Brookline Select Board Meeting - April 14, 2026

0:01 [music]

4:17 Hey, hey, hey.

4:27 [music]

9:53 Evening. I'm Bernard Green, chair of the

9:55 Brookline Select Board, and this is the

9:57 regular meeting of the select board for

9:59 April 14, 2026.

10:02 First item of business is going into

10:04 executive session. I move that the

10:06 select board go into executive session

10:09 for the purpose of discussing strategy

10:11 related to litigation. The litigation

10:14 matter must be discussed in executive

10:16 session because an open meeting may have

10:18 a detrimental effect on the litigation

10:21 position of the town and the chair

10:23 that's me so declares an executive

10:26 session therefore to be necessary.

10:28 [snorts] All in favor please indicate by

10:29 saying I. John Vanco

10:31 I.

10:31 Paul Warren I

10:32 David Pearlman

10:33 I. Michael Rubenstein

10:34 I

10:35 and chair votes I. Select board will

10:37 reconvene and open session after our

10:40 executive session

10:43 recording

13:43 [music]

16:54 Heat.

18:15 [music]

28:46 Heat. Heat.

28:56 [music]

29:13 Heat. Heat.

29:17 [music]

30:06 Heat. Heat.

30:08 [music]

32:38 Hey.

32:54 [music]

33:05 Heat. Heat.

34:00 [music]

36:05 Heat. Heat.

36:07 [music]

37:19 Heat. Heat.

37:58 [music]

49:53 Hi, I have comments on the agenda item

49:57 six uh sorry 9B as well. I know a lot of

49:59 people are coming to speak on 9B. I

50:02 understand it's not a public hearing but

50:04 this item has received no public hearing

50:06 at the transportation board and also no

50:09 hearing here. Um, I think people would

50:12 appreciate it if you provided space for

50:14 a public hearing for that.

50:16 We haven't noticed. Sorry. Go ahead.

50:18 9B is a public hearing. The noise bylaw.

50:21 Not Sorry, not the noise bylaw. The

50:22 contract.

50:23 Okay. The contract 9A. Yeah.

50:24 Yeah. 9A.

50:25 So, we haven't noticed a public hearing.

50:27 So, that wouldn't be it's it's not

50:29 something that we do, right? We don't we

50:31 can't we don't have public hearings for

50:33 contracts. Um so

50:37 she's asking for a public hearing given

50:39 that this contract is somewhat

50:43 you guys have received

50:44 issues that uh

50:46 you know

50:46 concerned about

50:47 many tens of public comments on this and

50:51 I know there are people who have taken

50:54 time out of with their families in order

50:56 to uh come and address the issue.

51:00 So, why don't they address that public

51:02 comment here?

51:04 Um, I have two public comments. One of

51:06 them is a public comment that addresses

51:09 um a different but related subject and

51:12 one for that item.

51:15 Can I ask a question?

51:16 Yeah. [clears throat]

51:17 Um, what what time is the public comment

51:19 for um the public hearing for the noise

51:21 bylaw waiver?

51:22 6:30.

51:23 At 6:30. Um,

51:28 I'm wondering want to allow them public

51:31 comment at 6:30 on the on the contract,

51:33 although it's not really the appropriate

51:35 time.

51:35 Not not posted. So,

51:37 I'm I'm just suggesting

51:38 Well,

51:40 I think what you're suggesting is to

51:42 hold open item 4 until 6:30.

51:46 Well, if that's the way you'd like to do

51:47 it, [laughter]

51:49 that could potentially work.

51:51 Again, I

51:53 Right. I I would agree what Michael's

51:54 suggesting. Why don't we just have

51:56 public comment until 6:30 and people can

51:59 appine on whatever they want as they

52:00 normally would?

52:01 Yeah.

52:02 Okay.

52:04 That's in the board's discretion. That's

52:05 fine.

52:05 We can start public comment at

52:06 6:30.

52:08 Okay. You're Wait,

52:09 take it back.

52:10 David, are you saying that we stop

52:11 public comment now and wait until 6:30?

52:13 No. That we have the general public

52:15 comment, including for Miss Jacobson and

52:18 others who want to speak on any topic

52:20 other than what was specifically

52:22 docketed for public hearing later.

52:24 So, we have time to do that now. We

52:25 might as well.

52:26 Okay.

52:27 Sit for 15. We're going to sit for 15

52:28 minutes because I don't think there's

52:30 enough.

52:30 Well, but is there an item we can move

52:32 up?

52:32 We have miscellaneous.

52:34 I

52:36 I thought but I thought there are people

52:37 here online or in the audience who who

52:40 want to speak. So,

52:41 there are people here that maybe are not

52:43 speaking on that.

52:44 I think the thing is that there is a

52:46 bunch of there's confusion about um

52:48 whether or not people can speak on that.

52:50 So there are people that would have come

52:51 at 5:30 and people that would have come

52:53 at 6:30.

52:56 So what we do what we typically do is

52:58 have 15 minutes of public comment at the

53:00 outset of a meeting and then those who

53:02 didn't have an opportunity get a chance

53:04 at the end of the meeting.

53:05 So my recommendation would be that we

53:08 have 15 minutes as we normally would now

53:10 and then at the end of the meeting the

53:12 others could join and they can join

53:15 online because we take public comment at

53:17 the end of meetings as well

53:18 like at midnight 30.

53:20 No,

53:21 hopefully we won't go that late tonight,

53:22 but whenever we finish. Yes.

53:24 He's the optimistic member of our

53:27 So, I think people want to deliver the

53:29 public comment before we vote on item

53:31 nine.

53:32 Yeah, that's kind of the thing.

53:37 Okay. What are we doing here? Um,

53:38 just my comments are fairly short. If

53:41 you would like me to

53:42 Okay, what about how many other people

53:44 want to comment on article 9A? Oh, I

53:47 don't

53:48 Hey, one other person.

53:49 I don't have the hive mind.

53:51 Pardon me.

53:52 I don't have the hive of mind.

53:55 The hive mind.

54:00 Okay, here here's what we'll do. Uh we

54:02 will take public comments

54:04 15 minutes beginning now uh on anything.

54:08 Um and people want to talk about item 9A

54:12 should use this time to to speak.

54:14 Okay. Um

54:16 so I would like to make public com My

54:19 name is Emily Jacobson and I would like

54:20 to make comment regarding um comments

54:23 made at the select board last week.

54:25 Okay.

54:26 Um may I approach?

54:29 You are approach.

54:31 Oh approach us. Yes. [laughter]

54:34 Okay.

54:48 Thank you.

54:52 Thanks, Emma.

55:10 Can I get one?

55:12 Oh, hiding it.

55:21 Okay. So, my name is Emily Jacobson. I'm

55:22 a resident of precinct 5. You

55:24 need to speak. Emily, step to the

55:26 microphone.

55:36 My name is Emily Jacobson. Um, I'm a

55:39 resident of precinct 5. I would like to

55:41 address comments made at the select

55:43 board last Tuesday regarding the new uh

55:45 pavement management policy and uh the

55:48 feasibility of parking protected bike

55:50 lanes on a oneway railway road in

55:52 general.

55:54 So at that board at that meeting it was

55:56 asserted that the new roadway assid

55:58 management policy was at the root of

56:00 improving pavement conditions on our

56:02 streets and um um I applaud the the uh

56:08 initiative that you guys have taken to

56:11 um address that issue. I think the

56:13 select board should also note that the

56:15 policy was enacted at the beginning of

56:17 2025

56:19 and they should also note on the table

56:21 that I've given you

56:23 um the CIP expenditures on roadways

56:26 since uh 2010

56:29 uh note the significant increase in

56:31 roadway spending in the last few years.

56:34 Even at inflation adjusted numbers this

56:36 represents a sizable increase in

56:38 funding. I think next the select board

56:40 should also consider that in the last

56:42 few years several full-time positions

56:43 that had gone unfilled for a long time

56:46 uh have been filled bringing the

56:48 headcount of the transportation division

56:50 up to six people. It was two when I

56:53 first was here was just um Todd and Dan.

56:57 And lastly, I'd like the board to look

57:00 back at the paving work that has been

57:03 done over the last few years. There's

57:05 new asphelt on Washington Street, Beacon

57:07 Street, Pond Avenue. Note that all of

57:10 these projects consisted of a bonded

57:12 wearing course. And a bonded wearing

57:15 course is a road preservation treatment

57:18 that would have fallen outside of the

57:20 previous complete streets policy.

57:23 So that policy really only covered mill

57:26 overlay projects, which have from what I

57:29 have seen only happened on small

57:31 residential streets in the last couple

57:32 years.

57:35 So um second the is the plan that's in

57:39 front of you. Um there were doubts

57:42 expressed about the feasibility of

57:43 parking protected bike lanes on two-way

57:46 single lane roads. Parking protected

57:48 bike lanes are entirely feasible. The

57:50 parking situation for drivers is no

57:52 different from where they must park on a

57:54 two-lane road without any bike lanes.

57:57 Additionally, this kind of layout is far

58:00 from unique. There are numerous examples

58:02 of parking protected bike lanes in this

58:03 configuration in the Boston area and

58:06 I've given you one there from Traymont

58:08 Street in Boston for you guys to look

58:10 at. Thank you.

58:16 Um we have somebody online that's had

58:18 their hand up for a while. Do you want

58:19 to take them?

58:20 Hassan, you're next.

58:28 Hassan, we can't hear you.

58:33 Yeah, you're unmuted, but we're not

58:34 getting your audio.

58:43 [clears throat]

58:43 I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?

58:44 Yes. Thank you. There you go.

58:46 Perfect.

58:46 Good evening, members of the select

58:48 board. I live on Walnut Street and

58:50 frequently bicycle on Harvard Street to

58:52 go to shops and restaurants. I'm here to

58:54 urge you to take this opportunity to

58:57 improve safety as part of the upcoming

58:58 pavement project. Since work is already

59:00 planned on Harbor Street, this is the

59:02 perfect time to make it safer by closing

59:04 gaps in existing bike lanes and adding

59:06 parking protected bike lanes where

59:08 double parking regularly forces cyclists

59:10 into traffic. If these changes aren't

59:12 made now, they likely won't happen for a

59:14 long time. So, this is a valuable

59:16 opportunity to act. Thank you for your

59:18 consideration.

59:21 Thank you. Next we have Scott and

59:23 Linder.

59:26 Mine is only two minutes, so you'll be

59:28 happy.

59:30 Good evening, Chair Green and the rest

59:32 of the members of the select board. I'm

59:35 Scott Englander, a precinct 6 town

59:37 meeting member, uh, a member of the

59:39 Vision Zero Committee, chair of the

59:42 committee that developed the complete

59:43 streets policy, and I served on the

59:46 transportation board for about five

59:48 years. I get around by foot, on bike,

59:51 public transit, and by car. My wife and

59:53 I ride on Harvard Street and shop there

59:56 several times a week. Uh, nevertheless,

59:58 I don't feel safe there, and I've had

1:00:00 some close calls with cars. The crash

1:00:04 history validates these concerns. My

1:00:07 mother-in-law would ride there if it

1:00:09 were safer, as would many families I

1:00:11 know with young children. I must say I'm

1:00:14 baffled that the safety and mobility of

1:00:17 families like mine can be seen as

1:00:21 unimportant.

1:00:23 the upcoming uh pavement project on

1:00:26 Harvard streets, a chance for us to

1:00:28 improve bicycle safety on a critical

1:00:31 bike route with a disproportionately

1:00:32 high crash history and part of the

1:00:35 vision zero priority network, the

1:00:37 complete streets priority projects list

1:00:40 and the green roots bicycle network

1:00:42 plant. a mill and overlay project on

1:00:45 such a street without including lowcost

1:00:48 improvements to bike safety, for

1:00:50 example, with paint and flex posts and

1:00:53 without consideration by the

1:00:54 transportation board is not only against

1:00:57 current policy, but is unconscionable.

1:01:00 I'm talking about the kinds of simple

1:01:02 improvements that were made on

1:01:04 Washington Street in recent years when

1:01:06 that street underwent similar treatment.

1:01:09 For example, closing gaps in bike lanes

1:01:11 and providing parking protected bike

1:01:14 lanes where double parked cars regularly

1:01:17 obstruct lanes.

1:01:20 What motivation for not including such

1:01:22 improvements on Harvard could possibly

1:01:25 be worth the lifealtering or fatal

1:01:28 crashes they might help avoid.

1:01:31 I urge the select board to commit to

1:01:34 including lowcost meaningful bicycle

1:01:37 safety improvements on Harvard Street as

1:01:40 part of the upcoming pavement project.

1:01:43 Thank you.

1:01:47 We have Amy Linen Boy online.

1:01:50 Okay, you're her.

1:01:52 Okay. Hello.

1:01:54 Hello.

1:01:55 Hi. Um

1:01:57 see if I can fix this. Um so I'm a

1:02:01 little confused with all the different

1:02:02 um agenda items. Um I had asked to speak

1:02:05 about um 5F which is about the approving

1:02:09 the conceptual design for large Anderson

1:02:11 Park. And then I also was speaking not

1:02:13 about the noise waiver um but about the

1:02:16 um Harvard street uh mobility um access

1:02:19 which others have spoken out so far

1:02:21 about and I also wanted to speak about

1:02:24 the community preservation act funding

1:02:27 but I don't have a ton of details or

1:02:29 some big plan. What I really have here

1:02:31 isn't the overarching sense that we're

1:02:34 really missing a lot of opportunities to

1:02:35 coordinate planning here for things that

1:02:38 I think many people want. For example,

1:02:41 we are forging ahead and spending

1:02:43 hundreds of thousands of dollars and

1:02:45 planning on spending many millions of

1:02:46 dollars with um with the ice rink slowly

1:02:49 but surely. And yet we're not and we

1:02:52 have the the parks and wreck having some

1:02:54 sort of a feasibility study on an

1:02:56 outdoor pool. And those two are not

1:02:59 together and we're not looking at

1:03:00 colllocating sites and that is a missed

1:03:02 opportunity for there. There's an and

1:03:04 the other missed opportunity is what

1:03:06 everyone else has spoken about here.

1:03:07 We're repaving streets and we're having

1:03:08 different projects going on at different

1:03:10 times without coordinating enough to

1:03:12 recognize to be able to implement

1:03:14 efficiencies and make things better more

1:03:17 quickly without having to have them all

1:03:19 in separate siloed projects. So my

1:03:22 request is that a lot I think a lot of

1:03:24 these to the extent that they can need

1:03:25 to go back to the to the drawing board a

1:03:27 little bit. Not I hate to delay things,

1:03:29 but I really think that there's a real

1:03:30 lack of coordination and we're missing

1:03:32 opportunities to consolidate actions to

1:03:35 do things like have both an ice rink and

1:03:37 an outdoor pool in a cheaper and more

1:03:40 rational location or um for or to have,

1:03:43 you know, bike infrastructure. So people

1:03:46 can children can actually ride their

1:03:48 bikes to go across town instead of

1:03:50 having to be in, you know, shuttled

1:03:52 around and carpooled all afternoon

1:03:53 because we have no public transit going

1:03:55 north and south between like Coolish

1:03:57 Corner of Harvard Street and down to

1:03:59 like um you know the Greater Point

1:04:01 neighborhood for example. Um there are

1:04:03 many opportunities here to make our town

1:04:04 better and we're really not utilizing

1:04:06 them and we really need to think about

1:04:07 coordinating um concerns and projects

1:04:10 together more than we are. And that's

1:04:12 what I'd say.

1:04:14 Thank you.

1:04:17 So, who who's next?

