[Zac Bears]: Fifteenth, oh, there we go. Fifteenth regular meeting of the Medford City Council is called to order. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Present. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Present.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mullane. Present. Councilor Scarpelli. Present. Councilor Tseng. Present. Vice President Lazzaro. Present. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Present. Seven present, none absent. The meeting is called to order. Please rise to salute the flag. indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Announcements, accolades, remembrances, reports, and records. 26148 offered by President Bears, Councilor Millane, and Councilor Tseng. Be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we invite the residents of Ward 1 to attend the Ward 1 neighborhood meeting on September 23rd at 7 p.m. at the Andrews Middle School. This meeting will be hosted by Councilor Millane and Councilor Tseng, and residents are welcome to attend and discuss improvements they would like to see in their neighborhood. For more information and a Zoom link when it's available, please visit the City of Medford events calendar.
[Liz Mullane]: Councilor Malone you just wanted to reiterate this is an opportunity for residents within Ward 1 to be able to come and talk about things within their neighborhoods. Any kind of comments feedback suggestions that they have. It really is a chance to build community and to bring people together. So we're really hopeful. that people will come. We're trying to push the word out as best we can, so please, if you can share this as widely as you can to other members within, other residents within Ward 1, we appreciate it. It'll also be on Zoom. MCM will be there as well, so we'll be able to answer any questions that come in in the hybrid option. And it's at the Andrews Middle School cafeteria. So really hopeful to see everybody there. And I look forward to attending either this one or one of the ward meetings in the future. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Mullane. On the motion to approve by Councilor Mullane, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. 26-153, offered by Vice President Lazzaro, a resolution to acknowledge and celebrate National Recovery Month. Whereas September is National Recovery Month, and whereas harm reduction is under attack by the federal government and programs and services have been eliminated wholesale, which will most certainly result in overdoses and deaths, and whereas Medford's Department of Health and Human Services does powerful work every day to support our residents in recovery, Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we acknowledge and celebrate National Recovery Month and continue to work publicly to push back against negative stigma regarding those in recovery and celebrate their achievements and their inherent value. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, President Bears. September is National Recovery Month, as I mentioned. I invited our Medford recovery coach, Chris Zuma, here, and our city social services coordinator, Jason Stone, to come speak about the recovery services that are offered by the city. But I wanted to just briefly say that It's I believe it's important to acknowledge our residents in Medford who are in recovery and that they are important valued members of our community. and that recovery is often a very difficult thing to sustain. And one of the things that we're facing in this time in Medford, in New England, and the United States overall is a reduction in funding for social services for vulnerable people like people in recovery, people who have substance use disorder, people with mental illness, people who are unhoused, and people at risk of all of those things. So there are some programs that are being cut and there are other programs that are being having additional restrictions placed on them. And something called harm reduction, which is a really accurate term for what, thanks Basil, a really accurate term for what it is. It's a program that's data informed and that helps people with substance use disorder limit the harm that is done to their bodies and minds when they are using drugs. Those programs, if any of those programs receive federal funding, they're no longer supported. So they cannot receive federal funding. So harm reduction programs are being decimated everywhere in the country. that means that harm is increasing, and that means that people who are in danger, who were already stigmatized, who were already being left behind, are now being further left behind and forgotten. And the people that are trying to help them are less able to help them, but that doesn't mean that the people aren't still there, don't still know how to help them and aren't still trying, but may be trying in slightly different ways, using different terminology, using different methods, but still showing up every day and trying really hard to make sure that people know that they have a safe place to go and that there are resources available. So I want to say thank you to the Department of Health and Human Services in Medford. And I want to just highlight and invite Jason and Chris to come on up and tell us about some of the programs that are available in Medford. And I think I missed the celebration. There was a recovery celebration in the city that was last weekend. last Saturday. There's also National Overdose Awareness Day is the 31st of August. That already passed. But these things are ongoing yearly things. And I think it's always important, even if we had early Even if we had a really supportive federal government of this work, it's still important to remind people that the stigma still exists right now. We still need to let people know about resources that are available, and we still need to remind people that Substance use disorder is a disease and it is a disability and that people are protected who experience this disease and that we are here to take care of each other and support each other and make each other feel welcomed and at home here in Medford.
[Unidentified]: That was very good.
[Jason Stone]: Thank you for the invite to have Chris and I both here. Yes, we did have our... We've done Recovery Month events in Medford in the past. We sort of chose Saturday to call it the first annual Recovery Fest outside because we did it at the Quantum Shell this year. We had a bunch of vendors. Chris and I co-emceed one better than the other. We had a bunch of vendors. We had speakers. We had music. We had games for the kids. We had food. It was a good day. The weather certainly helped, but it was a great day to sort of highlight recovery, to highlight that we don't have to be hiding in the shadows. You don't have to be secretive. It is a bright and sunny day on the banks of the Mystic River. Come on down. Have food. Hang out. Celebrate. Let Chris teach you how to do the Cupid slide. Is that what it's called?
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Cupid Shuffle. Cupid Shuffle.
[Jason Stone]: Yeah, it was a great day. It was a great day to be visible, to have a bunch of people out celebrating recovery. Recovery month is obviously a wonderful thing. Recovery is more than just one month, but it is certainly nice to celebrate it, to all come together to celebrate it. As you mentioned, we did Overdose Awareness Day, August 31st as well. There are 165 flags planted in a ribbon shape on the front of City Hall on the lawn. To represent the 165 lives lost to overdose from Medford residents since 2015, that includes 11 in the last calendar year. So we know that while we've made strides, we know that while overdose numbers in Massachusetts and Middlesex County specifically have gone down, there's still a lot of work to do because each and every one of those flags obviously was somebody's kid, somebody's friend, somebody's mom, somebody's aunt, somebody's coworker, a student in school, and that's sort of a tangible way to get people to realize that this is still, like, we're still fighting every day. I don't know, I brambled.
[Chris Summa]: Well, you basically stole all of my thunder. One of the other things that we did actually recently, and this is the first year that we brought it to Medford, was the Adopt-a-Poll. And what that is, is all of the purple ribbons that you see on the different polls, like from City Hall, down towards Medford Squip, and to the Chevalier. Yep. Basically what that is, is that's names of people that we've lost to overdoses. And there's also like on the ones that we didn't have names for, like there's little like inspirational quotes and recovery quotes. And it's just to get out there and to have the public see it. And you had mentioned stigma. And that's a huge barrier that, you know, guys like us are trying to help people with because a lot of people don't want to come forward and say, I have a problem, I'm dealing with addiction and, you know, substance use disorder, I apologize. And one of the reasons why you see us all over the place and you see us out in the community and in your face type of stuff is because trying to show that You don't have to worry about that. stigma that's attached to it. We try to lead by example. That's why we're always out in the community. That's why you're always seeing us everywhere. It's because we want to show that even though we've had troubled pasts, we can get through it. Just because we were broken at one point doesn't mean that we're damaged for the rest of our life. We do recover. We do get better. And granted, I never say we've recovered. We're in recovery. So it's something that, I'm saying we. I'm speaking for myself, I apologize. But it's something that we want to lead by example in terms of you can be out there you can own Mistakes that you've made take accountability for it and then grow from it and still become the best version of yourself So all of this stuff that we're doing, you know out in the community this month and like Jason said every month It's just to show that it's okay people understand and we can grow from this and we can be better. So that's why, like, you know, you see us all over the place and stuff like that. We're just trying to remove that stigma because it's tough and it's one of the biggest challenges that we face because people are afraid to come forward and say, you know, I'm dealing with substance use disorder because for so long you were made to feel less than because of it. And once we can deal with that and put it behind us and realize that, all right, it's not about what we did yesterday, it's about what we're doing right now and where we're going tomorrow. That's life in general. Whether you're in recovery or whether you're just anybody, it's about what we do with the moment we have now. We can't worry about our past, because if we're looking backwards, we're going to crash. It's about what's ahead of us and where we're at right now.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. I just want to thank you guys. You know, growing up in Medford, I know a lot of families who've been impacted by substance use disorders and, you know, folks that our community has lost. And, you know, if you look back through different Medford high school yearbooks, you'll see we miss this person and, you know, we wish that they were here on graduation day with us. You know, that's just a small subset of all the folks who are in our community who've been impacted. And I think, you know, making sure that folks can get help and that they know that it's safe and that the city is putting out a strong message of we want to help you. Recovery is possible. You are a beloved part of our community and we're here for you. I think that's just so important and, you know, I really appreciate the work you guys are doing on that front. So thank you so much.
[Chris Summa]: Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[Zac Bears]: All right. On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Sorry, I'll be quick. Thank you so much. I'm just saying. And if anybody is looking for resources, they can contact Jason Stone or Chris Summa, jstone at medford-ma.gov, and csumma, S-U-M-M-A, at medford-ma.gov. And your other information is on the website. Just want to remind people, you can always come to City Hall. Jason is in his office on the second floor a lot, and also at the Medford Library Tuesdays, Thursdays? Wednesday mornings, 10 to noon. All right. Sorry, I got the day very wrong.
[Chris Summa]: get in touch with me and they don't want to reach out through email or cell phone every Wednesday in City Hall. What room is it? I always forget the room. What room is it? 201, thank you. I always forget the room. We run a recovery group. It's an all recovery group from 430 to 530. Food is provided. So that's a way you can come in and link up with me. And obviously, if you're a first responder or a veteran, whether it's former or current, every Tuesday night at First Baptist Church, 7 o'clock, there's a first responder and veterans recovery group where I need to go to right now.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Thank you so much guys.
[Chris Summa]: Thank you so much.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks Chris. Thanks Jason. On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro. Clerk Siegel please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callaghan. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mulane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. All right, 26-157, offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution in memory of Lorraine Marie Miles. Be it resolved, the Medford City Council extends its deepest condolences to the former school community member, Kathy Kreatz, and the Miles family on the passing of her mother, Lorraine Marie Miles, a devoted Medford resident and educator on August 21st, 2026, and further resolves that a moment of silence be observed in her memory and a copy of this resolution transmitted to the family. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Council President. Lorraine Miles passed away August 21st, surrounded by her family. Lorraine was a lifelong Method resident, living in Summit Road for decades. Lorraine was a retired teacher who spent her career in our schools and our parochial schools, through preschool through high school. Former students still recognized her and thanked her for years after having her as a teacher. She survived by her husband, Robert, and their eight children, including Kathy, a former colleague, seven grandchildren, and her first great-granddaughter. I'd ask that the council observe a moment of silence in her memory and that the clerk transmit a copy of the resolution to the family for kid. Thank you, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Any further discussion on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Merlain. We'll take a vote and then we'll have a moment of silence. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mulane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Please rise if you're able for a moment of silence. Thank you. Records, reports of committee, and reports of committees. The records of the meeting of August 4th were passed to Councilor Mulane. Councilor Mulane, how do you find the records?
[Liz Mullane]: I found them in order and motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: Great. I will take a motion to join and approve all of these so we can take one vote. Reports of committees 26-134, this is committee of the whole August 4th, 2026. This is a meeting where we received a presentation on the affordable housing linkage nexus study report. This is so we can finally start collecting linkage fees from development for affordable housing initiative of the council that we got approved by the state house earlier this year. We did the study and now we are moving forward with that. So we should, Councilor Leming is working with the planning office to get some language before us so that we can adopt the motions of the study and get that done. That's that. And then 24.354 and 26-024, Resident Services and Public Engagement Committee, August 5th, Councilor Mullane.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. Yes, we talked through one portion of the summer newsletter. We'll be meeting again tomorrow at 6 p.m. to finish the rest of it, as well as to discuss even further the ward meetings. Again, a reminder, the Ward 1 meeting is Wednesday, September 23rd, the Andrews Middle School cafeteria We love anybody's help that wants to help us and join tomorrow's meeting as well. To talk through it, you can join on Zoom. And look forward to seeing more people there, and please spread it far and wide. And we'll have more of those ward meetings coming up to announce as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great. Thank you, Councilor Mullane, for all your work organizing that. Those are gonna be important meetings as we move to the new charter with ward-based city councilors and district-based school committee members. on the motion of Councilor Maloney to join the records and the reports of committees and approve seconded by seconded by Councilor Scarpelli. Clerk Siegel please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malauulu? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Refer to committee for further discussion. 26-154 offered by Vice President Lazzaro, this is a resolution to discuss safety improvements at the West Medford train station to be referred to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee. So we will take brief comments from Council Vice President Lazzaro and then No public comment and then we will refer this for a full discussion by Public Health and Safety Committee. But the gist of it is that the West Medford train station is recognized by the MBTA as one of the most dangerous in the state. The MBTA knew the dangers of the Accra crossing since 2023, at least 2023. They had planned safety upgrades, did not make the safety upgrades when they made accessibility upgrades. And John Westwater was injured by a train on July 20th and subsequently died from his injuries. And we need to work with the MBTA and be proactive in protecting our residents, especially our vulnerable residents from safety hazards. So Vice President Lazzaro has proposed that we hold a meeting of the Public Health and Community Safety Committee to discuss the timeline of the safety upgrades with the MBTA, inviting state reps and state senators to have all the interested parties and get that moving so that we don't have another tragedy. So Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I've been in communication with Mr. Westwater's sister, Meg, who was very supportive of this idea. She thought it was a really appropriate and meaningful way to move forward. John Westwater was a vulnerable resident, a senior going through early stages of Alzheimer's disease and or dementia of some kind and was on his way from his home by the train station to Magnificent Muffin and there's a crossing of the train station and it's wide open in the middle and he walked across and the problem with that isn't that any mistakes were made necessarily by any government agency, but just that my understanding is from speaking with the MBTA and our state delegation that the MBTA has been in the process of making improvements that would increase the safety that would have prevented this entirely, but that it's still in the process of getting procurement settled. and that government contracts take a while to process and bureaucracy is slow. I find that incredibly frustrating. Frustrating doesn't begin to address it. What I'm interested in talking about in this committee meeting is what the timeline is, how we can help accelerate procurement, how we can make this happen as quickly as possible. Anything we can do in the meantime, should we be shutting down this crossing, I take that train with some frequency and anybody can still walk across the tracks. And I think that should have been shut down right away. I mean it should have been shut down in 2023. So it should have been shut down much earlier than that. So we should be judged by how we protect the most vulnerable among us and we did not protect John Westwater so something has to be changed as soon as possible. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro to refer this to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee seconded by Councilor Tseng, Clerk Siegel please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 70 affirmative, none in the negative, the motion passes. Petitions, presentations and similar papers, 26149 petition for a common victor's license, Ebisuya. We have the petitioner with us. The clerk has let us know everything is valid and I will recognize Councilor Scarpelli. If you guys could come to the podium, Councilor Scarpelli will ask you to, I think, make a brief just presentation of your business and then we might have a few questions and we'll go from there. But I'll recognize Councilor Scarpelli and then you guys, Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I do see a bunch of, I'm just joking. Everything, everything, sorry, everything is in order. He did it. I'm just, I'm the joker, but everything is in order. We're so excited that someone is moving into a very popular location. And the fact that we have a business that was, um, who had to leave a very successful, um, position and location. And now that you're resurfacing again and making making a lot of residents happy. So I see everything's in order. But if the petitioner could share a little bit about, uh, the journey and, um, a pretty helpful plug.
[Zac Bears]: So yeah, so you could tell us about NBC coming back to Medford Square. We'd love to hear about it. Oh, here you go.
[SPEAKER_20]: I want to be not shut off. This is Chef Douglas, who's going to be helping us. This is the owner, Hideki Hiramoto, and he's who owned the Ebisu Market, as many of you know. And Ebisu Market was very happy to be here in Medford and was successful, and then due to the conditions, needed to leave, as you know, from the building being torn down. And that also gave them the chance to assess what was the prevailing market. what was the prevailing market, which is why they determined to open a restaurant instead, which I think something's being translated as we speak. So we took a year to find a space, and this is what opened up. And we think it's a very beautiful space. And while there have been challenges to get into it and make it work, this is one of the final crossing points. And we're very excited to be here again. And we thank you very much for your kind support. Want to talk about the food a little?
[SPEAKER_53]: We're just excited to have a place where we can share Japanese culture and make space available for you guys to have community enjoy Japanese food and affordable, nutritious area and share community.
[SPEAKER_04]: We was grocery market, but this time restaurant, and I'm gonna serve sushi, and he's gonna serve Italian food. So it's a fusion. Please enjoy.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much, you guys. We're really excited.
[SPEAKER_20]: I do just want to say one more thing, is that we're also hoping to have cultural events there, and they've already had some classes, Kintsugi class, which some of you are familiar with, with the broken glass, and then you paint it with gold, and that the broken thing comes out better and stronger than it was before, which represents us.
[Zac Bears]: Great. And one of our most beautiful spaces in town as well. So excited to have you guys back.
[SPEAKER_20]: I walked in that space.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. All right, I will recognize Councilor Callahan and then Vice President Lazzaro. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I missed having Ibasuya so much while you were not there. And not only, I was going to ask you a question. I don't think I need to ask, but you can clarify for me. In addition to the amazing selection of groceries, I loved getting the sushi grade fish. as well as the triangular rice, you know, delicacies and those things. And so I'm curious if those will also be available. If you're not sitting in the restaurant, will you be able to do some pickup like we were before?
[SPEAKER_20]: Do you mean takeout or you mean purchase for your own? Yeah, no, just like the little things where you walk in and you just grab some things like that. We do onigiri lunchtime. Okay. Onigiri is the little triangle one. Yeah. Great. And sushi grade fish?
[SPEAKER_04]: Sure.
[Anna Callahan]: For me, right? For you, Councilor Callahan? Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Watch out, everyone. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I appreciate you all sticking with Medford. I know it's been a journey, and thank you for coming out tonight. I just want everybody to keep in mind that, you know, our city is really, we really value businesses that can bring revenue to the city. This is a great way to have revenue in the city that doesn't cost taxpayers anything because it's part of our vibrant central hub. It's part of Medford Square. It's a wonderful opportunity for, you know, nightlife and cultural exchange and everything that makes Medford powerful and exciting and a great place to live and work and spend time, so I really appreciate you all. Coming back to Medford, my ex-husband once bought a $100 melon from you, because he was on your newsletter. So you guys are a huge part of my, I'm not like critical of that, I mean he loved it, he was very excited, and it was like a great melon. Like, we're big ABC fans in the Lazzaro household. But, and my kids are obsessed with sushi, so it's like, it's a great thing to have you back. I'm so excited. Everybody's thrilled. I mean, I think Medford is so, so elated that you're back. Thank you.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: As I mentioned, going to Ebisuya was a hallmark of my childhood here in Medford. It is such an important place, especially for Asian American residents in our city. And it's so, so exciting to have you guys back in Medford. I've seen so much support for you all online, in person, and I think having Japanese food and Italian food really is the encapsulation of what it's like to be Asian American in Medford. So I'm very excited for you all. Ganbatte kudasai.
[SPEAKER_20]: And I'm sorry about that time we had to kick you out when you were in high school. I'm just going off Scarpelli.
[Zac Bears]: Would it be Justin you're kicking out, or would it be me? Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: No, again, I see everything's in order. Again, that's in the Scarpelli house. Japanese-Italian mix, that's dangerous. So we really appreciate it. And I move approval if everybody has shared what they needed to, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve, and you don't have to have the sushi grade fish. It's not a condition of approval. That's just a loyal customer who'd like to see. I just want to be clear. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by? That's everybody. Councilor Tseng, the only person who didn't. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Congratulations and welcome back. 26150 petition for a common victor's license for Moussey and Co. 22 Riverside Ave., Medford, Mass. Do we have the petitioner present? Great. Same thing. I'm going to turn it over to Councilor Scarpelli, and he's going to tell us if everything's in order. Then we'd love for you to describe the business, and then we'll go from there. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. We love going through these. So again, everything does look in order and I welcome the petitioner to share a little bit about your business and take the plug. Yeah, sure.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, we have been talking about certain business is my friend and I love poverty and I met the eyes of idea Monday. He said that he wants to do something different and want was a good chance I also live in Medford. So it's something I love, and also I want to do something for myself. So I love it. I started, and I wanted to start and bring a difference, not just a regular boba tea. Had new things, like take classes and stuff, just trying to bring something new that doesn't exist yet. Something I love, so I hope it becomes successful.
[George Scarpelli]: Wonderful. This is great about Medford. We are seeing so many diverse and new restaurants. So we can go for chicken parm, a little sushi and then a little bowl of tea after. Setting my menu for next week.
[Zac Bears]: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day about, or? Open. Open, yeah, sure. That's just, you're authorized for that, but if you want to tell people when you'll be open and what time.
[SPEAKER_09]: Oh, yeah, we usually open 9 to 8. Okay. Weekends we plan to be a little longer, so we need you, so we'll see. But the plan is 9 to 8.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, that's great. All right.
[SPEAKER_04]: Move approval.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, on the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve, seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Mullane. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mullane? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations.
[SPEAKER_09]: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: 26151 petition for a common victor's license for Rosso's Grill. Do we have the folks from Rosso's here? Either in person or on Zoom. If you're on Zoom, you can raise your hand. Do you see them, George? I don't. All right, we'll give it a second and then we might table. Just checking to see if they've notified us of anything. All right, Vice President Lazzaro, is this a?
[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to table.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion table by Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Motion to take papers 26147, 26-156, 26-093, and 26-161 out of order. On the motion by Vice President Lazzaro to take papers 26147, 26-156, 26-093, and 26-161 out of order, seconded by.
