, we are really coordinating all our efforts, the zoning effort. the Medford square projects to make sure that things can happen as quickly as possible on our side, and you know the state permits that's that's a whole other world chapter 91 that's a whole other world. I think you've also addressed. I've also been hearing quite a lot about banks and, you know, businesses that, at least in our last report were like labeled as, you know, we have a lot of these, we don't need that many more, you know. I think a question that residents have brought up. is that instead of why why why not instead of banning it outright because we know we still want these businesses here. Why shouldn't be in zoning put something like a special special permit process for businesses that we see a lot of and.

[Alicia Hunt]: I think this is a great with a lot of folks watching at home this might be a forum for you to address that question right and so some of that is what you're allowed to do and not allowed to do so a special permit can't be completely arbitrary around like oh we have too many now you can't be the 10th one but you could have been the fifth one right you can't quite use it for that you could use it to say well you know small is okay, bigger is not, or we want them on the side streets, not the main. They're more used for uses where they could be difficult on the neighbors. The problem is banks are boring, if I might, but they're not, like we were saying, actually bad neighbors. The bad part is that it's dark in the evening and it's not good for economic development. But they're not loud and rowdy and they don't stink and you know like they're not that kind of a problem neighbor. And there are such things as banking deserts, there are places where people can't get easily to a bank. I think we don't see it as much now that so much is online. But the reality is that people who need to walk to a bank need to walk to a bank or like to walk to a bank. you don't wanna accidentally then create a banking desert. I think that if we said like, we don't allow banks in our business districts, some bank is gonna come along and try to take us to court over that. Like it just feels like an overreach. So our goal is to, we do recruit, Sal actively recruits businesses, we meet with businesses. I will tell you that we do not have trouble with businesses not wanting to come to Medford, either Medford Square or any of the other districts. I don't remember which meeting I said this in recently, or Sal said it. There are a couple of spaces where we have very long-term empty spaces, and those spaces are not empty because nobody wants to rent them. They're empty because what the landlords are asking is too much, or they're not responsive. And we have tried to get in touch with these landlords and try and work with them, and they don't want to hear from us. But we have businesses that absolutely want to move into West Medford and Medford Square to all over Medford. We don't have trouble with that piece of it. We've actually been working with some real estate agents. And so we encourage you, if you know businesses that want to come to Medford, to talk to Sal, because also what we have been doing is we are sometimes aware of businesses that might be willing to lease their space or might be willing to move or downsize and let someone else come in there, and they're not actively on the market. And so sometimes we're able to make some of those pairings up as well. So that's really exciting. Like you might have noticed the new pinball parlor in Medford Square, that space they're in, that was not on the market. That was the landlord deciding that he wanted to bring that business in and let deep cuts expand like that. So we are also aware of some of these opportunities that we'll try and bring businesses in and do some matchmaking. And we have staff to do it now.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you so much. I think, again, if there's anything that we can help with, you know, this, for at least the City Council, I know the City Council is very supportive and, you know, we'll have questions.

[Alicia Hunt]: I should have asked for the surplus vote tonight. We're in such a good mood.

[Justin Tseng]: Look, I mean, I think any time that we can get together and talk about these issues, I know residents really do appreciate it. You know, even if we're asking questions that are just clarifying points that we know a little bit about, I think it becomes a great moment for our city to get that information.

[Alicia Hunt]: Great. And we have our office, people don't have to speak to me directly, call our main line talk to our staff, several more of the staff are here to talk to you this evening on other topics. So I don't want to belabor this too much, but we also particularly have a new economic development planner. who is part of her role is going to be helping small businesses. So if small businesses aren't sure how to navigate City Hall, that's part of what she's going to do is help them with the figure out this process as well. And I'll just also let you all know that we hired a new housing planner who started this week as well. Last week, last week was her first week. So Medford resident, very exciting.

[Justin Tseng]: Awesome. Thank you so much.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you all. Yeah. And I think, you know, we're gonna try to go as big as we can and make sure that whatever we do either enables some of the longer term things that we talked about, or at least doesn't block them and sets us up for those future discussions so I'm really looking forward to continuing to work on that with you guys. We'll have another update for the council, hopefully, you know, next few months.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you very much.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And there's a motion from councils are to receive and place on file seconded by seconded by Councilor Callahan. Do we have any further discussion by members of the council or members of the public, either in person or raise your hand on zoom. If one person on zoom. Marine, name and address for the record, please. You have three minutes.

[Marie Izzo]: Hi, it's Marie Izzo, Pilgrim Road, Medford Mass. I'm wondering if it, is it too early for me to ask about what level of affordability will be available for renters? And these are all rentals, correct?

[Zac Bears]: The units are all rentals and the proposal was 20% of the units affordable at 80% AMI, but that's not the final answer. And there's either potential for more units, you know, if it's a bigger project, maybe more units at that level, or maybe a change in the distribution of the affordability requirements. I don't know if you have anything more on that, Director Hunt. Great. Nope, we're good. Any more questions, Marie, on that?

[Marie Izzo]: Well, just, I mean, if you could clarify exactly what is 80% of AMI for rental, so that people have an idea of what a rent would be like as an affordable rent, because I don't think we know that as a public.

[Zac Bears]: Absolutely. So sorry to use that term. 80% of the area median income, and that changes depending on the household size and it looks like Director Hunt. And it also changes every year. But Director Hunt has the income and then just before you read the income I believe it's the way it works is it's, it can be a maximum of 30% of your income but I'll just let you.