1:04:24 All right. Good evening, everyone. My

1:04:26 name is Greg Wheeler. I am a resident of

1:04:28 Precinct 3. Um, and I'm here to talk

1:04:31 about the Harbor Street Paving Project.

1:04:34 Uh, nearly every day I bring my

1:04:36 two-year-old daughter, Ella, to daycare

1:04:38 in Brooklyn Village on my cargo bike. Uh

1:04:42 just last month um there's a stretch on

1:04:44 Harvard Street that we ride. Uh just

1:04:46 last month there were two cyclists

1:04:48 struck by motor vehicles uh during the

1:04:51 time uh my pickup hour in the evening.

1:04:55 [snorts]

1:04:57 I use Harvard Street for everything

1:04:59 including to support dozens of our local

1:05:00 businesses. And I bike because it's the

1:05:03 most efficient and affordable way for my

1:05:05 family to move around town.

1:05:07 Unfortunately,

1:05:10 my daughter's life is threatened every

1:05:12 time we get on a bike due to the lack of

1:05:14 protected bike lanes.

1:05:17 Town leadership has known how dangerous

1:05:18 Harvard Street is for cyclists for

1:05:20 decades and presumably knew it was due

1:05:22 for paving. Yet, it appears the town

1:05:24 failed to contemplate even basic

1:05:25 incremental protective safety

1:05:27 improvements that could be made within

1:05:29 the scope of a paving project. So, I

1:05:31 have two asks for the select board here

1:05:33 tonight. The first is that one, you

1:05:36 approve the construction contract for

1:05:37 this project only with a formal

1:05:39 commitment from the transportation board

1:05:41 and staff to implement no or lowcost

1:05:44 protected bike lanes.

1:05:46 And two, you instruct the the

1:05:48 transportation board to coordinate

1:05:50 priorities from the vision zero vision

1:05:52 zero action plan and the five-year

1:05:55 paving plan so that incremental

1:05:57 improvements can be made during paving

1:05:59 projects in the future.

1:06:00 This is the type of common sense fiscal

1:06:02 and performance management that ensures

1:06:04 the town optimizes every dollar spent

1:06:07 during significant roadway disruptions

1:06:09 like we're going to have this summer on

1:06:10 Harvard Street. In my precinct, I'll

1:06:12 note Longwood Avenue, Aspenwall Avenue,

1:06:14 Kent Street, and St. Paul are all vision

1:06:17 zero priorities that would benefit from

1:06:18 this type of approach. We have policies

1:06:21 and objectives in place already

1:06:23 established.

1:06:25 Now, we're looking to you as leaders to

1:06:27 transparently prioritize and implement

1:06:29 the town's stated goals. I thank you for

1:06:31 your time, your service to the town, uh,

1:06:33 and your consideration of this important

1:06:35 matter. Thank you. [snorts]

1:06:44 Good evening. My name is David Kroo and

1:06:46 I'm the president of Biking Brookline.

1:06:48 Thank you for taking my comments this

1:06:50 evening. Biking Brookline fully supports

1:06:53 the town's pavement preservation policy.

1:06:57 We also fully support the town's

1:06:59 adoption of vision zero, which is an

1:07:02 approach to road safety that says that

1:07:04 the status quo is not okay. It

1:07:07 challenges decades of transportation

1:07:09 policy that prioritize motor vehicles

1:07:12 motor vehicle throughput over safety.

1:07:15 The vis vision zero plan adopted by the

1:07:18 town created a roadmap to achieve its

1:07:20 goals of zero fatalities and serious

1:07:23 injuries by 2035.

1:07:25 A critical part of that roadmap is

1:07:27 assessing overlap between high priority

1:07:30 streets in the pavement management

1:07:31 policy and top priority streets in the

1:07:34 vision zero action plan and determining

1:07:37 where safety improvements can be

1:07:38 integrated into pavement preservation

1:07:41 projects at little or no cost or

1:07:44 additional time. Brookline's adoption of

1:07:47 vision zero reflects its willingness to

1:07:49 change the status quo. This willingness

1:07:52 though is undercut if the transportation

1:07:55 division can decide in its sole

1:07:57 discretion not to include safety

1:07:59 improvements in a road project without

1:08:02 consulting the transportation board and

1:08:04 important stakeholders.

1:08:06 This delegation of authorities suggests

1:08:09 that the decision concerning what safety

1:08:12 improvements, if any, should be included

1:08:14 are relatively little importance and do

1:08:18 not involve weighing of town policies

1:08:20 and priorities. something which is

1:08:22 really the responsibility of the

1:08:24 transportation board. No wonder the

1:08:27 chairs of all three advisory committees

1:08:29 to the transportation board, three

1:08:32 transportation board members and all 15

1:08:35 of the precinct 8 town meeting members

1:08:38 expressed serious reservations about the

1:08:41 Harvard street process. And I'd like to

1:08:44 just digress here for a moment to say

1:08:46 biking Brooklyn would rather not be

1:08:49 spending tons of time interpreting the

1:08:51 intricacies of town's payment

1:08:54 preservation policy and vision zero as

1:08:57 if they're major pieces of federal tax

1:08:59 legislation.

1:09:00 But we felt we had no choice because the

1:09:05 town would not talk to us

1:09:08 and we were rebuffed and told this is a

1:09:11 pavement preservation project. We will

1:09:14 not consider any changes. And I would

1:09:18 really just ask the basic question. Does

1:09:21 the select board really believe that

1:09:23 people in the bicycling community who

1:09:26 ride on Harvard Street every day have

1:09:28 nothing worthwhile that they could say

1:09:31 to the transportation division that they

1:09:33 could consider as they consider what

1:09:37 safety changes could be made? I think

1:09:39 the answer is no. I do think that the

1:09:43 time they spent responding to our emails

1:09:48 and looking over our petition would have

1:09:50 been much better spent if we just sat

1:09:52 together in a room for an hour and

1:09:54 talked about what was possible on

1:09:56 Harvard Street. Thank you very much.

1:10:03 Good afternoon. I'm Philippi Pite from

1:10:05 Addington Road and I bike on Harvard

1:10:09 Street through Harvard Street all the

1:10:11 time. That's where our shops are, our

1:10:13 restaurants, the bayas, my eyeglass

1:10:16 place, the opticians, shoe repair,

1:10:19 everything. It's always there. You know,

1:10:22 is it safe? You know, I'm a big man. My

1:10:27 daughters are grown. Uh I take the risk.

1:10:30 Is it safe for a 12y old, a 15 year old?

1:10:34 No, it's not. So, if we don't make it

1:10:36 safe, we're going to have more cars

1:10:38 spewing fumes on the street, more cars

1:10:41 causing traffic.

1:10:43 Uh we're sending more money to Putin's

1:10:45 wars and Ayatollah's wars. Just uh we

1:10:49 should be reasonable. Let's make it

1:10:51 safer for bikers, not just uh old people

1:10:54 who don't mind risking their lives.

1:10:57 Let's get it done.

1:11:06 Patty, are you do you want to make a

1:11:07 comment? We're running out of time.

1:11:11 Well, not signed up. Can I

1:11:13 Pardon me?

1:11:14 I have not signed up. I was not aware.

1:11:16 Okay. Why don't we do two more comments?

1:11:19 Why don't you go and then Patty and then

1:11:22 we'll close this.

1:11:23 Okay.

1:11:23 Segment.

1:11:24 Um, hi, my name is Luis Pension. Could

1:11:27 you speak into closer to the microphone?

1:11:29 Okay. Yeah. Um [clears throat] I'm gonna

1:11:31 read my notes. Um because like Marilyn

1:11:33 Monro, I cannot memorize a text. My

1:11:36 resemblance with Marilyn Monro stops

1:11:38 here. Well, I guess I am 36 years old,

1:11:41 the age she was when she committed

1:11:43 suicide. And some people on the street

1:11:45 have called me suicidal for biking down

1:11:47 Howard Street. I am not suicidal. I try

1:11:50 very hard to come home to my kids alive.

1:11:53 And it's why I'm here tonight. Another

1:11:56 reason is that I'm conscious. Well,

1:11:58 sorry. Uh, so why am I riding my bike? I

1:12:02 can drive my large secure SUV that would

1:12:04 plow through most of the other street

1:12:06 occupants in the event of a crash. One

1:12:09 of the reason that I ride my bike is

1:12:11 that I'm conscious that I'm going to

1:12:14 pollute the air that people around me

1:12:16 breathes. I'm going to take up most

1:12:18 parking space and I'm going to take

1:12:21 those packing space from people who

1:12:23 actually need them and don't have a

1:12:25 choice. I'm going to wear up the road

1:12:27 with my large SUV and it's going to cost

1:12:29 more money to taxpayer. I'm going to

1:12:31 take more space on the road and I may

1:12:33 block or slow down emergency vehicle.

1:12:37 So most of the time I choose to be kind

1:12:40 and respectful to my neighbors and I

1:12:42 bike despite the risk despite the risks.

1:12:45 I want to show my kids that I am

1:12:47 thinking of my neighbors when I make

1:12:49 choices. I'm not only thinking of myself

1:12:51 and my own safety. I want to show them

1:12:54 that I care for others by making Harvard

1:12:57 street safer. A lot of scared parents

1:12:59 are going to start biking. The traffic

1:13:02 and parking space are going to improve

1:13:04 drastically. There are so many schools

1:13:06 and daycare along Havar Street. Keep

1:13:09 parents safe, kids safe. Stop making

1:13:12 decisions that are going to make the

1:13:14 problems worsen. Let's stop the

1:13:16 hypocrisy and stop banning bike lane for

1:13:19 lost parking spots. Blocking emergency

1:13:22 vehicle where we all buy bigger and

1:13:24 bigger car that take up all the road and

1:13:26 parking space. I take care of my

1:13:29 neighbor to make sure they are safe.

1:13:31 Time for you to do the same and make

1:13:33 sure that I come home alive to my kids.

1:13:35 Thank you. [snorts]

1:13:44 Good evening.

1:13:46 Patty Koreah from Precinct 6. Um,

1:13:49 [clears throat]

1:13:51 I'm a person who has resorted to biking

1:13:54 since my kids were small decades ago.

1:13:58 And I found that biking, I was an

1:14:00 assistant attorney general working on

1:14:02 Beacon Hill. And I found that biking was

1:14:05 the cheapest and fastest way to get to

1:14:09 work and then to get my kids on time

1:14:11 from daycare. And so that led to my

1:14:14 decadesl long uh [clears throat] bike

1:14:17 commuting uh career. I'm now a sailor. I

1:14:20 ride downtown to the harbor to sail by

1:14:23 bike. It's cheap and fast. Um now in

1:14:28 addition, I'm a senior citizen and

1:14:30 though I can pay half fair for the tea,

1:14:33 I bike um because [clears throat] of

1:14:36 these reasons and also because I have

1:14:38 physical limitations on walking. So bike

1:14:41 for me works extremely well. Um I am

1:14:46 sorry that we are in this position today

1:14:49 in a time when we have scarce town

1:14:52 dollars and we have a vision zero

1:14:54 [snorts]

1:14:55 plan that contemplates that cost

1:14:59 feasible improvements to town roadways

1:15:03 will be incorporated

1:15:05 into pavement preservation projects. I

1:15:08 understand the need for this pavement

1:15:11 preservation project and I support it,

1:15:15 but there has not been sufficient

1:15:17 attention to the types of safety

1:15:20 improvements that could be incorporated

1:15:23 for minimal cost into this particular

1:15:25 project. It feels like it's been sort of

1:15:27 rammed rammed through over community

1:15:31 objections that have listed specific

1:15:35 improvements that could be incorporated

1:15:38 into this project but have not been

1:15:40 heated so far. Um and so

1:15:44 we have scarce dollars. There's an

1:15:46 opportunity here to improve a tier one

1:15:50 high priority roadway as defined in

1:15:54 vision zero plan. It's right there and

1:15:58 that plan contemplates that where

1:16:00 feasible improvements will be

1:16:02 incorporated. So, um I encourage the

1:16:06 select board to ask questions about why

1:16:09 DPW has not um responded to community

1:16:14 input and what plans it has now to

1:16:17 respond to community input. Um, and I

1:16:20 also want to um suggest that if the

1:16:24 answer is our written documents right

1:16:26 now don't uh accommodate that, then

1:16:29 maybe the problem is with our written

1:16:31 documents and our various policies

1:16:33 because this should be the type of thing

1:16:35 on a tier one high priority roadway that

1:16:39 should get this kind of attention. And

1:16:41 there will be more projects coming the

1:16:43 select board's way possibly on St. Paul

1:16:45 Street, another tier one roadway. And so

1:16:48 I ask that the select board not set a

1:16:51 precedent here without asking questions.

1:16:53 Thank you.

1:17:03 Okay.

1:17:04 Next uh the miscellaneous calendar and

1:17:08 I'd like to move uh by this approval uh

1:17:11 items 5 A through 5J unless someone

1:17:15 would like to pull something out. Yes.

1:17:17 Yeah. I I just have a comment to make.

1:17:21 Um, I'm making this disclosure um out of

1:17:25 an abundance of caution um with regard

1:17:28 to the potential appearance of a

1:17:30 conflict of interest with regard to item

1:17:33 5F

1:17:34 um which is uh item 5F on tonight's

1:17:37 select board agenda is a question of

1:17:39 approving a contract with Maryanne

1:17:41 Thompson Architects in the amount of

1:17:44 $139,295

1:17:47 for the conceptual design phase of the

1:17:48 Lars Anderson Park. Jack Karine skating

1:17:51 rink renovation.

1:17:54 When I was on the board of Beacon

1:17:55 Academy, which was approximately from

1:17:57 2015 to 2024, I led a project to find a

1:18:01 new home for Beacon Academy in 2020 to

1:18:05 2021. Over the course of that project,

1:18:08 Beacon Academy hired Maryanne Thompson

1:18:10 Architects to provide architectural

1:18:12 services related to the project. Thus uh

1:18:17 I am acquainted with Maryanne Thompson

1:18:19 Architects. I do not have any ongoing

1:18:21 financial relationship with Maryanne

1:18:23 Thompson or Maryanne Thompson

1:18:26 Architects.

1:18:28 Thank you.

1:18:31 Paul

1:18:31 Bernard, could we actually hold out 5F

1:18:34 um to have a conversation about it for

1:18:36 the vote?

1:18:36 You want to have that now?

1:18:37 Yeah, if that's okay.

1:18:38 Okay. So, um, you know, there's been a

1:18:40 lot of attention, um, paid to the this

1:18:43 the skating rink project, which, uh,

1:18:46 this I believe this is for, correct?

1:18:48 Yes.

1:18:49 Um, and it just I know that I think

1:18:51 David is was part of the either the

1:18:54 building committee or the selection

1:18:55 committee. Um, it just would be helpful

1:18:57 to hear an update on where are we at um,

1:19:01 you know, with the project. Um, I know

1:19:03 that we had put some some pretty tight

1:19:06 boundaries around the project. uh about

1:19:08 a year ago last uh summer. Um I was

1:19:11 hoping you'd give us a quick update.

1:19:13 Yes, sure. So, the committee of seven

1:19:15 convened in December of 2025. During

1:19:19 that time, there was an interview

1:19:20 process to select both an architect as

1:19:24 well as an OPM. Uh Maryanne Thompson was

1:19:27 selected

1:19:28 as the uh architect. Asure was selected

1:19:33 as the OPM. So the next phase of this

1:19:36 which is going to kick off sometime

1:19:39 after April 27th is for the design

1:19:41 committee. The design committee will

1:19:43 also have seven members. There will be

1:19:46 someone from the building commission,

1:19:48 preservation commission, planning board,

1:19:50 Brookline youth hockey, friends of Lars

1:19:52 Anderson, and two members of the public.