[Zac Bears]: Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll. Councilor Callahan. Yes. Councilor Leming. Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mulane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. I have an affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 26147, submitted by Mayor Breanna Lungo-Koehn, Community Preservation Committee Appropriation Request, Trees Medford, Berry Park College Ave Plantings. Dear President, Mayors and City Councilors, on behalf of the Community Preservation Committee, I respectfully request and recommend the approved, that your honorable body approve the following fiscal year 2027 recommendation for the Community Preservation Committee requesting the appropriation of $8,500 from the CPA Open Space Reserve to Trees Medford to provide funds for the Berry Park College Avenue Plantings Project. Project will be tracked in the Community Preservation Fund. CPC recommendation letter is attached and incorporated, and CPA manager, Teresa Dupont, will be in attendance to address the council. I do see Teresa on Zoom. If we could make Teresa a co-host. Clerk Siegel will recognize Teresa, and then we'll recognize you guys. And thank you all for being here for this important project. Teresa.
[Theresa Dupont]: Good evening, President Bears and esteemed members of the council. I want to thank you all so much. We are here tonight. I'm going to probably turn most of this over to Amanda Bowen, who is standing before you from Trees Medford, but I'm here tonight to ask for your support in the appropriation of $8,500 towards a really great planting project that is being led up by Trees Medford. I'm here to answer any questions, but I would defer my time to Amanda. And it looks like Kim is there as well.
[Zac Bears]: Great, yeah, I see the folks of the neighborhood in Trees Medford. I will go to Councilor Callahan and then we'll go to the folks in Trees Medford. Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you so much. I wanna give a tiny introduction because for years now, I have been pushing for volunteer tree planting of City Sidewalk Trees and this is our third year trying to make that happen. This year, we are stymied by the reality that we do not have a tree warden. So, that project is still on hold despite, you know, over 70 people who have volunteered to use their time and their energy and their labor. But what has the amazing and wonderful thing that has happened is there's so much energy in Medford for people who want to plant trees, who want to spend their time beautifying our city, combating climate change. creating community together and leaving a legacy for future generations. And I have been inspired and honored to be helping out as much as I can this group of folks with this berry tree planting project. They will be planting in parks where it is a little bit easier. And so I really have had such a wonderful time seeing their energy and how much incredible knowledge and expertise they are bringing to this project. And thank you all so much for being here.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Callahan, and we'll go to the podium. Welcome.
[Amanda Bowen]: Okay, we're gonna, we'll go quickly. We just want to give you a little bit of a picture of the College Grove at Barrie Park. We're seeking the city council... Everyone move in.
[Zac Bears]: I just want them... Everyone, see how many people are here. If they're not all gonna talk, let's at least just move in a little bit. So if you all move to your left a little bit, then the camera, you'll be in the camera. And sorry, my left, you're right. And they'll be able to see. There's a lot of folks here who came to really support this. So go ahead, Amanda.
[Amanda Bowen]: Okay, we're seeking City Council's approval to develop the underutilized parcel of land between College Ave and the Berry Park Tennis Courts into the College Grove. Our goal is to create an inviting, welcoming green space with comfortable seating to bring neighbors together.
[SPEAKER_42]: Hi, I'm Allison Strandberg at 24 Gurley Road. We want to address the local heat island. Our neighborhood, like many nearby, is a documented heat island with limited shade. Planting native trees will provide essential shade and cooling, improving comfort, walkability, and health, especially during the summer.
[SPEAKER_02]: Hello, Talia, 34 Woodmine Road. Expert-backed design. The tree species and landscape layout will be selected with guidance from tree experts, practically all of whom live in Medford. The grove will feature a mix of climate-resilient native species inspired by local natural communities, such as those found in the Middlesex fells.
[SPEAKER_01]: Bernadette Kennedy, 12 College Ave, talking about the community-led stewardship. The neighborhood is strongly united and excited about this project. The children too. We have a neighborhood newspaper written by a group of Mr. Tuck Elementary students who are releasing their latest edition tonight. We are completely committed to a clear maintenance plan, particularly for those first critical three years of establishment. Volunteers and neighbors will handle the watering using water bags, weed control and monitoring. The project will test the new canopy crew, model of a citizen, planting trees on city property.
[SPEAKER_38]: Good evening. Kate Godin, 43 Summer Street. There will be minimal park disruption. The planting footprint will be carefully laid out to keep sight lines open, maintain safety, and respect existing park uses, especially the adjacent heavily used tennis courts. Similar to Tufts Park, the physical area will be fenced off temporarily to protect the young plants while they establish, ensuring no conflict with park operations.
[SPEAKER_23]: Hello, Yasmina Shea, 43 Summer Street. Ecological benefits. Beyond providing shade, the Grove will help control stormwater runoff, improve soil infiltration, and create a high biodiversity habitat for local and migrating birds and butterflies.
[SPEAKER_12]: Leslie Kramer, 10 Adams Street, technically not that neighborhood but I'm hoping to bring a project like this to the hillside. A replicable citywide template is what we're trying to create. We view this as a potential showcase neighborhood project. We have documented our process including the species list, maintenance plan, and outreach tools to create a replicable template that other Medford neighborhoods can adopt. People inside and outside the city have already reached out to us. Many forests in Medford are beginning to grow. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. That was my favorite public comment any group has ever done. I seriously, not just because it was fast, but it was effective. Everyone hit a different point. I didn't have to time any of you because I knew you all would get it short and sweet. And I think not just is this a model for Barrie Park for the rest of the city, maybe a model for city council meetings and public comments. So really, just thank you so much.
[Justin Tseng]: Do we have any further discussion, Councilor Tseng? Thank you. This is a neighborhood I know intimately well and am always so grateful for. I mean, I always say it's the best neighbors, and I think tonight's presentation really shows that. I'm so touched by all of you here. Good job, especially to the youngest voices in the room. It's hard being the youngest person in the room, but you smashed it. You smashed it. This project will will really, really help with heat and livability in the neighborhood. It's one of those community-led investments in our placemaking in our neighborhood that I think really will bear a lot of fruit when it comes to bringing people together and making people more active. I'm also really, really impressed by how quickly this has moved. I remember attending one of the earlier meetings on this not too long ago. And it's really, I mean, the fact that it's at this meeting right now is impressive. So I think that really shows the kind of volume of support you have from the community, both in the neighborhood, but also as a larger city. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you so much. On the motion of Councilor Tseng to approve, seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes.
[Matt Leming]: Councilor Leming? 100% absolutely.
[Zac Bears]: For the record, that's a yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Millane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have an affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes, good luck. Send us some pictures, send it around, and send every neighbor a clip of what you just did. All right, thank you. 26-156, this is a resolution calling for the immediate release of Medford resident Vijay D'Souza from ICE detention in Atlanta, whereas Vijay D'Souza, a Medford resident and longtime member of the First Baptist Church of Medford, was detained by ICE on a return flight to Boston in the Atlanta airport on August 29th, 2026, whereas Mr. D'Souza had been actively working with an attorney on a green card application at the time of his detention. whereas no information about the reasons for this detention were given to his wife, who has been working with an attorney on his release. Whereas this detention has caused a great deal of distress to Mr. D'Souza's family, who continues to fight for his release, the First Baptist Church of Medford, who spearheaded a letter-writing campaign on his behalf, and the Medford community in general, who has been greatly distressed by the latest of many unlawful abductions by ICE in and around our community, be it resolved that the Medford City Council offer the highest possible endorsement for the release of Mr. D'Souza, and allow him to continue with his green card process, be it further resolved that we condemn these acts and recognize the continued harm and fear they inflict on our city and our country. Councilor Leming and then Councilor Tseng.
[Matt Leming]: Yes, thank you very much, Council President Bears. So, I've gone to the First Baptist Church of Medford a few times because they put on an annual Veterans Day event and a couple of their members are also highly involved in lobbying. for after school programs for youth with disabilities. I personally had nothing but good experiences and have nothing but good things to say about their congregation, their pastors, everyone involved in their community. And so it was a shock when we all received an email from Pastor Gregory Sackle, notifying us that a member of the First Baptist Church had been abducted by ICE agents. in Atlanta when he was boarding a flight back to Boston. We don't know much about the specifics of the case, just that he was in the middle of acquiring a green card to become a legal permanent resident when this happened. Now, Vijay was a deacon of First Baptist. He was a member of the pastoral search committee. His wife, Rachel, who sings in the choir, is now stuck in Atlanta trying to arrange his legal defense. Pastor Greg, on the advice of Vijay's lawyer, is now spearheading a campaign for members of the First Baptist to write letters attesting to his character so that they may be used in the court hearing. They've collected nearly two dozen so far, and I hope that this resolution with a unanimous vote can be signed and added to that collection tomorrow. ICE abductions have not subsisted in Medford, even though we have been talking about them less over the past few months. They're just very repetitive and news is slow. We have a new head of the Department of Homeland Security who seems to be able to conduct them without making so many waves in the news, which is sinister in itself. I hope this resolution and the letters being written by members of First Baptist will help in coordinating the release of Mr. D'Souza from custody. I also hope that it can serve as a reminder that this is still happening both in Georgia and Massachusetts to people like Mr. D'Souza and those who may not have as much of a community. to people who have maybe have fewer friends and loved ones to advocate for them, but just as much a right to their freedom as anybody else. And I hope it can serve as a reminder that the repetitiveness of these events is all the more reason to continue shedding light on them as we are doing now. Thank you very much for listening to me, and I hope that this can be resolved quickly.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you, Councilor Leming. Councilor Tseng. Thank you, Councilor Levin, for preparing this resolution, and President Bears in joining me in the co-sponsoring of the resolution. Vijay D'Souza demonstrates that our national debate on immigration isn't merely some abstract concept or some national issue that doesn't touch us at home. It shows how far this debate has gone, and I use debate in a kind of sensitive way because it's gone way overboard with that. And we see how it's touching individual lives in our community and ripping people away from the fabric of our city. Vijay is a Medford resident, he's a deacon at First Baptist Church, and he's someone whose life is deeply woven into that congregation and into our community. I've had a chance to read almost 20 letters written on his behalf that tell us who he is. He helps organize the First Baptist's Christmas gift drive for families who are struggling. He cooks meals for the congregation. And then he stays afterwards to do the dishes and take out the trash. He serves on the committee that's searching for his church's next pastor. And in fact, he was supposed to interview a candidate the day after he was detained. And that is what detention like this It doesn't just remove one person. It creates a hole, a tear in our community. It leaves his wife terrified. It leaves a church missing a deacon. It leaves our Medford community missing one of its members. It leaves his friends and neighbors scrambling for lawyers, writing letters, calling elected officials. and wondering whether someone they love will come home. Vijay was already working through the legal process towards permanent residency when he was attained. And, you know, I hope that, you know, whatever you might believe about immigration policy, I hope that as a society we can come together and recognize that every single person in this country deserves due process, they deserve dignity, and they deserve a fair opportunity to make their case. We should all be recognizing this as a promise of democracy. So tonight I hope we as a council send a clear message that Vijay belongs to a community that knows him, that values him, and that wants him home. That we stand with Vijay, his family, and with every neighbor that's forced to live in fear in the city.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Tseng. I can't say it much differently than my colleagues who I co-sponsored this resolution with, but, you know, not only do we have this case of a neighbor, devoted member of our First Baptist Church, and his partner, and all the people in the city who care about him, who was doing the right thing, and who was going through the process, Now his family is torn apart, his community is deeply affected by this, and we have to pass resolutions like this and write letters just so that this person can be back home with with his family and his neighbors and his friends. And it just doesn't make sense. Obviously, he's one of hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of thousands of families in the country who have been hurt by this. I also want to thank our... Residents who have been organizing the community response network here in our city, who are at the courthouse on Mystic Valley Parkway every day, where ICE is showing up every day and abducting people from this community every day. And they're showing up to court. These are people who are going to, you know, going to court, they're doing the right thing, they're trying to be part of our civic life, they're our neighbors, they are our community members, they are our siblings and our spouses and our kids. And it's just absolutely wrong. So we are going to pass this resolution, I think, and we're going to send a letter along with all the folks at the church up on Oakland Street saying we'd like our neighbor back. And if you'd like to send a letter too, I'm sure that would be welcome. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I think it's important that when people notice injustice like this, that they do what is in their power to call it out. And as local elected officials, when somebody in our community asks us to do something, it's important that we respond to the best of our ability with what we can do. And we have the platform that we have. I appreciate So I'm going to turn it back over to you. Thank you. though every day there are so many people who live here who are who have made administrative errors and are facing the same consequences as somebody who may have committed an armed robbery and It is unjust, and even the people that have committed an armed robbery deserve due process, and everything that is happening is against the Constitution. And we, importantly, I think, are reaching a point of saturation where it's possible for us to accept these things as commonplace and to stop feeling upset about it. But I don't think it's good for us to keep feeling the level of upset that we may have initially felt. But it is important for us to keep talking about it. Because the people whose lives are affected only have one life, and they should be allowed to live it like anyone else. So thank you very much for bringing this forward, and thank you for giving us this opportunity.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion by members of the council? On the motion by Councilor Leming to approve, seconded by Councilor Tseng, we will go to folks who'd like to speak on this. I'm seeing one at the podium. Give me one second here. If you could give us your name and your neighborhood for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Simon Alcindor]: All righty, Simon Alcindor for Tainter Street. I am up here today to speak as somebody who cares, as somebody who has been organizing around issues like this, because I very much, I highly commend the council for taking up this issue, because it's a reminder of how all these things that we often just see in the news as abstract headlines, they do come back, and they do come back here, they do happen here, and in many cases, they're already happening here, as has been pointed out with the courthouse. And I think that it's a reminder that we do really need to step up in moments like this, as has already been said, and really make sure that we are fighting back. And I think that one thing I wanted to point out as well is that one of the other benefits of resolutions like this is that it provides support for the people who don't, reassurance for the people who aren't able to make it to rooms like this, who are, not really able to go outside their house feeling safe, much less go to a city council meeting and feel the freedom to be able to dissent without the government, without possibly being abducted off the streets themselves. So I, again, really want to commend the council for taking up things like this, because it really is something that shows that solidarity and that ability to, and the reassurance that we will fight for those who really need it, and those who often are not able to be in these rooms. And yeah, just like as always, just like, I think it's a reminder of what we have to do when things like this occur is that we, when our rights are under attack is we have to stand up, fight back. And I think that should, like while we often hear that as a protest slogan, I think that this is a very good example of how we actually make this into an operable thing. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Simon. We will go to Eileen Lerner on Zoom. Eileen, if you could give your name and neighborhood for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Ilene Lerner]: My name is Eileen Lerner and I live on Mystic Valley Parkway neighborhood. And I just wanna say how grateful I am that the city council has put this resolution forth. And I just wanted to say that every single person that has been abducted and is not in our community anymore leaves a lot of A lot of room for grief among many people, not just family, not just friends, but we lose their talents, we lose their abilities, we lose their taxes, we lose everything. And not only are people leaving because they've been deported, but there are a lot of people who have also left the country because they don't want to live in fear. And those losses are affecting our communities as well. And, you know, I myself had an Indian foster family that I've been close to and they now are leaving the country because the father lost his visa and he can't work here anymore. And so the wife had to quit her job too. And now I am losing people also that I've become very close to. And I just want to say the ripples of this disastrous federal government are hurting everybody, not just the people who are objected, but all of us, because we are a community that cares. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Eileen. We'll go back to the podium. If you give your name and neighborhood and you'll have three minutes.
[Josh Ekhart-Lee]: Thank you. My name is Josh Lee. I live on Main Street in South Medford. Thank you all for taking up this resolution. And I want to thank the neighbors who are showing up at the courthouse. I want to also sort of make a note that there is another way that members of our community are showing up and they are sort of seeing what they see as ice action and calling a hotline. And that hotline number is 617-370-5023. So anyone listening or in the room, that is a way you can get involved and make sure we are sort of keeping ourselves safe because it's our job. And thank you for your time and your support of this.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. If you could give your name and your neighborhood for the record and you'll have three minutes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you, Councilor Beard. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushman Street, East Method Mass. I've always said we're a nation of laws and a law should be put forward to the fullest. I've always said that, but I don't understand why would a legal authority put this person under arrest unless he committed a crime of some sort, they had a warrant for him, especially if he had a proper residency, a green card, right?
[Zac Bears]: He had a green card application. He was working to get his green card with a lawyer.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: He had a green card, no?
[Zac Bears]: He was in the process of getting one.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Oh, that explains it. I'm sorry. That explains it.
[Micah Kesselman]: Micah Kesselman, 499 Main Street. I want to thank the council for putting forward this resolution. I also want to echo the recognition that while it is lovely that Vijay has this large community supporting him and can speak out for him, there are many other Medford residents who have been abducted, who are being abducted, and who will be inevitably abducted, who do not have community connections to speak out for them like this. And it's, it cannot be normalized. It is infuriating that it is becoming normalized, that we aren't talking about this at every freaking city council meeting. And I want to remind people, too, that we demanded the city administration back in January do something, at least acknowledge that this is an issue and try and come up with a plan. And we literally have not had any advancement on that. In fact, we've had backtracking. This is the most important thing happening in Medford. All the other garbage I'm involved with and that the council's involved with and that is happening, it pales in comparison to the urgency of people who are being snatched up by unlawful, fascistic, terrible people and being just disappeared on a regular basis. So I appreciate you very much taking up this resolution. And I, again, want to remind people that we need an entire community to help be on guard for this and do what we can to watch out for our neighbors, even if they don't have a community to speak out for them. And the city has to get it together and actually try and do something to or at least acknowledge the pain and hurt and terror that is being inflicted on the residents. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll stay at the podium. If you could give your name and your neighborhood and you'll have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_44]: Hi everyone. Ray Bennett. I live on Piedmont Road in West Medford and I would like to thank the council for bringing this resolution forward today. I do not know Vijay personally, but I come from a family where fascistic abductions have decimated my family tree. So this is a reminder that while we are doing everything that we can for VJ, as the speaker before me just said, we have to do this for everyone. Democracy will die in silence, but fascism will only die if we get really, really loud. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Just briefly, Stephanie, if you're on Zoom, if you could just add a last initial or your last name on Zoom and then I'll recognize you. You can just rename yourself on Zoom. But I will go to the podium. If you give your name and your neighborhood, then you'll have three minutes.
[SPEAKER_03]: My name is Javi Siddiqui. I live on Princeton Street, 111. I'm not a public speaker, so this is awful for me. So the fact that I'm standing here says a lot. I am proof that the system works when it works properly. I was an immigrant. I got my citizenship eight years ago. And I keep thinking back to the fact that I could have been taken at any of those interviews at any time were it today. And that's not how our system should be working at all. I believe in this country. I chose this country. It's hard to move and pick a place that's not your own where people don't look like you. So when you come here, And you know that you have left behind everything to choose this country as your own. It's a big decision, and this is a country of immigrants. Regardless of how people may or may not feel about that, that's the reality of things. We are on land that is not technically ours. That being said, I don't know Vijay personally, but my heart goes out to his family, and I 100% support this resolution. Like everybody has said before me, Medford is, absolutely getting pounded by ice right now. I know that a lot of our neighbors don't see it. A lot of the people in my street have no idea that it's happening. But it is absolutely happening every single day, especially at the courthouse. There are abductions almost daily, sometimes twice a day. Sometimes they're taking people as they're leaving the courthouse, having done what they were supposed to do. The statistics are out there. I'm sure they'll come to light at some point soon. But I just wanted to say that While we don't see it on our streets outside like they did in Minneapolis, it is 100% an issue here in the city and we should really be doing something about it and being much more vocal about it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: You should come back every meeting because that was great. All right. We'll go to Stephanie H on Zoom. Stephanie, if you could give your name and neighborhood and you'll have three minutes.
[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_22]: Hi, my name is Stephanie. I'm in the Riverside neighborhood. I want to underscore everything that was just said before me. I live in Medford and I've come from a family where ICE has abducted people in my family. So this is an issue really personal to me. There are abductions happening in Medford every week during the week at the courthouse. It's really concerning as someone who lives in the immediate neighborhood of the courthouse. So I'm in support of this resolution and hoping that as a city we can do as much as we can and more to protect our neighbors and also just make sure that people feel safe in their neighborhoods. This is again just especially important in this neighborhood, particularly as there are a lot of immigrants in this neighborhood. So yeah, thank you for this resolution.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Stephanie. That is all the public comments on the motion of Councilor Leming, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[George Scarpelli]: Mr. President, if I can, can we revert back to make the motion to take The Common Vic is online, I believe, for RAZOs, if we can finish that up and take that off the table.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to take paper 26151 off the table, and just so everyone knows, we'll take this off the table, we'll do the Common Victims License, then we're going to do the Boston Abzoning, then we're going to talk about the federal court case. So that's the order for tonight so far. And then we'll do everything else that's on the agenda. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to take paper 26151 off the table, seconded by Councilor Mullane. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, I have the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes. 26151, the Razzos grill, common victors license. Do we have the representative from Razzos on Zoom? Could you raise your hand, please? Aha, all right. All right, I'll turn it over to you, Councilor Scarpelli, and then we'll hear from the proponent. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I know that the representative is here, and there was some confusion on the date, but I see everything is in order, Mr. President. I asked the petitioner if he could just share a little bit about the business. I know that, again, when you talk about Razo's Restaurant, it's a staple in our community. always been very generous to all the needs and for any donations and support with any initiatives throughout the community. And I'm glad to see that we have new owners and they're going to carry on the tradition. They're great people. And like I said, I see everything's in order. But if the petitioner can share and enlighten us with anything new, I know that It has been closed for a few weeks for renovations, and things look great there from what I hear. And I know that we welcome them to Medford. So if we can, to the petitioner. Thanks, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Schiappale. If the petitioner, you could just share your name, your business address, and a little bit about your business and what you're planning to do.
