AI-generated transcript of City Council Committee of the Whole 04-12-23

[Zac Bears]: 22-533 committee of the whole meeting notice, Wednesday, April 12th, 2023 at 6pm. Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello. Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Present.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Knight. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Councilor Tseng. President Morell.

[Zac Bears]: President Morell.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Morell. Vice President Harris.

[Zac Bears]: present. Five present to absent the meeting is called to order. There will be a meeting of the Medford City Council Committee of the whole on Wednesday, April 12 2023 at 6pm in the Medford City Council Chamber on the second floor of Medford City Hall and by zoom. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss a draft RFP for updating the Medford zoning ordinance paper 22-533. The committee has invited Alicia Hunt, director of the Office of Planning, Development, Sustainability and Building Commissioner Bill 40 to attend this meeting. For further information, aids and accommodations, please contact the city clerk at 781-393-2425. Sincerely yours, Nicole Morell, Council President. So we are meeting today to discuss draft RFP, which is a request for proposals for a consultant to prepare a comprehensive update and revision of the city's zoning ordinance. Councilor Caraviello will be joining us soon. He had another meeting conflict, so he will be here as well. Just wanted to note that even though he was noted as absent at the beginning of the meeting, So we have obviously, you know, over the past two years, I don't know if it's obvious to everybody listening, but obvious to me, that we have been working on the city's zoning ordinance and really in earnest working to update it. We completed a kind of reorganization and recodification last year, which has modernized some of the language, some of the sections, added new provisions and made some changes. And now, given that the the city's comprehensive plan is complete, as well as several other plans, including a climate plan, bike plan, and open space plan. We want to work on what we're calling a phase two of our zoning update, which would be a now comprehensive update to look at the city's zoning ordinance, including uses, dimensions, districts, and really every provision that we can think of, as well as correct and adjust any existing issues with the current ordinance. The building commissioner has been working as well on a a digital zoning map for the first time for the city. And you know, when that is when that is completed, that will be part of our discussion as well. And I think make it a lot easier for us to analyze and look at districts and moving moving our zoning districts around. So with that, I think that's a fair summary of where we are. I want to go quickly to members of the council if they have any comments they want to make before we dive in to looking at the draft document. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, President beers I just wanted to our vice president bears I just wanted to say that I think this is an exciting step in our zoning record of Haitian saga, you know to me this is our opportunity to take the plans that the city has on file which in a lot of cases are probably every case is one that the public has had a really significant role in informing and crafting and being a part of the feedback that informed the plans that we have and now we have the chance to actually enshrine those get them get those on the books in the form of updates to our zoning code so I think this is something that probably every resident can get excited about, due to some issue or topic that's important to them. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, President, Vice President Bears. I over the last few years our cities developed many many plans on the comprehensive plan the housing production plan climate action adaptation plan open space plan. If you delve into a lot of those plans, a very big component of that is the rezoning work that we need to do. And that in talking to the planning staff and to other Councilors, I know everyone's very eager to do. And so I, like Councilor Collins, and I'm sure like the rest of you guys, I'm very excited for this. And all I have to say right now is let's get it done. Thank you, Councilor Tseng.

[Zac Bears]: Oh, we have an audio issue. Okay. Oh, okay. We will take a minute here.

[Nicole Morell]: Hi, sir. I can hear now. I jumped on the phone. I don't know. Perhaps user error. Apologies. Didn't mean to shut down the whole meeting.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Is there a motion to reconvene? We don't need to motion to reconvene. Okay. We are back in session. Thank you very much for bearing with us to anyone watching and to everyone in the room. Given what I just said, I do want to invite up Director Hunt or a member of the team, just if you have any comments that you would like to make before we get going. If there's anything you want to just say in an introductory basis. Just if you want to. It's your option. I just want to. OK. Great, okay, great. So diving into the document, give me one moment so I can be sure to share my screen. Can you make me a co-host, Mr. Clark?

[Unidentified]: I can't share. Thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Alright, so just a brief overview, kind of this first section on page one, as well as pages, you know really page one is outlining some technical procurement information and the decision to use competitive sealed proposals because of the size of the bid and state procurement law. The second page, which you can see here. really says what the purpose is, which I've already outlined, which is seeking proposals from qualified planning consultants to assist the city council and PDS to revise and update the zoning ordinance to align with the city's vision and goals, as well as the new planning documents. We have a short description of kind of the character of Medford, some background on the zoning ordinance, the funding source, and then we get into really, I think, the core of this RFP, which is the scope of services. So here we have that the consultant team shall prepare the city of Medford zoning ordinance update and revisions under the guidance of the City Council in conjunction with the director of planning, development, sustainability or a designee. There may be a steering committee if that is so decided by the City Council. The primary work product is written as such here. There'll be a contract to result in proposals for zoning ordinance amendments. The consultant will review existing plans and reports with staff and elected officials to determine needed changes. We have noted, city staff have noted, and others have noted several conflicts in the current zoning, missing definitions, et cetera, which need to be addressed. And that brings us here to looking at some specific zoning language. In addition to the specific zoning language, looking at best practice recommendations, massing studies, visuals, Um, we're looking at different scenarios of different options. Um and then also we have some specific conversation here around, um, zoning use that are zoning uses districts to control uses, um. Dimensional requirements requirements vary by use. Um and we're looking at new zoning districts that would control both dimensions and uses. So that would be a kind of a And then here you have just a little bit more that there will be layperson language text plans charts graphs etc so that this information and the changes are accessible to the general public, clear and concise language, and some other goals to ensure that you know address some other issues around sustainability code. that we have for commercial and industrial development in the city. Um and I think for mixed use development and residential development as we want to have a conversation about the scope of services that we're requesting. And if anyone from our city staff has comment at this time, so I will pause there. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you, Vice President Bears. Um, this draft overall looks really good to me. It looks like an RFP. I think it encapsulates everything on the scope in particular. I like that this draft makes very clear that there are and would be an oversimplification to say two tracks, but that it makes it makes clear that there are some zone zoning changes that are urgent that we'd want to fast track and there are others that we know will require deliberation, they might require a little bit more public feedback as we get into the particulars. And so I'm glad to see that the scope, you know, describes that for potential respondents. Thank you.