1:19:56 That roster of names will be brought

1:19:58 before the select board for the select

1:20:00 board's approval. Uh so this contract

1:20:04 would be helpful so that we can proceed

1:20:06 with a conceptual design and obviously

1:20:09 the design committee uh to be formed

1:20:13 will have a an influence on what those

1:20:16 design concepts are uh and the public

1:20:20 has until April 27th to apply.

1:20:23 Okay. And um may I Bernard just have a

1:20:25 couple of questions. So the parameters

1:20:27 that we provided as guidance um to park

1:20:31 and wreck around the design and scope of

1:20:35 the project, those remain enforced.

1:20:36 There's been no changes. It's still a

1:20:39 single ice rink. We're not it's not

1:20:41 going to be covered. We're using the the

1:20:43 exist We're updating the existing

1:20:45 warming hut. We're maintaining the

1:20:47 footprint

1:20:49 plus or minus a little bit. Um all those

1:20:52 instructions. Yeah.

1:20:53 What's that? That that was our

1:20:55 instructions.

1:20:55 Yeah, those are our instructions and I'm

1:20:56 asking is that

1:20:57 that is correct.

1:20:58 That guidance is still in force.

1:20:59 Probably better than

1:21:01 Well, that's why I'm asking

1:21:03 that is still in

1:21:04 especially if we're hiring a designer.

1:21:06 So, um it's all in force. Okay, that's

1:21:07 that was my question. Thank you.

1:21:09 Okay. I I do though want to take this

1:21:11 opportunity to address uh the situation

1:21:14 about having a swimming pool considered

1:21:16 simultaneously. So there are article 97

1:21:20 protections on Lars Anderson that would

1:21:22 make that extremely difficult and would

1:21:26 create quite a bit of delay on

1:21:28 proceeding with the rink. That's not to

1:21:30 say that I personally am not in support

1:21:33 of an outdoor pool. I very much am. But

1:21:35 I don't think that should be married to

1:21:37 this process which is already pretty far

1:21:40 along.

1:21:40 Yeah, I would I would agree with that.

1:21:42 the the RFP which I think was brought up

1:21:44 last week or the week before is

1:21:46 different than this project.

1:21:47 Yes. The RFP for the pool which by the

1:21:49 way has been amended to include Lars

1:21:52 Anderson or the request of the public

1:21:54 but to David's point I think.

1:21:58 Yes. Yes. But I I don't want to

1:21:59 presuppose it. So we've added it and

1:22:01 we'll have them take a look at it.

1:22:02 Great.

1:22:03 Okay.

1:22:04 Thank you.

1:22:05 Anything else?

1:22:07 Okay. So I move approval of items 5A

1:22:10 through 5J. All in favor? John Vancoyak

1:22:13 I Warren

1:22:14 I

1:22:14 David Throwman

1:22:15 I

1:22:15 Michael Rubenstein

1:22:16 I

1:22:17 and chair votes I

1:22:20 just want to thank the folks who donated

1:22:21 to the Baffin essay contest oh yes very

1:22:24 kind we always appreciate um that

1:22:27 pacific participation

1:22:28 yeah

1:22:31 I guess you're asking me to say that

1:22:32 okay

1:22:34 well I mean you you weren't you weren't

1:22:36 saying very or talking very loud

1:22:38 oh sorry

1:22:38 so we'd like to thank the the

1:22:41 individuals who contributed to the

1:22:44 Brooklyn Asian-American

1:22:47 uh family network

1:22:50 project essay project. Um whenever we

1:22:54 receive a donation whether significant

1:22:57 like this or small u by state law we

1:23:00 have to approve it in a public meeting.

1:23:02 So we're doing that. It also gives us an

1:23:04 opportunity to thank the donor of uh the

1:23:08 money or or other items that uh we're

1:23:11 we're accepting. So, thank you again.

1:23:14 Thank you.

1:23:17 So, we approved all the miscellaneous

1:23:19 stuff. Main calendar, town building roof

1:23:21 project. Question of approving contract

1:23:24 roof replacement project with MDM

1:23:27 Engineering Company in amount of

1:23:29 1,380,000.

1:23:32 project includes town hall, main library

1:23:35 and fire station six. Um, also includes

1:23:39 preparing, I think, just the library for

1:23:41 a solar array. So, if you could sort of

1:23:43 fill us in on that piece of it also, I'd

1:23:45 appreciate it.

1:23:46 Um, sure. This is a a project to replace

1:23:49 the existing roof of town hall from

1:23:50 renovation.

1:23:51 Are you

1:23:51 Oh, I'm sorry. Charlie Simmons, director

1:23:53 of public buildings.

1:23:55 Uh, to replace the back section of the

1:23:57 roof of the main library. The previous

1:23:59 section was replaced 10 years ago and

1:24:02 the entire roof of fire station number

1:24:04 six. Um I've been working with the

1:24:07 sustainability people. They've been

1:24:09 looking at all three buildings for solar

1:24:11 and uh when that building is done, the

1:24:13 next steps would be looking at

1:24:15 installing solar. Um we'd have to make

1:24:18 it solar ready and look at power and so

1:24:21 on. But um the entire roof from the

1:24:24 front to the back will now be available

1:24:26 to have solar pan.

1:24:28 front to the back of the library.

1:24:30 The entire library.

1:24:31 Wow.

1:24:34 If if it is deemed to be

1:24:36 Yeah. feasible, right?

1:24:40 Uh anything else?

1:24:42 Any questions from the select board?

1:24:45 One question.

1:24:46 Yes.

1:24:46 Thanks, Charlie. Could you describe what

1:24:48 preparations need to be done to prepare

1:24:50 a roof for to receive solar versus if it

1:24:53 didn't have be prepared for solar? And

1:24:55 is there a cost differential?

1:24:58 uh two things. You have to look at the

1:24:59 electric service and figure out how

1:25:01 you're going to get the power into the

1:25:02 ex service whether it's in front of the

1:25:04 meter, behind the meter. So that's an

1:25:06 electrical engineer. The second thing is

1:25:08 structural. They have to get a

1:25:09 structural engineer look at the existing

1:25:11 supports of the building. Now the panels

1:25:12 themselves are not that heavy, but you

1:25:14 can't just put them on a a building. So

1:25:17 sometimes you have to do some structure

1:25:19 work inside the building. I can't say

1:25:21 that for sure at this building. Um, with

1:25:24 newer buildings, they're obviously solar

1:25:26 ready. You don't have to worry about

1:25:27 So, this project's going to help

1:25:28 identify if we need to make those

1:25:30 structural changes and then make the

1:25:31 structural changes

1:25:32 potentially. Yes.

1:25:34 Okay.

1:25:36 John,

1:25:37 um, I I just wonder if we might take

1:25:39 this opportunity uh, while Charlie's

1:25:41 here um, whether through him or through

1:25:44 Chaz to briefly update the public on the

1:25:47 mold situation that developed at the

1:25:49 library. Just I think a lot of people

1:25:51 have been wondering about it.

1:25:52 Sure. So, we're fortunate that the mold

1:25:54 has been remediated. Uh, we had positive

1:25:56 air quality results. Uh, the library

1:25:58 reopened at 11:30 this morning. Um, we

1:26:00 will is continuing operations. The

1:26:03 children's room and the little uh the

1:26:04 Heidihole space there are still both

1:26:06 closed. Um, they will have replacement

1:26:08 of carpeting and some fixtures I think

1:26:11 you know over the next week and they

1:26:14 should be open next week. Am I right?

1:26:15 Correct.

1:26:16 Thanks. Correct. I have one followup

1:26:18 question. So, Charlie, you mentioned

1:26:20 that we don't know yet if the roof needs

1:26:22 to be reinforced. [clears throat]

1:26:24 Um, does does this cost include

1:26:28 potentially having to reinforce it or is

1:26:29 it would the cost

1:26:30 just we're just going to examine the

1:26:32 roof and get some information that would

1:26:33 go on to a structural engineer? That

1:26:35 would be a separate contract.

1:26:36 Okay. All right. Thank you.

1:26:39 Okay. Thank you. Um, I move approval of

1:26:42 the roof replacement project with MDM

1:26:45 Engineering Company in the amount of

1:26:49 38 million

1:26:51 uh for town hall, main library, and fire

1:26:54 station number six. All in favor, John

1:26:57 Vancoyak.

1:26:58 I Paul Warren,

1:26:58 I.

1:26:59 David Corman,

1:27:00 I.

1:27:00 Michael Rubenstein,

1:27:01 I chair votes I.

1:27:03 Thank you.

1:27:06 Next uh public hearing temporary

1:27:08 entertainment license and noise bylaw

1:27:11 waiver. Uh Snider Electric Energy Zone,

1:27:14 Boston Marathon. So this is not related

1:27:16 to the um the pavement project just in

1:27:21 case someone is confused about that. Um,

1:27:24 so I was going to [clears throat]

1:27:26 tell us about this. Yes.

1:27:37 Good evening everyone. My name is Lauren

1:27:39 Persian. I'm the chief of race operation

1:27:41 and production for the Boston Athletic

1:27:43 Association and the Boston Marathon. Um,

1:27:45 I'm here this evening to answer any

1:27:48 questions about the Schneider Electric

1:27:49 Cheer Zone or the Boston Marathon if you

1:27:52 have them. Um, it is too late to offer

1:27:54 any runner numbers unless you're able to

1:27:56 run a marathon in just 4 days, which we

1:27:59 would be happy to have you. Um, the

1:28:01 cheer zone looks very similar to what

1:28:03 we've had in years past. At this point,

1:28:05 all the permits for the cheer zone have

1:28:07 been pulled. Uh, the cheer zone this uh

1:28:09 this year will include food trucks. Um

1:28:12 permits so far right now have all been

1:28:14 pulled which includes our health and uh

1:28:16 health permits, our fire permits. Um the

1:28:19 butters have all been notified to comply

1:28:21 with the uh noise waiver. The footprint

1:28:24 this year is slightly extended this year

1:28:26 extending a little bit closer to Brandon

1:28:28 Hall tea station. Um the as I mentioned

1:28:32 there will be two food trucks this year

1:28:34 um for the uh attendees for the cheer

1:28:36 zones. We have also added a additional

1:28:39 pedestrian crossing this year. that area

1:28:41 gets quite uh congested. We wanted to

1:28:43 alleviate some of the um uh we wanted to

1:28:47 make it easier for our spectators to get

1:28:49 from one side of the road to the other.

1:28:51 So, we have worked quite hard um with

1:28:53 the police department to make that

1:28:55 happen and possible this year. And of

1:28:57 speaking of the police department, we

1:28:59 have worked quite closely with the

1:29:00 police department. We could not be more

1:29:02 grateful for their support and all the

1:29:04 uh work that they do to make this a safe

1:29:06 and um secure event for us this year.

1:29:09 Also, we are here with Interstate um our

1:29:11 tentine and equipment company to make

1:29:13 sure that this is a secure um and

1:29:16 permitted event. So, um that's the quick

1:29:19 uh elevator pitch if you will, but

1:29:21 certainly here to answer any questions

1:29:23 on this site specifically.

1:29:26 Okay. What I'd like to do is to address

1:29:28 this item first.

1:29:29 Sure.

1:29:30 And and vote on it and then have the

1:29:32 public hearing on the noise waiver

1:29:33 bylaw.

1:29:34 Absolutely. So any questions for um

1:29:37 actually could tell you used a word

1:29:39 cheer zone. What what I I didn't

1:29:41 understand that.

1:29:42 Absolutely. So this area is designed

1:29:44 specifically Schneider Electric is our

1:29:47 one of our most important sponsors. They

1:29:49 wanted to have and host an area that

1:29:51 they could bring their most important

1:29:53 clients, their employees from all over

1:29:55 the world quite honestly to a location.

1:29:58 Um they want they chose Brooklyn

1:30:00 specifically. They have their initiative

1:30:03 is greening environmental and they chose

1:30:05 Brooklyn specifically to align with

1:30:08 their values. And so they they chose

1:30:10 Brookline specifically for their

1:30:13 location to bring their employees um to

1:30:15 create this cheer zone to create this

1:30:17 area for their employees to spectate.

1:30:20 Again, what is the word that you're

1:30:22 using?

1:30:22 Cheer. Cheer. Cheer. Cheer. I'm so

1:30:25 sorry. Oh, I overexlained it too and I

1:30:27 you just wanted to know the word cheer.

1:30:29 Hooray. Yeah. My apology.

1:30:31 That was my fault. [laughter]

1:30:34 It sounded like cheer, but

1:30:35 yeah, I wasn't a cheerleader.

1:30:38 Yes, sir.

1:30:39 Actually, Michael, you had your hand

1:30:41 first.

1:30:41 Yes.

1:30:42 Um,

1:30:43 so this is happening in the parking lots

1:30:45 between the Fairbanks and Brandon Hall

1:30:48 tea stops. Um, does this cheer zone or

1:30:50 any of the other Boston Marathon

1:30:53 activities affect the use of the tea

1:30:57 between I guess Cleveland Circle and

1:30:59 Kenmore Square, the length of the C

1:31:01 branch?

1:31:01 Yes. So the um how we're instructing the

1:31:04 participants to get to this location

1:31:06 specifically is by T. So that is why

1:31:09 specifically we developed this

1:31:10 pedestrian crossing is to help the

1:31:13 spectators to get from one side of the

1:31:14 road to the other. We are also

1:31:16 developing a private transportation uh

1:31:19 busing system to bring a lot of these

1:31:22 employees from their first hotels which

1:31:24 they're staying in the seapport area um

1:31:26 to their area specifically. So there

1:31:28 will be a transportation busing program

1:31:30 that gets them from point A to this

1:31:31 location specifically. So it won't be

1:31:34 completely dependent upon the chi

1:31:36 system.

1:31:37 Paul um I do have two questions. My

1:31:40 first is could you describe the design?

1:31:42 Is this a Is this a heightened area for

1:31:45 observation? Um like stadium seating or

1:31:48 I'll let the

1:31:49 She's going to get something

1:31:50 and she looks quite determined. So

1:31:51 Okay, I saw Okay. Oh, you've got

1:31:53 pictures.

1:32:05 That's upside down.

1:32:08 Is there some way we can get this on the

1:32:10 screen? kind of put in front of a

1:32:12 camera.

1:32:13 Should I sorry I should have uh brought

1:32:15 my laptop in the car so otherwise I

1:32:17 could have done that. I can get that for

1:32:19 the public uh hearing part of it.

1:32:21 Yeah, if you could extend it to the

1:32:22 select board office. We

1:32:24 It's going to be hard for you to

1:32:25 describe it because we don't have the

1:32:26 visual for the audience, but could you

1:32:29 um how many people does this

1:32:30 accommodate? Is it ADA accessible?

1:32:33 Yes. So the if you go from on the

1:32:35 diagram from left to right, the first

1:32:38 section is a bit of an elevated stage

1:32:40 platform and then um that will have a

1:32:44 mobile wheelchair lift to the side so

1:32:46 it'll be fully accessible ADA wise that

1:32:49 is also a tented covering that's over

1:32:51 there. We'll have um some tables and

1:32:54 chairs for seating, some bleachers on

1:32:56 that platform for seating. Then going uh

1:32:59 to the side, that's where the food

1:33:01 trucks are. Then there's what's called a

1:33:03 spectator suite trailer, which is the

1:33:05 only real new element this year compared

1:33:07 to last year. And that is a large

1:33:11 trailer with some indoor seating um

1:33:14 along like also some top seating so

1:33:16 people can fully see the course that

1:33:19 will also have an ADA ramp um on the

1:33:21 front of it. So both both units are

1:33:24 fully ADA compliant. And our restroom

1:33:27 trailer also has a ramp. So that is also

1:33:29 ADA compile um compliant.