[SPEAKER_22]: Hello, everyone. I just want to thank you for the opportunity to appear. My name is Jacob Redmond. I'm the owner, the new owner of Razzles Byron Grill, along with my brother, Joseph Redmond. I'm appearing solo today. He is down working. The business address is 209 Mystic Avenue. Sorry, I'm a little nervous, but just a little bit about us. You're doing great. We're both longtime employees, over 15 years. We worked for Richie since high school. It's been a great place to work and a great staff, customers, and he was just ready to retire, so he gave us the opportunity. We're looking to take on the next 20 years and keep the legacy going. Not much has changed. We just did some upgrades and get everything ready. But other than that, everything's gonna stay the same. And if you guys have any questions, feel free to ask.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Seeing none, Jake, congratulations. So great to see some of the longtime workers taking over the business, keeping a Medford institution going. So thank you. And we have a motion from Councilor Scarpelli to approve. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Hsang? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. Congratulations to you guys and good luck on the next phase of RAZOs.
[SPEAKER_22]: Thank you very much. We appreciate the opportunity.
[Zac Bears]: Thanks. All right. Paper 26-093 offered by Councilor Leming and President Bears's proposed amendments to the Medford Zoning Ordinance, Boston Avenue Neighborhood Corridor District. And this is for the Community Development Board recommendations for final council approval. We have a memorandum from Director Hunt of the Office of Planning Development Sustainability regarding the Community Development Board recommendation for the Boston Avenue Neighborhood Corridor District. They met on September 2nd, 2026 and held a duly noticed public meeting to deliberate and vote on the recommendation. All board members were present. Emily Innes from Innes Land Strategies Group who's here with us tonight presented the latest version of the draft zoning with the end of both the Innes and PDS staff understanding of the feedback from the June 24th City Council and Community Development Board joint public hearing where we closed the public hearing and issued a set of joint recommendations regarding this. I'm just, I'm not going to read the whole memo. I hope that's okay. But basically, the board had most of the items were what had been expected and the draft was edited. There was one item regarding the step back which is the distance at the fifth floor of buildings along North Street in the BA3 subdistrict. So pretty specific issue where there was some confusion and disagreement about what the step back should be. So at the 5th floor, should the 6th and 7th floors be 10 feet or 60 feet away from the road. And the Community Development Board did otherwise vote all of the changes made based on the June 24th meeting to, as part of the recommendation to the City Council. There was a motion by Board Member Buldini. to send us a summary of their discussion which we did receive regarding the BA3 step backs and that the board had some disagreement and that the city council should figure it out. So we're going to make the decision tonight on that specific question and then board member Dina Calagaro motion to recommend the full ordinance with the edits made September 2nd with the carve out of this specific question requiring discussion to the city council for approval with their recommendations. That was unanimously approved by the Community Development Board on September 2nd. And so tonight, we do have on the agenda the language as recommended and we are going to take a quick look at the specific issue before us. And with all of that being said, I'll recognize Planning and Development Sustainability Director Alicia Hunt, and then we'll get a presentation from Emily Innes, and then we'll move from there.
[Alicia Hunt]: Thank you, Mr. President, Alicia Hunt, Director. Just the one clarification in all of that is that because we did not understand that the board did not know that that step back was 60 feet and it was at that meeting that they said, wait, that we don't remember this number, we were not able to show them the shadow studies for what 10 feet looks like versus 60 feet. So they didn't have that information which is the whole reason for doing a step back is how much are you shadowing the neighborhood is why you would go back 60 feet instead of just 10 which would be just a visual break. We weren't expecting that. We didn't know about it. And they said, can we model that? Can you, rather than us delaying our recommendation to the city council, can we just make the recommendation and tell them we just didn't see that one thing? And they respectfully requested that you would look at the shadow studies that are now prepared for that one thing, for that final decision. And then otherwise it was everything as they expected it to be at the end of the June 24th meeting. And I just want to give a shout out to our interns who are new interns this summer who watched and re-watched meetings from May and June of this board and the CD board meeting to make sure that we got everything correct the way it had been stated. And I really appreciate that I did not have to re-watch several meetings that I participated in and they did it for us. So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I don't know, Alicia. All right, we're going to hear a brief presentation from Emily Innes, and then we'll hear from members of the council. Emily, welcome.
[Emily Innes]: Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[Zac Bears]: I'm going to- Here we are again.
[Emily Innes]: Just share this. First of all, councilors, thank you very much for having me again. Emily Keyes Innes, president of Innesland Strategies Group. I would also like to add my thanks to the interns because that meant I also did not have to rewatch several times in meetings that I had been involved in. So thank you. So the issue is a footnote, footnote six. Footnote six says within 60 feet of North Street, the height incentive is not permitted and the maximum height is five stories and that what that means is a 60-foot setback. I am going to show you at February 21st at 3 p.m., June 21st at 3 p.m., so you see the same time of day in different time of year conditions, and then June 21st at 6 p.m., which is roughly the longest stay of the year. And these are small now, so these are the three that you're going to see. I'm going to show you a larger size because they are not possible to read or to view at this size. So we're looking at the 10-foot setback, the 30-foot setback, and the 60-foot setback. February 21 at 3 p.m., what we're looking at is this red dotted line here, and that's showing the extent of the setback. Step back, yes.
[Zac Bears]: It says step back, so I want to make sure.
[Emily Innes]: It should have been step back. That is me. Thank you very much.
[Zac Bears]: We're looking at these top two floors.
[Emily Innes]: The top two floors here. So the lighter color is the base zoning, which is five stories. The darker color is the incentive zoning, so 10 foot, Step back is this little ridge right here. You can see it on this side as well on the Boston Avenue side. What we're looking at is North Street and you're going to see a lot of red dotted lines that are going to show the differences between the different times of years. I've already talked about the limitations of this type of study. This is not real architecture. This is just building massing based on roughly the dimensions of a mixed-use building. So I won't go into details because you know the limitations, but happy to talk about them. So now we're looking at the step back for 30 feet. Again, this sort of limitation right here. 30 feet because a standard residential double-loaded corridor with units on either side is roughly 60 to 64 feet in depth. So 30 feet would be one set of units in a hallway rather than two sets of units on either side of the hallway. So what you can see is a 10-foot shadow in the thicker dashed line. and then a 30-foot step back in the thinner dash line. So again, same day of the year, same time. Now we're going to look at what was shown on the last joint hearing on June 24th, which was the 60-foot step back. And it's pretty much, at February, it's pretty much the same as the 30-foot step back. There's no change there. If there is, it's maybe a foot or two, but not something that this model can show in great depth. Now, June 21st is usually the longest day of the year. It might be June 20th or June 21st. We're going to look at it at 3 p.m. so you can see an exact comparison with February. So this is the 10-foot step back. You'll see it's a little bit of a shorter shadow than the February was. This is the 30 foot step back. So just a little bit less than the 10 foot step back. And then this is the 30 foot and 60 foot step back again at 3 o'clock. There's not that much of a change for either February or June. At 6 p.m., June 21st, longest day of the year, at 6 p.m. the shadows are longer in the summer because of the position of the sun. So at 6 p.m. you do see a difference. Now we're getting closer to the end of the day, but not quite there. This is the first you saw the 10 foot step back. Now you're seeing the 30 foot step back. And now you're seeing the 60 foot step back. So there's not a, Huge difference among all of them, but there is a greater difference in the later hours of a summer evening, and that's what we wanted to show you. I can stop there and see if there are any questions or if you'd like me to flip back to any of the other slides.
[Zac Bears]: Do you have any other further slides in your presentation?
[Emily Innes]: Yes. The chair of the community development board, Doug Carr, showed some ways in which this type of architecture might actually be modeled. I do have images of those that I could show. Excellent.
[Zac Bears]: We'll do the presentation and then we'll go. Perfect.
[Emily Innes]: So he gave us two options, one and two is what I called them. Same thing, we modeled them at 3 p.m. for February 21st and June 21st and at 6 p.m. for June 21st. And then option two, so the difference in the options, and again, I'll show them on a large size, is this is a courtyard with the courtyard open to North Street, and this one has a double courtyard, one open to Boston Avenue, one open to North Street. You can see the red along Boston Avenue is commercial, so again, these are mixed-use buildings. And these are just using the 10 foot step back for the 6th and 7th incentive zoning floors. We're not modeling the other step backs because what we're doing is we are modeling a different type of building configuration. So here, February 21st, I didn't do the lines for these, but I'll just run my cursor along kind of the edge of the shadows. Because the building massing has a courtyard, the shadows don't render quite the same way. You can see kind of gaps in where the buildings are if you follow them along. That's more particularly right here on June 21st at 3 p.m. where you can see this upper part of the building juts out there. No shadow from the courtyard because or minimal shadow from that first floor because the rest of the building shades the courtyard. And then down here, so you can see the courtyard in this massing model does make a difference as to what hits the street. And then at 6 p.m., again, those super long shadows, they're going to be long shadows at 6 p.m. on midsummer's eve. February 21st at 3 p.m., those are the shorter shadows. There's a little bit of a difference that the courtyard makes with those. More pronounced June 21st at 3 p.m., where again you see that gap where it's not shading. And again, the long summer shadows. And you can see, by the way, the slide darkens that we're still, we're moving towards twilight here. That was consistent in all of the slides that from June 21st at 3 p.m. appears quite bright. June 21st at 6 p.m. we are moving towards twilight, but with that, or the very early evening, but with that you still get these long shadows. And that is the end of the presentation.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Emily. So we'll go down to questions from Councilors, and I just want to say before we go there, these are hypothetical massing, not based on a project that has been proposed or a permit that has been pulled, hypothetical possibilities. Is that clear? I want to be clear. Yes. Maybe someone might try to build something like that if we pass the zoning.
[Emily Innes]: And I do want to say that this is using a program called ArcGIS Urban. The city actually has a license. Our firm has a license. These are boxes that are intended to show rough dimensions, but they are by no means what anybody would call architecture. They're simply massing studies for illustrative purposes, and the ability to render the shadows is limited by the software itself. So it's a way of looking at a possible trend, but it is not accurate for somebody bringing forward a specific building.
[Zac Bears]: We won't have a first floor in styrofoam pink, and a second floor in green, and a fifth floor in gray.
[Emily Innes]: If you do, I would respectfully request the architect to rethink the color scheme. Great.
[Zac Bears]: All right, I will go to Councilor Leming, and then Vice President Lazzaro, and then Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes, well first off, I'd just like to thank members of this Council, the Community Development Board, the Mayor and her staff, NIS, Land Strategies Group, and the Planning Department, particularly the interns Izzy and Natalie for watching all those videos, and just everybody for all their efforts they've put into this proposal over the past few months. Just to recap for folks to let us to let people know how much effort has gone into this. Since we first started to discuss this version of the Boston Avenue rezoning on April 8th, we've had three city council planning and permitting committee meetings where we developed the boundaries of these zoning areas and created the initial drafts. two public information sessions where we collected neighbor feedback and concerns, three individual meetings of the community development board were had where they had working sessions and developed their own recommendations, the most recent one being September 2nd, and four joint meetings between the city council and the community development board where our bodies deliberated together on some of the major decision points of this zoning. So that's 12 public meetings over six months, and that's not counting the regular council sessions like this one where we refer this out, this very meeting, the meetings that occurred on the same stretch back in 2025 and previous iterations, as well as the seven non-public internal working group meetings that were attended by a subquorum of the council and the CDB plus the mayor, staff, and the consultants. So this process was the result of very substantial collaborative effort both behind the scenes and in public across the recorded meetings I also counted 34 unique public commenters and that doesn't include the folks who showed up to the public information sessions in their own neighborhoods. We did hear some concerns that folks had with things like reducing traffic, maintaining and building green space, getting more businesses in Boston Avenue, student housing, and I think this zoning proposal does an excellent job of addressing all of those concerns. uh in case folks are seeing some of this for the first time just to summarize what this proposal is and some of the changes we have this is altering three areas of boston avenue which we're calling ba1 around hillside hardware and tambour cafe ba2 at the intersection of boston avenue and harvard near st clements and ba3 which covers the area around the whole foods and the version of the zoning we're considering today will allow BA1 three stories by right and four total with incentives. In BA2, there's sort of a split between four stories by right and seven stories total in some parcels and three by right, four total in others. And BA3, five stories by right and seven total, which we were just looking at the shadow studies for, also allowing purpose-built student housing. These changes also clarify definitions, implement an incentive structure that encourages, among other things, affordable housing and the development of green space, traffic alleviation, and allows for smarter development and thus vitalization of businesses in these areas while maintaining a vibrant path for growth in our community. I think the months of discussion brought us to a consensus largely on where we wanted to go with the zoning. On the point of contention, you know, between the 60-foot setbacks, I do think that a lot of that was the result of, you know, some miscommunication, which is, you know, bound to happen. So I'm planning on voting that we maintain the 10-foot setbacks. That was our original understanding. Moving forward, once again, I'm very proud of the progress that we've made on this project. Council, once we vote this through, will consider an RFP for a zoning and communications consultant in the future to continue this project. moving on to, we'll be moving on to talking about the Tufts institutional zoning, likely continuing with Wellington and Mystic Valley Parkway after that, and some cleanup items to generally reorganize our zoning code. And once again, I'm really proud of the progress we've made. I'd just like to thank everyone who was involved in this process and the public for their patience with us as we move through this. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Leming, and just want to note, I'm watching my partner's dog, Basil, and so if anyone heard that kind of yawn when we started talking about the 20 different meetings we've had on this, that was Basil, so. All right, we'll go. I'll go to Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Basil's sitting over here now. The, one thing I wanted to mention is that this, I mean, can concur that this has been a long journey for all of us, not even me primarily, but that this conversation that we're having now is about one parcel. And I would love to encourage all of us, this, I know, buddy, this, this group but also the community development board to sort of maybe trust our community, our business community, our, you know, the builders and developers that we can make decisions about maybe whole corridors without having to divide things up into single parcels and have these kind of conversations individually. I think it's a little bit too much. And also I would support just the 10 foot. step back personally. That's all.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you Mr. President. First I want to thank the Community Development Board for its work with the council. Our partners with our Alicia Hunt's team and Ennis. We appreciate everything that hard work we put into this and a great deal of work together reaching to this point. On the unresolved setback question along North Street, I support the 10-foot setback. Based on the information and the models now before us, I believe that option best reflects the intent of our earlier discussions, and I move that we adopt that 10-foot setback, Mr. President. I also want to raise two additional issues for discussion that are coming up later, I hope. But first is the proposed zoning. First, the proposed zoning that allows purpose-built student housing in BA3 by special permit. Given the regulations already included in the requirements for site plan review from CDB, I believe we should discuss whether this use should instead be allowed by right. However, this would be substantive change and I want to ensure that the CDB and the public have an appropriate opportunity to understand and respond to it. I would recommend that the CDB and the council receive changing this use from special permit to right and the upcoming cleanup zoning amendment we are considering for meeting. Second question I have is raised about the legalities of the enforceability of the requirement of 80 percent of residents of this private taxable student housing that could be attended by one college or university. I think that's a slippery slope. At this point, I would recommend that we remove this from the zoning amendment and request a clear legal opinion from the law department. Then it can be added back into the part of the cleanup zoning amendment if the legal opinion is favorable. These questions demonstrate why our next zoning process must provide clearer decision points, sufficient public review, and a shared understanding of what each board is being asked of it when we decide. I think it's important. I appreciate my colleagues' thoughts and their input and their opinions, but I also think that when we started this process months and months and years ago, One thing we heard were that making sure that the residents understood. And for this situation, what we left off with as a final meeting, we see some changes that happened after we all agreed. So to me, I think that's something that we could fix with what I just recommended to council president if we can. Also, I'd have to be honest with you. I listened to the opinions of, The residents have reached out. I so appreciate it. I know that all of us did receive a doctorate rendition of Ms. Anducci's thoughts, and I know that a lot of it has to do with having traffic studies, but that's something down the road that here at this level isn't in our purview because we agree but I think that we discussed that in depth as well when we talked about options and talking about automobiles and this type of use and how it would be feasible to lower those standards so we don't that shouldn't be an issue. So there's so many, we talked to so many different pieces of this process and this puzzle, but I do think that we missed something here. And I think that if we can, I think there's a mechanism in place that if we vote in favor of what I've asked, that we could then revisit and still keep things moving in the right direction. So I thank you, Mr. President, and I appreciate everybody's work again.
[Zac Bears]: I just want to make sure I have it, I heard a bunch of stuff there but. Go ahead. The motion would be to adopt the CD board recommendations, the 10 foot step back in footnote, said footnote 6 for North Street and remove, I think I got the page here, the purpose built student housing. That's 3J, so the non-student residency up to 20 percent. Remove that and then, and so that would be adopt the CDBAR recommendations, 10 foot step back, remove that item and that would be approved to be ordained. as the zoning. Yes. All right. And then there was also what I'll do. I'll call it a B paper to refer that section to council and also refer reviewing the purpose built student housing as by right and as part of the cleanup zoning. And so. we take that back when we look at the cleanup zoning?
[George Scarpelli]: Yes, I try to want to move this forward, Council President. We have put a lot of time in it, and I think that we're seeing corridors when we're stalling. We're seeing corridors that we had dreams and wishes falling in hands of projects we don't want to see in Medford, and I think that keeping this moving in the right direction, I would appreciate that. And again, I appreciate both Ennis and architect and chairperson Carr's rendition of the shadow studies. I think that although they're not 100% true, but at least it gives us a true idea of what we're looking at and how we can share that with the residents. So thank you, Mr. President. All right.
[Zac Bears]: So those are the motions. There's a motion and a second. The B paper, second on the B paper. Councilor Tseng, second on the main motion. second by also Councilor Tseng, and then I will go to Emily and Alicia if they have any response, and then we'll go to public comment.
[Emily Innes]: I just want to make one clarifying point that that footnote 6, if the council decides that they want it to be a step back of 10 feet, that's already in there. The footnote 6 modifies it. If you want the step back of 10 feet, all you have to do is strike footnote 6.
[Zac Bears]: Let's just remove footnote 6 and then remove what I believe is 94-9.8.53J. Yes that's page 41 of our agenda page 19 of the red line document that you sent us.
[Emily Innes]: Scrolling down to confirm 19. Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Three point J. Ninety four dash nine point eight point five three four.
[Emily Innes]: Yep. Ninety four dash nine point eight point five point three point J. Cool.
[Alicia Hunt]: So, Mr. President, I'll just let you know that the reason that that 80 percent to be attending of a local university, to be clear, never said undergraduate. These could be graduate students because it is currently Tufts' goal to have 75% of their undergraduates on campus. The concern that was being addressed there is that with the bringing in of the Green Line, we're aware that we're getting more Northeastern and other Boston school students living in Medford for the lower rents. and that there was a concern that this dorm would suddenly become not taking students out of our local housing, but actually just bringing more students to live in Medford who were not previously choosing to live in Medford because suddenly there's a large building to house them. That was the concern. The reason it was 80% and not 100% was they could live with their housemates, roommates, friends from school. significant other or a friend who goes to school somewhere else. There could be somebody who has left school but wants to stay in the dorm with their friends. There could be people who graduate and wanted to stay on. So that's why the board came to a number like 80-20. And I just wanted you all to have that information as to what that rationale was.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I guess just one question on that. I think the point Councilor Scarpelli was raising was the legal question. Did you guys discuss that or did council look at this provision at all?
[Alicia Hunt]: So this is already housing that's restricted to students. If it's not restricted to students, then it is general multifamily housing and should be subject to all of our affordable housing, et cetera, regulations. So as long as it is student-oriented and you're already restricting who lives there to student housing, then there should be a requirement. If one was to strike this and say there's no requirement about it being any percentage students to any university, then you have just made a building that is open to anybody but is exempt from all of our incentive housing, you know, our inclusionary housing, all of our regular standards for multifamily housing. So if the concern was about it being tops and that restricting it was too tight and there's not enough population, striking J actually removes this and makes it not student housing. That makes it housing for anybody. You could strike the educational institution, the part about it being in Medford. Up to 20% may be educational institution, not in Medford. So that would be my concern.
[Zac Bears]: So just this last sentence that says, all other student residents shall be enrolled. at an educational institution. I'm just, I'm wondering, I want to make sure we have the intent right. It sounds like, Councilor Scarpelli, you were saying it's about the saying 80% should be in living. Obviously, it should be students, so I just want to make sure we get it right.
[Alicia Hunt]: Right. The last sentence says all other student residents shall be enrolled at an educational institution in Medford or Somerville. That's the 80 percent. So I think that this whole the paragraph would be reworked. Sorry. It never occurred to me that somebody would suggest this from the floor. So we didn't prepare any language.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. If you just said.
[Emily Innes]: Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate it. But again this is why. Here's the deal. We didn't talk about it. So here we are again, the night on the vote. I never saw this 80% in that context, never. I didn't see that. We never talked about it in this forum.
[Zac Bears]: Right. So let's just.
[George Scarpelli]: So all I'm saying is all I'm saying we haven't we haven't discussed this. We've done such a good job working with partners with the board and ourselves and your office and this team. We've done a good job making sure that these things don't fall through the cracks. This is something from what I hear on both sides that fell through the cracks. So all I'm asking is that we do what we need to do right now and then revisit it when we come back when we have a cleanup. And if we find that legally we can do this or word it correctly where we're not putting ourselves in any liability legally, again, I'm going to revert back to having concerns with not having a city solicitor. So, but that's my cry. Thank you. Sorry about that, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Just up to 20% of total residents may be non-students. All other student residents, all other residents must be students.
[Alicia Hunt]: That, right, that would be if you were going to not make the Medford specific change. It's, Emily reminded me, it was the working meeting that the CD board had before your last joint meeting on the 24th where they discussed having a percentage and. And that it was refined at the last. And then, right, that that language was, we thought it was at that joint meeting as well because it was before that meeting. Okay, so- It may not have been in a printed version that was circulated to the public.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, all right.