[Alicia Hunt]: To be clear, when we talk about affordable units, we're not talking about naturally occurring affordable, like they're not just cheap, but they're actually deed restricted, which means that they get, and the city asks for them to be eligible for the state housing inventory of deed restricted affordable units. And so along with that they will be lotteried out. We, as part of the lottery. You have to be income qualified. We have the ability to ask for a certain amount of those to be designated for Medford residents first. And the state has to approve the amount that we want to be, if we want any of it to be special for Medford residents, the state has to approve that. We have been successfully justifying and getting approved for the last at least five years, but possibly 10 years, 70% of the spaces to be for Medford residents first, as opposed to a fully public lottery. So we will be pursuing that as well. And then a deed-restricted affordable unit, you do have to prove your income qualifications, you have to, it also looks at your assets. The 2025, so 80%, so this is also by region, and sorry, I thought I had up, we're in the area called the Quincy area, right? Yep, let me just check. So in Middlesex County right now the 80% limit this year if you're a household of one is $92,000. If you're a household of four it's $132,300 is what 80% of area median income is. So the idea is that if 100% of median income would be the median income in the area, and this is 80% of that. So you could then go down, 50% would be people who have lower incomes, 30% would be very low income. So those numbers are not very low in our area.

[Marie Izzo]: So we're not really addressing the issue of what people can actually afford based on income in Medford, is that correct?

[Alicia Hunt]: That does come into it that you actually have to be in an income band, because if you make too little, then you can't afford your share unless you have a Section 8 voucher. So Section 8 vouchers will allow you to then, they will subsidize you up to market rate, whereas if you just are an affordable unit, then you must make enough money such that the rent is not more than 30% of your income. And I will tell you that Medford then monitors all of these. We spot check all the affordable units every year. It's part of the housing planner's job. And if those buildings that have affordable units want to raise the rent on the affordable units, then we actually have to approve those rent raises. We can't unreasonably deny rent raises. But we also will review them and make sure that they're reasonable so people aren't getting hit with really large rental raises. I'm gonna look back and say, did I get that good enough? Okay. Teresa was doing the rental verifications for us for a while, so.

[Zac Bears]: I think, Marie, to your larger question, like the question of, you know, what is something that a person can afford to rent is part of the discussion of like, well, 80% of AMI is very high. Should we look at 50% of AMI or 30% of AMI and that would pretty significantly reduce the deed restricted rent amounts? The problem is that it also reduces the revenue and that reduces the ability to finance the project. And because of how you know we're doing this, we're getting public benefits because we're leasing the land. And that is a portion of the cost, but a huge portion of the cost of housing is the construction cost and the state does not Certainly, the federal government and state government do not provide money for us to do that. They also don't allow cities to, for example, take out bonds to fund the construction of housing. And that could, you know, that maybe could be a choice that the city could say, if that was an option afforded to us, we could maybe try to be a part of financing this project, but the state doesn't allow us to do that. So we're kind of, you know, reliant, again, around financing issues here.

[Marie Izzo]: But if it is leased as opposed to having to purchase the land, I would assume that the developer will be making plenty of money to be able to then, you know, give people the opportunity. You know, we have like no workforce housing, which is what we need the most. And we don't seem to be addressing that at all. And again, this is a lease, this is not a purchase. So I just don't understand why we can't, you know, go in sort of at a more deeper level and really address the needs of the community.

[Zac Bears]: It's definitely going to be part of the conversation. The lease payment, I think, proposed by Transom is about a million dollars a year.

[Marie Izzo]: Which is nothing compared to the cost of land to anyone else other than a developer like this. So that's a concern for me.

[Zac Bears]: I mean, I think we'll have to look at the I mean, we could there's a financial proposal as part of the request for proposal. We're not doing this to give the developer a windfall like that's not the intent of this. But the purchase cost of the land versus the least cost of the land versus like as a proportion of the cost of the project is smaller than you would think the land is not like half the cost of the project. the construction costs are the vast majority of the costs, at least from the financial point of view.

[Marie Izzo]: No, no, I totally understand that. I totally understand that. But private people are spending much more than this developer is for that level of land with the number of units that they're going to be able to construct there. And I would assume this is all luxury housing, except for what we're calling affordable, which isn't affordable at all for Medford folk, anyway, from what I gather.

[Zac Bears]: It is 25%, you know, it's 20% affordable. It's 25% more affordable units that are required by the inclusionary zoning. We've been going back and forth.

[Marie Izzo]: No, I understand. I'm just speaking to the actual income of one person making almost $100,000 and, you know, getting that benefit to be, you know, and people that are making $50,000, which are the people in this city. I know it's not being able to afford to live here, which is the big issue that we have in this city. It's not about whether or not we're going to be able to build anything or not. It's more like we can't afford to keep our children, you know, house here one way or the other, you know, whether it's to be able to to buy or to be able to rent. you know, so they're having to go elsewhere. And I think that's key regardless of sort of what, you know, the goals are related to, you know, the developers. And that's a big concern.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I just, I do want to let some other people go, Marie, and I'm always happy to, I'm always happy to talk about it more. And I think just the thing I would say is the affordable housing piece was a big component of the proposal. It's going to be a big proponent, like component of, the negotiation, and we're gonna do our best as part of the... I hear you.

[Marie Izzo]: I just don't think it's efficient. That's all. That's all I... I hear you. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm gonna go to Paul Garrity. Paul, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes.