1:33:32 I have one other question. Sure.

1:33:34 Um is this I know we've apparently we've

1:33:37 done this in the past. Um is it

1:33:39 restricted to just SNET employees or so?

1:33:42 Um I it's too late to change it but I

1:33:45 would encourage you in the future. I

1:33:47 think this is fantastic to host

1:33:48 something like this, but to make it

1:33:50 accessible for some of our uh mobility

1:33:52 limited folks within Brookline that

1:33:55 don't actually have a very difficult

1:33:57 time uh going and enjoying the marathon.

1:34:00 It would be very special to be able to

1:34:01 have some of those individuals, even if

1:34:04 it's [clears throat] just a handful that

1:34:05 typically wouldn't be able to enjoy the

1:34:06 marathon to be able to to benefit from

1:34:09 uh the investment that you're making.

1:34:10 And and

1:34:11 I think what we can certainly do is work

1:34:12 with the town of Brooklyn directly to

1:34:14 create its own

1:34:17 specifically. So, I think it's a BAA

1:34:20 Brooklyn initiative. I don't know that

1:34:21 it's necessarily something within the

1:34:23 Schneider footprint, but I think that's

1:34:24 that's something that we could do

1:34:26 directly with with the town itself.

1:34:28 Yeah, we have done something similar

1:34:29 with other towns. We have a in Welssley,

1:34:32 we have a sensory friendly cheer zone

1:34:34 where it is for people who don't

1:34:36 necessarily like the loud cheering. Um,

1:34:39 that was something that we that they

1:34:41 brought to us and we have developed

1:34:43 specifically. You're 100% correct. I

1:34:46 don't know that we could pull this

1:34:47 together in

1:34:47 Yeah, it's too late now. But

1:34:48 but I will certainly put that in my

1:34:50 notes for next year and we are more than

1:34:52 happy to bring that forward.

1:34:53 And this would be great, Chaz, if they

1:34:54 could work with our disability

1:34:55 commission. I mean, what a great idea to

1:34:56 have uh this the marathon be accessible

1:34:58 to folks that typically can't enjoy it.

1:35:01 It's something that we have brought

1:35:02 forward even in the Finnish area for

1:35:03 cheering areas for people who are, you

1:35:05 know, have mobility issues. So 100%. I

1:35:08 will put it on my list for next.

1:35:09 Super. Thank you so much.

1:35:10 Fantastic. Great idea.

1:35:12 Any other questions? [snorts]

1:35:14 Okay, seeing none, I'd like to move

1:35:16 approval of the um temporary

1:35:20 entertainment license application for

1:35:22 the Snider Electric Energy Zone and

1:35:24 their cheer zone taking place along the

1:35:27 boss America on course. Um, let's see.

1:35:32 Activation consists of a viewing area,

1:35:35 stage, spectator trailer, and mobile

1:35:38 screen showing the race and sponsor

1:35:40 content, as well as a DJ with amplified

1:35:43 speakers.

1:35:44 Okay. All in favor, please indicate by

1:35:46 saying I. John Vancoyak,

1:35:48 I

1:35:48 Paul Warren,

1:35:49 I.

1:35:49 David Pearlman,

1:35:50 I Rubenson,

1:35:52 I.

1:35:52 And chair votes. Thank you.

1:35:55 I won't be out there running this year.

1:35:57 Sorry.

1:35:58 Perhaps next.

1:35:59 Um that that was many years ago.

1:36:02 [laughter]

1:36:03 Well, thank you so much for your time.

1:36:04 Thank you.

1:36:05 Okay. Uh next we have a noise bylaw

1:36:08 waiver that's related to this.

1:36:12 Um

1:36:13 you may want you may want to stay just

1:36:14 in case something comes up.

1:36:17 Who's going to talk to us? Okay.

1:36:21 Okay. Tell us about uh your waiver, your

1:36:24 need for a waiver. So the the DJ

1:36:27 portion, anything that is loud is not

1:36:30 part of the waiver. That's during, you

1:36:32 know, allowable time. Um what we are

1:36:35 asking for is because the the activation

1:36:38 cannot be broken down until after the

1:36:40 course reopens and the race is over. So

1:36:43 that really can't begin until 5:36 p.m.

1:36:46 when we are able to access that. So it

1:36:49 is just asking for from say 6 until 900

1:36:53 pm that we can be breaking down the

1:36:56 activation. The loudest part of that is

1:36:59 really just a hand power drill to

1:37:01 dissemble the bleachers. Everything else

1:37:04 can be either just hitched on a trailer

1:37:06 and moved or it's things like tables and

1:37:08 chairs that will be put onto a truck. So

1:37:11 again, it's just it's more of a in case.

1:37:14 We don't hope to be breaking down until

1:37:16 9, but it's more just a as much as we

1:37:20 can clear the space that evening after

1:37:22 the race, we want to be able to do. Um,

1:37:25 and there are a couple components that

1:37:27 need to be broken down before the next

1:37:29 vendor can come and remove the other

1:37:31 things. So, that's why we are just

1:37:33 asking for the time in case it's

1:37:36 necessary. But mo, like I said, most of

1:37:39 it is stuff that doesn't require tools.

1:37:42 It's not like loud construction type

1:37:44 noise.

1:37:46 Any questions?

1:37:48 Michael,

1:37:49 um I'm I'm just reading the agenda and

1:37:51 it indicates that there's also a request

1:37:54 for time on Sunday as well for

1:37:55 installation.

1:37:57 Um Sunday

1:37:58 need that time or

1:37:59 Sunday is part of our occupancy permit.

1:38:02 It's that we have we are able to utilize

1:38:04 that space from noon on Sunday until

1:38:07 noon on Tuesday when it has to be

1:38:08 completely cleared and back open for

1:38:10 motor vehicles to park there.

1:38:12 Right. But for the noise bylaw waiver,

1:38:14 will you need the noise bylaw waiver to

1:38:17 be in effect on Sunday while they're

1:38:18 doing

1:38:18 in I misunderstood. Um again hoping not

1:38:21 to. It's that's more of a just in case.

1:38:24 Last year I believe we were cleared of

1:38:25 the site around 6:30. Um, so we are

1:38:29 beginning work at noon is when vendors

1:38:31 start to come in and a majority of

1:38:33 anything that would be louder, bigger

1:38:35 items coming out of a truck would be in

1:38:37 the earlier portion. It's again just as

1:38:40 an in case like say one trailer gets

1:38:44 stuck in traffic, delays building the

1:38:46 bleachers for an hour or two and we need

1:38:48 a little longer. It's it's mostly just a

1:38:51 in case we need it or with respect to

1:38:53 the town that this might be a noise that

1:38:55 happens.

1:38:57 Thank you.

1:38:59 Okay, this is a public hearing. Uh

1:39:01 Melanie, why don't you open the public

1:39:02 hearing and see what the public would

1:39:04 like to say about this idea.

1:39:06 So, if anybody here in the room would

1:39:09 like to speak, please step to the

1:39:10 podium.

1:39:12 And if you are online, please raise your

1:39:14 hand.

1:39:19 No one. Okay. Okay. So, I will I will

1:39:22 close the public hearing and go for a

1:39:25 vote unless anyone has any other

1:39:26 questions. Seeing none, I move approval

1:39:29 of the question of approving a noise

1:39:32 bylaw waiver from Interstate Rental

1:39:35 Service for work to be completed from

1:39:37 Sunday, April 19, 2026, 12:00 p.m. to

1:39:41 9:00 p.m. for installation

1:39:43 of the structures. Um, all in favor,

1:39:47 please indicate by saying I. John

1:39:48 Vansek. Hi.

1:39:50 Have a question. David. Oh, okay.

1:39:51 Hi.

1:39:52 Okay. David Paul Warren.

1:39:54 Hi.

1:39:55 David Carlman.

1:39:55 Hi.

1:39:56 Michael Rubenstein.

1:39:57 Hi.

1:39:57 Chair votes. I.

1:39:58 Thank you.

1:40:04 Okay. We have another double item here.

1:40:07 Uh first approval of

1:40:10 uh a contract with Laruso for

1:40:14 transportation mobility improvements

1:40:16 Harvard Street in the amount of

1:40:17 $3,182,53850.

1:40:24 I guess that's for parking fair.

1:40:27 Um so who's going to talk to us about

1:40:31 that?

1:40:35 No, not it's not a public hearing.

1:40:37 Commission.

1:40:37 Evening. This is Aaron.

1:40:40 Oh, that's okay. I'm here. I have some

1:40:42 staff here as well. Um, good evening

1:40:45 everyone. My name is Aaron Chude. I'm

1:40:46 the commissioner of public works and I'm

1:40:50 here uh tonight to introduce the Harvard

1:40:52 Street Rehabilitation Project and

1:40:54 explain why staff uh recommend the

1:40:58 select board award and execute this

1:41:00 contract. uh this evening. Uh Harvard

1:41:03 Street is one of Brooklyn's most

1:41:06 important corridors. It serves

1:41:07 residents, businesses, schools,

1:41:09 pedestrians, transit users, cyclists,

1:41:13 [gasps] uh and daily vehicle traffic.

1:41:15 And as you heard earlier, it is a really

1:41:19 important um it's an important corridor

1:41:22 and it is also in very poor condition

1:41:26 and in clear need of rehabilitation.

1:41:28 Uh this project is the direct outcome of

1:41:31 the town's pavement maintenance

1:41:33 management and preservation policy and

1:41:36 the broader asset management framework

1:41:38 that the select board asked DPW to put

1:41:41 in place uh to stop serious decline in

1:41:44 pavement condition townwide. Uh that

1:41:47 policy was created so Brookline could

1:41:49 make a more disciplined, transparent,

1:41:52 and financially responsible approach to

1:41:54 maintaining roads based on condition,

1:41:57 need, and long-term value to the town.

1:42:00 Harvard Street was identified through

1:42:02 that adopted process as part of the FY26

1:42:06 roadway rehabilitation program. It was

1:42:09 presented last year to uh the advisory

1:42:14 committee. it was presented uh to the

1:42:16 select board. Uh the intent was to be

1:42:20 presenting the information in a very

1:42:22 open and transparent um manner. Um but

1:42:27 it is timely and important work. As

1:42:29 roads deteriorate, costs increase, risks

1:42:32 increase, and the town falls further

1:42:35 behind. uh timely maintenance is one of

1:42:38 the most responsible things that we can

1:42:40 do to protect the roadway and the

1:42:43 taxpayers's investment in it. Uh this

1:42:46 project also includes practical safety

1:42:49 improvements where feasible and

1:42:51 appropriate, including improved bicycle

1:42:53 lane visibility and buffering,

1:42:55 intersected daylighting, and strategic

1:42:58 use of flex post to deter illegal

1:43:01 parking, which is a real problem along

1:43:03 this corridor.

1:43:05 It's important to note, however, this is

1:43:06 not a full corridor redesign. It's a

1:43:09 roadway rehabilitation and maintenance

1:43:12 project with practical and admittedly

1:43:15 modest safety enhancements. U I want to

1:43:18 recognize uh that members of the BI

1:43:22 bicycle advisory committee that spoke

1:43:24 earlier, some bike advocates are

1:43:26 disappointed uh that this project does

1:43:28 not go further at this time. And I

1:43:31 understand that disappointment and I

1:43:33 respect it. Uh it reflects a real

1:43:35 commitment to safety and to the future

1:43:37 of this corridor. I apologize if members

1:43:42 of this group didn't feel heard. I had

1:43:45 spoken with uh the [clears throat] uh

1:43:49 representative, the leader of the

1:43:51 organization. We asked for information,

1:43:53 some of which is being incorporated. The

1:43:56 transportation director attended a

1:43:58 meeting yesterday and you know right now

1:44:02 the the suggested plans would eliminate

1:44:05 right turning lanes. It was thought to

1:44:08 be unsafe uh in terms of cyclists um and

1:44:14 would require traffic analysis and would

1:44:17 remove some outdoor dining. none of

1:44:19 which couldn't be um worked through but

1:44:24 would require we think a comprehensive

1:44:27 community engagement process. Um so

1:44:31 moving forward with this project right

1:44:33 now does not preclude important

1:44:35 transportation and mobility work here on

1:44:38 other roads. uh we just feel that the

1:44:40 community engagement process uh would be

1:44:43 required here and is important and we

1:44:45 have many important bicycle and

1:44:47 multimmodal projects underway and will

1:44:50 continue um these and others will

1:44:52 continue through the town's full

1:44:54 planning design funding and public

1:44:56 process for this project. I also want to

1:45:00 note that the staff is recommending

1:45:01 video detection for signal optimization

1:45:05 uh rather than the embedded loops in the

1:45:07 pavement. Uh this current technology,

1:45:09 it's already used on Route 9. It's in an

1:45:12 older form on Beacon Street and uh is

1:45:15 currently in use by Newton Mass DOT.

1:45:18 Staff believe that this is the better

1:45:20 option because it's more reliable,

1:45:22 easier to diagnose problems, can send an

1:45:25 email alert if something is not

1:45:27 functioning, and easier to adjust over

1:45:30 time for current and future operations,

1:45:32 including bike related uh functionality.

1:45:36 I understand the use of video detection

1:45:38 may raise questions. So to be clear, the

1:45:40 system does not record, store, send or

1:45:44 share video. It uses video to detect

1:45:46 traffic movement, converts that

1:45:48 information for signal operations, and

1:45:51 that is the end of the process. There's

1:45:53 no speed information or identifying

1:45:55 information recorded or stored. Um,

1:45:58 finally, staff is recommending approval

1:46:00 for night work for the milling and

1:46:01 paving operations. It's being proposed

1:46:04 to reduce disruption during peak commute

1:46:06 times, maintain daytime access for

1:46:09 businesses and [clears throat] corridor

1:46:11 users, improve safety during

1:46:13 construction. We're also hoping that

1:46:15 it'll help shorten the duration of the

1:46:17 overall work as much as possible. So, in

1:46:20 short, Harbor Street is a major corridor

1:46:22 in poor condition. Uh the project is the

1:46:25 direct result of the town's adopted

1:46:27 asset management policy. It's timely,

1:46:30 necessary, and responsible, and improves

1:46:32 the roadway. Now, it includes safety,

1:46:35 practical safety enhancements, but it

1:46:37 still leaves room for much broader

1:46:41 mobility improvements through the proper

1:46:43 public process in the future. And uh

1:46:47 I'll note that we staffed Vision Zero

1:46:49 Complete Streets and our staff remains

1:46:52 deeply committed to improving

1:46:55 multimmodal uh safety improvements

1:46:58 across the community uh and want to do

1:47:01 that uh in partnership uh with uh

1:47:05 [clears throat]

1:47:06 the various various groups. We have uh

1:47:10 staff here uh the director of

1:47:12 engineering transportation Dan Murphy

1:47:14 our associate director of transportation

1:47:17 and mobility Rob Guptell Dan Martin who

1:47:20 is our transportation uh sustainability

1:47:23 transportation engineer and also Sam DS

1:47:25 who's our deputy director of engineering

1:47:29 um all who care deeply about the work

1:47:31 that they do uh for this community. Uh,

1:47:34 and so with that, if you have questions,

1:47:37 um, they're here and ready to answer

1:47:39 those. And, um, I'll turn it back to

1:47:42 you, chair. Thank you.

1:47:43 Okay. One quick question. Are these

1:47:46 artificial intelligence cameras? Someone

1:47:49 said that.