[George Scarpelli]: That's a problem. Don't you think this is the issue we're having?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I understand where you're coming from, Councilor Scarpelli. Thank you. So, let's just, I'm gonna say the words out and just so I know what we're amending this to. It would be up to 20% of total residents may be non-students. The management team shall document these residential categories at the start of each semester and report to the city upon request. All other residents shall be students enrolled at an educational institution.
[Alicia Hunt]: That would remove the Medford-Somerville requirement if that is what the council chooses to do.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, I just want to make sure we know what we're voting on. So the motion is to approve the CDB recommendation, 10 foot step back and change. Step back. Step back, yes, sorry. 94-9.8.53J to say. that 20 percent of the residents in this type of development could be non-students and everyone else has to be a student enrolled in an educational institution and the management team has to report that to the city upon request. Okay. All right. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Yeah just quickly to clarify. Director Hunt was saying that students could be from outside Tufts. I don't see anything wrong with that. I mean if that's happening anyway the Greenland extension potentially bringing other students to live in Medford is first of all inevitable, secondly not necessarily a bad thing. I understand that one of the things as a community that raises home prices can be student residents who are transient, have different income sources, raise the cost of housing And maybe it's not in our interest to encourage students from other institutions to move to Medford, but I don't see. Also, once again, we are talking about a single parcel, but I don't see the allowance of or the not restriction of other institutions being a problem here. I also don't know how you could really verify. I mean, are they taking the transcripts of every student, of every resident? I feel like it would be too much. So I guess that's just as a clarifying thing. I think the more restrictions we try to put on people just trying to rent an apartment is, I don't want to be that prohibitive for people. I mean, coming, working in the homeless services space, I don't want to be telling people how much harder it needs to be for them to get a place to live. If that makes sense.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate the comments, but I think that, you know, in discussions that we've had, I think that there are safes that we've implemented that we talked about and making sure that We have these checks and balances. I think that one of the things we talked about is the request from the school saying that if a tough student is living in these type of housing, that the person that's overseeing the housing is also maintaining the requirements of off-campus living. in guidelines of the schools they attend. So I think that we're setting up, we're making sure if we do this, we're setting up a process where we're protecting the neighbors. So this isn't animal house, right? We talked about that. I think that, so there are restrictions. This isn't, you know, I think they're built in restrictions so we can focus on trying to make this happen. But at the same time, also protecting the residents and the neighbors that are afraid of the, you know, You know, I don't want to say sorority fraternity life because a lot of it's good, but, you know, or I'll date myself, but animal house. You know, we don't want animal house. You know, we don't need Belushi running around the city of Medford. So I think that those are in place, I hope. But I think that our biggest, my biggest concern is making sure that we have a, we have that working group that works so well that I don't, here we are and we're on the goal line. I just want to make sure that we keep moving it forward but we do clarify some concerns that both boards will feel comfortable because I kind of like the council as it is now. We're going 7-0 and then the CDB board is all in favor and it's, you know, when you talk to residents, some might not like some of the decisions we made but when you look at the elected officials people voted and then you look at the board that's the professionals in this field and we all concur. I think it's the best that we can do and we're putting the best options forward. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And, yeah, I mean, I think, you know, it sounds like we've gone through 20 meetings and there's, you know, one thing that the city board asked us to decide. It seems like there's consensus on that. And then there's two lingering questions about the newest thing that we're doing in the zoning and, you know, Your motion says, well, I think maybe this piece should be different, but we should probably talk about it with everybody again. And this other piece, there's legal questions, so let's get that review before we include it. And this, just to be clear, the language that we wrote, 80% of the people in this building have to be students. And the only difference that is between this and the CD board is that 80% having to be enrolled at an educational institution in Medford and Somerville or just enrolled in an educational institution. And it sounds to me like the question you're raising, George, is it's one thing to say this has to be students. It's another thing to say these students have to go to a specific school. Right. OK. All right. And we're going to ask for legal advice and then maybe change it back. Yes. All right. OK. You got that? We'll discuss it while we're here for public comment. All right. Anything else from any Councilors? Do all the Councilors understand the motion? Councilman Linn.
[Liz Mullane]: Thank you. I just had one clarifying question. When it comes to these changes that are about the student purpose housing, it sounds like Councilor Scarpelli, you also spoke to the CD board as well, and they want to have a deeper look at this as well. I do remember that they had that special meeting. I just want to make sure that we're all on the same page. as well that that's, they want to make sure that this is also kind of.
[George Scarpelli]: From what I gather, I can't speak for them, but I think that in the conversations I had is that having that extra layer of communication so we can move forward and that gives us another day that all of us are together and say, yes, we agree and no, this is why.
[Liz Mullane]: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification.
[George Scarpelli]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Matt, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, sorry, just to just for just for myself to make sure that I understand the three, the three things to be voted on the first is the 10 foot setbacks versus 60 foot the second is. Right now, this version of purpose built student housing requires 80% students, but all those students need to be enrolled in institutions in Medford and the proposal is to change that to just students in general. And the third is to change the table to allow to allow purpose built student housing by right in BA3 instead of by special permit. Is that is that a correct summary of the
[Zac Bears]: The first two is correct. The third item is to go back at a future meeting and talk with the CD board about changing it from special permit to buy right. So it's not to make the change now, it's to say let's review that as part of the cleanup zoning. There's two motions, there's a B paper that says we're going to refer this existing language that mandates that these students be enrolled at certain schools to legal counsel and we're going to refer potentially changing the special permit to buy right. Those we'll talk about at a future meeting. And then there's a main motion which is adopt all of the CDB recommendations, the 10 foot step back and changing that specific section to just say they must be students and maybe in the future we change it back to they have to be at a specific school after we learn if we're allowed to or not. Good Matt?
[Matt Leming]: Yeah, yeah, I'd say just hear a public comment.
[Zac Bears]: All right, okay. I think just even saying 94-9.8.53J tells us that we're in the esoterics here. All right, on this motion, we have the motion, the B paper by Councilor Scarpelli. I believe that was seconded by Councilor Tseng, is that right? And then we have the main paper by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Do we have folks who'd like to speak in general on the final approval of the Boston Avenue zoning? You can come to the podium, or you can raise your hand on Zoom. All right, we have at the podium. Give me one moment. If you could give your name and neighborhood for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Yes, thank you, Councilor Bears. Andrew Castagnetti, Cushman Street, East Medford, Massachusetts. I have no dog in this fight with Tufts, but I know people that live in that area around Boston Avenue, give or take 10, 15, 20 blocks away, and they're pretty irate about this Tufts pushout, big development, because they can't move as it is. even with doctor's appointments between 10 and 2 in the afternoon, if they have the luxury of that time frame. So as I told Marianne, TASA is going to do what the hell they want to do, just like Medford City Hall pretty much is going to have their carte blanche and do their things. You can't fight City Hall, but I used to have fun trying. It's not so much fun anymore. However, I must say this. Tusks with their deep pockets, they've been here longer than me and you. And in lieu of taxes, maybe they put up a million, million point five by having somebody volunteer at the Senior Citizen Center. Why can't they put up a third of what they should be paying in real estate taxes like we are paying? aside from their Walnut Hill properties, which does pay real estate tax, thanks to McGlynn, who passed that 23 years ago. I'm just thinking out loud.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I'm going to go to Jeremy Martin. Jeremy, on Zoom, if you could give us your name and neighborhood, and you'll have three minutes.
[Jeremy Martin]: Hey, good evening, everyone. Jeremy Martin. I live in the Hillside neighborhood. Just want to speak briefly in support of the approval of this Boston Avenue zoning package. I think, as has been noted, there's been a lot of work, a lot of public input, a lot of careful consideration of what's being proposed, and it's exciting to see. the potential of this corridor. I'll say I'm a little surprised I was allowed to speak because I know the public comment or the meeting was closed and hearing the discussion and the potential changes around the student-built purpose housing, whatever it's called, That was a topic that was spoken about at length and had a lot of differing opinions in the public comment previously. And so I just hope that if it is going back to be reconsidered that the public comment period be reopened as a part of that. It is obviously something that is a concern to neighbors and I don't think there's clarity as we just heard in the last comment on what this actually is, what it could be. And I think there's more education and more understanding that's needed there and more opportunity for people to weigh in. So thank you for all the hard work. Thank you for creating opportunities for the community to engage. And I hope to see more of that. Thanks.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Jeremy. And just to quickly clarify on the procedural, so on June 24th, we closed the public hearing, which is a specific legal thing that the zoning law, state zoning law, requires of us. And, you know, that means that the public hearing is closed. That starts a specific shot clock, 90 days to approve a zoning amendment. The CD board has to get a recommendation out to the council. So that's more of a legal thing. It doesn't mean necessarily you know, that there will never be another chance to speak on it. As you hear tonight, people are having their chance to just kind of say their thoughts about the final proposed zoning. The other thing about this item, so what Councilor Scarpelli is saying is essentially, and we're going to have a meeting on September 30th at 6 p.m., I invite you to join us here, committee of the whole. We will be having an update on the zoning project, RFPs that we are putting out for communications consultants, a whole bunch of stuff I'm not going to get into right now because this meeting is already going to be a long one, but part of that is we need to, and we discussed this I think in April at this point, there's a zoning amendment that we need to do to fix or address a number of issues across the zoning ordinance as it exists. We've been calling this the cleanup zoning amendment. That is open for discussion. Councilor Scarpelli has just asked that these two items be discussed. I'm timing myself out. That these two items be discussed during that process. And there would be a public hearing on any cleanup zoning amendment, because that would be a new zoning amendment. So that would happen at some point this fall or next spring. I'm going to go back to the podium. If you could give us your name and your neighborhood, and you'll have three minutes. Hi, Ralph.
[Ralph Klein]: Ralph Klein. I'm a resident of Park Street in Medford. My problem with all this zoning change and everything else, they do shadow studies. They don't look at the neighbors for the shadow studies. They don't see if it takes away their solar rights and for heating and cooling of their home. We ran into this problem on Salem Street. They didn't look into it. They wanted to put the building so tall with setbacks and affected the house next door because it limited their sunlight. To get solar on your home, you have to have a certain percentage of sunlight during the day. So this directly affects the homes right next to where they want to put these large buildings. If you have a two-story building and you put up a six-story, it's going to significantly change. And also, where the sunlight comes in from, because the east-west corridor My home sits directly east and west. The shadow that heats my pool in my backyard, it's 90 degrees, but as the summer goes along, the temperature drops to 70 because the sun isn't in that pool for a long period of time. So that changes it. So a house next door, the sunlight coming through their windows or the sunlight not coming through their windows affects their heating and cooling bills, and it affects their life. So we have to look at that part of it too, not just what's the shadow cast. What does it take away from the homes next door? They don't say in their shadow studies. So I'm not supposed to be able to think and see. I experienced this. I have solar on my home. And like I say, I know where the sun comes and goes. I'm in the pool almost every day with my grandkids. I know what the temperature of the pool is. It affects everything. So you're saying, oh, this doesn't affect the neighborhood. Yeah, it does. And like I say, you're taking away people's solar rights because you only have so many shadow days to be able to get solar on your home. You have to have so much percentage of light to put on your roof to put solar on your home. So what's the takeaway? Does it take away that percentage? They didn't include that in their studies for the neighbors. They just said, oh, the shadow goes here. What's the takeaway from them? It doesn't give you the number. You need the whole number, not half. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Ralph. I'm going to go to David on Zoom. David, if you could give your name and your neighborhood for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[UXjoTYnBHEI_SPEAKER_05]: Hello, David Roach with City Lights Development representing the ownership of 222 Boston Ave. I want to say, like members of the public here, I appreciate having the opportunity to speak. It was a little difficult not being able to speak at the last CD board hearing to discuss a few certain issues. And I do want to say that I appreciate the hard work that the CD board and this council has put in, especially as it relates to the new concept of purpose-built student housing. The discussion around 80% of the residents required to be enrolled at institutions in Medford and Somerville, I want to get that right, we're effectively saying tough students, is a challenging concept to have in the zoning, whether at this property or any other that it applies to, Because it doesn't really effectively change who would live there. When you think about it, this zone is on Boston Avenue. Boston Avenue is adjacent to Tufts. It's nowhere near any other institutions. So there may be a few other students who might find this appealing, but generally, You're not going to get people coming from BCBU all over to this location to live. It's just not, it's just impractical. But what it does do is it forces or it gives some semblance of control to the university. So if you're a private owner here, you want to pursue this, this use, you have to have cooperation from the university, you know, whether or not, you know, that that's going to be your, your primary source of residence, you've given them that level of control. And I don't think it produces any meaningful benefit to the city or to the neighborhood. Because let's be honest, all of the students that are living in and around, the vast majority of the students living in and around this area are students at Tufts. It doesn't seem to solve a problem, it just creates one. for the proposal. So I really do appreciate the thought of reconsidering that because I just think it just creates a problem and doesn't necessarily solve one. Additionally, I do appreciate the idea of going back or thinking about this as a by right use. And just the reason for that being is so much work has been put in on being so specific about this use that the guardrails are really in place. So I appreciate that consideration as well and thank you for your time.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, I'm gonna go to the podium. Name and neighborhood for the record, and you'll have three minutes.
[Harrison Green]: Hi, Harrison Green, West Medford. I see this, and I'm not sure if this is in context with an expansion of the student body at Tufts, but I see development as being part of the larger housing crisis and affecting housing prices and rent prices in the area. So when we talk about what affects those prices, what we hear from developers all the time is that it's bureaucratic delays, and it feels tonight like we are adding one of those. So maybe the ship has sailed on this particular development, but I urge the council to take up some of what Councilor Lazzaro brought up, which was some urgency, and remove those delays because these are what is costing the city and the residents of the city to affect their housing prices. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, we'll stay at the podium. If you could give your name and neighborhood for the record, you'll have three minutes.
[Simon Alcindor]: All righty, Simon Alcindor 44 Tainter Street and proud Suffolk sophomore, Suffolk University sophomore. I just want to speak specifically on the university aspect of this and I think that I actually agree with Councilor Lazzaro on not having the Exclusion is just having, just applying to Tufts because, just having this restricted to Tufts students because as somebody who currently talks to a lot of college students and currently interacts with a bunch of folks in that space, people need to be able to find housing where they can. It's not really going to solve much here in the way of the fact that we overall have a housing crisis when it comes to student housing. And I think that unless there we do have a like demonstrate need from Tufts where there's actually specific need We're having this housing is going to be useful which from what I could tell has not necessarily been demonstrated Especially since I haven't heard anything about specifically a meetings with people from Tufts I think that that shouldn't be a thing that we're having really because really people from all sorts of universities are willing to do all sorts of commutes if they're able to get to where they need to go for classes. I know people commute from frickin' Manchester, New Hampshire, because that's the closest, because that's the place where it's cheapest for them to get housing and be able to get to Boston. So I just wanted to speak on that aspect specifically. I'm not even gonna get into the rest.
[Andrew Castagnetti]: Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right, seeing no hands on Zoom, no one at the podium. Anyone else who'd like to speak on this? Seeing none, public comment on this item is closed. We have a B paper and a motion. The B paper is to refer the original language regarding the student residency requirement to legal counsel and then also the question about by right versus special permit for this use to basically refer both of those for a future discussion as part of the cleanup zoning and that's by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Councilor Tseng. So that's the B paper, we'll vote on that first. Any further discussions by members of the council? Seeing none, Clerk Siegel, please, oh, Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: So, thank you, thank you, Council President Bears. I'm still hesitant on the, I don't feel like we had like a whole lot of discussion within council on the other point about whether this should be special permit or by right. As I recall at the last joint meeting where we discussed this, we debated the definition of purpose of a purpose-built student housing pretty extensively, but I don't think that there is any, there's really any debate on the guardrails in place or whether it should be by special permit or by right. And this, you know, I believe that CDB member Beegan put a lot of effort into the definition, and so that was the discussion when we presented it. but there was also a discussion at the September 2nd meeting on this very issue, whether the purpose-built student housing should be by right or should be uh, by special permit. So I would, I would feel comfortable at least taking a vote from this body explicitly on whether to have it be by special permit or, uh, by right. And I, I'm, I'm really not sure of the, of the issue of, you know, let's do one thing now and then refer it to for discussion at a later date. I would personally just be, I would personally just motion to, um, to vote for that. special permit versus by right issue right now.
[Zac Bears]: So is that a motion to amend the motion of Councilor Scarpelli on the main paper to change the definition from, sorry, the use for the purpose-built student housing use in the use table for the BA3 sub-district from special permit to by right?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Okay. So that's a motion to amend councilor Scarpelli's motion on the main paper to basically that motion that if accepted the final motion on this would be adopt all the CD board recommendations, except we would be making that change to the residency. And then also there would be a change where purpose-built student housing would be by right in BA3 instead of special permit. So if Councilor Leming's motion were to pass, then that would be the last thing we're voting on. I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli first since it's your motion and Councilor Scarpelli's requesting, I mean Councilor Leming's requesting to amend it.
[George Scarpelli]: Like I said, I think that it's a slippery slope, Mr. President. I think that the discussions that we had, the special permit really gave our residents that sense of understanding that just gives another layer in making sure that they're protected when we're moving the process forward. So, I, this is one of the reasons why I wanted to move this so we can have more discussion on that. So, thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. And I should have even before recognizing you, does Councilor Leming's motion to, it's not a friendly amendment. Councilor Scarpelli has spoken that he would prefer not this, but is there a second on Councilor Leming's motion seconded by Vice President Lazzaro? And I'll recognize Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I can, I hear you, I hear Councilor Scarpelli's and understand Councilor Scarpelli's feelings on this. However, I do think that I agree with Councilor Leming that because the definition of purpose built student housing is so careful and is frankly fairly restrictive, the extra layer of requiring a special permit on top of how restrictive that definition is and how carefully done it was and how much, again, how much discussion we have had on this topic, how many meetings we've already had on this topic and asking us to do, not that, I mean, totally for valid reasons, but asking us to do another meeting to talk about this carefully built definition again. and whether we should have every single time it comes up, every single time a builder wants to come and build more housing for students so that those students are not living in family units with three bedrooms like where I live and having those become student apartments that cost three times what they would have cost otherwise but instead live in purpose built student housing. that is intended for that purpose. And also, we are talking about one parcel, but this is something that would be in the use table, so it would be citywide, is that correct? So it's still one?
[Zac Bears]: It's not one parcel, it's the land bounded by North Street, Boston Avenue, and the train tracks.
[Emily Lazzaro]: It's a small area.
[Zac Bears]: It is a small area. It's not one parcel, but it's a small area.
[Emily Lazzaro]: It's not one parcel. It's not one parcel but it's a small area that we're talking about. So OK. I think it should be by right in this small area. I think I agree with Councilor Leming. And again, we should be moving forward. We should probably be making it possible for people to build housing when they want to build housing and not creating additional barriers is my opinion and is why I will be voting the direction I would like to be voting. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. So there's three votes now. Councilor Leming has a motion to amend. Councilor Scarpelli's main motion to change the purpose-built student housing use from special permit to buy right in the BA3 subdistrict. Is there any further discussion by members of the council on that specific? This is just that amendment, and thank you all for staying through. Zoning is excruciating, and I see a bunch of people who are not here for that and making some faces about it, so I understand. Any questions from councilors on this motion to amend the main motion? I don't see any, so we're gonna take a vote now on whether to change this purpose-built student housing from special permit to buy right in the BA3 sub-district of the Boston Avenue Neighborhood Corridor District. Clerk Siegel, can you please? This is just changing, yes, but this is not the final, there's two more votes after this. So if this is approved, if four people say yes to this, then at the then the motion on the main paper would include this change. So I will restate everything. Clerk Siegel.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Zac Bears]: So this is just on Councilor Leming's changing it from special permit to buy right. Justin's talking. Justin, okay.
[Matt Leming]: All right.
[Zac Bears]: Guys, guys, we're in a roll call. We're in a roll call. Thank you.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malay. No. Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. No. Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Four in the affirmative, negative three in the affirmative, the motion fails. Okay, so there's no change to the next two. So now we have the B paper, which is that this question of buy right and special permit will be referred for future discussion in the cleanup zoning and the language around the 80% requiring a specific residency or specific school for these students will go to legal counsel and then will be discussed at a future meeting during the cleanup zoning. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears? Yes.