[Justin Tseng]: I think similar to what Councilor Collins said, I think overall this document, I don't see any problems if we were to send it out. I think we can talk a little more about it if we want to, but I feel pretty comfortable with it. I think if I would have any suggestions, it would be to highlight housing a little bit more in the primary work product. I would assume consultants who look at this RFP would understand that housing is a priority for us, but we do, as you, Vice President Bears just said earlier, we do bring out commercial industrial development. We don't necessarily highlight that housing and mixed use is as important to us. And so if I did have any suggestion, it would be in that.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. Um, and I would, you know, generally tend to agree with that. Um, I do want to also you want to go?

[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, just, uh, I know one of the sticking points that we had is working with attorney Bobowski and the fact that he was such a, uh, wonderful partner and recordification. So, um, as I look at the RFP, it, um, you know, a not Obviously not in procurement laws and not lining it up with the person that we feel we want, but I think there are some, some some guidelines that I wish we could add that having people that are bidding for the project, having some sort of a background, a little bit more in depth in this RFP that would stress experience, stress years of, you know, that this person is, this person or people that have applied have, qualified and worked in this area for a certain amount of years, a certain amount of communities. I think that leaving an open-ended right like this is, you know, it's what we talk about, you know, the pros and the cons of procurement, having the procurement process being the transparent and open process to bring in, giving everybody the opportunity, but at the same time, not getting the people that are qualified or getting the lowest bid or getting the proposals from people who just want the job. And I think that, I know that Ms. Hunter's worked very hard with us in the past, and I'm sure that maybe she can guide some, yeah, if you can, just some ideas that we can use, and maybe we've added in past RFPs that might lend to, now again, I'm not saying it's Brabowski, what I'm saying is making sure the people that we do get have experience in this field, or maybe I'm missing it. So, I know you've done your due diligence, and I appreciate all the hard work you do. Whatever you can do to guide me and that that question would be great.

[Zac Bears]: And if I if I just made director and let you respond and I was kind of breaking up the review here a little bit to talk like scope of services and then talk about the timeline. And then we have something towards the end and maybe the ordering needs to be a little different here too. around minimum and comparative proposal criteria towards the end, because I was having the same exact thought. I thought we had a real, you know, last time we got a number of bids from kind of groups of bidders, and then we kind of split off a piece and took a chunk first. And that's how we ended up working with Mr. Bobrowski directly, you know, just with him. So on this, third to last page or fourth, third to last page under the project team. It says that, you know, combined, the team combined should have at least member or members with master's degree in XYZ, members or members with five years of professional experience. member or members with experience writing and redesigning zoning ordinances, and then members with legal expertise as needed to advise the city on zoning legal matters and, you know, again, not to be prescriptive because obviously it's a bidding process but that was something that I wanted to make sure was in there when I was taking a look at this right so my thing is, what's, what's enough in.

[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, gotcha.

[Zac Bears]: That's where director Hunt can come in.

[George Scarpelli]: Right, and that's why I think that, is five years enough? Is it something that, would it be too much to say 10 years? Would it be something that people would look at the procurement laws as something to fines?

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, that's super helpful. If I may also, President Morell has her hand up, so I just wanna acknowledge, go to her really quickly.

[Nicole Morell]: Thanks Vice President Bears. Yeah, and I think this was covered in Councilor Scarpelli kind of segued into it, is I just wanted to point out as part of the process, just for folks who may be following along, you know, we talked in the past that under mass procurement law, some things that are exempted from going through the RFP and three bid process is if you continue, if is working with a lawyer, which is what Attorney Bobrowski is, but because of the fact that at his recommendation, and of course the recommendation of PDS, is we really also need the support of a land use planner. So as we make that a team of two or whatever it may be, then that procurement law kicks in. That's why we're doing the RFP and the three-bit process. So I just wanted to make that clear if anyone wasn't sure.

[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President and Director Hunt, if you can. You may have to press the button. Yeah, you can just use that.

[Alicia Hunt]: So the items that Councilor Scarpelli are talking to are in that lower section, comparative criteria. That's sort of the way an RFP is usually structured, that you would have background, scope, timeline, then you would have minimum criteria. And if somebody doesn't meet the minimum criteria, they're just kicked out and we don't even read the application. And then the comparative criteria, Um, so and that's where we would then rank them. So we did have and I think you did pick up on this that what the way it is right now is the project proposal demonstrates a wide depth of experience with similar projects, five or more. And prior experience with municipal contracts. Um and project work samples are outstanding quality and content and technical presentation, and that's highly advantageous. But then you know, there's advantageous. There's not not advantageous have options as well. We could bump that number up to seven years to be the highly advantageous to have sort of a higher bar there, because you know what you what we don't want to happen is that we do a bid process. And for some reason we don't get applicants that meet our highest standards. But they're good, and we're willing to do it with them. And so you want to make sure that you haven't excluded them completely. But you do want to be able to separate them so that if you get a couple who are much better than others, that's also clear to us. So if we wanted to bump that up to seven, that would be reasonable and then have advantageous be the three to seven or four, four to seven, and then not advantageous, maybe less than four. Because there's some that's, you know, we want good, we want really, really great to work with us. The next section is qualifications. And then that one talks about their training, educational background and work experience to the project. And so some of this is we really think that we'll need to end up with both legal support and some planning support. to help us understand if you save five stories, what does that look like? If you say zero setbacks, what does that look like? And we need some people to help us sort of really understand the changes that we're making so we don't run into some unintended consequences. Those two are the ones that are the best plus the references that will check references as well. And we'll ask them for examples of their work. so that we can see what it looks like.