1:47:52 Uh, I'll go to Dan Martin. Dan, the

1:47:55 question was, are these artificial

1:47:57 intelligence cameras?

1:48:00 I think that's more of an advertising

1:48:01 term for this. They do. um count

1:48:04 vehicles so they they can detect a

1:48:06 vehicle going by and a bike and a

1:48:07 pedestrian and if if the preference we

1:48:10 can we can keep that in the cabinet. It

1:48:12 doesn't have to leave online. We can

1:48:14 turn that functionality um off or just

1:48:17 not even enable it ever. Um and that's

1:48:20 the way we're going to get it programmed

1:48:21 for us.

1:48:24 Okay. I mean this I mean this became

1:48:27 somewhat of a controversy at least with

1:48:29 respect to the cameras when um I noticed

1:48:32 that our packet did not include the

1:48:34 contract and then someone told me that

1:48:36 the contract included provisions for

1:48:39 what six or eight uh what they called

1:48:42 artificial intelligence cameras. Um, so

1:48:46 we we got it into the packet when I uh

1:48:49 contacted the um um I contacted someone

1:48:53 who sent over a electronic copy. So we

1:48:56 [clears throat] had that. But the

1:48:57 problem is is that when you're when

1:48:59 you're proposing a contract to the

1:49:01 select board that has something as

1:49:03 touchy as cameras, um we have to make

1:49:07 sure that we are aware of this early on

1:49:10 and can think through any issues that we

1:49:13 that we think are are important to deal

1:49:15 with. So, [clears throat]

1:49:16 um,

1:49:20 my my

1:49:22 Yeah, there there there's a lot of

1:49:24 concern in the community about cameras.

1:49:26 Whenever you run into a camera, a lot of

1:49:28 those concerns are very legitimate. Some

1:49:30 maybe not. So, um, but, uh, we have to

1:49:34 always just make sure that we're not

1:49:36 missing something, uh, when a piece of

1:49:39 technology like this is is brought into

1:49:41 the town. So just my opinion um um I I I

1:49:48 uh suggested that we pull this uh um

1:49:52 contract so we have more time to discuss

1:49:55 it. Chaz didn't like that idea.

1:49:57 [laughter] Um and um I'm not going to

1:50:00 fight him on that, but um in my opinion

1:50:05 um we have to set some protections.

1:50:09 uh maybe overkill, but you

1:50:11 [clears throat] know, that's just what

1:50:12 we have to do. Um and you know, I have a

1:50:15 list of conditions that uh we we can

1:50:17 incorporate into the approval of the

1:50:20 contract that we can talk about later.

1:50:23 Mike, you

1:50:24 um

1:50:26 uh I I had uh several questions about

1:50:30 about the project and the relationship

1:50:32 of the project to some of the uh

1:50:35 recommendations from advocates in the

1:50:37 community. But let me let me start with

1:50:38 just the one question relating to the

1:50:42 the cameras and the the system for uh

1:50:45 working with the street lights. Um, and

1:50:47 the question is, do these cameras

1:50:50 collect any personal identifiable

1:50:54 information?

1:50:56 And if they do,

1:50:59 does that information ever leave the the

1:51:03 uh

1:51:04 the cameras or the boxes that control

1:51:07 them on site?

1:51:10 The

1:51:12 way these

1:51:15 are set up is they don't store any video

1:51:18 information whatsoever,

1:51:20 right? But

1:51:20 they don't store them. They don't

1:51:22 transmit them,

1:51:24 but they but they take they take

1:51:26 pictures in order to count traffic and

1:51:29 count cars. Um, so do those pictures

1:51:32 have the do they have the the ability to

1:51:35 get person uh private information such

1:51:37 as facial recognition or license plate

1:51:40 recognition um within the cameras and

1:51:45 the system?

1:51:46 Defer to Dan Martin on his knowledge of

1:51:50 the system. Yeah, I think um we can

1:51:52 definitely double check with the

1:51:54 distributor and also the manufacturer

1:51:56 that um is not in their their their

1:51:59 literature as one of their functions.

1:52:01 So, as far as we know, it is not doing

1:52:03 any of that and most of the processing

1:52:05 is happening inside the cabinet itself

1:52:06 with a a video processing unit. Um but

1:52:10 all these questions we can bring back

1:52:12 once we get the shop drawings in, we

1:52:14 know exactly what equipment they're

1:52:15 specking. we can read the the terms of

1:52:18 um service and make sure it meets the

1:52:21 the standards and privacy requirements

1:52:24 you're you're looking for.

1:52:26 Can I add one thing? The I went to their

1:52:29 website and their website seems to

1:52:32 suggest that there's a way, you know,

1:52:36 password protected for people to get

1:52:39 access to the data coming out of the

1:52:42 coming through the cameras. It's not

1:52:44 clear what that means, but you know,

1:52:47 their website suggests that they have

1:52:49 much more

1:52:51 robust capability than I think you're

1:52:53 saying.

1:52:56 I think the system is definitely

1:52:58 customizable and we can we can go back

1:53:00 to the to the distributor when they're

1:53:02 setting equipment up before the port is

1:53:04 placed and make sure that these

1:53:07 requirements are in there that it's not

1:53:08 accessible to other third parties.

1:53:11 [snorts]

1:53:12 Okay. Paul.

1:53:12 Yeah. I just wanted to suggest Bernard

1:53:14 you had you had suggested that later

1:53:16 when we I guess deliberate on this a

1:53:18 little bit we'll we could add some

1:53:20 conditions uh to the contract and it

1:53:22 should be very clear that this

1:53:24 technology won't store transmit any

1:53:27 video any personal identific

1:53:30 identifiable information as Michael had

1:53:31 mentioned and it's only there for the

1:53:34 execution of synchronizing the lights uh

1:53:37 you know or total counts but there

1:53:39 shouldn't be any video at all and I

1:53:41 think we can put that as the condition

1:53:43 of of our approval.

1:53:46 Okay, Michael. Um I'm not sure whether

1:53:49 it applies to this system or in in terms

1:53:52 of our broader thinking but I will I

1:53:54 will raise the issue because it will

1:53:56 probably come up again that uh in the

1:54:00 cases of where we're where we are

1:54:03 acquiring systems that have

1:54:05 configuration options that we choose not

1:54:07 to use. Um then uh our policies should

1:54:12 reflect

1:54:14 what what the processes are for

1:54:17 modifying those configurations in the

1:54:19 future if somebody decides yes that

1:54:22 would be an interesting feature to add

1:54:24 or take advantage of.

1:54:26 That's an excellent point. I mean could

1:54:28 we could we do that complicated

1:54:29 could we do that in the license

1:54:30 agreement Michael

1:54:31 you know and limit in the license

1:54:33 agreement to

1:54:34 well well I think it's I think it's an

1:54:35 internal town policy. It's not a policy

1:54:38 between

1:54:39 between um the town and the vendor

1:54:42 because the vendor will have the

1:54:44 capabilities. It's just what are our

1:54:46 what I what I would like to suggest is

1:54:48 maybe something like anou that lays out

1:54:50 the conditions of our approval that

1:54:53 would include all that. I mean I can

1:54:56 think of a number of things that we

1:54:57 should pardon me.

1:54:58 You could attach that to the license

1:54:59 agreement. Say you know this is we're

1:55:01 signing a license agreement and here's

1:55:02 our understanding of how you're going to

1:55:03 execute that license agreement.

1:55:05 Sure. You can make it an amendment to

1:55:07 license

1:55:07 configuration.

1:55:08 Yeah, configuration. Yeah.

1:55:09 Is this we are is license.

1:55:15 Uh John

1:55:16 uh well I want to thank the people in

1:55:18 the community who have you know raised

1:55:20 questions about the camera u uh aspect

1:55:23 of uh this project which you know let's

1:55:25 keep in mind that this is essentially a

1:55:28 a project to deal with the need for um

1:55:32 uh harvestry to be repaved repaired and

1:55:35 repaved. Um and it's a serious need. Um

1:55:38 and uh there's all kinds of safety

1:55:40 issues that stem from you know a road

1:55:42 that is in a deteriorating condition. Um

1:55:46 and then you know as part of the process

1:55:48 people who are very sort of watchful and

1:55:50 good for them uh noticed that there's

1:55:53 reference to camera technology um in the

1:55:56 contract for the improvements to Harvard

1:55:58 Street. Then the question arose you know

1:56:01 what why would there be the this camera

1:56:03 technology? Well, you heard the answer

1:56:05 to that tonight. Um, there's two ways of

1:56:09 monitoring um, how many cars are backed

1:56:11 up at a light. I'll just use that

1:56:13 example. Um, one is for there to be sort

1:56:15 of a a pad um, under the pavement um, at

1:56:19 the same location as the light uh, and

1:56:23 you measure how many cars and and you

1:56:25 know how long the line is I guess by you

1:56:28 know the weight of the car on the pad. A

1:56:31 different way is to have a camera there

1:56:32 which can actually count cars um and so

1:56:35 on. Um there has been no mention made in

1:56:39 any of this uh of a different use of

1:56:41 cameras that is increasingly common

1:56:44 commonplace and in fact advocated um by

1:56:47 many bicyclists and others um and that

1:56:50 is so-called speed cameras. Um, I I I

1:56:54 won't judge whether someday we might use

1:56:58 speed cameras um as part of our routine

1:57:01 maintenance of traffic in uh Brooklyn,

1:57:04 but I would note that that's entirely

1:57:06 consistent with enforcement of speed

1:57:10 limits and with the goals of Vision

1:57:12 Zero. So, uh, that's just an example of

1:57:14 a camera use that a lot of people would

1:57:17 be for. And, um, I think we better, you

1:57:20 know, at some point deal with all of

1:57:23 these different questions that arise,

1:57:25 um, where cameras are concerned. But I

1:57:28 don't think it's reason enough to put

1:57:30 off this vote on this contract tonight.

1:57:33 Um, and while I just, you know, have the

1:57:35 mic, I want to say something else about

1:57:37 all of the people who spoke um earlier

1:57:39 on, uh, from the interests of people

1:57:41 who, uh, uh, bike on Harvard Street, and

1:57:44 I want to thank them for making their

1:57:46 comments, but I do want to, um,

1:57:49 encourage them, uh, in the future, um,

1:57:52 not to imply uh, that our traffic um,

1:57:56 uh, division, um, our transportation

1:57:58 department, our DPW, um, your select

1:58:02 board um uh are unmindful of safety. Um

1:58:07 that of course we're mindful of safety

1:58:09 and it it is not a open-end shut case

1:58:12 that the overall safety of pedestrians

1:58:16 and bicyclists and people in vehicles.

1:58:20 that the overall safety of that street

1:58:22 would necessarily be enhanced if we took

1:58:26 the parking that exists at the curb and

1:58:29 moved it further into the middle of the

1:58:31 street. And to cite just one obvious

1:58:34 example, as someone who experienced

1:58:37 in a in an unfortunate way um the move

1:58:41 um on Center Street, West Roxberry of

1:58:43 parking towards the middle of Center

1:58:45 Street, West Roberry uh with a bike car

1:58:48 protected bike lane to the right of

1:58:50 parked vehicles. And as someone who has

1:58:53 enjoyed um going to the Cororb

1:58:56 restaurant in West Roxberry for many

1:58:58 years, um having first experienced

1:59:00 Cororup right here in Brooklyn, um uh

1:59:03 having never had any issues, um as soon

1:59:06 as that change took place on Center

1:59:08 Street, within one or two visits to the

1:59:10 Cororb in West Roberry, um the uh

1:59:14 driver's side uh mirror had been knocked

1:59:16 off of our car

1:59:18 um and cost us $300 to repair. Um, it

1:59:21 should surprise no one that you when you

1:59:23 move cars closer to the center of um of

1:59:27 a very heavily traveled um uh vehicle

1:59:30 lane where not only is it heavily

1:59:33 traveled, but the cars move very fast.

1:59:35 That's a safety risk to those getting

1:59:37 out of the car. So, you have to take

1:59:39 that into consideration. Um there are

1:59:41 safety risks to people crossing the

1:59:44 street. Um if if for any reason they

1:59:47 step out or people in a car who step

1:59:49 into a bike lane from the car, um they

1:59:52 didn't have that risk on the passenger

1:59:54 side of vehicles, now they will. Um and

1:59:57 that's an added risk. So all these risks

1:59:59 have to be taken into consideration. And

2:00:02 I think um in fairness to those of us

2:00:04 who think we should move forward on this

2:00:06 contract, it should not be posed um uh

2:00:10 even by the most ardent of uh biking

2:00:12 advocates as an indication that we don't

2:00:14 care about safety. I you know I'll I'll

2:00:17 be honest. I I I kind of resented that

2:00:19 tonight. Um because I know we all care

2:00:21 about safety and I know they care about

2:00:23 safety. But let's have a discussion of

2:00:25 safety that embraces pedestrians and

2:00:29 people in vehicles and people on

2:00:31 bicycles and recognizes the reality of

2:00:34 the difference between a tight street

2:00:37 with not much room uh for vehicle lanes

2:00:40 once you start you know doing all these

2:00:42 other changes and a street that is you

2:00:45 know very very wide such as not you know

2:00:47 I won't say it's very very wide but

2:00:48 Beacon Street you know down in the St.

2:00:50 Mary's area. That's a very different

2:00:52 situation. And I'm glad we had um

2:00:55 success with the uh vehicle protected

2:00:57 bike lane there. But that doesn't mean

2:00:59 vehicle protected bike lanes will work

2:01:01 on every street everywhere in

2:01:03 Brooklynite. It it just it isn't true.

2:01:05 And it doesn't mean that people who

2:01:06 raise questions about vehicle protected

2:01:09 bike lanes on a street such as Harvard

2:01:11 Street are unmindful of safety. Um just

2:01:14 not true.

2:01:15 Thank you,

2:01:17 David.

2:01:19 So I I have a few questions. So first,

2:01:21 when who precisely came up with the

2:01:23 plans for which markings to make, which

2:01:27 markings not to make, where to install

2:01:30 flex posts, where not to install flex

2:01:32 posts. Can you provide maybe a timeline

2:01:35 for when these decisions were made, who

2:01:38 provided input into these decisions?

2:01:41 Sure. Sure. I'm I'm Dan Murphy, director

2:01:43 of engineering and transportation and uh

2:01:45 we started the design I believe in

2:01:47 November December and uh Apex uh is our

2:01:50 consultant and they do they do the

2:01:52 markings plan and they will stamp them

2:01:54 at the end when we're finished. Um but

2:01:56 they basically come up with uh what we

2:01:59 can do what improvements they recommend

2:02:01 to make. Um the town staff look at that

2:02:04 as well. Um, if I going through this now

2:02:07 with a new PMP

2:02:09 P policy, I would certainly build in a

2:02:12 step to bring it to uh BAC back and uh

2:02:15 get their input as well. Um, and I'll I

2:02:18 hope that's what comes out of the whole

2:02:19 prioritization progress process. U, but

2:02:22 we do we look at all safety

2:02:23 improvements. We had other things going

2:02:25 on where we had we're putting in seven

2:02:27 new pairs of our RFBs and we uh built

2:02:31 that in. The big the big thing I want to

2:02:33 just point out is we start a year ahead

2:02:35 and really look at the sidewalks, look

2:02:37 at all the ramps. We want to make sure

2:02:38 all the ramps are brought up to code. Uh

2:02:41 so we and we prepare. We got a big a

2:02:43 nice grant from uh Masdot for these

2:02:45 RFBs. So we needed to basically

2:02:47 incorporate making sure everything was

2:02:48 ready for them. Um we go through all the

2:02:51 sidewalks. We did ton of work last year.