[Zac Bears]: Yes, 7 in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes. And now we have a final vote on the main motion as proposed by Councilor Scarpelli and seconded by Councilor Tseng which is to approve this zoning to be ordained accepting all of the recommendations of the Community Development Board with the elimination of footnote 6. So is that correct? The elimination of footnote 6 regarding the step back at North Street and the change to, I have it here somewhere, 94-9.8.53J, which means that students, 80% of residents in the purpose-built student housing will be required to be students, but it does not require them to be a student at a specific school. All right. So that's the final motion. If we vote yes, this is a law. Any further questions or discussions? All right. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Mullane? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Ferris?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. The motion passes and the Boston Avenue Neighborhood Corridor District is ordained as law. Thank you. All right, I'm going to call a two-minute recess so that Vice President Lazzaro and I can switch seats, and then we're going to look at paper 26-161. So two minutes, and then we're going to 26-161. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'm going to call the meeting back to order. Councilors. I'm going to take paper 26-161, resolution to approve council declaration of support for resident or attorney general intervention. If you can take any discussions outside the chambers. Resolution to approve council declaration of support for resident or attorney general intervention in Chertok versus City of Medford to ensure effective defense of city ordinances. Whereas the city, the Medford City Council is the legislative body of the City of Medford and exercises significant authority concerning the approval and appropriation of municipal funds. And whereas the City Council has concerns regarding the legal advice and representation it has received regarding certain litigation, including the ongoing Chertok et al. versus City of Medford et al. and the extent to which the City Council's input has been reflected in the City's litigation posture, and whereas the City Council is deeply concerned about the City's present litigation posture in the Chertok litigation, including the August 27, 2026 stipulation requesting entry of permanent injunctive relief against enforcement of an ordinance duly enacted by the City Council, and Whereas the City Council believes that the issues presented in the Chertok litigation implicate not only Medford's municipal authority and autonomy, but potentially those of municipalities throughout the Commonwealth. And, whereas the Mayor and KP Law have neglected to adequately consult the City Council and keep it appraised of the Chertok litigation, and the City Council is concerned that the conduct of the Mayor and KP Law in the Chair Talk litigation exposes the City to an acutely increased risk of further litigation and liabilities. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Medford City Council that we as a body adopt and execute the declaration below concerning its position regarding the Chair Talk litigation and authorize its submission to the Court. And then there's a declaration, which I do not think I should read. I don't think I should read. But President Bears brought this forward, so I will go to President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Vice President Lazzaro, and I appreciate you recognizing me. A little less than a year ago, or I guess a little over a year ago now, the city council passed an ordinance regarding an investments policy for the city. That investments policy is based on Wall Street methodology for Environmental, Social, and Governance Investing. It says that it's by Morgan Stanley. So just before we go anywhere else, this is the city basically using a policy that individual and other investors and other governments use to invest their money based on some standards of values and ethics. Certainly, a piece of that is about human rights violations, companies that are complicit in human rights violations. Morgan Stanley defines that. Those companies and their investment tools are ranked by Wall Street as to how many international conventions they're breaking and how many other international agreements they're violating. And it doesn't matter whether that company is violating an international agreement in the United States, or in China, or in the Congo, or in Saudi Arabia, or in Pakistan, or in Israel, or in Palestine. That's what this is about. It's saying that if companies are breaking the law, international law, They get a ranking by Wall Street that says, hey, these people are breaking international law, and maybe you shouldn't put your money in that. And we in Medford, the city council, passed an ordinance last August that says we want to invest our money ethically. The mayor vetoed that ordinance. The city council overrode that veto. And it was the law. It is the law. It is a city ordinance of the city of Medford. It was proposed by the city council. It was discussed by the city council. It went through multiple meetings. I met with representatives from faith communities across our city and made changes to the ordinance based on what those folks said they were worried about. I met with representatives of advocacy organizations across the city and made changes to this ordinance based on what they said they were worried about. We had a bunch of meetings in this chamber where folks talked about why they supported this ordinance, why they thought this ordinance should go further, why they thought it should not be what it was, and we made changes over multiple months. We improved this ordinance, and then we passed it. The mayor vetoed it. We overrode it. That's how democracy works. That is the law. And it is the law of the city right now. Two residents didn't like this law, and as is within their rights, they filed a lawsuit in federal court saying that they don't like this law, and that the city and the city council are defendants, and now this court is going to decide whether they even have the standing to bring this case, which the court hasn't even said they're allowed to bring it yet. And then maybe, if they're actually allowed to bring this case, which if you look at the law, they probably aren't, The court may decide whether this law violates, this ordinance violates some provision of federal law or state law. Again, if you look at the case filed by these two folks and their lawyers, high-powered lawyers, it's pretty weak. They make a bunch of arguments. They're filing it in federal court, but a lot of their stuff actually hinges on state court. There was actually an almost identical similar case around standing in Northampton that was decided last week on a lot of the claims that these folks use to say that this is a problem and this ordinance should be declared invalid. And they were dismissed. They were kicked out of court. The Northampton, the people who sued Northampton were kicked out of court. state court, they're represented by the same people who represent these two Medford residents in federal court. Over the last nine months since this case was filed, this city council has consistently and persistently tried to be a part of determining what the litigation position of the city is. And we think that the city should defend its ordinances, that if a law is passed, even if the mayor doesn't like it, and her veto is overridden by a council and the legislative body passes a law that the city should defend the law. We have put forward a number of methods for the city to not use KP law and not pay KP law money to defend this case. Within weeks of the case being filed, I talked to the mayor about a pro bono council who was interested in representing the city. She took two months to get back to me and now the pro bono council is working for a group of residents who are trying to defend this ordinance and defend the city ordinances because they're worried that the mayor is not doing that. He then found what is called a low bono lawyer who said that he would work with the city to help defend the city. He said that he'd done, he was a council in a municipality here in Massachusetts for a long time. He had some expertise on this issue. He had done a bunch of research already and wasn't gonna charge the city an hourly rate for all the research that he'd done. And the mayor talked to him, didn't follow up with him, never hired him. And so the mayor decided that KP Laws, who's going to represent the city, and we're going to spend thousands of dollars on KP Law, and they filed a bunch of motions that don't even defend the city ordinances. So that's what's been going on the last nine months, is the legislative body of a city passed a law. The mayor didn't like it and vetoed it, as is her right. The legislative body overrode that veto, as is our right. Two residents sued the city, and the mayor has spent the last nine months basically not defending this law in court. Now, she can agree with it or disagree with it. She vetoed it, that's her authority. Councilor Scarpelli here voted against it, and that's his right, right, you know? But it's the law, and there's nothing that says that the mayor, just because she doesn't like a law, doesn't have to follow it, or doesn't have to defend it. And I'm just gonna read something right now from a filing that the city filed on Monday, where the city, this means the mayor, has never enforced or implemented the ordinance and has stipulated and agreed to this court that the city will not enforce or implement the ordinance, effectively nullifying it. The court's advisory statements are not immediate or real. I'm gonna read that again. Whereas the city has never enforced or implemented the ordinance and has stipulated and agreed it will not enforce or implement the ordinance, effectively nullifying it. Where does a mayor have the authority to nullify a law? And why in God's name would you write that down and file it in a court? We had a nullification crisis in the 1830s. It was John C. Calhoun. He tried to nullify restrictions on slavery. That's what nullification is. It almost led to the Civil War. We have a rule of law. We have a system of checks and balances, of separation of powers, and it says that if a legislative body passes a law, the executive branch has to enforce that law. The mayor has filed in court multiple times that she is not enforcing the law, that she refuses to enforce the law, that she thinks that two citizens of this city who maybe don't even have standing to bring a case should be able to sue the city and get rid of a law because they don't like it and she doesn't like it. And it doesn't matter if the city council votes for it. It doesn't matter if the city council overrides the veto. It doesn't matter if that city council gets reelected. Two people in the mayor should be able to say there isn't a law even if 7,000 people and six city councilors say there should be one. That's what this is about. I think that the mayor took an oath to uphold the ordinances of the city of Medford to enforce the law. She has said to federal judges multiple times this year that she's allowed to nullify a law. I'm pretty sure she's not. And I think at this point, you know, we are a named party in the defense. We have largely not been consulted. This council has not received an update on this case in months. I get emails from KP Law. I ask them if I'm even allowed to forward them to the city council. They don't answer me. I don't really know what else to say. They answer some of my questions, but I say, can I forward this to the city council and give an update? I don't get a response. So, I don't think we're being represented effectively. We're a named party in the defense. Frankly, I've read the briefs that have been sent and I agree with the residents. You know, the judge, the federal judge asked the residents who tried to defend this lot a brief to provide an argument. So they're providing arguments too, and I read the brief of the people who are suing to overturn this law. I read the brief of the people who are the residents of this city who are saying we would like to intervene to defend this law. And I read the brief of the city which says the mayor's allowed to nullify a law. You should dismiss this case, but just because the mayor can do nullification. You know, I think they should dismiss the case. I don't think that it should be because the mayor has some magical nullification power that doesn't exist. But in any case, I've read all three of those briefs and I think that the residents are making a better case to defend this city, to reduce the liability to the city. I think the mayor and the lawyers that she's hired are making filings in federal court that are increasing the liability to this city. They basically said, we're not enforcing the law. And there are people who think that the mayor should enforce the law. And who knows if they're going to sue to try to get the mayor to enforce the law. I don't think you should admit to not following the law if you are trying to reduce your liability to the city. And this declaration basically spells out those facts as clearly as I can that we have tried to provide input and direction to legal counsel, but it's not been reflected. We have considerable concerns about the city's litigation approach. City council as a body has not been notified as of last Thursday about the filings. I've been notified, but I have not been told that I can share those with that notification with the council. The plaintiffs move for injunction, you know, there's a number of the things that I just said. I didn't even mention the fact that the mayor has asked us to make a bunch of votes and public statements that I don't think are really advisable. I would rather not be doing this right now. I wish we were actually doing law and legal defense, but here we are. The mayor talks about it costs a lot of money, but she at every turn has avoided the opportunities to save the city money on this litigation. And at the end of the day, the city council has not been involved. you know, has not, we've not been, we're a defendant and we're not being represented effectively. Our position and our input is not being considered when we ask for questions about like, oh, so you've spent this much money, what have you spent it on? We're not getting answers. We're basically just being cut out of this and once again, the mayor's making a bunch of irresponsible decisions that are putting the city at greater liability. So I've talked for a while. This is complicated in some ways and simple in others. I would ask my colleagues to vote to support this declaration, to sign it here at the end of the meeting, to get it filed in court and say that we support intervention. We don't think that the city is effectively defending The law, we don't think that the mayor has unilateral magic authority to nullify laws she doesn't like, and we would like the city ordinances of the city of Medford to be defended responsibly. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Tseng.
[Justin Tseng]: Thank you. I'll try to boil down my thoughts. in as simple of a way as possible, but, you know, given this whole situation and given who I am, it will naturally be complex. But the way I see this is that residents asked us to pass this law because a very large community in Medford A lot of people, and this is proven through the folks who got us in office in the first place, the folks who reelected us after we passed this law, through even recent primary results in our community. I think it's evident that a lot of folks in this community aren't comfortable with their tax dollars going to fund industries that are harmful to communities at home and across the planet. to fund industries that are harmful to our planet physically, like environmentally and socially. Now, I think as a matter of principle, when such a large swath of our constituents aren't comfortable with our taxpayer dollars going to investments like that, rather than investing in ethical things at home, then, you know, I think that's, there's a clear kind of case to pass the ordinance that we passed. Now after we passed that ordinance as a kind of, as a manifestation of popular kind of will in this city, as a manifestation of democracy in Medford, We had what Councilor Bears, President Bears described in detail as kind of the negotiations, the defining metrics, right, and dealing with the mayor's veto, which we overrode as the city council, and then it became law. It is deeply concerning to me that when the executive isn't executing faithfully the laws of the city. Not only is that, you know, I think violating ordinances, I think it violates the basis of our city charter. It violates the basis of state law when it comes to municipalities as well. The mayor's job. first and foremost is to carry out the laws of the city. And, you know, it's not to pick and choose. It's to carry these things out. And I think oftentimes in talking to residents and on the city council, it's not just this divestment ordinance. It's not just a values-based investment ordinance, right? It's a whole litany of everyday quality of life ordinances that residents are seeing aren't being carried out by the city, by those who are in charge of noise or trash or pollution or X, Y, Z. The list goes on and on and on. And yet, we don't see execution on those. And I think it's really important to state that whoever is in that office across the hallway has a responsibility to do their best to carry out all the ordinances of our city. And for me right now, this is something about principle, right? Because if we allowed one person to nullify a law that we passed, then we opened the door to that person, whoever they may be, nullifying a whole litany of laws that we passed. And as President Bayer's acknowledged too, this opens a whole kind of universe of litigation against us too. Because if we suddenly say that the executive can start nullifying laws and not carrying them out, we open the doors to 10 taxpayer lawsuits to force the city to enforce those laws. And then we get stuck in this vicious cycle of having to pay more and more for legal counsel to defend those cases. So that being said, those are the reasons why I think it's actually really important that we pass this, that we vote yes tonight on what's before us. Because yes, it's the substance of this law in particular, but it's also about the basis of democracy as we see it and call it in our hometown in Medford.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you Madam Chair. Councilor Villes, I think that the substance is correct. I think that the process is skewed in something that's questionable. Unfortunately, if there's a vote that I would like to abstain from, it would be this one, but I have to be consistent with my vote of no because of where I've stood with this from the beginning. But I do see my colleagues, viewpoint and understanding where this is something that could be questioned legally as we move forward with all of our objectives and ordinances and rules and laws. I can see that as well. So, I just wanted to share that. I appreciate the resolution, but I hope you can understand where I've been consistent with and I'm going to stay with that. So, thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Councilor Scarpelli. Are there any more comments from councilors at this time? President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: It's just, you know, first time George and I have disagreed in a while, so. I understand, though. I appreciate it. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Well, we love to see the old battles coming back again. It's all right. Okay. So we'll go to public comment now. I'm going to ask you all to keep to the three minute timer and I will alternate between folks in the room and folks on Zoom. And if I may take Senator Pat Jalen first. Thank you so much for being here. Can you step to the, can I invite you to step to the podium? This is our elected state senator, Pat Jalen, who came and sat patiently waiting for us to talk about zoning for a thousand hours. I, yes, I'll turn up my mic. Sorry. Can you hear me if I, is this increasing my, my, hold on. I'm, I'm reading it's fine. Your mic is on now. I really appreciate that. Thank you for being here. I'm going to start public comment with you. Thank you. And thank you for sitting through our zoning. Please.
[Pat Jehlen]: Hi. I'm Pat Chalen. I've been the senator for Medford for 20 years, and I have never come to talk to the council. I have come to listen to you, and I'm really glad I got to listen tonight. I learned a lot. But the outcome, the reason I came tonight is that the outcome of this process is very likely to affect municipal law across the commonwealth. If the court allows the city to default in the current lawsuit, it means that even if the council has passed an ordinance or an appropriation over the mayor's veto, the mayor could still prevent its implementation. It's a kind of super veto that's not contemplated in this city's Charter, which you just passed and we helped you with last year, it's not contemplated in any charter of any city that I'm aware of, and it's not part of the Commonwealth. It would not happen in the Commonwealth because the Attorney General is a separate agency. from the governor, is elected separately, and is not responsible, unlike the Attorney General of the United States, who is responsible to the President. But this is a unique problem for municipalities. The precedent could change the balance of power in both in local government and would mean absolute executive authority with no recourse for the city council or the public. I'm sure no one here has that intention, but it is the likely result. Because of this dangerous precedent, I hope the council and the mayor will seek a solution that maintains the balance of power contained in your charter, so thank you for your consideration, and thank you for taking me out of order. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you very much, Senator. I will go to Zoom. Stephanie H. Stephanie, you have three minutes.
[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_22]: Hi, I'm, I'm Stephanie on in the Riverside neighborhood. Um, I first want to specifically speak to what Councilman Scott Polly was just saying, um, I think it's concerning to me as a constituent that, um, that you're not interested in supporting this specific resolution that's on the table tonight, because it's, regardless of what you think of the ordinance itself, this is an issue about democracy and about our processes as a city, but also in the whole state. It's very concerning that that is something that you're not interested in defending. I'll continue to talk just about the ordinance itself. the residents of Medford have a right to decide how our tax dollars are spent and to prevent liability in our city, but also just ethically make sure that our money isn't going towards things like killing children or committing genocide. And that is something that affects us. It is a local issue. So I just want to make that clear. And I'm really glad that this resolution is here tonight and that this is something that's being voted on because the details that Zach laid out are really concerning, especially regarding how the mayor is approaching this democratic process. It's very concerning to me and I'm glad that the council is voting on something that reinforces that we should be following democratic process. So thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Stephanie. I'm now going to go to the podium. Please state your name and you have three minutes.
[Josh Ekhart-Lee]: Thank you. Josh Eckert Lee. I live on Main Street in South Medford. You heard me speak over the past several months on this ordinance. In favor of it, I organized with Medford for Palestine. I really believe this ordinance is an incredible way for us to take our money out of destructive industries and futures and envision a better world for Medford as well as for our global neighbors in Palestine. I also, you know, two weeks ago was sitting in the Moakley Courthouse listening to KP Law provide their, you know, quote unquote defense of this ordinance and can really, you know, testify that they have no intention of defending the law there. If they are following City Council's will, it is deeply unclear to me that that is the case. feel shameful to be represented by a mayor who refuses to follow the law, to do her sworn duty, to implement the laws passed by this council. I'm a municipal servant myself. I know what it's like, that our job is about passing laws regardless of our sort of support for them, it's our job to follow them and make sure that they happen. And the fact that she refuses to do so is incredibly concerning and deeply disappointing. I'm grateful to this council for continuing to stick up for this ordinance and for our right as a city to control where our money goes. You shouldn't have had to do this. I appreciate it. And I look forward to a future where our mayor sticks up for her residents, for the laws and for due process and democracy. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Seeing no hands on Zoom, I will go to the next person at the podium.
[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_21]: Good evening, everyone. My name's Imani. I live in South Medford on Bowen. I have a couple of comments and I'll try to keep them brief. I wanted to first just address Councilor Scarpelli, your comments just around voting for voting no on this motion to be consistent. And I would say there are often times during our work, during our lives when we have to do difficult things. And I would implore you to reconsider your vote for this. This is, you know, us not being able to defend this ordinance and our city sets a dangerous precedent for cities across our state, across our nation. As you know, this is being contested in federal court. Things go wrong, and there are things that we disagree with in our country. We can't just go to our leaders and ask them to stop. We can vote for how our money is being used. At the end of the day, that really is the only power that us, the American people, have, is to decide where our money is being used. Please address your comments to the chair. Okay, apologies, sorry. And I would just, you know, urge all of you to vote yes for this because I think that is the most important, you know, kind of piece of power that we have as individual ordinary people. And then I just want to show support to the councillors that are going to be voting yes for this or hopefully would vote yes for this. I think it's brave for you all to stand up and vote yes when there is a mayor and law firms that are standing so strongly against something like this. I really appreciate that and yeah. Thank you. Thank you for the time.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I will now go to Zoom and I am going to ask Robert Carney to unmute.
[Robert Carney]: Hi, Robert Kearney, 50 Hicks Ave, Unit 6. I work for a values-based investing firm, pro-values-based investing. These are my opinions alone and do not represent my employer. I would fully support applying values-based investing to our municipal funds if the council would sufficiently address the legal exposure concerns raised by the mayor. And I would also say a number of, in my view, appropriate concerns to spend more time on by the residents who have filed a federal lawsuit against the ordinance. I'm not saying I'm a lawyer giving legal advice, but I think we should engage with them more. We should find a way to one, avoid profiting from the destruction of human life, and two, fulfill our legal fiduciary duty regarding the investment of city funds. Instead of doing both, we heard from Councilor Callahan at the September 30th meeting that she actively welcomed a legal battle on the second point. In my view, the council has not shown how they will manage both the ethical intent and the legal reality. And many of the concerns raised in the Mayor's veto were not mentioned by Councilor Bears in his comments tonight. I'm simply not convinced that this Council has done appropriate due diligence. Why do our Councilors instead want to spend six figures of taxpayer dollars fighting a court battle that they could potentially lose? This is money that could go toward our roads or toward reducing the burden of a potential debt exclusion for our high school project. And remember, if the city loses in court, you won't be able to implement values-based investing anyway. Furthermore, regarding the Council's outreach to various people, I offered public comment and constructive feedback at the October 21st, 2025 meeting. Councilor Scarpelli texted to engage on my points. Not a single sitting member of the Council majority from that meeting engaged with me or followed up on my subsequent email. If this Council is so serious about the policy that they are willing to spend $110,000 on outside lawyers, Why refuse or not take up a free conversation with a qualified resident who expressed interest in further engagement? If our city councilors truly want values-based investing, the right path is to perhaps go a different way. Work with our state delegation to pass enabling legislation that could perhaps put this on a referendum on the ballot to let Medford voters decide. Or perhaps there's some other way to... to do more due diligence here. I recommend you instead vote to put this ordinance on pause, spare the city further legal expense, and figure out how to do this the right way and make the ordinance stronger. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I will now go to the podium. Please state your name for the record.
[Nayla Savage Romanos]: Naila Germanis. Dear Council President Zach Bears, Oh, yes, of course. Dear Council President Zach Beers, Council Vice President Emily Lazzaro, Councilor Anna Callahan, Councilor Matt Leming, Councilor Liz Mullane, Councilor George Karpelli, and Councilor Justin Tang. We, the undersigned Medford residents, fully support your proposed resolution to approve council declaration of support for resident or attorney general intervention in Shertock versus City of Medford to ensure effective defense of city ordinances. The city ordinance that's being introduced in your regular city council meeting tonight on September 15, 2026. Please continue your amazing work, reflecting our values and supporting our city. Thank you for your continued efforts on our behalf. So this letter has been signed by 53 people and more are still coming. I just added one. So I don't know if you would like it. We've mailed it to all of you. Would like a copy? Thank you. Thank you, Nyla.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'll now go to Zoom and Lulu H. I'm asking you to hold on. I'm asking you to unmute.
[SPEAKER_05]: Hello my name is Lulu Henley. I live on Princeton Street in South Medford. I happen to be in support of the ordinance at the heart of the case but I am moved to speak because of the greater threat to our democracy posed by this lawsuit. And I want to thank all the Councilors considering a yes vote. They have my support and gratitude. and I want to express concern for the councillor considering a no vote who I worry might be endangering his his own power and position by you know trying to stick to a form of consistency that actually harms the us as a city and the council's position as a whole. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I will now go to the podium. Please state your name for the record.