[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate that. And I think that's very thorough. And I think the sticking piece to me was the five years. So, and that's why I asked the question, I think 10 would maybe sound a little, we pushing the envelope, but I would request that maybe we go as high as we can with a highly contagious that, because I think the closer we get and we separate that top tier, I think it's important. So at least that's my opinion. So I appreciate the insight, but just wanted to share that. All right, thank you.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. So is that a motion?

[George Scarpelli]: I would motion that if we could move that to seven years, that would be.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I think it would be seven projects and then we could put a specific number of years in there as well, if that sounds. I'm sorry. Am I reading that right?

[Alicia Hunt]: Sorry, so this list, experience with similar projects, seven or more. So it's not actually years. And I'm going to tell you a project of this scale, you don't do like two or three of these in a year. We're talking multi-year projects.

[Zac Bears]: I like seven.

[George Scarpelli]: So seven or more would be like 18 to 21 years. Of experience.

[Zac Bears]: If we look at that, that's,

[George Scarpelli]: I think that that's giving us the best options to find the highest quality candidates. So, and again, it still opens up for other vendors come in in the middle range. So I think, yeah, I like that Vice President Bitz.

[Alicia Hunt]: Can I just suggest as you're doing that, that you probably, so you would wanna shift all three. So one would be seven, I'm thinking four to seven. So the first one is seven or more. The next one is four to seven. And then I would say less than four, maybe. I just don't want us to end up in a place like, what if Mr. Borowski didn't want to do it, right? Like, he's like, I'm retiring. We want to make sure that we haven't cut ourselves out so that we can.

[George Scarpelli]: No, and I understand that, but I think that, you know, I think it gives us, even if it's not Przewalski, I'm saying it gives us the candidates at that level that have worked for seven or more that have worked, that put the years in, that obviously when, you know, I think that's the cream of the crop. So I think that, you know, but it doesn't limit, right? It doesn't limit procurement, the process that there's still people that organizations that still fall into the others that we might look at and say, you know what? here's someone that's done four projects, but they've put this many years in, and they're more of a more modern company, a more modern vendor that would suit with Medford's future vision. So I think that, like I said, I think that it opens that up, it really defines it. At least that's my view. So I would like that seven projects and more, and then the years are great.

[Zac Bears]: Great, so I have a motion from Councilor Scrively to increase the number of projects under A, quality and depth of project experience, highly advantageous seven or more projects, advantageous four to seven projects, not advantageous fewer than four projects.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Seconded by... I don't have all of my language, I just have the first one.

[Zac Bears]: I'll write it down, I'll get it for you. Come on, Adam. I got it for you. I sprung that on him. I was there second on the motion. Speed talker. Seconded by Councilor Collins. Council Morell President well you have your hand up so I just want to go back to you. In case you have any comment before we vote.

[Nicole Morell]: Sorry, it's just still up.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. So on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clark, please call the roll. Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Ferris.

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five in the affirmative, two absent, the motion passes. So just popping back up really quickly to scope of service. Is there anything at this point that, you know, around the uses and dimensional, is there any thoughts on amendments that we want to make here to the RFP or any thoughts from the building commissioner around the general scope of services that we want to look at? and whoever wants to pop up first.

[Bill Forte]: Honestly, I didn't have a chance to look at this documents the first time I'm looking at it. Okay. What I do see here is that I think that the should be added that the, you know, whoever the proposed person is that they that you include the zoning map as part of that so the incorporation of the zoning map, and, you know, collective consulting on that as well. Okay. Okay. I don't know exactly how to word it but I would just say that this map should be pretty close by the time we get someone on board with this, I would imagine we should be able to adopt at least the first draft anyways. That's what I'm hoping for. I didn't see anything in here and I know that Fiona Maxwell looked at this and I'm sure that it has all the legal language that it needs to for designer selection, if you will, it would be under that same category on the chapter 30 be. I would just maybe suggest to have her look this over one more time, make sure that all the language is in there.

[Zac Bears]: I'm pretty sure that, did she do this draft? Did she? It's kind of a mixed draft. So it's going back to her for a final pass that after we kind of have the policy in, but then she's gonna kind of take it and turn it into what procurement is to turn it into.

[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I've sat on designer selection teams and I just recall that there are a few things here that I'm not exactly sure, but I'm not, capturing them right now. Um, and other than that, I don't have any other thing to add to this right now that nothing here stood out to me. I think it's all, it's pretty complete and you know, um, I would just, the only thing I would add in there is, is quality of workmanship. So if there are mistakes, we shouldn't be paying a person to do them again. So that, that would be something that I think we need to have in, in the language, you know, that work product is, is required to be, you know, correct, you know, without, you know, without error, you know, so.

[Unidentified]: Yeah.

[Bill Forte]: That's all I see.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you. Um, any any comments from PDS at this time?

[Danielle Evans]: Which one is it? Is it this one? Okay.