2:02:53 We did water service um installations in

2:02:56 preparation and did let everybody know

2:02:58 that we were doing this ahead of the

2:03:00 PMPP project. But I I do it's really uh

2:03:04 Apex comes up with ideas. We review them

2:03:07 and the step that I failed and I I will

2:03:09 do again I will do going forward is to

2:03:11 make sure that back has input on these

2:03:13 PMPB projects to make to make the

2:03:15 changes that we can on the markings

2:03:17 plan. The good thing about the markings

2:03:18 plan is that it's the last thing. So we

2:03:20 do have time uh to adjust those and

2:03:23 we've gone through that. uh uh Rob

2:03:25 Duptel and I myself went to the back

2:03:28 meeting last week and uh heard heard

2:03:30 comments and we received the comments

2:03:32 previously and we worked to incorporate

2:03:35 uh most of them. Uh there's some that we

2:03:37 can't that need community outreach but

2:03:39 uh that was really the process we went

2:03:41 through on this.

2:03:42 So So there was some degree of community

2:03:44 outreach you're saying? Well, I I mean,

2:03:47 we didn't reach out to we I guess I

2:03:50 didn't take these plans to back formally

2:03:53 and uh I think that going forward on

2:03:55 these on these PMPP projects, I will

2:03:58 certainly want to build that in and make

2:04:00 that formal. It's our first time through

2:04:02 on this, we're looking at the

2:04:04 prioritization uh program and how to

2:04:06 come up with all the all the priorities

2:04:08 with the transportation board. And one

2:04:10 of the things we'll definitely build

2:04:11 into that is for the PNP projects, we

2:04:13 want to have a milestone in the middle

2:04:15 of design, the early design, uh, when we

2:04:17 get the maybe the initial cut by our

2:04:20 designer, uh, to have a have everybody

2:04:22 have a look and weigh in with input

2:04:24 because I do see on and it's page 334 of

2:04:28 our materials the uh, FY26

2:04:31 transportation and mobility mobility

2:04:34 improvements scope of work and it

2:04:37 expressly mentions uh, that there'll the

2:04:39 installation of signage and pavement

2:04:41 markings and that there will be flex

2:04:43 post installation which can be used for

2:04:47 uh enhanced bike safety of course. And

2:04:50 then on page 344 in the section

2:04:53 regarding pavement markings there is a

2:04:56 specific uh subclause talking about how

2:05:00 bike lanes and bus lanes will be marked

2:05:02 with methylmethacrylate.

2:05:06 And so that tells me that within the

2:05:08 scope of this contract, there ought to

2:05:10 be some room for uh incorporating

2:05:15 some degree of uh bike safety

2:05:18 uh mechanisms. And the reason this

2:05:20 concerns me a little bit in terms of the

2:05:22 timing, I understand that we are

2:05:24 technically reviewing a contract and

2:05:27 that these processes are not necessarily

2:05:30 one and the same, but this is a high

2:05:33 ticket item. We're talking about uh

2:05:35 three over $3.1 million. And I worry a

2:05:39 little bit about whether this is the

2:05:41 most efficient way to spend uh these

2:05:45 dollars. I wouldn't want to see a

2:05:47 situation where we are repaving a

2:05:50 significant lengthy street only to then

2:05:53 have to do it again when we look at it

2:05:55 through a vision zero lens and yet

2:05:58 another time when we look at it through

2:06:00 a accessibility lens. uh that would seem

2:06:04 to be spending more money than

2:06:05 necessary. So to the extent that we can

2:06:08 have the this additional community input

2:06:12 incorporated into this process and of

2:06:14 course it won't be perfect because some

2:06:17 safety mechanisms would be outside the

2:06:19 scope of the contract but even within

2:06:21 the language that I'm seeing there is

2:06:24 some allowance for input and for bike

2:06:28 lanes and for flex post installation

2:06:30 etc.

2:06:32 just pauses.

2:06:33 No, it's okay. Chaz had something you

2:06:35 want to add.

2:06:36 Well, I just I think it's I think it's

2:06:38 it's important too to think about how

2:06:40 these all of these policies are meant to

2:06:41 interact um and how we are building that

2:06:44 process out. And as Dan pointed out, I

2:06:46 do think there's it's it's important to

2:06:48 develop these levels of input. And it's

2:06:50 important to set those expectations

2:06:52 accordingly, right? In the sense that

2:06:55 Yeah. Right. I I think one of the big

2:06:56 comments that we heard from the

2:06:57 community and I understand where it

2:06:58 comes from is, hey, the contract says

2:07:00 you could do this work. why aren't you

2:07:01 doing it? And the answer is not, well,

2:07:03 it's because, you know, we we don't want

2:07:05 to or, you know, because we don't think

2:07:07 that's there there's value in having

2:07:09 those discussions. There is, but that

2:07:12 process requires so much more effort to,

2:07:16 you know, when you start changing how

2:07:17 the striping is designed, when you start

2:07:20 putting in,

2:07:22 you know, parking protected bike lanes,

2:07:23 that is a significant shift in how the

2:07:25 road is used. And that then triggers,

2:07:27 you know, you're getting right now a lot

2:07:30 of comments from the community saying,

2:07:31 "Hey, you know, we we really want

2:07:33 protected bike lanes. That's a, you

2:07:35 know, vehicle protected bike lanes.

2:07:37 That's a good idea. You know, we're

2:07:38 we're getting that feedback." I think if

2:07:40 you were to shift your priorities and

2:07:42 say, "Okay, we're going to put them in

2:07:44 next meeting," you'd have 100 people

2:07:46 saying, "Don't don't you dare." You

2:07:48 know, absolutely. So I I think this is

2:07:51 this is a really tough situation where

2:07:53 you have very zealous adv advocacy on

2:07:55 all sides and that's why we did the work

2:07:58 that we did and the work that Paul and

2:08:01 Mike Samman did you know last year to

2:08:03 build not just the pavement management

2:08:05 plan but think about how it intersects

2:08:07 and interacts with vision zero and with

2:08:11 um complete streets because we don't

2:08:13 want to give up on complete streets. We

2:08:15 don't want to give up on those projects,

2:08:16 but we also hear the feedback of the

2:08:19 community, which is not enough was

2:08:20 getting done. And so, we have to find a

2:08:23 way, if we can't make everyone happy, we

2:08:24 at least have to find a way to balance

2:08:26 those competing interests. Pave more

2:08:28 roads, don't let the roads fall apart,

2:08:30 think about complete streets, think

2:08:31 about safety, think about vision zero.

2:08:34 All of those things can be intentioned

2:08:36 with each other, and we're trying to

2:08:37 harmonize them as best we can. And that

2:08:39 is going to result in things where

2:08:42 people are going to get 70% of what they

2:08:44 want and it's going to feel like a loss.

2:08:46 Um, and I understand that and I

2:08:48 understand the frustration there. But

2:08:50 you also don't want to be in the

2:08:51 situation where Cambridge is where every

2:08:53 time a board flips, you know, right? I

2:08:55 think last this the Cambridge City

2:08:57 Council last at their last meeting, the

2:09:00 composition of the council has shifted

2:09:02 54 in favor of bike lanes to 54 against

2:09:05 bike lanes several times. And so now

2:09:07 they're taking a vote to scrap a

2:09:09 proposal to scrap a bike lane. Um it's

2:09:13 [laughter] just and and you know staff

2:09:15 have thrown up you know I feel very

2:09:17 badly for the staff in Cambridge who've

2:09:19 just kind of thrown up their hands and

2:09:20 said how on earth how on earth are we

2:09:22 supposed to do this you know like the

2:09:24 the process you know you know improving

2:09:27 the process is really important and

2:09:29 making sure the process is right. So I

2:09:30 take your feedback. You know, I think

2:09:32 it's good feedback, but I also think

2:09:33 it's then important to say we build

2:09:36 these policies to ensure consistency of

2:09:38 outcomes. Um, and when we say, well,

2:09:42 we're going to bend it because this is

2:09:43 an important thing or we need to, you

2:09:45 know, we need to look at this another

2:09:47 way, then you're saying that the

2:09:49 policies and the processes you put in

2:09:51 place are malleable and are subject to

2:09:53 lobbying to get what thing what people

2:09:55 want. um when what we're trying to do is

2:09:59 solicit that input, but also be able to

2:10:01 provide the consistency of outcome and

2:10:02 move forward on it. So, I get that it's

2:10:04 a hard balance to strike. And I think to

2:10:06 Dan's point, we're going to continue to

2:10:08 tinker with that and figure out how we

2:10:09 can make people feel heard and respected

2:10:12 um while also acknowledging that there

2:10:14 are competing voices in the community

2:10:16 and we're trying to synthesize what we

2:10:17 hear. Well, I'm not trying to suggest

2:10:19 that any one particular voice be heard,

2:10:22 but it sounds like the process was work

2:10:25 with a consultant Apex and then staff

2:10:28 reviews Apex's recommendation. And I'm

2:10:31 not sure why we would want to farm out

2:10:34 these decisions to Apex rather than

2:10:38 incorporating community input from

2:10:40 anywhere. So I think but again the

2:10:43 question is

2:10:45 incor you know listening to the

2:10:46 community getting community feedback

2:10:48 which is what you know again Dan and Rob

2:10:50 did you know I think people felt it was

2:10:52 late in the process but there were

2:10:54 changes made as a result of that input

2:10:56 um building that in earlier to the

2:10:58 process is important but I think you

2:11:00 have to set expectations too which is

2:11:02 it's you know if we were to do this as a

2:11:06 re as not just a restriping but a change

2:11:08 in use we would be having community

2:11:10 meetings we would be having all the all

2:11:12 the public feedback and before you know

2:11:14 it the project the you know we're trying

2:11:16 to get this project done over the summer

2:11:17 all of a sudden you're talking about

2:11:18 something that stretches into fall and

2:11:20 winter you're talking about and while

2:11:22 the road is deteriorating and so I think

2:11:24 we've got to come up with a balance

2:11:26 between this idea you know we we want to

2:11:28 be solicitus of public feedback we want

2:11:30 to try and incorporate it but we don't

2:11:32 want everything to then resort you know

2:11:35 come back to this you know design by

2:11:38 committee and the potential for gridlock

2:11:40 that that creates right at a certain

2:11:42 point. We have to say we hire

2:11:45 transportation experts to make these

2:11:46 decisions. They should be making those

2:11:48 decisions well informed with feedback

2:11:50 from the community, but it's not

2:11:52 necessarily a situation where it's

2:11:54 designed by committee.

2:11:57 Paul,

2:11:58 yep. Um

2:12:00 that was a good job. Um yeah, explaining

2:12:02 all all that what you said. But I I do

2:12:05 want to first I want to thank uh Dave

2:12:07 and Emily and everybody who's come

2:12:08 forward um to to speak about uh bic

2:12:12 bicycle safety. Um as you know I've been

2:12:15 a strong supporter of it uh with

2:12:17 Washington Street. Um I've advocated for

2:12:21 uh for the bridal path. Um and frankly I

2:12:25 was supportive of changing Chestnut

2:12:27 Hill. Um you know Chestnut Hill is

2:12:29 actually a great example of what can

2:12:30 happen. We it got so derailed that

2:12:33 nothing is now happening. Um I I do I

2:12:36 think it's important to put into context

2:12:38 what's going on this board not

2:12:40 particularly this board but the select

2:12:41 board I think it was two years ago year

2:12:44 almost two years ago

2:12:44 year and a half yeah

2:12:45 year and a half ago which meant it

2:12:46 started when I joined the board and I

2:12:48 can I'll tell you after how that

2:12:51 happened but um you know this is this is

2:12:54 a policy that that was uh complete

2:12:57 streets which was actually in the way it

2:12:59 had great intentions it had initially

2:13:01 been launched it had never been changed

2:13:03 changed. Um, and I I actually spoke with

2:13:07 the chair of the board who had approved

2:13:08 it at that time. Uh, and I said, "Has

2:13:10 this thing ever been touched?" He said,

2:13:11 "Nope, and it's probably time to revisit

2:13:13 it." And one of the problems with

2:13:14 Complete Streets, it had great

2:13:16 intentions, but it was holding up

2:13:17 maintenance of our roadways. And our

2:13:19 roadways were deteriorating further and

2:13:21 further uh because we didn't have the

2:13:23 ability to just go repave a road um uh

2:13:26 because it had to go through this entire

2:13:28 process and redesign uh for complete

2:13:31 streets. So Mike Sandman and I uh met

2:13:34 with uh the uh DPW commissioner,

2:13:37 engineering, I think uh the the

2:13:40 transportation board chair was there and

2:13:42 others and consultants. Um and we came

2:13:44 up with this this modified uh policy set

2:13:48 which was complete streets and pavement

2:13:50 management. And that those policies were

2:13:53 modified adopted by this board um the

2:13:56 select board and adopted by the

2:13:58 transportation board. there policies

2:13:59 that are in place. Um, and under those

2:14:01 policies, there's kind of two tiers.

2:14:04 There there's tiers of those roadways

2:14:06 that are priorities for complete streets

2:14:08 redesign. Um, it takes a significant

2:14:11 amount of investment to do that. It's

2:14:13 not cheap. Um, but it's important. It

2:14:15 needs to be done. The community

2:14:16 engagement needs to be done properly and

2:14:18 we know that when it isn't done

2:14:19 properly, things get derailed. Uh, like

2:14:21 what happened with Chestnut Hill. Um

2:14:24 there's also a category of roadways that

2:14:26 are important that have a lot of

2:14:28 traffic. Um and we need to maintain them

2:14:31 not only for the safety of of uh

2:14:33 cyclists but also for the safety of

2:14:35 automobiles and pedestrians. Um and and

2:14:38 Harvard Street has fallen has had fallen

2:14:40 into that um has falls into that

2:14:43 category. And the design of the policy,

2:14:45 and frankly this board, the

2:14:47 transportation board could revisit the

2:14:48 policy, but the design of the policy is

2:14:51 to allow the max maximizing the limited

2:14:54 funds that we have to repave and fix as

2:14:58 as many miles of roadway as we can. And

2:15:02 that's what's going on here. um you know

2:15:05 if we were to delay the process at this

2:15:09 point um to do the community engagement

2:15:12 which CHZ had has mentioned it's not

2:15:15 just the bicycle advocates which I

2:15:18 really appreciate their advocacy but

2:15:20 we're going to hear from seniors we're

2:15:21 going to hear from pedestrians we're

2:15:23 going to hear from businesses um we're

2:15:25 going to hear from folks that uh go down

2:15:28 Harvard Street by automobile and it's

2:15:30 going to be a gigantic effort. it always

2:15:33 is. So to take something and just run it

2:15:35 by just the bicycle advisory committee

2:15:37 frankly isn't fair. Um if we're going to

2:15:39 run a review of a repaving project um

2:15:43 you know to the extent that you're

2:15:45 talking about you should have to do it

2:15:46 by every commission that has a say in

2:15:48 it. Um and frankly that would not be a

2:15:50 good use in utilization of our very

2:15:53 limited capital funds. I think we I

2:15:56 think I asked Melissa it was five

2:15:58 million I think is what's in our is in

2:16:00 our CIP for roadways and I believe the

2:16:04 commissioner has told us that we're

2:16:05 about 100 million in the hole. So

2:16:08 that'll tell you how far behind we are.