[Nick Giurleo]: Good evening, Nick Giurleo, 40 Robinson Road. I am strongly opposed to this resolution. The city council should not be supporting the prolonging of a lawsuit that never should have had to been filed in the first place. To date, KP law billing records indicate the city spent more than $35,000 in defense of this lawsuit. At a special meeting earlier in the year, you took a vote indicating your support for spending at least $75,000 more in its defense. In the affidavit this resolution would require everyone to sign, you'd be doubling down under oath, I might add, to paying more than $100,000 in defense of this ordinance, which you were all warned an illegal opinion before it was passed was problematic as worded. We often hear claims that the reason we don't have X, Y, or Z in Medford is because of underfunding. Underfunding, however, is not just a problem of insufficient revenues. It's also a problem of how the limited revenues we do have are spent. Hemorrhaging money to defend a lawsuit that should be settled is a direct contribution to the underfunding problem. Think about what good things these funds won't go to because of this commitment, like our roads, schools, and city services. I encourage you all to cooperate with the mayor in reaching a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs. That agreement could very well come about by revisiting the ordinance and amending it so it addresses their concerns. I believe those concerns are brought in good faith, and I do not accept the conspiracy theories that have been advocated behind the motives of the plaintiffs. You all also should be receiving independent legal advice on the merits of the motion to intervene. Asking the attorneys who filed it if it's likely to be successful is not going to give you the honest answer you should be receiving. My professional opinion as an attorney, I think the motion is going to be denied. Intervention is intended for parties with cognizable financial stakes in the outcome of a case, not vague political ones. In any event, the greater point is you should be making decisions here based on sound legal advice and not political passions. Residents are struggling to financially make ends meet and should not be shamed into thinking they are not paying enough in taxes when financial decisions like these are being made so carelessly. Thank you for listening.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Going to Zoom, Anna Meyer. Oh, Anna went away. I will go to Katrina Crocker. Oh, Anna's back. One sec. OK, I'm going to stay with Anna.
[Anna Meyer]: My apologies. I'm Anna Meyer. I live at 6 Douglas Road in Medford. I've spoken on this ordinance a number of times over the last year and a half. I just want to say briefly that one of the things I do in the city is organize with our neighbors in support of immigrants here in Medford. And I remain deeply supportive of this ordinance for reasons like it will ensure our tax dollars support our values, including that we're not investing in the private detention facilities where ICE is currently detaining our neighbors, as I know City Council talked about earlier this evening, and I think that anything we can do to maintain that is really important. I know a number of Medford residents are working hard to support our neighbors and support this ordinance as well. I also just want to say briefly that I'm deeply appreciative of the City Council of bringing forward this resolution to defend this lawsuit. I know this will have implications, as others have talked about, not just for Medford residents and getting to see the democratic process fulfilled, that an ordinance that we have passed and carefully reviewed and collaborated with so many neighbors on is enacted. So not only for us, but also for any other resident of cities and towns across Massachusetts who are also trying to ensure that their tax dollars are invested in ways that align with their values. I know that the defense of this ordinance will also have important implications for them. So thank you all for your continued and hard work in defending this ordinance.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. We will now go to the podium. Please state your name for the record.
[SPEAKER_44]: Hi, everyone. Ray Bennett at 6 Piedmont Road in West Medford, and I'm here today to speak in support of this ordinance and to thank the city council members who are considering a yes vote tonight. I believe that this issue is one that started as a moral issue, and to that moral issue, the residents of Medford spoke strongly twice. This is now the law, and the mayor is not following it. I ask her what it is that she expects us to do if she decides that she doesn't have to follow the law. Will we have to pay our taxes in order to have her do whatever she wants with our money? I would say probably not. On the note of money being hemorrhaged towards this endeavor, I would much rather my tax dollars either be invested in values-aligned investments or in defense of those values-aligned investments, rather than being distributed towards weapons of war, genocide, and destruction. This is clear-cut for me, and I think it should be for the entire city council, including the one who just left the room. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Going back to Zoom. Katrina Crocker.
[SPEAKER_57]: But also in other cities and towns but also in other cities and towns across the Commonwealth. And I am very grateful to the city councilors who support this ordinance and resolution. And that's what I have to say. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Going back to the podium, please state your name.
[u1Dt2VrL-v4_SPEAKER_13]: My name is Chaddy Salamone. I live on Andrew Street in Medford. Good evening, Councilors, Councils. Thank you for your continued effort to ensure that the Mayor implements this democratically passed ordinance. I support tonight's resolution that uplifts efforts by Medford residents to legally intervene in, to properly defend the City of Medford against this lawsuit. Yes, I support the ordinance. It ends the City's investments in genocide, including Israel's genocide against the Palestinian people, including the annihilation of southern Lebanon, my home country. And it also has investments in other areas that I don't want my money going to, and that includes private prisons, fossil fuel companies, and war crimes happening in other parts of the world. Now, regardless of where you stand on this ordinance, and unfortunately the council that I would have liked to address this to has left the chamber, the mayor's decision to not implement a democratically passed ordinance and the mayor's decision to not defend a democratically passed ordinance in court is a dangerous attack on our democracy. We are not shy to criticize Donald Trump or Republicans when we believe their actions injure our values and our democracy. We must commit to forcefully reject efforts to curtail Medford's values and our local democratic process, regardless of the politician's party affiliation. Thank you again for defending our values and defending our local democracy. I definitely support this resolution. Thank you so much.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Munir Germanis on Zoom. Sorry, Munir on Zoom asked you to unmute.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Can you hear me now?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Munir Jirmanus]: Okay, so my name is Muneer Jumanis. I live at 3 Summit Road in Medford, and I'm here to urge each and every member of the council to fully support this ordinance and the proposal tonight. I'd like to remind folks that over 40 people who gave amazing testimonies in support of the final version of the ordinance during the city council meeting of August 25, August 5, 2025, that's a year ago, almost four times the folks who testified in opposition to the ordinance. One third of the Medford residents who testified in favor of this ordinance identified themselves as Jewish, negating the claim of the Gevurah Fund, who is suing the city. The spokesperson said that this ordinance is anti-Semitic. So their statement is totally wrong. On another, briefly, just for the record, the city has not spent $100,000 defending this ordinance, as stated by one of the folks who testified earlier. The council voted to allocate $75,000, as requested by the mayor, incidentally, to defend this ordinance. What the city has spent, as far as we know, that's what they said, they spent $35,000, and they didn't even check with the city council to allocate this amount they just spent it and this was paid to the current law firm who is consulting for the administration uh and knowing that the administration was informed of a another law firm with an experienced lawyer who would handle this case for a fraction of the cost but that was rejected So once again, I just set the record straight and I commend the members of the City Council for the effort that they're exerting in defending this ordinance. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. And back to the podium, please state your name.
[SPEAKER_18]: Good evening. Eli Dalvin, I live in South Medford. I'm a practitioner of sustainable, socially responsible investing, where I help fiduciaries and individuals to invest their portfolios in alignment with their values while supporting their financial objectives and goals. I've worked in this field professionally for a decade. My career experience informs my perspective, but I'm speaking in my personal capacity only. These views are mine, do not reflect those of my employer, and they don't constitute advice, financial, legal, or otherwise. I want to express my support for this city council declaration as a means to clear the air to resolve some of the questions surrounding the values-aligned investment ordinance, which I also generally support. The values-aligned investment ordinance is a thoughtfully crafted, innovative piece of municipal legislation that this council passed last summer. I can't speak to its development as I was not involved in any deliberations and did not participate in the council process, but I was pleased to see it in the final version. I believe the ordinance's purpose and intent reflects majoritarian values and its prohibitions translate those values into goals that are broadly shared by a meaningful portion of the Medford community. Further, as a purely practical matter, I have confidence these goals can be effectively implemented. Portfolios can be monitored based on material exposure to the prohibited activities based on clear, consistent environmental and social as well as governance criteria and translated into the kind of informed local oversight that the ordinance's reporting envisions. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I'd love to go to Zoom, but I would like the person whose hand is raised to change their Zoom name to a full first name with a last initial, at least, please. Until then, I'm going to go back to the podium. Please state your name.
[Jennifer Yanko]: My name is Jennifer Yanko. I live in West Medford and I want to commend the council for passing this ordinance in the first place. I was one of the supporters. I remain a supporter. I am one of the people who does not want my money, my tax dollars, invested in arms, arms manufacture, arms dealing. I don't want my tax dollars invested in private prisons, including, as Anna noted, detention centers where our neighbors are being detained. And I don't want my tax dollars invested in fossil fuel industries that are contributing to what we see as a climate collapse. We're seeing fires. We're seeing glaciers melting. These are very important issues, and we've voted, you voted, that we do not want our tax monies, our city's money, invested in these. I'm deeply troubled by the mayor's attempts to nullify a law, an ordinance that was passed by the council. And I urge you all to sign the declaration and to support continuing efforts to support this law. Thank you. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay, going back to Zoom, I will recognize Gil Gabay and ask you to unmute.
[Gil Gabbay]: Hi, sorry about that. No problem. My name is Gil Dubai. I live in the Glenwood neighborhood. Fully support the ordinance and thank the council for all their work on this. I actually wasn't going to say anything, but some of the comments I've heard kind of motivated me to say something. I think everyone should be supporting this ordinance, whether or not you agree with where the money may or may not be going. I think it sends the right message, the necessary message that The law is the law. I am deeply disappointed by the mayor refusing to enforce the law. She's completely lost my vote. And thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. We will now go back to the podium. Please step forward and state your name.
[SPEAKER_07]: Hello my name is Trent Sandland. I live on Fifth Street by Wellington. I want to speak in favor of this ordinance and commend those Councilors considering voting yes on it. Yeah, in a time where our federal government is ignoring the rule of law, of international law, of human rights, I'm glad to see that my city government, my city council is standing up for me in those regards. And I, yeah, I support continuing to maintain our democracy against the sort of backslide that we see. So thank you very much for that.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Going back to Zoom, Dina Alami.
[Dina Alami]: I do not allow me 320 middle sex of my first just want to thank President Bears for bringing this resolution forward, and for all our city Councilors for continuing to defend our law. I'm going to keep this brief because I to have spoken numerous times on my support of the ordinance. Our tax dollars have directly harmed my family in Gaza, and I continue to support us investing our money in ethical ways. In terms of what's being proposed today, whether or not you agree with the ordinance that's currently being questioned in federal court, It's deeply concerning and alarming that our mayor can simply choose not to enforce our laws and also choose not to defend it just because she doesn't agree with it. I support this and I encourage you all to do the same. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Thank you. Going back to the podium. Please state your name for the record.
[Bair]: Tiffany Lynn from West Medford. I think the city has been running for approximately a year already without following city ordinances or laws regarding a solicitor that should be in place. And we're going willy nilly with all this new rezoning and all the development without clear counsel. KP doesn't have our interest in mind. We're just one of their many clients. A solicitor needs to be in place. I question whether any of the stuff that you guys have been planning and doing is actually legal. With that said, I do not support the extending the ORR-driven lawsuit to divest. It's time to cut the losses. I support Mr. Scruppelli wasting more money on this. is kind of insane when we have far more bigger things at hand in our city right now. I just there's so many questions as to the legality of this without a solicitor that's actually looking after the residents of our city. We don't have that.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Staying at the podium please state your name.
[Harrison Green]: Harrison Green and West Medford. Tonight's discussion seems independent of the ordinance itself which I support our ability to invest in in ways that we do we see fit but tonight seems to be about the legality of that, of our administration failing to uphold that. Is that generally correct? And the councilors have spoken about the mayor's requirement to uphold the laws of the city. Is that the same requirement that the city councilors have? Is there anything about the city councilor's requirement to uphold the law in the city charter or otherwise?
[Emily Lazzaro]: I forgot to reset your timer, and I don't want to take time away from you. And I also don't, it's really late, and I don't know the answer to your question. Zach's going to talk about it in a second. President Bears's going to talk about it in a second. He'll address your question momentarily.
[Harrison Green]: After my comment?
[Emily Lazzaro]: After you're done.
[Harrison Green]: I understand. So kind of pending that comment from Councilor Bears, If this is not about the ordinance itself and is about legally upholding the law and the city councilors are obligated to uphold that law, I don't see why any city councilors would vote no on this resolution tonight if it does not pertain directly to the ordinance and the values contained in that ordinance and just the application of it itself. So this seems to be not, again, not relating to the contents of the ordinance, if that's what I'm reading from, or potentially, pending Councilor Behr's comment. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I'm just going to stop the, yeah, I understand. I'm going to just, first of all, can I ask any conversations that are happening in the chambers to please happen in the hallway? Micah and Ralph, Micah and Ralph, can you take your conversation out in the hallway, please? Or be finished, that's fine too. I will now recognize President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Look, I think it's impossible to disconnect the context of a thing from the thing. Like, yes, the question is, is the mayor effectively defending the city ordinance? She has written in a legal filing that she is not following the law. There are people who disagree with that law. I don't think disagreeing with the law means you shouldn't follow the law. However, I also don't, you know, I think, that's my opinion. Like, I also understand that you can't just completely detach this from the context, and frankly, what I'm gonna talk about in a minute, just in response to a little bit of what's been said is, you know, if this was a law, if the mayor was saying in a federal court case, I'm not going to enforce the snow removal ordinance, If we pass a snow removal ordinance, and she vetoed the snow removal ordinance, and then two people sued and said, and then we overrode that veto, and two people said, I hate the snow removal ordinance, I shouldn't have to shovel my sidewalk. And then the mayor said, you know what, those people are right. They shouldn't have to shovel their sidewalk. And so I'm not going to enforce this ordinance. I'm not going to implement this ordinance. I'm going to nullify this ordinance by my unilateral might, the iron fist of the mayor. It doesn't matter if the city council supported it. They shouldn't have to shovel their sidewalk. you'd have a different opinion on it. Now, that's not the ordinance, right? The ordinance is we should follow Wall Street ethical investment policy. And so it's, people have a different opinion. But if this was the mayor saying, I'm not gonna enforce the snow removal ordinance, I think we'd all be pretty clear. She doesn't have the power to nullify the snow removal ordinance. That's my opinion on it. It's not a storm of ordinance. It's an ordinance that's been politicized, that people are saying things that are not true about it. And, you know, people in the audience are. And frankly, like, it has a history, right? It has a history of people on this council have voted one way or another about it. And I honestly, I get it. Like, I disagree. I'm going to vote my way. I think I've made my point relatively clear, which is if we were being content neutral about this, people wouldn't be making the arguments that they're making. We're not being content neutral about this because it's political, and that's politics, and people have taken a political position and are going to vote that way, and that's okay.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Let's go back to the podium. Please state your name for the record.
[Simon Alcindor]: All righty, Simon Elsendorf, 44 Tainter Street. First, a question.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Please don't ask questions that we will then answer.
[Simon Alcindor]: It's a rhetorical question, don't worry.
[Emily Lazzaro]: This is public comment, and it's not going to be a back and forth. I'm just, okay, I'm going to stop your timer, and I'm going to let you guys know how the rest of this is going to go. You guys are going to make public comment until we get to the end. Then I'm not going to let anybody do back and forths. No more one minute, because Zach is not running the meeting. I am running the meeting now. Okay, we're going to do one time for everybody. And then Zach's going to take over and he can do whatever he wants.
[Simon Alcindor]: Yeah, just to be clear, it's a rhetorical question.
[Emily Lazzaro]: All right, I'm going to start your timer again. We're not going to ask questions that we're going to get answers to.
[Simon Alcindor]: Yeah, it's just meant to be rhetorical.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Carry on.
[Simon Alcindor]: All right, first the question. Do you support the actions of President Donald Trump and his executive administration in openly defying the acts of Congress and ruling the court when it goes against his goals? Of course this is rhetorical, but the point is that this is the exact thing that the mayor is currently attempting to do. She's openly and nakedly taking on the politics of fascism in order to avoid enforcing a resolution that she personally does not agree with. The same is what's happening with their shenanigans surrounding the budget, including the solicitor. And I know both of the folks in the room are also against those quid pro quos. Simply put, the content of the ordinance does not matter in this context. What if it was saying Mayor Lazzaro refusing to fund the police instead of this? I know that Councilor Scarpelli and all the people speaking against this resolution would damn well be in favor of an intervention like this, because these sort of actions are an affront to the democratic processes or how these democratic processes are supposed to function. Now onto the actual content of the ordinance. We are watching a live stream genocide and you do not feel the impetus to defend any way that we can stop that genocide in any way. How do you live with this blood on your hands, simply put? We are also watching as fossil fuels contribute to the destruction of our planet at an ever increasing rate. Thousands of people have died in Nepal directly because of the emissions which are causing our glaciers to melt. How do you look at yourself in the mirror and say that, oh yeah, I said something about this, whatever, a few months ago, so I cannot actually do anything about this. I cannot put in the minimum effort that I am able to do to be able to have a plan in stopping the convergent crises of our time. How are you not able to do that? How, simply put, how do you live with yourself when you are refusing to put in the bare minimum effort that is required to stop the destruction of our species as we know it? Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Please state your name for the record.
[SPEAKER_03]: Hi, my name is Javi Siddiqui. I live on 111 Princeton. Sorry, I almost forgot my own address today. All right, I would like to commend the council on their continuing support for this ordinance, and would like to, like many others before me, implore Councilor Scarpelli to reconsider his vote in respect to defending this ordinance. My daughter has spoken before the city council, and it's leaders like yourselves that our children look to to do the right thing, even when it is the hard thing. As a taxpaying resident of Medford, I want to be able to look my children in the eyes and tell them that when they live, when they must live good and ethical lives, I'm literally putting my money where my mouth is. This values-based ordinance allows for me to do that. We are seeing on a national level the results of a government that sees the laws of this country as playthings to ignore as per their whims. It is shocking to me to see the same conduct from the mayor of Medford. We are a country that is built on the rule of law. I'm going to quote the dissenting opinion, part of the dissenting opinion, of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. Decency, security, and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the laws scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipotent, the omnipresent, Teacher, for good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law. It invites every man to become a law unto himself and invites anarchy. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: Please step to the podium and state your name for the record. I just want to say that I do support the ordinance in theory. I really find it hard that anyone would not support it. However, I do have to say that not just this ordinance, but just in general, I plead with the councillors to please consider the tax dollars that are coming out of the residents, not only for this, but everything. We have a new school coming up. We have infrastructure that we need to support. And at some point, I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. I'm not going to be able to do that. the legality of it with us as a city not having a city solicitor as per our charter. Not only for this ordinance, but everything else, whether it be the school committee buildings or some of the other things that have been spoken about in past So, at the end, if we could just someone address that. What is the legalities of all these things that we're passing when there's no city solicitor who is supposed to oversee all these past things? That's all. Thank you. I love what you're doing, too.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thanks. Thank you. I'm going to go back to Zoom. Ryan Pollin.
[SPEAKER_25]: Hi, everyone. Yeah, Ryan Pollen, 20 Hicks Avenue. I'm letting my voice just like others have done eloquently or passionately or both to speak in favor of the ordinance. I'm disappointed to learn that the mayor has not been following the laws passed by the city council and support continuing efforts to maintain the ordinance that's been passed. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Okay, back to the podium. Please state your name for the record.
[Micah Kesselman]: I'm Mikey Kesselman, 499 Main Street. I'll preface this by being totally transparent and clear that I am co-counsel for the intervenors that are intervening in defense of the city. Now, I'm not going to speak to the issue specifically under active litigation in a public forum like this because that would be wildly irresponsible. But I will say that people should keep in mind that this vote tonight, what you are doing, it is not about the ordinance. It is not about any particular ordinance. This is a vote about basically how adequate you think the council is to the city. And what KP law has done on this case, and in other cases, has been nothing short of concerning. In this case alone, they're inconsistent, incoherent, shifting fluid legal posture has, without a doubt, exposed the city to further liability and risk of litigation. This last stipulation filing unquestionably establishes a basis for a lawsuit against the city under ten taxpayer law, under the black letter law of ten taxpayer law. Like, it does. I, like, I, it just, I don't, I don't know how, and it's, it's shocking to see supposedly seasoned professional attorneys, uh, who in theory have been practicing municipal law for many, many years, uh, sign their name to this kind of nonsense. It is very concerning to see this. It makes me question the competency of what they've done on every other single case that they've represented the city on, to be honest. I don't know what $35,000 has been spent on, which is what they have claimed to have spent on the so-called defense. Their filings have been anemic. You can all read them and see them. They have been inconsistent and incoherent. And basically, they've included inventive motions. The stipulation itself is not a stipulation. A stipulation is an agreement. You don't file a stipulation that is an opening to negotiate via pleading.
[Emily Lazzaro]: 30 seconds.