[Paul Garrity]: Good evening. My name is I live in 40 Cedar Road in Bedford. And I kind of want to continue Ms. Izzo's statements there. My question is, is that, does the project have a specific revenue plan? And I think it ties into the previous question. Say, what kind of money do we need to support the objective? The objective is to increase affordable housing. You know, what is the revenue stream that we're going to be working with over the life of the lease? And my question is, is that, can someone talk a little bit more about what is the revenue plan or what will be the revenue plan for this project going forward? Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I can go to a director, but there is a financing plan. That's part of the proposal. It outlines in pretty significant detail what the proponent expects to receive in rents, both from the affordable units and the non-affordable units, the market rate units, how those are coming in over time. There is a, and it goes out at least 30 years, I think longer than that. I don't know if you wanna talk a little bit more about the specific financial proposal.

[Alicia Hunt]: I did not prepare stuff on it, and I don't want to misspeak on it. We did have FXM associates review their financial proposal and their financing to make sure that they agreed that this was sufficient, that they were going to recoup enough profit in order to put back into this to maintain these buildings. To be clear, it's not the city's financing plan. We are not getting the income to build affordable housing. the developer is gonna be building and managing the housing on this. There will be linkage payments to the city as part of this, there will be building permit fees, and there will be taxes, new growth in addition to annual lease payments to the city.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I mean, I think the easiest answer to the question on the financing plan is if the developer can, I mean, subject to having the equity and the banks, you know, the financing to do it, if the developer can build more market rate units and they can provide more public benefits, whether that's more affordable units or other public benefits or affordable units at a deeper level of affordability. But that's kind of the, we're still in the really tough Catch-22 situation here where This is privately financed and it's privately financed by private finance institutions that are seeking a profit. It is not a publicly financed project. By leasing the land, we're getting some more public benefit because of how we're doing it and because we are a stakeholder. But it's different than, say, if we were having a nonprofit developer trying to help us finance this and having the money for it or especially if there was government financing available, public financing or funding available, that would be a completely different conversation. So it's essentially a version of what we do with our inclusionary zoning on private land, but just somewhat improved in a sense because it's also a lease of this public land. I don't know if you wanna add to that at all. Okay, Paul, I'm just gonna go to Josh a little.

[Paul Garrity]: Councilor, my question though is that, what I'm concerned is that if one of our goals is to increase affordable housing, is the final plan going to be such that it can reflect carrying those costs as well as the maintenance of the buildings and all the associated costs with taking care of them? I think my concern here is that if the major point here was to get affordable housing here, I think the revenue plan needs to deal with that directly as well as ancillary costs to maintain the buildings for the next number of years.

[Zac Bears]: And that's the developer's financing plan. So if they can have more affordable housing, you know, if they can get the equity to do that, then more affordable units or units at a deeper affordability or both would be on the table. I'm gonna go to Joshua. Joshua. Name and address for the record and you'll have three minutes.

[Kevin Harrington]: Oh God.

[Zac Bears]: Sorry about that everyone. Any further public comment? I'll go to direct to Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I really appreciate the constituent who is bringing up the specifics of the affordable housing. I just wanted to make a short comment, which is that if you actually run the numbers, I will say I was a little surprised that 80% of AMI is 92,000. That's higher than I thought. And if you run the numbers at 92,000, 30% of that per month is 2,300. And I assume that's one person, so it'd be a one bedroom. I'm making a guess because between 92 and 132K, which you said was one person and four person, 80% of AMI, making a guess for two people that it's around 108. I don't know if that's accurate, but something like that. that would that would be around like 2700 a month for a two bed. I'm just like actually running the numbers and these numbers don't, to me appear to be much different from market rate.

[Zac Bears]: They are significantly below market rate for new construction.

[Anna Callahan]: Well, hang on, hang on. So and I understand that you're saying market rate for new construction. So I just want us to be sensitive to the fact that if this is close to market rate for a lot of our existing housing, then calling this affordable when it's new construction, I just want us to be sensitive to this idea that

[Zac Bears]: I think a lot of people say affordable they say small a affordable. And this is big a affordable it's legally, the definition of subsidized housing inventory affordable.

[Anna Callahan]: Sure. And, and I think that is in fact what I'm bringing up which is, I think that people in the city want colloquially affordable housing, right? They don't want something that fits the legal definition of affordable housing. If it's not actually creating more housing in our city, that is gonna be affordable for people. I mean, even at 80% of AMI, let alone what the constituent was mentioning of people who aren't at 80% AMI. Like I hope that we can consider having some steps or something, that's all. And I know it's conversation, but I think actually looking at the numbers and being open with the public about what numbers we are looking at and whether we're creating lowercase a, colloquially understood to be affordable housing, I think is an important discussion.

[Alicia Hunt]: So part of it is there is a housing crisis. And this is exactly the definition. You'd be stunned at how expensive units are these days. But one of the theories is that when you build new housing, The people who are in the older housing and can afford the new housing will move into it, and that will free up spaces in the older housing for people. Now, the hope is that those don't then get snatched up and renovated and turned into expensive housing as well. It's one of the things that we're actually hoping to see with the tough storm, where that's gonna be moving approximately 650 juniors and seniors out of housing, mostly in Medford and Somerville, into there, and that's gonna free up run down cheap housing, because that's where the students are living these days. And we're hoping that this will become more available to residents who need lower cost housing, for example. But that's the idea, that you build new stuff, the people in the older buildings move into the new buildings, and then the older buildings are like, oh no, we have nobody to live here. And so then they keep the rents lower to bring people in. But because of the housing crisis, we are just seeing people are snatching up everything.