2:16:10 Um so while I I really appreciate and I

2:16:13 look forward to biking with Biking

2:16:14 Brooklyn again on their when it gets

2:16:16 warmer it's getting warmer now to go on

2:16:17 one of their trips. I've I've really

2:16:19 enjoyed it. They've helped me um embrace

2:16:21 cycling more with my children. Um there

2:16:24 is a balance that we have to do with

2:16:26 make making sure that we're maintaining

2:16:27 our roadways and our investments um for

2:16:30 the safety of everybody and make the

2:16:32 improvements as best we can when we're

2:16:34 doing these mill and overlays. So um and

2:16:36 I hope that we can adjust the process

2:16:38 that would help you feel a little more

2:16:40 engaged going forward. But I'm

2:16:41 supportive of the contract

2:16:44 likely.

2:16:45 Uh oh, sure.

2:16:46 I guess my hand's invisible. [laughter]

2:16:48 Oh, I'm sorry.

2:16:49 Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

2:16:50 You want to go first?

2:16:51 Go ahead. Um uh a couple of comments.

2:16:54 Number one is um uh Paul, thank you for

2:16:57 for that uh background information. I

2:17:00 appreciated it. Um and I'm sure we

2:17:02 everybody else did as well. Um I will

2:17:05 add uh one detail of course to that is

2:17:08 that we also um I think it was like

2:17:12 within a month of when I joined the

2:17:13 select board uh approved a vision zero

2:17:16 policy which is also part of the policy

2:17:18 set that we are trying to juggle. um

2:17:21 with and part of it part of the

2:17:23 challenge um that that we are facing. So

2:17:26 I just want to make sure that that that

2:17:29 set of policies and the the relatively

2:17:33 newer ideas that are presented in that

2:17:35 policy are also sort of incorporated

2:17:37 into this conversation. Um but but in

2:17:40 the in an effort to move to move forward

2:17:43 from the point we're at now and I you

2:17:46 know having read the RAMPP

2:17:50 RAMMP

2:17:51 um and discussed it with several people

2:17:53 over the last several days um I I'm sort

2:17:56 of in in agreement with you that that we

2:17:59 need to move forward with this. But I

2:18:02 would like to ask a couple of questions

2:18:04 about this project in in terms of how it

2:18:07 can integrate with the uh the interest

2:18:11 and what has been described. So my first

2:18:13 question is the very simple one is when

2:18:16 is this project going to start and when

2:18:18 do you expect it to be finished?

2:18:21 Uh very good questions. Uh we expect it

2:18:24 to start soon after marathon day. I

2:18:26 believe the tenative date was May 4th um

2:18:30 with the contractor and it's one thing I

2:18:32 did want to point out it's in two phases

2:18:34 uh north of Beacon Street it would be

2:18:36 phase one where we do the milling all

2:18:38 the structure adjustment and then the

2:18:40 paving and then the marketing before

2:18:42 moving to the south side of Beacon and

2:18:43 we did that just to kind of speed things

2:18:45 up and uh reduce the burden on uh

2:18:48 commercial uh folks. Um and then so then

2:18:52 it would be the second phase would be

2:18:53 the southern section. um the timing it

2:18:56 would take since I think uh getting in

2:19:00 there's some curb work on the north side

2:19:02 and then they would come in and do the

2:19:03 milling that could be three to five days

2:19:06 or three to five nights uh as we'll talk

2:19:08 about later and then we basically then

2:19:11 adjust all the structures over a few

2:19:13 weeks and then uh do the finished paving

2:19:15 and then the marking and then we do the

2:19:17 same thing on the south phase and then

2:19:19 basically the limits are the city of

2:19:20 Boston down to Kent Street with a small

2:19:22 piece uh near the pier school that we're

2:19:25 going to say uh they're going to do for

2:19:26 us uh when they finish their work with

2:19:28 the school.

2:19:29 So So I heard you say you're starting

2:19:32 around May 5th and I heard a number of

2:19:34 steps that are all taking days and

2:19:36 weeks. Do you have do you have a Gant

2:19:38 chart or some other

2:19:40 Yeah. Yeah, we can certainly

2:19:43 Yeah, we can provide that. I think

2:19:44 there's one in the uh the application

2:19:46 for the network

2:19:48 the noise uh the noise bylaw.

2:19:50 So what's so what's the date? I think

2:19:52 it's I want to say it's July and into

2:19:55 August.

2:19:55 Okay. So So it's starting at the

2:19:57 beginning of May and going through July

2:19:59 and August. Okay. Thank you. The the

2:20:01 next question I have is, you know, when

2:20:04 you talk about something like the public

2:20:06 process for developing protected bike

2:20:09 lanes, um, in your experience, how much

2:20:13 time would you allocate for that

2:20:16 process, you know, in order to to be

2:20:20 sufficiently

2:20:22 robust to incorporate into this into

2:20:26 Harvard Street, whether it was part of

2:20:28 this project or not? How long would that

2:20:30 typically take?

2:20:32 Uh, I guess if it if there's no curb

2:20:34 being moved, um, it it can be fairly but

2:20:37 I think there's still a lot of

2:20:39 stakeholders as mentioned before. If we

2:20:41 wanted to go to parking protected bike

2:20:42 lanes, I think it would take I mean it

2:20:45 could take I'd say months and it could

2:20:47 go longer. I mean, we

2:20:49 but if it was systematic and we had it

2:20:51 all set up um maybe you know a few

2:20:53 months it could take we could get

2:20:54 through it.

2:20:55 Okay. And so the the third question is

2:20:58 I'm familiar that with the

2:21:00 prioritization plan that you're that uh

2:21:04 the uh traffic uh division is setting up

2:21:07 to to sort of help answer that question.

2:21:10 And so, um, can can you provide any sort

2:21:14 of update into the creation of of that

2:21:18 plan and how that plan might be

2:21:20 applicable to the uh design changes and

2:21:24 requests that are being made by the

2:21:25 public?

2:21:27 Uh, that that plan would would basically

2:21:30 prioritize complete streets projects,

2:21:32 bike network improvement projects, uh,

2:21:34 the full array of all of our projects.

2:21:36 And I think uh that would build in a

2:21:38 more uh a more uh robust community

2:21:42 outreach program. And we we we

2:21:44 introduced in January a community

2:21:46 outreach program based on the tier of

2:21:47 the project. We had tier one, two, and

2:21:49 three. And I think that that would those

2:21:52 would set the framework for that.

2:21:53 Right. And and in your experience, based

2:21:55 on your understanding of the of the

2:21:58 proposals here, do you think this would

2:22:00 be like a tier one very very long

2:22:02 project, tier two or tier three type of

2:22:04 project? this well Harvard would be one

2:22:06 of the longest because it's sits in a

2:22:08 vibrant and it's the runs right through

2:22:10 the heart of of Brooklyn. So it would

2:22:12 take some time. So my I would probably

2:22:13 say it probably takes on the longer side

2:22:15 it would take a long time or a tier two

2:22:18 project.

2:22:18 Yeah. And the other thing I'd say is

2:22:19 that if we wanted to make major changes

2:22:22 um it would take capital uh you know

2:22:25 coming up with a capital program to to

2:22:27 fund it. I mean

2:22:28 okay or become a tip project. If I may

2:22:31 briefly elaborate, as as director Dan

2:22:34 Murphy has said, this Harvard Street

2:22:36 would most certainly be a tier one

2:22:37 project. Um, this was part of the public

2:22:41 engagement process that our team put

2:22:43 together um with collaboration from I

2:22:46 believe Paul Warren from the select

2:22:48 board uh and chairman Kaine. Um, and our

2:22:51 estimate for a tier one project um with

2:22:54 significant cross-section changes is 18

2:22:57 to 24 months. Um, so I think that um I

2:23:01 think that would be a good ballpark

2:23:03 timeline to estimate uh for a for a

2:23:06 redesign of Harvard Street. So, so, so I

2:23:09 I would I would posit um that given the

2:23:15 scope of changes that were being

2:23:16 proposed that you wouldn't necessarily

2:23:19 have to do all of Harvard Street to

2:23:21 start to realize the benefits of some of

2:23:23 these changes and uh potentially could

2:23:26 chunk the project into smaller pieces

2:23:28 that could be done more quickly.

2:23:32 I'll leave it at that.

2:23:34 Go ahead.

2:23:36 Well, um I want to go back to uh what

2:23:38 Michael said at the beginning um because

2:23:40 I'm not sure what I heard at the end,

2:23:42 but um I think I heard you say that you

2:23:45 fully appreciate that we're at a point

2:23:48 now where if we're going to be serious

2:23:49 about the pavement improvement um uh

2:23:52 project uh approach to our streets.

2:23:55 We're going to fix streets when the

2:23:57 streets are in a condition that needs

2:23:59 fixing. And we're not going to fix

2:24:01 streets after we undergo two, three

2:24:05 years of, you know, all all kinds of

2:24:07 imagined redesigns of the street. Um,

2:24:10 and maybe to no end, depending on

2:24:13 whether, you know, where we are on the

2:24:15 tip, you know, which is the state

2:24:16 process for getting state funding. Then

2:24:18 you have to comply with all the aspects

2:24:20 of the state funding. Um, so

2:24:22 if you're are you asking me?

2:24:24 Well, well, you can repeat what you said

2:24:26 at the beginning if you wish. Sure. So,

2:24:28 so you are asking a question in the

2:24:30 abstract and I was responding to the

2:24:32 specific of this case. So, in this

2:24:34 particular case, I think that we should

2:24:36 move forward with the Harvard Street

2:24:38 road maintenance project.

2:24:39 Thank you. No, really. I I appreciate

2:24:41 that and and um I I mean I know I feel

2:24:45 like I've gotten to know you uh pretty

2:24:46 well and and I I I really appreciate how

2:24:49 seriously you think about every aspect

2:24:52 of of the job of seboard and and also

2:24:54 every issue that comes before us and you

2:24:56 you really look at the documentation and

2:24:58 you really think think through your

2:25:00 decision. So I very much appreciate that

2:25:02 statement. Um uh and I want to say um uh

2:25:06 Dan Dan alluded to it. First of all,

2:25:08 let's clarify what back is because Dan

2:25:11 mentioned that a few times. I'm not sure

2:25:12 he told people what it was. Um, it's the

2:25:14 bicycle advisory committee. The irony of

2:25:17 this discussion is you would think that

2:25:18 they were never consulted. Um, they're

2:25:20 one of the few committees that actually

2:25:22 had a meeting where this was fully laid

2:25:24 out for them. And good good for them for

2:25:27 having the meeting. Good for them for

2:25:29 asking the questions that they asked.

2:25:31 But one of the points that was made um

2:25:33 by the member of the transportation

2:25:35 board who was conducting that meeting um

2:25:38 was that uh the meeting wasn't about uh

2:25:42 whether to intervene and change the plan

2:25:46 for Harvard Street because it the the

2:25:50 meeting was being conducted to inform

2:25:52 the bicycle advisory committee of what

2:25:54 is to come in terms of the needed um

2:25:59 improvements to Harvard Harvard Street

2:26:01 in terms of its condition and the

2:26:04 realistic assessment by our

2:26:07 transportation division, all all of the

2:26:10 people who are experts on on highways

2:26:13 and on how to manage traffic and so on.

2:26:16 Um how to come as close as possible as

2:26:18 we can to achieving the goals of vision

2:26:20 zero. Um they all took a look at this

2:26:23 and they all came to the decision that

2:26:25 if this is to go forward u so that the

2:26:28 street gets fixed when it needs fixing

2:26:31 and not two years later and not three

2:26:32 years later. The way to do it is the way

2:26:35 that they have put in front of us. And u

2:26:38 they've done they've done their best to

2:26:39 incorporate uh bike lanes on the street.

2:26:42 They're not the bike lanes that the

2:26:44 bicycle advisory committee would have

2:26:45 preferred, but um they have also done

2:26:48 their best to improve the intersections

2:26:51 where they can through things. I think

2:26:53 they're going to incorporate some flex

2:26:55 post use. Um they're certainly going to

2:26:58 um uh incorporate much more use of

2:27:00 paint, much more visible crosswalks. Um,

2:27:03 by the way, curb cuts that um are are

2:27:06 much more in sort of where they should

2:27:08 be in addressing the needs of um

2:27:10 disabled people, handicapped access,

2:27:13 excuse me. Um there's a lot of good

2:27:15 improvements that are going to come from

2:27:17 this project, but um they're not going

2:27:19 to come from this project if we start to

2:27:20 delay it. um especially if we start to

2:27:23 delay it on behalf of a plan which

2:27:27 actually I think has been vetted by our

2:27:28 transportation division and I think

2:27:30 they're a little bit too polite to say

2:27:31 so and found to be unfeasible and for a

2:27:35 lot of reasons. One of them that was

2:27:37 actually specifically cited before the

2:27:39 bicycle advisory committee was the

2:27:41 MBTA's um current requirements for the

2:27:44 width of vehicle lanes that accommodate

2:27:45 buses. And turns out in in keeping with

2:27:50 um th those requirements when this

2:27:52 repaving is done, there's going to have

2:27:55 to be a minimum uh width allowed for

2:27:57 buses that's greater than than is

2:27:59 currently allowed. And uh that's going

2:28:01 to factor into whether it's even

2:28:03 feasible to talk about parking protected

2:28:05 bike lanes. They looked at it, they made

2:28:07 their decision, they're ready to go

2:28:09 ahead. And one other group that's got a

2:28:11 stake in this, uh you would think that

2:28:12 like bicyclist are the only people have

2:28:14 a stake in this. No, there's like so

2:28:16 many groups that have a stake in this.

2:28:18 And one of them that we haven't barely

2:28:19 mentioned tonight, all of the commercial

2:28:22 um enterprise owners all up and down

2:28:25 Harvard Street, they're very anxious

2:28:26 about this project as well. They should

2:28:28 be. Um projects like this interrupt the

2:28:32 you know e and flow of uh customer

2:28:34 traffic to their businesses. Sometimes

2:28:37 they result in barriers being put near

2:28:39 the sidewalk entrances to their

2:28:40 businesses. um they need to see this

2:28:44 executed as quickly as possible, as

2:28:46 efficiently as possible, and with the

2:28:48 least amount of doubt hanging over their

2:28:50 heads as to whether a week from now

2:28:52 they're going to be shut down because of

2:28:54 temporary, you know, barriers in front

2:28:56 of their place of business. So I think

2:28:59 we owe it to a lot of people to just go

2:29:01 ahead with the pavement improvement

2:29:03 program as we have created it and as as

2:29:06 we have sort of under the kind of goals

2:29:09 that we set out to achieve with it and

2:29:12 not let it be way laid by a sudden onset

2:29:15 of well but wait a minute um was every

2:29:17 interest you know consulted was it when

2:29:20 in fact um no matter what the interests

2:29:23 say when you consult with them if the

2:29:25 fix need if the street needs fixing it

2:29:27 needs fixing. And we're not doing

2:29:29 anybody

2:29:31 a favor if we allow a street to

2:29:33 deteriorate further, which is already

2:29:35 deteriorating.

2:29:36 David,

2:29:37 do we know? So,

2:29:38 by the way, I'd like to wrap this up

2:29:40 quickly.

2:29:41 So, John, you just referenced a lot of

2:29:43 other constituencies whose voices

2:29:46 haven't necessarily been heard. Doesn't

2:29:48 that all that at all concern you though?

2:29:50 How do we know that this plan? No,

2:29:52 because I think you're misunderstanding

2:29:54 the the point of my emphasis of that

2:29:56 that all of those interests, bicyclists,

2:29:58 pedestrians, um vehicles, MBTA, um all

2:30:03 were taken into account by the people

2:30:05 who are the experts at doing streets and

2:30:09 foremost they took into account the

2:30:11 condition of the street and the need for

2:30:13 streets in that condition to be repaired

2:30:15 in a timely way. or else you'll end up

2:30:17 with an even uh much bigger project that

2:30:20 will involve actually digging up the

2:30:22 entire street. Um so yeah, I I don't

2:30:25 doubt that our transportation people um

2:30:27 took all of that into consideration.