[Micah Kesselman]: So that's crazy. No one I've shown this to or talked to has ever seen anything like it. What I would say is I encourage you all to vote yes on this because it is about separation of powers. It's about legal liability for the city that's being increased. It's about adequate counsel. That's really what it's about. It's not about this particular ordinance, just to be clear. I would also say that you should really seriously consider doing a thorough audit and review of their conduct on this case and maybe consider consulting a malpractice attorney.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you, Micah. Okay, seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. President Pierce.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Madam President. We're having the same fight that we've been having for over a year and a half about this on some elements of it, but some elements of this, and I just want to bring us back to it, are clear. First and foremost, I just want to say I understand why people are frustrated that one member of this council may not vote the way they want them to vote, but the person who we need to be frustrated, like if this is a 6-1 vote or a 7-0 vote, it's not really going to matter. Because the problem here is the mayor. She is, again, making a decision not to enforce a law. That's what's going on here. We've spent I started this conversation in December of 2024. We spent nine months drafting an ordinance. We heard from KP Law multiple times. We heard from other people multiple times. When we talk about, oh, they got advice from lawyers that this was bad. We asked them over a four-month period to provide comments on this ordinance, and they repeatedly came back with some things that we changed, and then they came back with bad faith comments that a number of other lawyers and a number of other legal Councilors and a number of people who came to this podium and said, I'm a lawyer, I'm right, and I'm wrong. Many more said KP Law's opinion here is ridiculous, and a couple said, you know, KP Law might be right. I just, a number of current and former municipal council, city solicitors and assistant solicitors from different cities and towns across the state, I've spoken to them. I spoke to them a year ago and I've spoken to them recently and they've said, that the arguments that KP law put forward last September to say that the council should not vote for this ordinance and the arguments that they're putting forward in this case are spurious. That the plaintiffs who have filed this case have basically no case at all. The lawyers who are representing them filed, represented folks who filed a similar lawsuit against Northampton that got thrown out in state court. dismissed, like there are tons of folks and legal experts who have basically said KP Law is taking your city for a ride. Again, the people who are coming here tonight and saying we didn't do our due diligence are misrepresenting the facts of the record. The folks who are coming up here and doing the mayor's spin, oh, the city council's wasting all this money, you know, we have a a resolution later tonight and a number of things about the millions of dollars that the mayor has spent on outside council and vendettas. And the only reason there's even a number in here of $75,000 is because the mayor came to us and said, you have to say you'll spend $75,000. And again, more spin that, oh, the city council's the ones costing us all this money, or the city council won't discuss a settlement with the plaintiffs. And we met in executive session in March. And here I am. I'm talking about executive session. And maybe I shouldn't, right? Because here they're going to come and say I'm in. violating confidentiality. But at this point, it's clear that our KB law doesn't represent us, and that's basically what we're saying here. We met in executive session, and I think this council pretty much unanimously said, engage with the plaintiffs. If they come with a settlement, if there's some sort of settlement, an amendment to the ordinance, something we can consider, we're open to considering that. KP Law never consulted us on the possibility of a settlement again. I spoke with the mayor, and we spoke to the mayor in sessions about pro bono counsel. In March, the mayor waited two months, and pro bono counsel decided, I don't think the mayor's doing this in good faith. I guess I'm going to represent the intervenors. We then brought low-bono council, people who would not have cost the $35,000 that have been spent. So if we're going to point and say, oh, the city council wants to waste all this money, we have at every turn said, we're willing to discuss a settlement. We've brought pro-bono council. We've brought low-bono council. And we've said the whole time, we don't think we want KP Law defending this because we have issues with KP Law across the board. We think they're not representing the city well at all. We now have another fight about that. So I think it's incredibly hypocritical for people to come up here and do the mayor's spin job because they don't like me, or they don't like OR, or they don't like this ordinance, or they don't like the politics of this situation, when at every single turn, we have tried to be the responsible actors. We proposed this in December 2024. We could have voted it in January 2025 and approved it. 6-1, you know, divide the city, whatever. We spent nine more months negotiating it. KP Law sends us opinions the day before a vote saying, don't do it, don't do it, please. It's horrible. We don't really, can't really explain to you why. And, you know, other lawyers would say that our arguments are not real, but please don't do it. It's politics. It's the mayor doesn't want to do this. The mayor doesn't want these politics. And again, we're here, right? Like if this was a snow removal ordinance and the mayor was saying, I'm going to nullify a snow removal ordinance because two residents don't want to shovel their snow, we'd all be losing our minds. And the only reason it's even a question is because it's a semi-controversial issue, even though the ordinance isn't about that issue at its core, it's a universal human rights question. You know, I'm really frustrated. I'm ranting a little bit, but I just think the hypocrisy and the spin job that the mayor's trying to do here, what she does on everything to avoid accountability, she's filed in federal court that she believes she has the power to unilaterally nullify city laws if she doesn't like them. That's undemocratic. That's not how the legislative process works. I think we should oppose it. I respect my colleagues for voting how they want to vote. But don't get up here and say we haven't tried to save the city money. Don't get up here and say we put the city at risk. Because all you're doing is supporting the mayor's acting city solicitor, KP Law. So the question that Paulette asked, is everything legal? Yeah, because the mayor made KP Law the acting city solicitor. She won't put it on the website. I don't know why. But that's who the city solicitor is, and if you wanna get up here and say, yeah, KP Law's great, and they definitely have done a really good job representing the city on all these matters. That's basically what you're coming up here and saying. I'm just very frustrated that this narrative is, oh, the city council's doing this horrible thing, when really at every turn we've acted in good faith and tried to make this bad faith case based on completely ridiculous legal grounds, filed by two people who didn't like the ordinance, and that I think the mayor could have filed a motion to dismiss on six months ago, but hasn't done that. So who's costing the city money? Maybe it's the person who turned down pro bono counsel, turned down low bono counsel, is writing in legal opinions that she's not following the law, is saying she's not going to defend the ordinance, is basically making a bunch of residents file an intervention, and then blaming us for it, like she does with everything. It's got to be somebody else's fault. It couldn't possibly be the person who's saying no to saving the city money and reducing liability at every turn. Thank you.
[Emily Lazzaro]: On the motion of President Bears to adopt and execute the declaration, do we have a second? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk, I forgot your, Siegel.
[Laurel Siegel]: Can you call the roll, please? Certainly. Councilor Callahan. Yes. I'm so sorry. Okay. Councilor Lebbing.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne. Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng. Yes. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Six in favor, one opposed. The declaration will be signed. Do we have a clean copy to sign? I have. Well, I have one. I mean, it's got stuff on the back. Do you want to do that? The declaration passes and I will pass this around and President Bears can take the chair.
[Zac Bears]: All right, yeah, so that's public tree ordinance. Okay, one second.
[Justin Tseng]: All right, Councilor Tseng. Thank you, President Bears. I'd like to motion to reconsider our vote where that we rejected Councilor Leming's proposal to make that plot that we were talking about by right. Very specific.
[Zac Bears]: Trying to kill me. Trying to kill me.
[Justin Tseng]: Do you want me to sign the declaration or not? Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
[Zac Bears]: and you can do whatever you want. Just remember it was a roll call vote. All right, so you want to reconsider the vote on 26-093? Yes. Okay. We're all, we're gonna do a motion to reconsider. I'm seeing a Councilor missing, but okay. Motion to reconsider 26-093. You were in, that was a seven zero. It was 4-3 but we have to re-vote the whole thing. So, OK. Yeah, you're in the majority so you can vote to motion to reconsider. So, motion to reconsider 26-093 by Councilor Tseng, seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne.
[Zac Bears]: We have to, this is just reopening the whole debate. Yeah, this is just, we're going back to 26-093 Boston Avenue now.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Scarpelli. Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: No. Six in the affirmative, one in the negative. The motion to reconsider passes. So we are back to Boston Avenue. All right. We took, basically it's just like back to where we, as if we had not voted. Yeah. I'm just going to say what we did do if you have it somewhere. Sorry, clerk. So, what this city council voted to approve was a B paper referring 94.9.8.53J, God help me, to legal council and review purpose-based, purpose-built student housing as a buy right as part of the cleanup zoning and that was to refer both of those to cleanup zoning. And then there was the main motion which is we adopted the CDB recommendations with the 10-foot step back. Basically, we adopted the CDB recommendations except eliminating footnote 6 which is the change in step back for North Street. Essentially, it's a 10-foot step back for North Street and we changed 94-9.8.53 to read. Up to 20 percent of total residents may be non-students. The management team shall document the residential categories at the start of each semester and report to the city if requested and all other residents shall be students enrolled at an educational institution. So that is what was approved.
[Justin Tseng]: What do you want to do? So I think having thought about it more and thinking about the importance having projects that bring revenue to the city to fund important city services. I think the best solution would be to do everything we did except for the part where Councilor Leming's motion diverged. So I believe that was taking that parcel and then making a student housing buy right.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, so we'll... Okay. We could send the B paper out as approved which means we'll maybe look at this question in the cleanup zoning around the by right. Councilor Scarpelli do you still want to do the B paper. So sending the question about the. the 80-20 and the purpose built to, OK. All right. So, Councilor Scarpelli is proposing the same B paper seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Callahan. So, that'll go. Again, this is just we're going to talk about this again and we want them to tell us if the 80, requiring 80 percent in Medford and Somerville is legal. So, all right. Same B paper as we originally approved. Proposed and seconded. Is there any further discussion by members of the council? I'm just getting that out of the way, because it sounds like you want to make a change to the main motion. Yep. Okay. Seeing none, Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Councilor Scarpelli?
[Zac Bears]: Yeah.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Tseng?
[Zac Bears]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Vice President Lazzaro?
[Zac Bears]: This is just the B paper. Basically, we're going to talk about something. The thing we wanted legal opinion on, we're going to get that on. Yes. Okay.
[Laurel Siegel]: President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven in the affirmative, none in the negative. All right. What you just said to me is you want to change the main motion So it is to adopt the CDB recommendations, remove foot no. 6, which means it's just a 10-foot step back, change that language in around the residency that we agreed to. So that's all things we already agreed to. And you want to do one more thing.
[Justin Tseng]: One more thing.
[Zac Bears]: Okay, which is you want to do what Matt wanted, which is change the use in BA3 for purpose-built student housing from special permit to buy right. Exactly. Okay. All right. Yes.
[Justin Tseng]: It's exactly what Matt said.
[Zac Bears]: It was what failed for three to four.
[Justin Tseng]: Yeah, we're just redoing it.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Okay. So we had a vote previously. It was myself and Councilor Lazzaro and Councilor Leming in favor. Councilor Tseng, Councilor Callahan, Councilor Scarpelli, and Councilor Mulane opposed. All right. Councilor Tseng, do you want to talk more about why you want to do this or do any other councilors want to speak to this issue again?
[Justin Tseng]: Sure, I'll reiterate my stance. I think- Sorry, Justin. I'll reiterate my stance. I think purpose-built student housing can be a social good in terms of taking folks who are currently jamming in the housing market in that neighborhood in Medford Hillside out of a very hot housing market. that is currently driving up rents in that neighborhood. Taking them out and giving them purpose-built student housing will alleviate the housing market in that district and also provide a social good to the community. I also think that this project in particular provides a lot of potential for revenue in our city. And that's revenue that we could sorely need for infrastructure upgrades, for hiring key positions that we've been asking for on this council for a very long time.
[Zac Bears]: Is there any further discussion? All right. So I'm going to take this the same way we took it last time just for ease. There's a motion by Councilor Scarpelli. to adopt the CD board recommendations except eliminating footnote six. So that keeps the 10 foot step back at North Street and changing the definition for the non-student residency requirement for purpose-built student housing and the use, this is under the use conditions. So that's what we already voted to do. And I'm gonna take this as you are proposing an amendment to, so first, that's Councilor Scarpelli's motion, is there a second? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. I am going to take this as you were proposing again, as Matt did last time, an amendment to Councilor Scarpelli's motion to also include by right purpose-built student housing in the BA3 subdistrict. All right. Is there a second on that? Okay. Discussion or questions about what we're voting for? Then we're going to take two more votes. No, the first is going to be adjustments. Do we want to change purpose-built student housing to buy right in the BA3 sub-district? Yes. And then the second vote is everything we already did plus that. Okay. If it passes. If it doesn't pass, then it's just we're doing the same thing we already did twice. Okay. Do we have more discussion on Councilor Tseng's proposal on the, on this buy right purpose-built student housing in the BA3 sub-district? Seeing none, whereas this motion to amend is proposed and seconded. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming.
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne. No. Councilor Scarpelli. No. Councilor Tseng.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Four in the affirmative, three in the negative. It passes. So now we'll take a vote on the final item. Is there any discussion on purpose-built student housing? on any of these further changes, so this is motion to adopt the CDB recommendations, remove footnote 6, change the definition of 94-9.8.53J, and change the use table. Any further discussion? Okay. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan. Yes. Councilor Leming.
[SPEAKER_09]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne. Yes. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Tseng. Yes. President, Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Signing the affirmative, none the negative, the motion passes. Yes, sorry. Next 19-070 Public Tree Ordinance, Councilor Callahan.
[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. I'll try to be brief. This ordinance has been talked about for many years. I want to thank the Trees Medford folk for all of their work on this and the other tree ordinances. believe we only changed one word between the one that was seen in committee and this one. It was a word that Councilor Tseng advised on. I don't think anyone will even know the difference except for Councilor Tseng between the way that it was phrased before and the way it is phrased now. I know many residents who are very excited to finally get this public tree ordinance. And it has been, not only has it been in committee many times, it also has gone through very thorough vetting by the, you know, salient members of the administration, especially DPW. And I would like to move that we waive the three readings and ordain it today.
[Zac Bears]: I'm seeing, is there an objection to waiving the reading? Councilor Scarpelli?
[George Scarpelli]: Unfortunately, I appreciate, I'm going to support the resolution, but I think that it's important that we get. any other processes through. Like again, I would vote, I would move three readings if it meant for a union that hasn't been paid for months, but this is something that I'll stand on in my opinion. But again, we live in a democracy. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: All right. I mean, technically you would have the right to suspend this for a meeting and I'll, okay. Councilor Callahan, do you want to make that a motion to waive the three readings? I did. Is there a second on that motion? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, could you call the roll on waiving the three readings?
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Maloney? Yes. Councilor Scarpelli? No. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: No. Five in the affirmative, two in the negative. Three readings are waived, so let's tell us a little bit more about it, and if there's any discussion, and then we'll hear public comment on it, and then we'll go from there.
[Anna Callahan]: So the public tree ordinance really is about trees that are on public land, sort of city-owned trees. These are parks and sidewalks. And it's a fairly simple ordinance. It really points to the urban tree management plan explicitly, which we had done recently, is, you know, really a ton of research went into it. The DPW is fully behind it. The administration, you know, made sure that that got put together. It points to that plan and to ensuring that we are able to follow that plan. That really helps us to have long-term planning for our public trees. It also, at the very end, sets up some consequences for people who destroy trees on public land, which essentially is just, you know, paying for the ability for us to replant the equivalent amount of trees. And that's the public tree ordinance.
[Zac Bears]: All right, do we have any further questions on the Public Chair Ordinance? As you can see from the paper number, it's 19-070. Been talking about it for a while. That 19 means 2019. All right, seeing none, I will go to public comment. Is there anyone who wants to speak on the Public Chair Ordinance? We have one person in the chamber and it looks like one person on Zoom, so I will go to public comment. The podium first. You have three minutes.
[Josh Ekhart-Lee]: Name and neighborhood for the record, please. Josh Eckert Lee, Main Street in South Medford. In my capacity as the co-chair of Medford's Energy and Environment Committee, I wanted to thank you for taking this up. It's one of the real like tentpole strategies in Medford's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. This is a real victory for the work we're trying to do to prevent climate change and build community resilience. So thank you, Councilor Callahan. And thank you, Council, for moving this forward quickly. I wanted to also express on the record my gratitude for fellow committee member Loretta James, who has been a longtime Trees Medford member. Her, Lois Grossman as well on the committee, have been really spearheading this from our side. And I'm grateful that it's here today with you all. Thank you for your work on it. Thank you for hopefully passing it quickly and continuing to support the climate action that we're trying to advocate for on our Energy and Environment Committee. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. We'll go to Zoom. Robert Carney, name and neighborhood for the record, please. You'll have three minutes. Robert. All right. Any further discussion? on the motion by Councilor Callahan to approve and ordain because the three readings have been waived. Seconded by? Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Clerk Siegel, please call the roll.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Councilor Leming?
[Matt Leming]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Malayne? Councilor Scarpelli? No.
[Zac Bears]: I unmuted him, I don't know. Finish the roll call and then I'll give a special.
[Laurel Siegel]: Okay. Councilor Scarpelli. Yes. Councilor Hsuang. Yes. Vice President Lazzaro. Yes. President Bears.
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Having the affirmative, none of the negative, the motion passes and the public true ordinance is ordained. I'm going to go to Robert. Sorry, I did unmute you about this but I will give you the three minutes.
[Robert Carney]: Yeah, I hadn't realized you couldn't hear me, and then I was muted. So 50 Hicks Avenue, Unit 6. I just want to thank you, Mr. President and colleague, Councilor Scarpelli, for not voting to waive the three readings. I think there should have been three readings. Second, I'm pro-tree and hope to see many more trees in our city. But today, I don't want to talk about why I'm pro-tree. I want to talk about how this ordinance may connect with the frustrations many residents in the city are feeling about care for their neighborhoods. The draft ordinance says if a tree is removed from the sidewalk strip, the tree committee and residents within a block of the site must be informed of the intent to remove the tree and the plan for stump removal and replacement. So it sounds like, you know, this provision is in place so residents don't lose the benefits such as shade and cleaner air from the trees. On the other hand, there are other benefits to neighborhoods such as sunlight around their properties. As we all know, rezoning will enable building owners to build taller buildings in many areas. However, residents don't have an explicit right to preserve their sunshine rights and could be subject to increased shade over their properties without their consent through the construction of adjacent properties. So my question is, why is it that we allow developers to increase the level of shadow over bordering properties but we are proposing that we will no longer allow city officials to remove public trees from the street, even if they have a good reason to do so. And I would say this question about shadow from new buildings, I think speaks to a fear that many residents are feeling in their neighborhoods, fear of loss of character. And in my view, the continued frustrations of many residents on social media and at city meetings about some of the changes that are being implemented, the fact that we're having an ordinance here, which I think has a lot of good things to it, but we're skipping three readings and passing it at 11 o'clock at night. So I do, you know, support the desire to increase tree cover and, you know, rezoning is good in many ways, but I feel the need to call out this inconsistency we're seeing here, because frankly, sometimes it feels like our council cares more about trees than preserving the character of our neighborhood. So thank you for your consideration.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, all right. Next item. 26142B, offered by the city council. This is a city council response to paper 26142, law department appropriations. As folks are aware, there is a response from the mayor attached where I can just read her response. I'll try to give the history of this. We've been asking since February for an explanation of the city's legal expenses and settlements. The city administration was not fulfilling that and was semi-responsive to a public records request. When it came to the budget, the city council voted to fund only two months of legal expenses until we got answers to what are all these legal expenses and how bad has it been. There's a number of other items in there as well. The administration came back on August 5th and said, we still don't know what you want, even though we've sent them five or six versions of what we want. So we sent them one yet again, and they have sent back a number of responses. Those that were in by last Thursday are attached here, but we've received a number of other responses since last Thursday. We received some as late as yesterday evening, and I believe Councilor Scarapelli maybe has not even received those. There's a bunch of information we haven't really had a chance to review yet. I do encourage people to look at the mayor's email response that was sent in which she says that she has no problem doing a litigation review and welcomes it very much. So, I'm working to get a list of folks who could do that litigation review. And then, in addition, she says, Bond counsel brought this up in a meeting. She's upset by this, believes this is going to jeopardize her bond rating. She told the bond rating agency that this is a campaign tactic used against her in 2021 and it's now resurfacing as a personal attack to try, this is a quote, these are the same campaign tactics were used against me in 2021 and are now resurfacing as a personal attack against me to ruin my character and question my integrity. While someone positions for the first ever four-year mayoral term, It goes on and on, but I encourage people to take a look at it. I have conferred with the Chief of Staff, and I believe, and they also believe, that tabling this until September 29th, which is the last meeting before the funds run out, they've requested that. Given that we got a bunch of responses in the last two days, I think it probably makes sense to do that. But interested in what you all think, and I'll go to Councilor Scarpelli first.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate it, Council, because I think that my response is pretty simple right now. The fact that I never received it, I'd like to, if I could, I would like to table it, so, until the next meeting, just so we can, I can read it and understand what the process is, because we've been pretty intense and pretty direct in what we're asking for. So, unless it's exactly what we asked for, or it answers the questions that we've been asking for about, You know, the questions that we've all put forth, I think that if it's okay, I would, I don't know if it was done maliciously, but I'd like to see it before I vote on anything tonight, so thank you.
[Zac Bears]: I'll second. On a motion to table to the next regular meeting, seconded by Councilor Strickland, seconded by Councilor Tang, Councilor Leming has stepped away from the meeting and is no longer present, so we can take voice votes. Item is tabled. 26-155, resolution to appoint Councilor to police chief hiring committee. I offered this. Give me one second. I'm going through all these KP law bills. There's a lot of them. Be it resolved by the city council that we appoint a member of the council to serve on the interview panel for the police chief as requested by the mayor. Be it further resolved that we request the city administration and its consultants meet publicly with the city council and committee of the whole to outline the hiring process for the police chief and discuss what priorities will be considered in selecting the best candidate. The mayor sent city councilors an email saying, if you want someone to be on the search committee, let me know. We had been discussing a committee of the whole. The mayor said that the search consultant doesn't want to do a committee of the whole, at least before October. So she said that Councilors could meet privately with the search committee. You all are in receipt of that email, I hope. I still think we should have a meeting committee of the whole where this part is part of the public process where there's some transparency to this. So I wrote this into a resolution. I also think that the council should take a vote to put someone on this hiring committee, not just that the mayor, someone can email the mayor and on the hiring committee. So I know council Lazzaro did express interest and I will recognize vice president Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. I would like to be on this hiring committee. I've worked closely with Chief Buckley for a few years since starting on the council. In 2024, I've chaired the Public Health and Community Safety Committee and met on a somewhat regular basis with the police chief and spoken with some candor about issues faced by the city. And I think I've developed a pretty good working knowledge of how a police chief operates I would love the opportunity to meet the candidates that are hoping to be considered. I think I have a fairly good grasp of the sort of candidate that would be a really good fit for Medford. And since we have opened up the search to anybody taking the position out of civil service, I think it's a really exciting new horizon for the department. So I would love to be considered. I don't know if that's part of this vote exactly or how this will work. But I would offer myself in the position of city council representative for the hiring committee if that's something that we're deciding tonight. I don't know. But I'd be happy to do it. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further discussion? Does anyone want to move to submit Vice President Lazzaro as the council's representative on this hiring committee? Moved by Councilor Tseng, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. You say aye. Or nay. All opposed? Ayes have it. Is there a motion to approve this item? On the motion of Councilor Callahan to approve this item including the name of Councilor Lazzaro as the representative, seconded by Councilor Tseng. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. All right, 26-159 offered by Councilor Scarpelli, resolution clarifying the status and application of proposed building height definition change, whereas the City Council has learned that the change to the definition of building height, section 94-12 was discussed as part of Medford Square rezoning. and residents scheduled for ZBA variance hearings were reportedly told the height definition had already changed. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council request the administration through the Office of Planning and Development Sustainability and the Law Department answer the following on the record at the next regular meeting. Confirm the adoption status. State plainly whether change to building height definition in 94-12 has been formally adopted by the city. Council vote under General Law Chapter 48, Section 5, whether it remains a proposed draft amendment pending that. disclose any pre-adoption application, identify instances in which the definition was different from the current legally operative definition, and when that was communicated to any resident or applicant. To be further resolved, the city council directs acting city legal representation to review whether any application of an unadopted height definition to a pending permit has occurred and advised the council in writing. Be it further resolved that this matter be placed on the record to make clear that any change to the definition of building height in the zoning ordinance is a legislative act requiring a vote of the city council and has not been acted by administrative action, staff referendum or discussion absent a completed council vote. I will go to Councilor Scarpelli, and then we did receive a response. I don't know if you want to read it. You want me to read it? Yeah, but I'll go to you first just if you want to talk about it.