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Danielle Evans]: Good evening. Of course. My screen just went black and I can't call up the page. But it's page 100 of the comprehensive plan outlines, um, basically two tracks for implementing zoning changes. And there was like a geography based track or a topic based track. And I feel like to be true to the comprehensive plan, we should talk about how do we want this consultant to tackle this because geography focused might require some more study, particularly those, you know, development analysis studies, massing studies to see like how those quarters would look, and that the impacts of zoning in those quarters, I'm thinking mostly like Mystic Ave, Haines Square area, which might need some study to figure out what is the more appropriate number of stories and uses that would be allowed there. The comprehensive plan does very high level, get to what kind of uses we want, and in general, what we want the built environment to look like, But you know, it doesn't give us the details, which of course hiring consultant would help with, but it would also require probably a little bit more study. So I'm just trying to figure out how that fits in.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, that's helpful. And I think, I think naming the geography base versus topic base makes a lot of sense. I think there's, you know, there's kind of a, if we go to the process of something that we, how we kind of wrote this was to say, that there may be things that we wanna fix sooner, and then there may be things that we wanna take more time on. And that's why the length of the project contract is two years with a one-year extension, but maybe there's work product that's coming out throughout the thing.

[Danielle Evans]: So- Yeah, or maybe it could be some kind of like hybrid between the two, because there's definitely things like overhaul the use and dimensional table. And the example I always make is like, so that the hotel and right behind us, is a conforming structure in that zone, but salt and salt is not, even though they're both above six stories, because multifamily zoning or a multifamily structure defined in our ordinance has class A and class B, which is kind of weird. One is up to three stories and one is up to six stories, but any multifamily structure over six stories is not defined. It is not allowed. It's under a catch all other permitted structure, which is not intuitive. And so you have uses like two buildings next to each other that are subject to different dimensionals. So salt install can't be over six stories. But the height can be because the high it's allowed to be over six stories. Whereas if we're looking at the built environment in buildings that make sense next to each other, why is one allowed to be taller than the other? It's all people sleeping there at night. So it's like a lot of that kind of weirdness once you dig into the code and use it daily. that kind of rises to the surface of, can we fix this sooner than later? But part of being a planner is being patient with some of the stuff.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you for the comment. And I think maybe we'll make a series of motions to adopt what Bill and Danielle have said so far in a moment. But any further thoughts based on what we've just heard? Seeing none, so maybe, oh, go ahead, Director Hunt. You may have to turn the mic back. Oh, there you go.

[Alicia Hunt]: There you go. They're watching. So what I think, based on what Danielle was saying, that we might include some language that references that our comprehensive plan has an implementation section for zoning change, and that we would expect the consultant to, the consultant, the proposing, the proposing people bodies to review that section, which I'm going to say is only like four or five pages, not asking them to read a 200 page document and make a proposal to us on a plan of action based on that. So that rather than us telling them exactly how this should happen, they could propose to us What will happen then is we'll get, hopefully, five different proposals from different groups, but we'll like this group for their qualifications, but we'll like this proposal, and we can say to this group, you know what, can you do a little bit of what they said over there and incorporate those ideas over here? So I think some language that just says review the implementation section of the comprehensive plan, we'll feature the page numbers, I think Amanda has that up, and propose a plan based on that would be true to the comprehensive plan and give us some things to think about.

[Zac Bears]: Okay, great. Thank you.

[Bill Forte]: Yes, Commissioner. Mr. Vice President, while I was sitting here thinking, I just wanted to make sure I don't leave this out. I'm expecting the governor to make some significant sweeping zoning changes to accommodate her plan for a future vision of the Commonwealth's goals for housing. I don't know that there should be something in the RFP that says, you know, from, you know, there might possibly be a zone change coming up that That may end up coming out through chapter 40 be, and it could be specialized zoning which would increase. You know, the density, you know, I know that we right now we're a little bit behind on the rapid transit density that we're required to have. But I would say that there might be more sweeping changes coming up. I don't know that we can put that in the RFP as a future vision, but I think it'd be worth mentioning, because I do have a feeling that this administration is going to make some significant changes to meet their goals. So just a thought.

[Zac Bears]: I appreciate that context. I think maybe we could put something in that says address any needs relative to the MBTA communities zoning and also work to address any future changes to state zoning code and law that comes during the length of the contract, something like that. Great. So I'm hearing a few things on the scope of services. I might list back what I have and see if anyone has anything in addition. Give me one second just to get it all down. Um, so what I have, uh, is that we would, and I don't want to, I don't want to spend our time thinking about specific language. I think we can have the intent of what we want and then we, you know, our, our expert staff can work with us on, on, you know, getting the specific language changes that need to happen and then we can get it over to, to the chief procurement officer. But I have, I think five things here for things that we'd like to make sure in the scope of services. The one I heard from Councilor Tseng additional highlighting of residential and housing needs for the community in the scope of services, housing and mixed use, okay. Residential and mixed use, okay. The second being adding the incorporation of the new zoning map and as well as any potential changes to the zoning map and you let me know what pace I need to move at as I say these things, Mr. Clark. Great. Including specifics about geography-based changes and topic-based changes to zoning. requiring. A proposal for a plan of action based on the implementation section of the city's comprehensive plan. And two-state zoning law that occur over the length of the contract? Okay, Councilor Tseng.

[Justin Tseng]: No, go ahead. I think in addition to that, I think it would be good to mention, because there's quite a lot about zoning in the climate plan, in that paragraph about sustainability concepts, we could just reference the climate plan.

[Zac Bears]: that referencing the climate plan and the sustainability concept section. Anything else on scope of services that we think needs to be kind of folded into this? Seeing none, is there someone willing to make that motion? on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Collins.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Any further discussion on that motion?

[Zac Bears]: Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: President Morell?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Vice President Bears?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five present, two absent. That motion is passed. I want to jump back really quickly. I also heard two things from the Commissioner Forty that I want to include. that, and if anyone's willing to make the motion after I read it, one, that we include a statement about work product quality and workmanship to ensure that work product is delivered without error and the city is not responsible for paying for fixing of any errors. And then the second, just second, once these amendments are incorporated, that this go back to the chief procurement officer for further review. And I have a motion, that motion by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, and I typed out what you said. So we're good there. I'm ready.