[Anna Callahan]: And I, and I don't disagree that like we also have a very specific issue in Medford which is we have a lot of older folks, we have the largest of my understanding from the Senior Center, and the Council on Aging is that we have the largest proportions or cohort of seniors that we have ever had. And a lot of them, especially I've talked to tons of them they live in. They live in a four or five bedroom home and they're by themselves or with two people and they don't actually even want that, but there's nowhere in Medford to go. So I appreciate that this will resolve that issue, but I think creating affordable housing is its own question, and that I would love for the City Council and the Planning Department and the Mayor and everyone to sort of grapple with in a real way, that I hope we aren't just creating more housing and hoping that that theoretically resolves a lot of our problems, but that we actually make some efforts to create affordable housing in the different variety of ways that it can be. And I don't necessarily mean create as in built. I just mean that, you know, whether that's the Royal Community Land Trust, whether that's the Affordable Housing Trust, whether, you know, there's many avenues, I think, doing our best to create housing that is lowercase a affordable is something that I hope we can

[Alicia Hunt]: And one of the things we asked for in this was we said we're looking for housing we're not looking, looking for luxury housing, looking for smaller units we're looking for things targeted at seniors and targeted at for example graduate students young professionals from tough. Tufts is going to start running a shuttle to Medford Square. I don't know if everybody heard that, but with the opening of the new dorm, they've committed to a shuttle to Medford Square. That is also something that would help young staff at Tufts be able to live here. And so we've asked them to think about more smaller units rather than fewer big luxury units, because that's what we need to see more of in the city. And we push that with developers fairly frequently.

[Zac Bears]: And we did solicit a lot of different bids, you know, if a nonprofit housing developer had bid on this would be in a different conversation probably because it's probably who he would have gone with.

[Alicia Hunt]: And they looked at it and they some of them did in fact attend the walkthrough, but they did not bid on it.

[Zac Bears]: And, you know, I mean, I think, right, you're, you're completely right. And Marie's completely right. And others are completely right that, like, the market has failed, and the government is not intervening in the failure of the market. And then the question is, do you do nothing and hope that a different government will set different rules? Like, how much do you want to try to wait out like the public housing renaissance and the social housing renaissance in this country? Or do you try to preserve as much existing naturally affordable housing as you can by at least trying to meet market demand. And I think we're in a, in a difficult situation with that so like I completely agree. And it's, as for me, many, you know, five years up here. really hard that these kinds of decisions are put on us at this level of government because the state and federal government are completely ignoring and absent and in some cases making the situation a lot worse. That's why I brought up like the if the state just allowed like us to use municipal bond rates that would open up some financing options here even if it wasn't like us actually paying back the bonds themselves just if the city could help finance it at those rates, right? Like that would be a game changer versus like these guys had to go out and find $200 million in financing at the current rates. So it's tough and it's hard. There's one more comment. Molly, could you start your video before I let you speak? All right, you seem to be a real person. You're upside down, but I trust you're not gonna zoom on me. Molly, name and address for the record, you have three minutes.

[Molly Dressel]: Hi, Molly Dressel, 20 Hancock Street. I'm sorry, can I turn my video off because I feel it's really distracting.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, you can now, yes, that was just a verification.

[Molly Dressel]: Okay, sorry about that. Yeah, I've been living here for seven years, and I've been a Local 7 union ironworker for six of those years. And I've never had a job opportunity in Medford. I've worked in the surrounding areas like Somerville High School, Union Square, Elwha Station, I think there's something coming up in Everett, and I know that in Medford we've done some steel building like the Great American Beer Hall and the Herb Chambers, but all has been non-union. I know Tufts University is, the carpenters are picketing out there right now and they're about to build all those dorms. And I know that's not out to bid yet, but I'm doubting that it's going to go union. So I guess I'm just here today to be a voice for the union members and advocate that these projects coming up prioritize union labor. I'm recognizing that it usually comes at a higher price, but the unions like Local 7 are ensuring that the workers have proper training and certifications. needed to do the work correctly. Construction work is a dangerous trade. The unions are fighting to secure fair wages for us and benefits without discrimination. So it's all about protecting the workers and ensuring their safety. This includes utilizing the proper safety techniques and complying with OSHA, thereby making a safer job site for the workers and also the surrounding community while the construction is taking place. I think rebuilding right around City Hall and using union labor would make a strong statement that Medford supports the unions and recognizes their importance, especially right now when work is really hard for us to come by. So I'm just here to say that we're here, we need the work, we need to provide for our families, we have the skill and the proper training to get things done safely and efficiently. And just a quick note on, I know that Alicia was saying a lot of the buildings are going to be wood and under five stories, but a lot of other places smaller are also going for steel now for a very good reason of the long-term benefits. It won't rot or warp like wood will. It can better withstand natural disasters. It's resistant to pests and the elements, especially being right by the water. And for longevity purposes, it could also provide the ability to expand in the long term, maybe if you want to add on more stories to the existing, to the new buildings that you're making. That's all I had. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Molly. And I know that's going to be an issue that we try to balance as well as part of the project. Do you have anything more you want to add on that, Director Hunt?

[Alicia Hunt]: I'd just say I appreciate the comment, and it's good to hear that. And we will take that into account and discuss with the developers.

[Zac Bears]: We would love some big, beautiful steel buildings. I can tell you that. Yes. All right, we had a motion to receive and place on file by Councilor Nazaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Can you share that with us?

[Zac Bears]: Thanks. I don't have it. If you can share it with me, if you share with the clerk, actually. Thank you.

[George Scarpelli]: It was very helpful to share with people.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. On the motion, Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Council Calling him. Vice President Collins. Yes. That's a little Zorro. That's a lemon is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng, President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. 60 affirmative one absent the motion passes 25078 amendments to the parking ordinance section 78 173. I don't know, Director Hunter you on any of this or. Okay, it's fine. So as a member of the traffic commission. Yeah, so we had a there was a committee of the whole meeting, the Chief of Staff talked about it. This is a proposal to repeal an ordinance section on municipal employee and municipal business parking because the Traffic Commission is now putting in regulations around municipal parking to address the parking shortage at City Hall and people parking at City Hall for non-municipal business. And the request is to repeal this ordinance so that there's no conflict between the Traffic Commission regulations and the city ordinance. Is there anything else you'd want to add on that, Alicia?