[George Scarpelli]: I appreciate it, Council President. I think it's important. I was getting phone calls from residents from one particular project, and then I also spoke with the building department. They were unclear of the process. I was unclear of the process because when we met with, when I heard about this, I contacted members of this council, then also members of the CDB board, and asked them if they recalled the vote, and no one seemed to recall the vote. I believe, when I talked to Alicia Hunch, she told me that this is a process during the Medford Square a rezoning process that they identified that the height issue was something that could be changed by definition and it was something that was overlooked throughout the community and that was automatically changed and we did not need the vote of the council to do that. It was a definition change which fell on the director. Correct me if I'm wrong, that's what I believe she mentioned to a few.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, I'll just further read.
[George Scarpelli]: But I will tell you, just so you know, I did ask the building department. There was only one to get clarity. Obviously, I don't want the attorneys to get more money on this. I've talked to the departments, and the building department did mention it was one address, but there were a few that were in process that didn't have to go to ZBA because this definition change was implemented. that was enough to satisfy me with that question. But I know that Ms. Hunt had a response. So thank you, Mr. Council President. All right.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you, Councilor Scrively. I'll just read it. And given that your resolution requested that this be attached to the record, I'm going to ask Clerk Siegel to put this into the minutes, the response from Director Hunt. So Director Hunt said this is by email dated yesterday. There was a question about when the definition of building height was changed during the city's zoning process. During the Medford Square public hearing in January, it became clear there was a misunderstanding about how height of a building is measured in the city of Medford, with some people assuming the measurement is made from the ground the building sits on and others believing it was measured from the curb of the road the building faces. When it was clarified that the definition of building height in Medford zoning was measured from the curb and it was clarified that this was not a standard definition but something unusual in Medford's ordinances, the council and community development board requested that consultants provide a definition that is more standard, i.e. measuring from the land or the finished grade, quote, that the building sits on and for sloped land, quote, the average grade. This definition was provided in the edits presented at the joint public hearing on March 25th. and was adopted as part of the vote on April 28, 2026. When newer revised definitions are adopted as part of zoning, they are always citywide and not for one district. This is to avoid long-term confusion. This is indicated by the table at the beginning of each zoning memo where the portions of zoning that are being amended are listed. quote section 94-12 definitions is the section for definitions for the entire zoning document and that is where the definition was included. So this was approved by a council vote on April 28, 2026 because the Medford Square District zoning included changes to definitions that apply to this entire city. So this definition on building height which was irregular and measured in a strange way has changed to something more standardized is what the memorandum from Director Hunt says. Any further, Councilor Scarpelli, do you want to add to that or?
[George Scarpelli]: No, like again I said, I think having the clarity and putting that on record. I don't remember the process. I think that now that it's explained to me that this is the process that moving forward as we do zoning, I think we should all be aware that these type of decisions we make will have ramifications moving forward with citywide. That wasn't explained, at least to me, in depth. So that was my confusion fell, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, and I think that's a fair point to, in the future, make sure any zoning amendment we're looking at, what is the sections that are just for this district, and if there are any sections that are changing citywide regulations. Let's talk about that a little more clearly in the future, I agree. Thank you. All right. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to approve and attach the response by Director Hunt in the minutes seconded by. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. I will go to public participation. We have in the chamber, name and neighborhood for the record please.
[Nick Giurleo]: Thank you. Nick Giurleo, 40 Robinson Road. So I was glad to see this resolution on the agenda. I definitely support it. Glad to hear also that Director Hunt provided a response in writing. I still think you should all should pass it anyway because there was other stuff in that resolution that I think would provide information that would be helpful to know. And the reason why I feel compelled to do a public comment on this is just because I've had some process concerns lately regarding zoning. And I want to say that I think it has to do with the fact of just how fast we've been moving through our zoning amendments in this neighborhood by neighborhood strategy. In less than a year, we've rezoned Medford Square. That includes a spot zoning amendment for the developer transom. And we just passed a zoning amendment for Boston Avenue. That's really a lot to do in less than one year. And I think when you're moving this fast, you're inevitably going to be making mistakes, especially when you don't have a city solicitor providing legal oversight. It's important to remember, you know, General Laws 40A, Section 5, which is cited in that resolution, provides the procedure, the process, for how you validly go through a zoning amendment. I would encourage you all to spend a lot of time kind of studying up on that law. It's very important to know to make sure the process is done right and we don't have to go back and redo things. The last thing I'll say is, you know, it's very difficult to guarantee, you know, what they call in law procedural due process when a member of the public can't readily locate laws. This has been something that I think residents have been struggling with lately, just trying to understand what are the changes to our laws. It's very risky going on Munici-Code online because that's not being up-to-date with our changes. And I know there's been confusion, too, at City Hall, Clerk's Office, and other departments regarding, you know, what exactly are the laws given all these changes? So I really think all of you need to continue. I know I've said this many times before. continue to put pressure on the administration to get ourselves a city solicitor. One of the jobs of a city solicitor is codifying the law, putting it on the books so we know what the law is. So really, I think you should all be putting maximum pressure for that position to be filled. Thank you for listening.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. I just wanted to say two quick things. One, now that we have our full-time clerk and we have that staff, we're working on the codification question. It's mostly in the clerk's office. The solicitor has a role, but we are- When was the last time municipal code was updated? Yeah, I think probably 2024. Okay. Yeah. It's been a while. I've been, if you want to look, so there's the actual when a document gets codified in the Muny code system and then it's in like the red line. You can look at the red line and it's in there. But there's something called the Muny Docs. That's where you can find the council records and minutes and also ordinances. So what we've been doing in the absence of full staffing and also frankly some, even before we had the acting clerk and now our new clerk, we were also having a huge delay in time. We would send something to the mayor. It's gone off on me twice, I should take that as a sign. We would send something to the mayor and she would send it to KP Law to have them sign as the city solicitor and it was taking weeks and months to get the green paper, is the office terminology, back with their signature on it. So we're in this kind of clerical situation where some things went to KP Law and we never got them back and basically in the absence of having the green papers, which is the only thing we felt comfortable going to MuniCode and then saying, okay, turn this PDF into codified in the system. We've just been uploading them in the document section. So the things in the document section, which I think includes a zoning, full citywide zoning as of the Medford Square district adoption is in there. And that's where we and planning have been, and I think building, have been directing people to for zoning. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to look at those.
[Nick Giurleo]: Yeah. Uploads.
[Zac Bears]: It's wild the amount of those systems are. Yeah. Clerk Siegel and I are digging into it with the spreadsheets we've made. All right. So we have the motion to approve and include the response from Director Hunt in the record. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. noting and I'm grateful again to Clerk Siegel for this. This was Clerk Siegel's first time doing the agenda and we did a lot right and I just saw right here one wrong thing, which is we have the same paper number twice. It was supposed to be corrected and we didn't get it. There's a second 26-159, correct me if I'm wrong, that should be 26162, is that? All right, let's do like 16, let's just do 165 just to be safe. We're gonna call this 26-165. This is Councilor Scarpelli's item regarding acceptance of general law chapter 40U. So this is offered by Councilor Scarpelli. Be it resolved that there's a draft ordinance concerning the acceptance of mass general law chapter 40U and the establishment of a municipal fine enforcement and tax roll collection process. Be it further resolved that the city council hold a committee of the whole or committee on public health and community safety meeting. To be a further result, we include a representative from the treasurer, assessor, building, and legal department to be present at this meeting. This sounds great. Councilor Scarpelli.
[George Scarpelli]: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a litany of notes, but to save time just so people understand the process, as we're moving forward with all of these processes of fees and fines and holding owners accountable for Fees and fines accrued. Let's say it would be a fine that a resident, which is a real story so you can understand why this is so important, a resident who lives in one neighborhood, owns a home in another neighborhood, and that residential neighborhood has families, young families, but in that driveway they have a garage where they house hit a business and in that business they wake up at 430 in the morning. The staff goes down there. Wakes up the residents with beeping trucks. Leaf blowers ladders and. Resident contacts code enforcement code enforcement goes out multiple multiple times. The. The person that's doing the violation realizes that it holds no weight. So they're now purposely waking up at 4.30 in the morning on a Saturday and decides that his crew is going to clean out gutters. And what's happening is we realized when this phone call, this resident reached out, I met with the building department. The building department said, unfortunately, there's no teeth behind our fees and fines. There's nothing to hold them. accountable for paying. So I looked into that and I'll share with the council tomorrow to email you what Revere has done and Revere has implemented the 40U process where they hold that violation accountable on the tax roll. So right now if someone ignores a code The violation ticket and method, our only backstop is filing in district court, which doesn't happen. There's no mechanism to move any unpaid fines onto the tax bill. Revere does have a process. It's already built. It's working. It's not in beginning stages. It's been in place for five years. Under state law called Chapter 40U, Revere uses its ticket and gives the owner 21 days to pay an appeal to an independent hearing officer, and if it stays unpaid, the fine up to $500 is automatically transferred to the collector and shows up on the tax bill. They've had this in place since 2015, so it shows it's proven. The key legal points are very simple. Chapter 40U is not automatic. A city has to formally accept it as a council vote, then adopt it in implementation ordinance with a fine schedule and appointment of hearing offices. And we can use that neighboring community as an example. Why is this needed to go to committee of the whole or subcommittee? It's drafting something that touches four departments. So having all four departments, I did meet with the city treasurer. This was attempted a few years ago. The city treasurer mentioned that it fell, but no one followed through with it. And it was imperative that the four departments involved had to be involved. And that's why I'm asking this meeting with the four departments. Treasury obviously has to implement that in the tax roll. The assessor has to make sure the person that's being fined actually owns that home to be taxed. The building department has to provide the code that they need to enforce. and the address and the proof that they've ticketed that person. And then last is the city administration legal department to help move that forward. So I think it's important that we at least look at it and see if we should draft this because, again, what I'm being told is that the building department, the code enforcement officer especially, is saying that when he goes out and he tries to reinforce a violation that's happened multiple, multiple times. They know that there is no teeth behind it and they are continuing to do it without any repercussions. So I'm hoping my colleagues can support this, move this to a committee that we can either as a whole or subcommittee, leave that up to the council president. I know council is our left. to get her guidance as the vice chair. So that's it, Mr. President. Thank you.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Councilor Scarpelli. I think this is great, but does anyone else have an opinion? I guess I should probably let you guys, I'm sorry, it's a little late. Councilor Tseng, okay, well, we're going to vote. No, it's fine. I mean, I think this is important. I feel like you've identified apparently some sort of broken piece inside City Hall where everyone's trying to enforce something and for some reason it's not getting... Actually, the fines aren't going out and that feels... I mean, that feels nuts. So I'm down to... I'm really excited to work on this. Does anyone have an opinion on whether this should go I know you moved approval. Did you want Committee of the Whole or Public Health?
[SPEAKER_15]: I'm not sure right now, so I don't know how I end up with subcommittees.
[Zac Bears]: Councilor, is this Vice President Lazzaro? I know, I know. I think, Mr. President, we both need a recommendation more than this. 6 o'clock, committee of the whole, all right. We're just deciding if the fine should go to committee of the whole or public health and community safety. No, it's the, George's resolution is that basically for some reason something's broken inside City Hall and all these departments are issuing fines, but Treasury's not getting them out and we need to fix that. So, yeah, that's the face I'm making. It's actually like, I wish it wasn't, Yeah, I wish it wasn't 1135 because this is like so wild. Committee of the Whole. Committee of the Whole, all right. All right, on the motion of Council Vice President Lazzaro to approve and refer to Committee of the Whole, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Aye. Aye. Hold on. Paulette's here. Paulette stayed the whole time. Can you come to the podium and say what you want to say? Thank you.
[Paulette Vartabedian]: I want to know, this isn't me that's having this issue, but what happens in the interim between when they're paying their home taxes and I know. It needs to be something that happens to stop the person that's being violated by this noise. But that's all I want to say.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah. Councilor Scarpelli. I'm sorry. We agree. That's why, you know, we have a homeowner that has a young family and quote unquote, he said the excitement of owning a home with a young family. has been absolutely destroyed with this, the way he's been living his life in the last couple of months, because it's been torture, and it seems like it's possibly being done maliciously now, because that person doesn't realize, doesn't care that he doesn't have to pay a fine. So maybe we will fix that. So thank you.
[Zac Bears]: My favorite thing that Council Vice President Lazzaro reminds me of is that the mayor doesn't watch these meetings. So our anger. Where is it even being heard? Vice President.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Never forget. Never forget.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Emily Lazzaro]: You can say whatever you want.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. So, but we're passing a resolution on the motion.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Well, you can pass the resolutions all you want.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. I think we'll actually get somewhere in this one. I resolve hereby. I hope. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. This will go to committee of the whole and hopefully we'll figure out how this broke. It is but I just I'm just real quick just two six one six zero by councillor Scarpelli resolution to discuss private ways be resolved council discuss private ways be resolved further resolve the council requested committee the whole or subcommittee representatives from DPW and city administration to draft a communications plan to educate our residents on the responsibilities and processes for dealing with concerns for private ways councillor Scarpelli Again, I think this is this is something that needs a little more time.
[George Scarpelli]: So I will I will table it but there is some public safety to children. There's a tree that's dying on a public way. DPW has reached out to the homeowner that's across of it. But the homeowner says this is a street, so everybody has to pay for it. So in the meantime, there's a possible tree that's dangering kids. So that's why Tim did respond, and I appreciate that. But This is more depth. I think we need to work together. So I'd like to table this to the next meeting, Mr. President, so we can have a more depth conversation. Please.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Vice President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I would second tabling it, but we could also talk about it in PHCS too, if you want to talk about it in committee. Yeah. I would be in favor of that too.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah, just to... You want the public health or committee level?
[Emily Lazzaro]: I think public health community safety makes sense.
[Zac Bears]: All right.
[Emily Lazzaro]: If it's a community safety, it sounds like a safety issue.
[George Scarpelli]: Yeah, we could set it up. In the meantime, I can explain it better because I know that residents were calling. They wanted to be on it, but this is ridiculous.
[Emily Lazzaro]: It's too late.
[Zac Bears]: Yeah. Let's just refer this out so we can get the meeting going instead of waiting two weeks.
[Emily Lazzaro]: Well, yeah, if we refer it out now, then we can get it on the schedule and we can have it planned for even if it's a little bit further out, then we can tell the people that you know that wanted to talk about it that we have a date certain. Okay. Right.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to refer to the Public Health and Community Safety Committee by Councilor Scarpelli, seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. Mike, do you want to talk about this? You have three minutes.
[Micah Kesselman]: All three minutes. Actually, I did have a comment about this when I saw it on the agenda. This is like one of those annoying, stupid, non-embarrassing It doesn't look important until it is important to people. But I really think that if there's a way for you to also explore some sort of method of transferring these private ways to the city because like this is an issue that's come up multiple times and it's kind of crazy that residents like they're kind of saddled with this and oftentimes when they buy their properties, they don't know at all. Like it's totally a surprise thing. So if there's any way to like roll that in.
[Zac Bears]: It would cost $500 million. So this will be like the seventh time we've talked about it and the reason that it's
[Micah Kesselman]: Yeah. State law requires that.
[Zac Bears]: that the residents abutting a private way must bring that private way up to the code required for a public way before the city can accept it as a public way. But I don't wanna get into the debate. Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, right, okay. But I don't know, maybe if there's like, you can talk about seeing the way. Yes, I think the issue that's being raised here again is we've had like seven meetings about this, but the city hasn't put together a single webpage that, or at least as I'm not aware, maybe there is one, I'm just gonna stop representing things. We're talking about it again. On the motion of Councilor Scarpelli to refer to public health and community safety, seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion passes. 26142, this is law department appropriation. We already tabled it. Is there a motion to table? On the motion and table by Vice President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Callahan. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Board and Commission Appointments 26-146, September 15th, 2026. We have Affordable Housing Trust, Megan Kelly, two-year term expiring 7-1-2028. Perry Band, four-year term. This is Civic Auditorium and Convention Center, so that's Chevalier. Perry Band, four-year term expiring August 1st, 2030. Council on Aging, two-year term, Dina Caliguero, expiring January 1st, 2028. Board of Health, Jenny Vital, three-year term, expiring 10-8-29, $900 stipend. For Megan Kelly to the Affordable Housing Trust, it is a new appointment. For Perry Bandt to the Chevalier Civic Auto Term and Convention Center, it is a new appointment. Just let me please finish. Dina Caliguero is a... new appointment, and Jenny Vitale to Board of Health is a reappointment. On the motion of Vice President Lazzaro to approve, seconded by? Seconded by? Councilor Scarpelli. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. 26142, 152, submitted by Mayor Brianne O'Kern, litigation settlement. That was for you, Micah. I just keep forgetting to shut off the timer. So, dear President Bears and members of the city council, I respectfully request and recommend that your honorable body approve the following settlement. Century Ford versus Medford, $11,640. I think Tom Lane's been on this meeting the whole time. Tom, I'm sorry we didn't take this earlier. I apologize for that. Tom Lane. Yeah, he's here.
[Tom Lane]: Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to update the city council. It was an accident. Sentry Ford has brought a claim against the city for property damage at 4100 Mystic Valley Parkway, an incident involving a DPW Forester Division vehicle on February 21st of 2026. The employee had the city vehicle was operating the city vehicle, was on duty at that time, and hit the building. This videotape of the accident itself, they have provided an estimate in the damage that the building to repair the damage to the building is $11,640. It's the mayor's recommendation and our recommendation to settle the case for that amount before it goes into litigation and costs the city more money in litigation costs.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Any further questions by members of the council regarding this matter? Vice-President Lazzaro.
[Emily Lazzaro]: I'm so sorry, Tom. Motion to approve.
[Zac Bears]: On the motion to approve by Vice-President Lazzaro, seconded by Councilor Tseng. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Clerk Siegel, could you please call the roll?
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Callahan? Yes. Councilor Malayne?
[Liz Mullane]: Yes.
[Laurel Siegel]: Councilor Scarpelli? Yes. Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro? Yes. President Bears?
[Zac Bears]: Yes. Seven affirmative, none negative, the motion passes. Thanks for sticking with us, Tom, I'm sorry.
[Tom Lane]: Thank you, good night.
[Zac Bears]: All right, last item, public participation. All right, you have 3 minutes.
[Simon Alcindor]: I just want to know as somebody who has to get back to Boston after this. It does not ask for carpool by the way, but I am taking the team back to Boston after this that one of the great things and things that we should really be pushing for with the bus that were green design is more late night service because as somebody currently to figure that out it turns out that is. So quite a bit of a thing to get from here to an MBTA station at this time of night, even though I'm literally going to downtown Boston. You would think that that's the easiest commute possible, but it isn't. So yeah, I just want to point that out as something that we should really be pushing for, and especially in terms of there is not usually an efficient way to get back anywhere at this time of night. just because of the way that service does not really extend to especially night workers or anyone who's working any sort of inconvenient schedule, somebody who works a night shift. So yeah, that's all.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. Name, neighborhood, three minutes. Thank you.
[Micah Kesselman]: It got tabled to the 29th, but I just wanted to point this out for you guys. In her letter, the mayor said that they don't know of any groups or organizations that do legal auditing for fees and litigation. A really fast search literally just turned up the National Association of Legal Fee Analysis. a national nonprofit org that does legal fee analysis. It was in the top results of like a simple search. There's plenty of organizations that do it. Hell, I'd do it pro bono for you, but I don't think she'd be cool with that. Also, I did have a question that about, I don't know, maybe it's something to think about, but like is there a reason we don't have a residence policing oversight board? It's never been thought about. OK, cool. It was never thought about because this would be relevant to the police chief search. So yeah.
[Zac Bears]: Thank you. All right. The motion adjourned by Councilor Callahan, seconded by Vice President Lazzaro. All those in favor. Opposed. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you.
[Simon Alcindor]: is a very convenient one-on-one bus.
|
total time: 89.32 minutes total words: 14744 |
total time: 10.48 minutes total words: 1537 |
total time: 2.01 minutes total words: 360 |
total time: 26.65 minutes total words: 3686 |
|
total time: 2.37 minutes total words: 312 |
total time: 22.63 minutes total words: 3552 |
total time: 4.11 minutes total words: 598 |
total time: 11.65 minutes total words: 1570 |
|
total time: 4.19 minutes total words: 841 |
|||