[Zac Bears]: Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello is absent. Councilor Collins? Yes. Councilor Knight is absent. Councilor Scarpelli?

[Zac Bears]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell? Yes. Vice President Harris?

[Zac Bears]: Yes. Five. And the affirmative, two absent. The motion passes. I think, you know, that means that we've really discussed some of the technical legal questions. We've looked at the scope of service and added a number of things. I think we also touched on, thanks to Councilor Scarpelli, the criteria and upgraded that a little bit to make sure we have the highest quality of applicants. I think that leaves us just on project process and timeline. So just a quick overview there. I will go back to sharing my screen, although sometimes I don't know if that's even useful for documents of this. detail in length, but the project process and timeline section here as drafted. there'd be a public process, we would generate necessary background information. This kind of mentions just that the city will provide the information necessary for the consultant to achieve their scope of services. We suggested a consultant organizing and leading a minimum of 10 public meetings open to the public pursuant to open meeting law and two workshops to produce additional information. I do want to say that I think, you know, we also just had a number of that, those workshops and meetings going on for the comprehensive plan, and I wouldn't want to be duplicative in that work. So I just, you know, I think maybe adding something in there, just saying, making sure that it has maybe a little bit of a different focus or takes the information and data from all of those comprehensive plan community meetings and builds on them. I'm also not necessarily personally completely tied to the idea of, saying you have to do 10 and you have to do to and I'd be interested to hear a little bit of what the consultants proposed, but I'll pause there and we'll go to director.

[Alicia Hunt]: I'll just comment that when we put these sorts of things out to consultants, what we have found is that doing public outreach costs money. And so they always say to us, how many meetings are you thinking? How many times am I gonna have to go to council, to the planning board, to have public meetings, because I want to figure that into my budget. Every time it's both their time to come here, it's their preparation, it's those slides, right? and sometimes it's follow-up. So that's why there's a number there. And we may want to think about whether these say, if let's change the word community to public, because we definitely, right, if we're going to completely change the zoning on Salem Street, you're going to want to have a public meeting where people can come and talk about the details of that. And then you're going to want one over at Mystic Ave, right? But also they're going to have to present to this body they're going to have to present to the planning board because both of those are legal requirements. So each of those also counts as a meeting, right? I've just named you four meetings and all we've talked about is one, right? It adds up really quickly. I'm not sure that 10 is a right number. It's my concern of them needing to come to council meetings, planning, and then these smaller meetings. which could get big and nasty.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and we had probably 10 council meetings just on the recodification. So, and those were not including any sort of additional meetings of the planning board or CD, you know, or anyone else.

[Alicia Hunt]: Right, we ended up actually paying attorney Bobrowski extra to come present to the planning board and walk the planning board through some of the changes that he had proposed and stuff so that they'd understand it. So it is helpful to have them thinking about that up front.

[Zac Bears]: Great, thank you. Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Sure, thank you. I appreciate that context for why the why minimum number exists why it exists where it currently does and based on that, you know, just kind of short description I think we definitely wouldn't want to name minimum lower than 10 meetings, and probably, you know, it's it's reasonable to think that the minimum would be, you know, higher still in general I saw I heard a comment about this earlier but I really agree I think that The, you know, obviously in a lot of respects the comprehensive plan is, you know that 30,000 foot view document at the same time but we don't want to be doing is duplicating work or even duplicating community feedback has already happened. You know, I think that there's a better way to use our time the consultant time and the public's time, you know, to be using feedback to finesse to get specific where we're currently broad. not to rehash goals that have already been decided and enshrined in the comprehensive plan. And I think just sort of making that clear for us as well as the consultant as well as the public is helpful. If there's a way to sort of, you know, simply state that in the RFP that's a value add, I think that's good. But more than that, I think that To me it's probably more appropriate and more accurate to to be thinking of these you know internally and well as well as for respondents as public meetings as opposed to community meetings like community meetings I think of what we did for the comp plan where we're sort of getting together a group of stakeholders to weigh in on a goal public meetings my hope is that A lot of the meetings we will hold as we go through this process is taking an existing goal, this body talking about it, using and soliciting public feedback to get specific on measures and techniques to put into the zoning ordinance to sort of apply those goals. So essentially I hope that a lot of those would be committees of the whole. But just my main point was to say, I think that, you know, the sort of general consensus around, we're not trying to duplicate any meetings that have already been done. We wanna make sure that these are kind of tailored. I think that's, you know, the right mindset to be going into this with.

[Zac Bears]: Other than potentially amending the language to say public instead of community, are there any other motions in a bigger frame on this section around the community? what's currently labeled community meetings.

[Bill Forte]: Commissioner 41st, Mr. Vice President, so I wasn't sure if I'm looking through the RFP I don't know if it needs to be set up front. you know this consultant will be working with myself and the city planner. I don't know that there's a certain amount of set hours for that a certain amount of work product hours, but it should be included. I think it, you know, if it's reasonable to spend you know, 20 to 30 hours with each department, I don't know, you know what that would look like. I mean, obviously, there would be a certain amount of time required for this anyways and I'm sure that we would have more than one conversation but I don't see any parameters on that. And I'm just concerned that. you know, sometimes, if it's not written down, then it's assumed that, you know, maybe we'll call the building inspector a couple times and that'll be it, you know, and I'm sure that there will be, you know, a pretty good amount of time discussing what some of the problems are. Obviously, myself and the city planner see a lot of the same problems and we're looking at it, that we probably might be able to have a coordinated meeting. I don't know that it would be advantageous to add to the language, a zoning, you know, an administrative zoning review committee that would include myself, the city planner and whatever other boards or commissions may be may be interested. You know, just something to think about it and see any structure in there for it. I mean, it should be without saying that the consultant will be working closely with myself and Ms. Hunt, but again, you know, without it being in the language, I think that there probably needs to be some framework, you know, for that.