[Alicia Hunt]: If there are questions, I am familiar with this from traffic commission so I can answer it.

[Zac Bears]: And I know that chief, I think the chief of staff and the parking director talked about this with folks in committee the whole, I wasn't able to attend that meeting. It's my first miss this year, but I wasn't able to be there. Is there anything else that folks who were at that meeting want to add about the proposal or anything that I missed from the discussion at that meeting?

[George Scarpelli]: prison council. Yeah, that's the biggest thing people things when calls hang out was this means we're taking public parking wafer. We're not. No, so just so that's all this. It's pretty self explanatory.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, it's, it's actually in here pretty specifically about. The above changes allow the city to update the signage at City Hall and enforce parking restrictions. Currently, we have commuters who are parking in the lot and using the bus or walking over to Harvard Vanguard. So they're not using the Harvard Vanguard lot and they're not using the commuter lot. They're using City Hall and it's making it hard for employees and people who want to do business at City Hall to do business. Vice President Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you president bears I think all of the important points have been stated already but I was present at this meeting. Talked about it with Chief of Staff Nazarian and Director McDermott and they emphasized that this was really just a targeted change to make sure that visitors to City Hall and City Hall employees can access the parking that they need to go to City Hall and do business and go to their jobs. not intended to be punitive and the committee did ask for a guarantee that it wouldn't just be all of a sudden tickets are being issued there's going to be a substantial you know informational period and warning period and issuing warnings before they start doing enforcement related to fines so really not intended to be punitive just want to make sure that people who need to park at city hall are able to do so and the large amount of public parking that is next to that lot is still, for the moment, public parking. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve for first reading? On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve for first reading, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins? Yes. Councilor Lazzaro? Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes.

[Zac Bears]: President Paris? Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. 25079, appropriation of free cash for Carr Park. Let's take both of you, let's talk about it all at once, even though there's two papers for Carr Park. I'm guessing it's for the same reason. So we have an appropriation of free cash and a CPC appropriation for Carr Park. And then Teresa will just do the community garden piece when. Yeah. All right. So we have from the mayor, a request for 65,000 contingency funding fees to a car park renovation. And this is a funding match with the CPA is also a funding match so I'll go to a planner central.

[Amanda Centrella]: Hi, thank you so much for having me, Amanda central I work in the Office of planning development and sustainability for the city, and I work on parks projects, good to see you all. So, I think everyone here is very familiar with the car park project but if you want me to go into more detail just let me know. We are within phase two of the renovation, which is currently underway. We started construction in February and that work will continue until the end of this calendar year. Quick recap, it includes a lot of cool stuff, playground, dog park, two basketball courts, one is open air, one has a shade structure over top with solar panels, a skate park, a small splash pad, teen and fitness areas, more. What we're presenting tonight is a request for some contingency funding for the project. So contingency funding is really important. It allows for, as a project is underway, for the project team to make swift decisions about what to do when unforeseen issues arise or new conditions sort of present themselves. It's considered a best practice to have. And I took a look at other projects of comparable scales in the city that were actually performed by the same contractor that we've done. So, Gillis Field car park phase one and McGlynn playground. and took a look at how much contingency funding we used on each of those projects. It ranged a bit from like 2.3 to 4% of the total project budget. And so this appropriation ask is in combination with the CPA ask to follow, plus contingency funds that we've already dedicated to the project from linkage funding would amount to about 3.6% of the project budget. So kind of right within that range. The. Right now in the project, we're in the phase where we're underground, which in my experience is where you encounter kind of the most unknowns. You know, we have city records and things like that, but sometimes you really don't know what's there until you dig into it. Case in point, we found under our existing tennis and basketball courts, a set of full athletic courts from many years ago that we had to remove and demolish. buried underneath the ground. So, you know, you just run into some unknowns and having contingency funding is a surefire way to be able to address those needs in a timely way, and I keep mentioning timing because when construction is active. Timing is key. Sometimes delays of even a couple of days incur costs. And a lot of it, the sequencing of this project, we have, as I listed out, so many wonderful things going into a compact space. And so you have lots of different types of installments happening. And that means you're scheduling a lot of different types of Um, it work and cruise on the site. And when you have a delay on one thing, it kind of has this ripple effect of delaying everything else. So, um, I'll pause there and just see if folks have questions about the nature of the ask. Um, the free cash request is for $65,000 and the following CPA request is as a match of 65,000 for 130,000 total.

[Zac Bears]: Any questions from members of the council? I just have one. What was the contingency percentage? If we didn't, like, if we didn't approve this, what was the contingency?

[Amanda Centrella]: If we didn't approve this, we had, let's see, so we already dedicated 46,000 to the project, which we have essentially expended at this point.

[Zac Bears]: Okay.

[Amanda Centrella]: And it would be

[Zac Bears]: 0.09%. So a lot less than that 2.3 to 4, 2.6.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes, 2.3 to 4% is the range of just comparable projects.

[Zac Bears]: And if the contingency funds aren't used, then they go back to the source?

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes.

[Zac Bears]: And in this case, would they go evenly back to the source or have you talked about that?

[Theresa Dupont]: manager, Teresa Dupont. I also work here at City Hall, just for the record. But yes, we actually decided at the CPC that we encourage any sort of funding that's left over to be split evenly back. So if there's $100,000 left, which would be great, $50,000 would go back to free cash, $50,000 would go back to the CPA coffers.

[Zac Bears]: So don't dig up any more problems.

[Unidentified]: Right.

[Zac Bears]: All right. Any further questions from members of the Council? Seeing none, do we have any questions or comments from members of the public? Seeing no hands in person or on Zoom, is there a motion? On the motion to approve by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. It was a dead tie and I was looking at Councilor Lazzaro, which felt unfair. So motion to approve the free cash appropriation by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Councilor Lazzaro.

[Adam Hurtubise]: $65,000, yes?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan? Vice President Collins?

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Lazzaro? Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. 16 vote and one absent, the motion passes. And if you want to stick around for the next, you know, we'll happily entertain you.

[Theresa Dupont]: But so there was only one little thing in addition to the, there was a... In addition to the car park phase two and procedurally for the future, whenever we have two separate appropriations, would you like to see those as separate motions? Okay.

[SPEAKER_22]: Not when we're calling the roll, I'll tell you that.

[Theresa Dupont]: So we are here tonight. In addition to the $65,000 appropriation request for Carr Park, we're also here asking for appropriation the amount of $5,500 to go to the Medford Community Gardens. This is actually going to be for a project which is kind of new. We're very excited to see it. A pop-up community garden here in Medford Square. And I want to address that the garden itself, and actually, thank you, Teresa, I'm reminding myself that I have slides that I can share just to give some visuals. I'll be quick here. But it would actually be placed on one of the parcels that was being discussed earlier for redevelopment. So the nature of this project is temporary. Apologies here. share screen, sharing screen. There we go. We have a thousand windows open here, so let me just minimize real quick. Thank you. So the garden here would actually be placed on an empty parcel. I'm just gonna skip ahead in my slides here to show exactly the location here. It's the site of the former farmer's market for folks who've been here for more than 14 years or so. I myself haven't been. So it's located adjacent from the senior center. And as you can see here in the pictures, if you're facing it, City Hall's there in the back. So I'll back up here and just kind of give a quick overview of this. Again, temporary in nature, because we want to test out the need for this particular area of the community, as well as to, in the future, take it and test it out amongst other areas of neighborhoods here. It would be a total of 28 beds. Water sourcing, they're going to get creative with some rain barrels, as well as exploring some options from the DPW to provide a permanent water source there. Happy to go into more detail here, but we feel like this is a really prominent, highly visible location in the city to help promote and do some outreach for community gardens. So it's an educational, it's a vibrancy coming to the R Square here for short money. And we would ask for your support in this project.

[Zac Bears]: Also the site of the former carnival.

[Theresa Dupont]: Oh, how long ago was that?

[Zac Bears]: Too long. Councilor Callahan, and then we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve.

[Anna Callahan]: Councilor Callahan. Thank you. So, this $5,500, is this adding to a fund to make this happen, or is that the whole amount to make this happen?

[Theresa Dupont]: That's a great question. It is not the full funding amount for this project. The Garden Commission will be doing some fundraising. The committee, the Community Preservation Committee elected to fund the reusable portions of this project. There are costs associated with renting some fencing, some temporary fencing to secure the garden as well as loom and soil. The committee felt that that would not be an appropriate use of CPA funds to pay for those temporary nature things. So we are funding the infrastructure, if you will, and the gardens will be fundraising for the remaining. garden, soil, fencing. Anything else? That's it.

[SPEAKER_07]: I will say it does strike me that like this project is like $5,000 and replacing the HVAC system in the school is $25 million. I mean, I understand that these things are real, but like, wow.

[Theresa Dupont]: I haven't been long in the municipal arena and I feel that way every day. How much? Yes, we're happy that we can stretch our CPA dollars to fulfill this project.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and just to note, these were both unanimous votes of the CPC to recommend and the conditions you mentioned about the community garden were mentioned here.

[Anna Callahan]: I am excited about it, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Great, I just have one question actually for Amanda, which is kind of why I asked you to stay, I'm so sorry. And it's, you don't need to answer it for too long. Do you think that the fact that those courts were buried is the reason that like the courts above ended up becoming like cracked and broken and stuff?

[Amanda Centrella]: It's possible. I am not an engineer. But when you have different, well, the soil in that area is terrible. There's a lot of organic material, which means that it settles at different rates. And then add to that the fact that you have these concrete and base course bits in the mix. you're having different parts of what's up top settle at different rates. And that causes cracking over time.

[Zac Bears]: And that's something you're accounting for in this project.

[Amanda Centrella]: Yes. Yes. So one of the cool, it was cool to watch one of the things that we were doing specifically under the basketball court with the shade structure, because that's a heavy structure, is these special ground improvements where you dig into the ground very deeply. and you create these empty columns, and then you fill the columns with gravel and shake it, and it compacts the gravel. And so you're creating these strong pillars within the ground to keep it from moving around so much. So that's one of the things that we're doing, and regrading the site a bit, using new, fresh materials for some of the heavier portions of the site.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. I appreciate that. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve the CPC appropriation request seconded by Councilor Callahan. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Councilor Lennon is absent. Councilor Scarpelli.

[Zac Bears]: Six in the affirmative, one absent.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, we got two more. Oh, sorry. Councilor Tseng. Prison Affairs.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Six of the affirmative, one absent, the motion passes.

[Theresa Dupont]: Thank you very much for your support.