[Alicia Hunt]: So here's my suggestion. Under the purpose part, where we see the city council, I'm thrilled that Commissioner Forty is interested in being engaged in this. That is very helpful. We're saying to assist the city council and the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, we could actually just add the City Council, the Office of Planning, Development and Sustainability, and the Department of the Building Commissioner. I think there's another place where we name, working with the City Council and myself, we could name his as well. It's under Scope of Services, under the guidance of City Council in conjunction with the Director of Planning, Development and Sustainability, or designee, and the Building Commissioner. would want to make it clear that we expect them to work with the people that we stated forward. And we put in the beginning that there might be a committee. The reason I would avoid being very clear it'll be a committee, because we don't want to suddenly be tied to only meeting when we've publicized a meeting 48 hours in advance, because now this is a committee and it's a public body, as opposed to, you know, the consultants being able to say, hey, Alicia, can we hop on the phone for an hour tomorrow? Can you see if Bill's free too? Let's chat, let's talk something through because that's how we can get a lot of work done and then try and keep the formal meetings when we're coming in front of the council on purpose so that we can just keep things moving. So I just, that's why I would, that's why I would avoid making it the formality of a committee versus these are people you need to work with. Okay.

[Zac Bears]: That makes sense to me. I have some thoughts here. Other comments before I chime in? Just my thinking here, too, is maybe, you know, and maybe we split it out in this section one. I agree with that, and I'm sure we'll put a motion in to add the building department building commissioner along wherever council and PDS are at it. I don't think there's any, I don't see any objection to that, at least. But under this public process section, may be part of, and it may be duplicative if we add the building commissioner or other language that's already in here, but I don't think that's an issue. I think reiterating something may actually be helpful for them to see it's a priority when they're working through creating a proposal, but adding in addition to maybe generate necessary background information, say, you know, something in there about work with you know, as you said, you know, you know, dedicate a certain number of hours to working regularly with city staff, including the director of planning and the building commissioner. And the other thing I think we may want to do, because I hear you, Director Hunt around wanting to say I'm lead a minimum of 10 meetings. I think we may want to split that out into kind of two sections. One saying there's an expectation that the consultant will attend meetings of the council and the planning board as needed. for the legislative process. And then maybe also say that an expectation would be that the consultant would assist in holding community meetings on specific proposals for zoning amendments. Because I think that's really the work product here is what we're saying is, we want to have you here for two years, we're going to look at a few different projects, and they're going to be It seems to me what we're going to do here is not what we did with the recodification, which is to say we're going to do a ton of work over over a year have one document and adopt that at the end of the process, but instead say we may have some topic based things we want to look at some geography based things some. the zoning ordinance. There may be. Fixing of errors and issues and questions, and those may come in the form of there may be five different amendments to the zoning ordinance over the period or more over the period of this contract. So maybe we want to stay instead that for each, you know, zoning amendment amendment proposal that is created through the process. There will be community meeting at that's a general framework. Again, I don't have the specific numbers, you know, to say we should change 10 to 15 or anything else. But I'm just wondering what you think of kind of structuring the RFP that way.

[Alicia Hunt]: So what I'm looking at, I do want to, I like it overall, I want to be careful about saying every time there's going to be amendment, we're going to have a separate public community meeting, because the CD board meeting is a public hearing. So, and there's in my mind there's also some stuff that will will do right away. And if we come forward with like here's our list of things that are like details and their conflicts and they're not changing the built environment, they're changing the process, because the zoning also controls who meets when we meet, how you meet who has to weigh in on it. And as we've been going through this we're finding that there's some things that don't quite make sense. You don't actually need to have a public meeting with the community to discuss like, how and when the city, the CD board is meeting, right? Like that's, that's not a pub. It's a legal public hearing still. So we want to be that careful with it. And, but what you're suggesting, so there's under number three approval process. It's very clear that they'll make formal presentations for the required approvals for the public hearings. That's super important because you need somebody who's going to come forward and explain the changes at the public hearing. What it doesn't, and it does say, it uses the word drafts as a plural, presentation of first drafts, presentation of second drafts, which implies this is gonna happen several times, but doesn't say how many times. And then there's a, the public or community meetings. And that's where we'll wanna have community meetings, right? That are designed to hear what the public says. There will also actually need to be committee of the whole meetings where the consultant comes like they did with the recodification and they present it to the council and the council's weighing in on it. And is that the same as a community meeting? Honestly, we would structure them differently. And I think you would want them structured differently. So we might want community meetings and meetings to the presentations to the council throughout the process, meetings with the council as part of the development of changes. And so that would be something that we would add in under this public process section. Maybe there's A, generate background, B, community meetings, and C, working meetings with the city council. And then you have refining regulations. And that's the presentation of first and second drafts and meetings with stakeholders. And then the third step is the approval process where there's public hearing presentations and potential revisions. And that was something that we ran into was that the CD board made a bunch of suggested changes and the council said, great. And then we said, oops, but our contract is up. Who's making the changes? So we wanna make sure that those are included. The way it's laid out, I feel like I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth when I say we wanna be really specific so they can give us pricing, but we don't wanna be too specific because we don't know exactly how it's gonna go. So there is the potential and maybe we need to think about some language. I suspect Fiona might be able to help with this. that says that we're looking for a base price for, you know, and let's admit, you know, earlier fixes, you know, quicker fixes, and then like two rounds of like attacking two different areas or two thing approaches, and then hourly rates to do additional work above and beyond. But I also like the idea of saying, go read these eight pages in the comprehensive plan and give us a proposal and tell us what that proposal will cost. And then we negotiate.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, Councilor Scarpelli.

[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, I welcome that. I think that still, it doesn't limit us, but at the same time, we see where the criteria brings us and then the cost factor involved in that. So I think that's genius.