[Zac Bears]: Saw which way that one was going. Thanks you guys. Great. It's like a first term trigger of some kind. I think you were the last in the alphabet at the time. Councilor Schiarpelli. 25081 submitted by the mayor approval for a lease purchasing finance agreement for the school security upgrades. We do have our assistant superintendent, Peter Cushing with us. He's been with us all night. Thank you, Peter for sticking with us. And this is on the agenda because We approved the funding for this, a free cash appropriation. And it turns out there's a state law that requires us to also for specifically for lease to own agreements, we have to pass a separate thing. So I'll go to Peter to explain that a little more.

[Peter Cushing]: Yeah, so the governing body when it comes to overall finances. My understanding is always with the governing body of the public schools, the school board, which is true. But when it comes to a five year lease option, which will bridge numerous visitors five. Um, we need the approval of this August body to approve that. I'll give you a quick background. I know I mentioned it. I think it was last week that I was here, but tonight I've traveled from softball to home back to the bridge town meeting. Um, so I'm very sick of civically engaged this evening. The, the point of the matter is, is that we started out with this on state contract, which gives us a 20% discount. We've negotiated or I've negotiated, but she wasn't negotiating up to a 28% discount with significant other add ons, including. I believe 32 vape sensors that are being given to the district for the term of this, as well as, and then will be ours on outright once the end of, so there'll be no payments on those vape sensors. I might be off on the number just a little bit, but it is a high number that we have a hard negotiation. This is a comprehensive security upgrade that will address cameras in all areas of our schools, electronic access at our doors, security vestibules, and other things that really are not the purview of a public discussion but would be executive. committee type work. But I want to know that this is a significant investment of time, effort, and negotiating skill to bring in a project several hundred thousand dollars less than we were at a few years ago when we looked at this. and added significant value. That being, in particular, the security vestibules, vape sensors, and just another comprehensive security tool that is going to really be an asset to the district moving forward. I really would appreciate the vote of this body. We've worked extraordinarily hard since last Friday when we got legal opinions on contracts to land those with Motorola where they need to be. The hope is that they will be able to be entered into DocuSign procurement office tomorrow and be able to move forward.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Peter. And just to note the specific language, dear President Bears and City Councilors, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body vote to authorize a lease purchase financing agreement under Chapter 44 of Section 21C of the General Laws for the acquisition of security equipment upgrades for Medford Public School buildings for which an appropriation was approved. By vote of the city council on April 29 2025 council paper number 25 066 the term of such agreement not to exceed five years and further that the school committee shall be authorized to enter into such agreement and any related documents on behalf of the city. Thank you for your kind attention to these matters respectfully submitted brand Lungo-Koehn mayor. So that is the item before us. Do we have any comments or questions on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Lazzaro. Any public discussion? Sure. On this. Okay. I assume you had a study depending on 4421 C. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Callahan. Vice President Collins.

[K4SSXzHHj90_SPEAKER_18]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, 60 affirmative, one absent, the motion passes. Public participation to participate outside of Zoom, please email ahertabase at medford-ma.gov. We did have a paper from Anne Driscoll. Do we have Anne on the meeting? Anne, I don't think you're here in person. Anne, are you on Zoom? Is there a motion to... Yeah, what do you think? Can we just carry it over? We're just gonna carry it over. So we can just go to open public participation, name and address for the record. You'll have three minutes. You can come to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom.

[Micah Kesselman]: Sure, so Micah Hesselman, 499 Main Street. I feel compelled to come and make in person, many of the comments that I have emailed you all as a group collectively about over the last few weeks. And it's unfortunate because otherwise this has been a really pleasant City Council session with really fun, cool stuff. Nevertheless, we live in increasingly dangerous times with increasing federal overreach and lawlessness coming from our federal government. Every Every day, it feels like there is a new example of extreme federal overreach and blatantly illegal behavior that is continuing to go unchecked. It's increasingly becoming normalized, which is in and of itself horrific. We have secret police effectively that are roaming around picking up people without due process, without providing warrants, without providing any sort of judicial order. Before I get flack about this, yes, there are certain situations where federal agents can make arrests without providing a warrant or lawful judicial order. They're incredibly narrow. And the very fact that they are pre-planning and premeditating these arrests means that they do not fall within those very narrow bounds of when they can do warrantless arrests. So by virtue of that alone, these people are acting in an completely illegal rogue state. They're effectively criminals. I know that we're not going to get the police to commit to arresting criminals that have badges. That sucks. However, there needs to be continued pressure for them to do something. There needs to be continued pressure for the mayor to do something and make some substantive statement and formulate and articulate an actual substantive action and policy beyond, we're not gonna cooperate with them. Clearly non-cooperation means jack shit, okay? Other cities, I will tone it down.

[Zac Bears]: Not the tone it down, but the swear words.

[Micah Kesselman]: Yes, I will. use cleaner language.

[Zac Bears]: Kevin's gonna have to.

[Micah Kesselman]: Other cities, sorry, I don't wanna make anyone's transcription job more of a pain, with similar, if not identical, non-cooperation policies have nevertheless had their law enforcement cooperate, enable, facilitate, and even completely misinform the public about what federal agents can and cannot do. we need to have our police and our executive administration here in the city actually counter this narrative and say something affirmatively to reassure us as residents that we're not going to stand for this here in Medford. I would like to see more being done. The HRC reestablishment I was a wonderful surprise to me because I had not expected that and it's at least some. Again, I mean it's meager steps forward but it's better than just treading water. would like to see more communication on a more regular basis from our chief of police that is specifically about what's going on in regards to ICE and federal incursions into our local space. And frankly, I think that every step, every stage of our government should be willing, our municipal government should be willing to tiptoe into great legal gray areas right now, because the other side is ignoring the law. The other side is literally talking about a suspending hobbyist corpus, which is crazy. Yeah, and literally can't be done. Not that they need to anyway. So you know, if there are certain actions that we decide to take as a community that are not illegal but not legally are in a legally ambiguous space. That's not the end of the world. If it is to protect our neighbors and protect our residents, and we should be willing to take that risk and do what needs to be done to keep our residents safe.