[Zac Bears]: Yeah, no, I think that makes sense. And Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I agree. I think kind of trying to play out what are ways to create a pricing formula that also gives us the flexibility where we're not know, six months in or even eight months 18 months and we realized like, gosh, we're out of scope, what do we do, there's so much work left to do. I also just, you know, I think, like my other fellow Councilors, I really liked the idea of just having different consultants with different perspectives and different work histories, take a look at that implementation section, because I'm really curious to see, like, maybe there are synchronicities, you know, that we haven't thought of or ways to like work on things in parallel, I think that could be really advantageous just to get the proposals for how they would actually attack it.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Any further comment? Okay, so I hear two motions and I do wanna get to the pricing in a second or to the timeline in a second, I think there was a motion in general to kind of do three things. One, change the language under public process to say solicit feedback solicited from the public, not from the community, just use the word public instead of community. A motion to add working meetings with the city council under the public process section. a motion to add, and this cannot be one motion, but to add the building commissioner slash building department, wherever Council and Planning, Development and Sustainability Office are listed. And then I think, let me know if I'm framing this correctly, Director Hunt. that for the plan of action proposal for the comprehensive plan implementation section, that pricing proposals include specific pricing for that. Just that any price proposals include specific pricing for the plan of action to implement the comprehensive plan.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sounds right. We're sitting here on our computers drafting language between us. So what we had so far was in the primary work product section, the comprehensive plan has an implementation section on pages 195 to 206 that provides guidance on a path forward for zoning change. proposers are expected to review that section and include a recommended process in their proposal.

[Zac Bears]: Great. Yeah. And I mean, and I'm, I think we're, we're framing these motions so that we can then have the detail.

[Alicia Hunt]: Yeah. We'll keep wordsmithing some of these. It'll be easier.

[Zac Bears]: Just before you do that, Mr. Clerk, Councilor Caraviello is here. Just wanted to acknowledge that he is present and we're going to add you as a co-host in a moment. Great.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Can somebody make that motion?

[Zac Bears]: No one's made it yet. Could you read it back and then it looks like Councilor Tseng is willing to make it.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Tseng moved to change the language under public process to say feedback solicited from the public and also the following. a motion to add meetings with the City Council under the public process section, a motion to add the building commissioner or department wherever the council and PDS are listed, a motion that any price proposals include prices for a plan of action to implement the comprehensive plan.

[Zac Bears]: Sounds right. On the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by Councilor Collins, Mr. Clerk, please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Caraviello?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Collins?

[Unidentified]: Yes.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Councilor Naitis, absent. Councilor Scarpelli? Councilor Tseng? Yes. President Morell?

[Nicole Morell]: Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Vice President Harris? Yes. Six in the affirmative, one absent. The motion passes. I think that brings us around to kind of closing us out. Let me just share the last thing. This is the anticipated project timeline that we drafted. and just to review it, essentially, at least as written, thank you, Commissioner, for being here. Much appreciated. There's a suggested submittal closing date, so this would when submissions back from the RFP would be May 31st, 2023. Selection of two consultants for a presentation to the Council would be June 15th, they would be selected. The presentations and interviews would happen in June and July. Selection could happen in July and August with the goal of a contract negotiation in August and the contract approval and initiating the process in September. And then the zoning ordinance work and public hearings and adoption happening ongoing through June of 2025. And again, this is a draft. I'm of two minds on this. I both would very much like to try to start earlier and see how we could do that, but also want to be cognizant of our capacity and time, especially given that if we move things earlier, it will overlap with the budget season and that's already a busy season. So just wanted to present that and want to hear from my fellow Councilors on their comments about that anticipated timeline and what they might like to see it look like. I see Councilor Collins.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Um, to me with this, the most important factor to me would be if it seems feasible to the city staff that will, you know, mostly bear the weight of carrying out the finalization of the RFP, hearing back from the bids, doing the preliminary vetting and interview and evaluation. To me, my goal all along has been hitting the ground running with this in September of this year. I agree that this is a timeline that I both wish it was happening sooner, and I also think at the same time it's ambitious, but I think maybe it's the sweet spot then that if we set a timeline that I think, you know, this requires us to stay on it if we're going to, you know, have a chosen contract that we are working on negotiating in August, knowing how fast the spring and summer goes. I think that this describes a timeline that has that urgency, but if we stay on it, I think we can meet that goal of diving into this in the fall when we resume our meeting frequency.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. Councilor say, I would also agree that this is a sweet spot, I think, um, I, I would be a little hesitant to have too much of this overlap with budget season. Um, I think our own bandwidth is a question there but also for the public following the meetings. If they're just too many budget meetings and this going on at the same time, it'd be difficult for folks to follow. I think it's reasonably ambitious, I mean, you know, I think you noted that in the comments as well. I wouldn't want to end later than this, I think I'm looking at the years. I think it would be better if we got this done before. before campaign season started, just because, just for political reasons. The next one. Yeah, the next one, the next one, yes. Because I think something, a project like this, you know, should be carried out during a term when all of us are very focused on the work that's ahead of us or in front of us. I'd be interested in knowing what the city staff thinks about this timeline, but I think it's reasonable. I think it strikes the right balance between ambitious, but not, but realistic.

[Zac Bears]: And I think I see Councilor Scarborough and then Councilor Caraviello.

[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, no, I think that, you know, you wish you you know, pick, pick and choose. But I think you're also looking at, we don't want to lose any good candidates because we're limiting the timeline and rushing things. Because if it's, you know, you're talking people about their vacations, you know, so having a little more leeway in those months, I think is important. Believe me, I agree with you, Councilor Bears, I want to get this going as quickly as we can. We've waited, what, 1965? So I think that let's do it right. And, you know, even if it has to slow things down, but I do agree that getting it done before, you know, the next election cycle and making sure that, I mean, that so far away, but you never know what group comes in, you know, where their philosophies and visions are. So I think, you know, it's nice that we're all on the same page. This has been a very cohesive working relationship with all of us. I think that, I think this is a, I, my wishes and what I see, I like what I see. I think that could be worked.

[Zac Bears]: Great, Councilor Caraviello.

[Richard Caraviello]: Thank you. I'll back up what Councilor Scarpelli said. I think we may be a little bit too aggressive during that, you know, that July and August time of the year, especially, you know, with members of City Hall being on vacation, other people. I think, you know, I agree. Maybe we take a little step back and do it right rather than rush it through or have meetings in July and August when there's no one there or two or three members aren't there. So that's just my opinion on that little June, July, August schedule there.

[Zac Bears]: Got it. Yeah. And I think the thinking there, but I totally appreciate that context. certainly it seems like we all agree that doing it even sooner than this doesn't make sense. Um, then that just may not be possible. And the thinking was that we try to get most of the meetings and work out of the way, uh, in June, and then we could have maybe one or two meetings in July or August to make a selection. And maybe that might work. But obviously, I think we want to coordinate that. I completely agree with you both of you with making sure that the city staff who need to be there who are making the recommendations can be there. Um, so, you know, uh, I'll pause there and then Director Hunt is at the podium. I want to hear from Director Hunt and then maybe we can go back and look at maybe amending this timeline a little bit to reflect what everybody said. So, Director Hunt.

[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you. And I just will note that I probably have to leave in about five minutes because we have a 40 B meeting shortly tonight public hearing. Um, so we were looking at this. This is like we don't think this is too aggressive. This is fine. Um, I actually think that I had been asking about when the council would be meeting this summer as we're planning out other things It might be helpful for us for those of us who know our summer plans actually share them with the city clerk, so that we can tell you like, there's a week I'm going to be out of town, right, I can give you that now, not in a public meeting. perhaps we could align some things to make this easier on everybody. That said, I just do want to make sure that you all are aware there was a little bit of mention of the MBTA community zoning. We have been working on that we are moving that forward we have technical assistance and consulting from various regional and state bodies to help us with that. And I do expect that we'll be needing to bring this body zoning change related to that, possibly either over the summer or very early fall, which is part of why I'd like to be aware of when you're thinking about meetings so that we can try and line some of these up. And I just wanted to be very upfront about that, that that can't wait for this process. We're gonna move that forward. And then we do just expect that to get blended in afterwards. They'll take that into account. we'll need to just not bring us out of compliance with the new MBTA communities law when we do that. I just wanted to be clear about that. So, but this looks, I mean, it's fine. It does not look too aggressive to us.

[Zac Bears]: Okay. I feel comfortable with that. I'll go to Councilor Collins, Councilor Tseng.

[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate that, Director Hahn. I think, you know, especially hearing from our planning department that this doesn't look outside of their capacity I think we should keep it as is I think you know, falling behind sometimes is, you know, an inevitability based on unforeseen circumstances but I don't think that's a reason to move our goal deadline back since we're all champing at the bit to do this and it sounds like the planning department is very ready to do good work over the summer.

[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. This is, that was very helpful context for me. I'm happy to hear that it sounds like a realistic timeline. This is slightly different from dates, but it is somewhat tied to the timeline. I think it's pretty clear earlier on in the RFP that we're saying if you know if there are any emergency fixes any important fixes that we can make first to send them to the council propose them. I'm wondering if that needs to be in the timeline section as well because this might read like, oh, we just want to final product by June 2025. but I'm not as familiar with RFP language, so it might be helpful for city staff or for other Councilors to weigh in.

[Zac Bears]: Kurt. Thank you. Any thoughts on that front? I mean, I think this ongoing through June 25, the intent was to say there will be things happening sooner and later, and there will be an ongoing process, but I do hear your concern. I'm just wondering if there's anything we think we should throw in to clarify that a little bit more.

[Alicia Hunt]: Sometimes when we do something like this, we'll list what it is that we want specifically to see. So actually, I don't think we have like a list of anticipated documents. And one of the things we will often say is a proposed timeline. So like we gave them this high level timeline, we'll ask them to propose a more detailed timeline. So we might actually, I'm glad you said that, Councilor, because I hadn't really processed this. It doesn't say, you know, we'd like a narrative proposal, a timeline, a separate price proposal that we'd like their qualifications attached, resumes attached, and then Fiona will have legal documents that she'll want to see attached as well. So we'll we should put our heads together with Fiona just to, and I think that if we framed it as a, that we should include a list of expected documents as part of the proposal, and then we'll just generate that based on these things. This just refers to it as a technical proposal and a price proposal, but I think we wanna spell out that in the technical proposal, we wanna see a proposed work plan a timeline, resumes, qualifications. We did say, we sort of mentioned it's buried in here that we want examples of web links to sample ordinances and as well as sample pages. So sample work product would be on that list of things. It's very helpful to these guys to get a checklist and then they make sure everything's in it.

[Zac Bears]: Great, so I'm hearing that as a motion to further amend the RFP to include a list of expected documents with a proposed work plan and timeline. That's not exclusive. There could be other documents as well. Right on the motion of Councilor Tseng seconded by second, seconded by Councilor Scarpelli.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Zac Bears]: Yes, six in the affirmative one absent the motion passes. Any further discussion, I feel like we've gone through the full document but any further discussion on this process before we conclude. Well done, Mr. President, Vice President. Thank you much appreciated. Seeing none, is there a motion on the floor. Motion to adjourn by Councilor Collins seconded by, seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk please call the roll.

[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, affirmative one absent the motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you everyone.