[Zac Bears]: We're a little bit over. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate the comment. I can just say As one Councilor, I have been communicating a similar message to the mayor and the chief of police, especially last week when we had federal masks, unidentified federal agents in the city, intimidating the public. And when we have this abuse of power and intimidation and essentially a form of extortion as well to extort our compliance with illegality, I don't think our response can be We can't do anything about it. I personally received communications from people asking me are, are these, who are these people, is there a criminal gang in my neighborhood. you know, and it's people are very, people are very scared. So I think and what we saw in Worcester last week, and how Worcester police handled that abhorrently, and is now pushing what I consider to be a pretty reactionary administration in the city of Worcester to consider a city policy about what the city will do in response to this. I think for folks who have said that they are on board with this, I think we need to be doing the same and have a very clear policy about this, how the city responds to federal intimidation and abuse of power, as well as informing the public about it. And I know that public health and community safety brought up some of these concerns last week. I don't know if you guys want to add anything. I see Councilor Lazzaro.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I appreciate this conversation. And I think there is more discussion to have there are limitations to what our public safety officers will be able to do is my understanding, but I also know that we as local elected officials and local leaders have an obligation to do what we can to try to keep our residents safe. So that's been at the forefront of my mind for a long time. And that means like physical safety and psychological safety. So I continue to grapple with that, with how best to try to achieve that for our residents. And I think that there's, definitely more to be done within our local government and in our communities and mutually not participate in the hierarchy of law enforcement because there are limitations to that. So I am thinking about how we keep each other safe all the time and all the ways that we do that. But thank you for bringing this up.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, you know, I'm gonna watch the recording, see what was said, but what really frustrated me about what happened in Worcester, what I don't wanna see happen here is local police functionally being used to facilitate and protect people executing legally dubious or illegal orders. I think that's a serious, I think that's maybe a gap in the non-cooperation agreement that we have right now. Vice President Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President Bearson. Yeah, it's a difficult topic to bring up. I thank the president for bringing it up, continuing to bring it up. Speaking for only myself as one Councilor, this is something that is obviously, I'm sure I'm not speaking only for myself when I say this is something that is extremely preoccupying to many of us right now. And we're in uncharted territory relating to how a local government can and should respond to this. But what I think is unacceptable would be to say, because this is uncharted, we have no agency to chart our own path here. That would at least be unacceptable to me. I think that the work ahead of us right now collaboratively throughout the entire government of the city of Medford is to craft a policy collaboratively so that we can all be sure that we are doing what we can to make sure that public safety in Medford is in every way directed towards public safety in Medford. And some of our very most initial conversations about this, obviously, it's a fraught topic. I really think that everybody's intentions about this are good. But I think that we have to keep in mind that a response can look like a lot of things and be more helpful than what it is right now. I think that there is a very... I think that, you know, it's kind of trite, Inaction is action, and I think that's what we have to be wary of when it comes to what we are declining to do. When it comes to our response to ICE and other federal agencies in Medford, we can't just do nothing. That's obviously insufficient. I think the resident said that very well. Right now, we have a lot of ordinary residents in the community that are taking on the work of figuring out what public safety looks like in this time when federal agents are coming into our community, barely letting even our chief of police know, certainly not letting other city leaders such as ourselves know, being in public property, being on residential streets, masked, unidentified. There's residents taking on the onus of saying, hey, Who are you? What are you doing here? Is this okay? This seems suspicious. Let's make sure the people in the neighborhood are okay. Because our local government has not taken on the onus of doing that community safety work. And I think that needs to change. I think we need to share that responsibility with the community, obviously. And we share the responsibility of, if ICE has been present in the community, using our official channels and our official power to say, what comes next now? What do people need now? Are people good? What do they need? Do they know their rights? Is there support that's needed in the wake of being visited by ICE? And it goes further than that as well. But what I think is really unacceptable is to say, Our responsibility is to do nothing and pretend that that's enough, because it obviously isn't. So I thank community members for leading the way here, and I feel resolute that, frankly, city leadership needs to follow in the footsteps of residents who are already doing the work of figuring out what community safety looks like in this time. So the conversation has to continue. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, we do have one item under unfinished business eligible for third reading. Oh, sorry, go ahead.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to take item 25-053 from the table. And approve for a third reading. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 25-053 from the table and approve for third reading by Councilor Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. The gender affirming care and reproductive care ordinance. Mr. Clerk, when you're ready, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: take from the table and to approve for the reading. Councilor Kelly, Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro. Yes. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes.

[Zac Bears]: President Bears. Yes. Takes the affirmative. What absent the motion passes and the ordinance is ordained. Any further discussion or is there a motion? on the motion of Councilor Lazzaro to a turn seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Kallion, Vice President Collins. Yes. Councilor Lazzaro, Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Scarpelli, Councilor Tseng, President Bears.

[Zac Bears]: Yes motion passes meeting is adjourned.

Zac Bears total time: 44.87 minutes total words: 7013	George Scarpelli total time: 8.57 minutes total words: 1426	Kit Collins total time: 6.65 minutes total words: 1157	Justin Tseng total time: 20.95 minutes total words: 3097
Emily Lazzaro total time: 6.88 minutes total words: 890	Anna Callahan total time: 8.99 minutes total words: 1534