2:30:29 What about the financial efficiency

2:30:32 though? So a common complaint we'll hear

2:30:34 is uh that there's a repaving of a

2:30:36 certain street and then we repave it

2:30:38 again a year later and then again a year

2:30:41 after that. And are we wasting money

2:30:43 when we don't follow the same timeline

2:30:46 on parallel tracks?

2:30:47 Uh if since you asked a question to me,

2:30:49 otherwise I think it should go to

2:30:50 Michael wants to answer it too. But um

2:30:52 of course that's a cons consideration,

2:30:54 but we're more familiar with that with

2:30:57 utility work and we do our best and I'm

2:30:59 sure you know the people who are here

2:31:01 tonight do their best to coordinate with

2:31:03 utilities as to their schedules for you

2:31:05 know breaking up streets that have

2:31:06 already recently been repaved. But um

2:31:09 that that I'm I I just know for a fact

2:31:12 is is not a uh a consideration that

2:31:15 should justify delaying um this project.

2:31:18 They wouldn't be asking us to go forward

2:31:20 with it. If they thought that um you

2:31:22 know all of a sudden they were going to

2:31:24 actually um change their plan for the

2:31:26 street two years from now and start all

2:31:28 over again. Um we gave them a mandate,

2:31:31 you know, which is um clear clear the

2:31:34 decks, concentrate on on the complete

2:31:37 streets projects that are the most

2:31:38 important and the most doable and then

2:31:41 beyond that get going on fixing these

2:31:44 streets that have been waiting for some

2:31:46 kind of attention for many years now and

2:31:48 we're finally on the verge of doing that

2:31:50 and I would hate to see us suddenly um

2:31:52 you know back away from that.

2:31:54 Got it. John, thanks John. Sorry. Um,

2:31:56 and and then I'd like I think we have a

2:31:59 sense or I have a sense of where we're

2:32:01 going. Okay.

2:32:01 I'd like to call for a

2:32:02 vote. In order to answer David's

2:32:04 question, I'd like to ask a question of

2:32:06 staff. This is a project that's roughly

2:32:09 $3.2 million. Um, how much of that cost

2:32:13 is actually devoted to marking so that

2:32:16 if we had to like remark, I mean, we

2:32:18 obviously wouldn't need to repave the

2:32:20 streets again. We, you know, presumably

2:32:22 the bonding and the asphalt would would

2:32:25 still be good. So, how much of this 3.2

2:32:27 million is actually related to the cost

2:32:29 of just the parking?

2:32:31 Absolutely.

2:32:32 Oh, go ahead,

2:32:32 Dan. I have the I have the estimate up.

2:32:34 I was just going to Is it okay for me to

2:32:36 go?

2:32:37 Um, so, uh, for the board, I'm going to

2:32:39 I'm going to round numbers. Um, but the

2:32:42 request is obviously for the full

2:32:44 contract value, which is the $3.18

2:32:47 million. So, of that, the video

2:32:50 detection systems are $245,000.

2:32:54 So, just to repave the road with surface

2:32:57 with the paint markings, uh, is

2:32:59 approximately $2.9 million. Uh, and of

2:33:02 that $2.9 million,

2:33:05 um, you can estimate that between

2:33:06 250,000 and 300,000 go towards the

2:33:10 pavement markings themselves. So, the

2:33:12 cost just to pave the road without

2:33:15 pavement markings is approximately $2.6

2:33:18 million.

2:33:19 Okay. So,

2:33:20 thank you. Quick question.

2:33:21 Quick question.

2:33:22 Do you Does the installation of flex

2:33:25 posts require repaving?

2:33:28 It does not. The technique is a very

2:33:30 small saw cut into the road uh for the

2:33:33 installation and that will be done at

2:33:35 the completion of paving.

2:33:38 So, it will be the last step along with

2:33:39 pavement markings.

2:33:42 Okay, I think I have the sense that the

2:33:43 board is willing to go forward with this

2:33:45 contract. I'd like to if the board

2:33:48 agrees add some conditions to our

2:33:50 approval with respect [clears throat] to

2:33:51 the cameras. Um, and those conditions I

2:33:54 suggest be put in the form of anou that

2:33:57 is brought back to the board. Um, you

2:34:03 and

2:34:05 you basically said identifies what the

2:34:07 capabilities are now. uh and says that

2:34:10 no changes without select board approval

2:34:13 specifically um prohibiting any other

2:34:16 capabilities uh prohibiting upgrades uh

2:34:20 prohibiting any use of AI technology and

2:34:23 prohibiting access to our system by

2:34:26 anyone outside of Brookline

2:34:28 AI is without without select board

2:34:31 approval. So I mean if if you want yeah

2:34:33 AI they have to come to us and explain

2:34:35 why that's

2:34:35 so so I believe that if they take a

2:34:40 picture of the streetway then they use

2:34:45 an aspect of AI you know they would I

2:34:47 could go but I'm not going

2:34:50 but they would use they would use AI in

2:34:53 order to convert that picture into a

2:34:55 number of vehicle a certain number of

2:34:57 vehicles which is a capability that I

2:35:00 think we expect.

2:35:01 Well, we were we were told that they can

2:35:03 turn that off.

2:35:05 Yeah. Everything is is is artificial

2:35:08 intelligence in the computer world,

2:35:09 right?

2:35:09 But I think when we say artificial

2:35:11 intelligence, we're talking about

2:35:12 something different than personal

2:35:14 identification. my um computer here,

2:35:16 John.

2:35:18 And I'm not sure that I fully understand

2:35:20 your intent, but I wonder if you would

2:35:21 be comfortable with um our you know, our

2:35:24 taking a vote on what's in front of us,

2:35:27 as you said, um but um leaving to a

2:35:31 future meeting to hear your proposal of

2:35:34 anou to attach to the light uh the

2:35:38 camera technology that is because that's

2:35:40 not going to we're not that part of this

2:35:42 anytime soon. Um and um it sounds to me

2:35:46 like what you're aiming for is something

2:35:50 we in fact as a as a board might end up

2:35:53 all agreeing with. Um but it's a

2:35:55 separate matter and I don't want it to

2:35:58 become a matter that trips up getting

2:36:01 the necessary start to the repaving of

2:36:04 this street.

2:36:04 I wasn't thinking of it that way. Okay.

2:36:07 I mean that just that we have to at some

2:36:10 point before this is implemented have an

2:36:12 agreement as to what they can and cannot

2:36:16 do.

2:36:16 Yeah.

2:36:16 Bernard, in our in your motion, could

2:36:18 you add that the town administrator will

2:36:20 work with staff to come back with a

2:36:22 proposedou that would I mean they have a

2:36:24 sense of the conditions we're looking

2:36:25 for

2:36:26 as opposed to us trying to craft it on

2:36:28 the fly

2:36:28 before before the system is turned on.

2:36:30 We can get back to you with that.

2:36:31 And it doesn't have to be anou. I mean

2:36:33 whatever it is whatever whatever set of

2:36:34 conditions you want. Would it be too

2:36:36 much of an ask for the board to include

2:36:38 in that some kind of specific timeline

2:36:41 for when Harvard Street will be

2:36:43 reconsidered with all stakeholders, not

2:36:45 any one potential group?

2:36:48 I would be hesitant to do that for

2:36:50 Harvard Street outside of the context of

2:36:52 all of DPW's other work. I think it has

2:36:55 to be integrated into their larger

2:36:56 planning process.

2:36:58 Yeah, I would agree with that.

2:37:00 Yeah. Yeah. So, uh I will move approval

2:37:03 of the uh

2:37:08 of the excuse me, Larusa contract for

2:37:12 fiscal year 26 transportation and

2:37:14 mobility improvements of Harvard Street

2:37:16 in the amount of one uh 3.182 million

2:37:20 dollars. uh conditioned on uh town

2:37:24 administrator coming back to us with a

2:37:26 set of uh restrictions on the use of

2:37:29 this equipment beyond its current

2:37:31 capabilities and we'll we'll trust you

2:37:34 to come up with uh the appropriate uh

2:37:38 conditions.

2:37:38 We'll give you time to edit it.

2:37:40 Yes.

2:37:40 Okay.

2:37:42 So uh with that all in favor John

2:37:45 Vancoyak.

2:37:46 Thank you very much chair. Um I

2:37:48 Paul Warren

2:37:49 I

2:37:50 uh David Pearlman

2:37:51 abstain.

2:37:52 Okay. Um Michael Rubenstein

2:37:54 I

2:37:54 and chair votes eye. Great. Okay. Now we

2:37:58 have a uh noise bylaw uh hearing

2:38:01 hearing. Um

2:38:06 are you introducing the

2:38:10 staff will talk through it?

2:38:11 No, I think she's standing there for the

2:38:13 public hearing.

2:38:14 Oh, okay. Good.

2:38:17 Are you ready? Y. Um,

2:38:18 yes. Uh, basically, so we're coming up

2:38:20 before you also for the noise uh bylaw

2:38:22 to allow night work. Um, we included

2:38:25 that in the contract uh primarily to

2:38:28 minimize disruption during the day,

2:38:29 particularly for commercial. Um, and so

2:38:32 we've worked with the contractor to

2:38:35 determine that they think maximum 10

2:38:37 days per phase as I talked about north

2:38:39 and south. Uh, the night work would be

2:38:42 during milling and paving. And then the

2:38:45 all the structure adjustment all that

2:38:47 work would be would happen during the

2:38:48 day. Um uh the the 10 days is probably

2:38:52 conservative but and the other thing is

2:38:54 we kept it a little bit open be based on

2:38:57 weather and we wanted to uh have a have

2:39:00 uh times we'd obviously update the board

2:39:02 when it was when it was going to happen

2:39:04 but it would be uh you know up to 10

2:39:06 days per phase uh with actual fixed

2:39:09 dates uh to be determined based on

2:39:11 weather and schedule as we go forward.

2:39:13 And uh this the contractor is here to

2:39:15 talk and and Sam may have more details

2:39:17 you could add.

2:39:22 I I would only add that um as Dan uh

2:39:25 indicated it's weather dependent. Um in

2:39:28 the noise bylaw request to the select

2:39:30 board. You can see that Luruso Corp has

2:39:33 laid out the tenative schedule. Um and

2:39:36 that would have milling taking place the

2:39:38 week of May 17th. As Dan also said, this

2:39:41 is conservative. Um, Luso Corporation

2:39:44 believes that under good weather

2:39:46 conditions that this work could be

2:39:47 completed in as few as two nights per

2:39:49 phase or two nights per milling, two

2:39:52 nights per paving, but of course uh in

2:39:54 the event that there's poor weather or

2:39:55 other unforeseen errors. Um, and then

2:39:58 the paving operation um would take place

2:40:02 uh in early June, approximately three

2:40:04 weeks after the milling uh for each

2:40:06 phase.

2:40:07 Great.

2:40:10 Uh any questions? Let's

2:40:13 open the Yes,

2:40:14 I do have I have one question. Um, so

2:40:16 when when Beacon Street was done, it

2:40:19 seemed to be at mil for a hundred years.

2:40:22 It was a long time. Um, what what what

2:40:25 was that a weather issue? I don't know

2:40:27 if you were involved in that, but was

2:40:28 that weather and it just prevented us

2:40:30 from actually doing the final paving?

2:40:32 Like it seemed like it was a long time

2:40:34 that we were grinding our teeth uh on

2:40:36 Beacon Street.

2:40:37 That year was particularly rainy. we we

2:40:40 were um held back significantly from our

2:40:42 schedule. It definitely took a lot

2:40:44 longer. Um and as as Dan mentioned

2:40:47 before, the intention of phasing this

2:40:49 into two portions is to minimize the

2:40:51 time uh that uh residents and uh

2:40:54 visitors to our commercial areas have to

2:40:56 deal with the mil surface. And so um

2:40:59 that's why we believe breaking this up

2:41:00 into two phases is best for everyone.

2:41:03 Um, so we we really hoped for a less a

2:41:06 less rainy summer than uh than the work

2:41:08 on Beacon Street last year.

2:41:10 Okay. Thank you.

2:41:12 Okay. Uh, let's open up the hearing.

2:41:16 Okay. The chair is open the public

2:41:19 hearing. If there's anyone that wishes

2:41:20 to speak, please raise your hand using

2:41:22 the raise your hand feature online or if

2:41:24 you're in the room, you can come to the

2:41:26 podium.

2:41:28 Okay. I see Emily Jackson's at the p

2:41:30 podium. Hi. Obviously, I'm not here to

2:41:33 speak about the noise waiver. I'm here

2:41:34 to speak about the previous item.

2:41:36 I'm obviously not here to speak about

2:41:38 the noise waiver. I'm here to speak

2:41:40 about the previous item. May I be

2:41:41 allowed to speak? And may the other

2:41:43 people in the room who have been waiting

2:41:45 be allowed to speak?

2:41:47 Um, you know, the the our policy is that

2:41:50 u when we um after our 15 minutes are

2:41:53 up, if people still have uh comments

2:41:56 they want to make, they can make them at

2:41:58 the end of the meeting. Um I don't know

2:42:00 what the select board wants to do about

2:42:02 this situation. John,

2:42:04 well, I I'm just confused because I

2:42:06 thought there were a bunch of statements

2:42:07 at the beginning of the meeting.

2:42:08 Yeah, they were. Yeah.

2:42:09 So, are they coming?

2:42:10 As a matter of fact, Emily

2:42:12 made made a statement.

2:42:13 I know. Are they coming back to say the

2:42:14 same? I don't understand.

2:42:15 No, no, no. There's more people.

2:42:17 So, there's people who weren't heard the

2:42:19 first time. That's Yes.

2:42:20 But do they want to speak to the noise?

2:42:21 I'm sorry. I shouldn't be. The chair can

2:42:24 take take

2:42:25 Yeah, this is a noise bylaw hearing. Oh,

2:42:29 yep. You

2:42:30 I just No, no, no. I just wanted to

2:42:32 first um you know, I have great respect

2:42:34 for you, Emily, and your advocacy. Um

2:42:37 and I hope David, I hope I still get

2:42:39 invites to the [laughter] to the Viking

2:42:42 Brooklyn uh excursions even though my

2:42:45 vote. Um but you know, just to respect

2:42:49 um there's a there's a full agenda

2:42:51 tonight. There's people waiting to uh

2:42:53 give us interviews. I see a nodding head

2:42:56 for an interview for a commission

2:42:57 appointment. Um, we've got warrant

2:42:59 articles that are being presented to us

2:43:01 tonight. We need to deliberate and vote

2:43:02 on some warrant articles. Um, what what

2:43:05 I would suggest is that we stick to the

2:43:07 noise bylaw uh chair um only and then at

2:43:11 the end uh take additional public

2:43:13 comment on and certainly if folks want

2:43:15 to stick around to do that um and that

2:43:17 can be incorporated for future policy

2:43:19 deliberations. But um that that would be

2:43:22 my suggestion that we have a really a

2:43:23 full calendar tonight. Um, I know you're

2:43:26 additional, not people who already

2:43:29 spoke.

2:43:30 Well, I I I that I'll leave that to the

2:43:32 chair. I'm just saying right now we

2:43:33 should focus on the noise bylaw so we

2:43:34 can get the to our the rest of our work.

2:43:36 Let's keep to our policy that the uh

2:43:38 additional public comments come at the

2:43:40 end of the meeting.

2:43:42 Mr. Chairman, this is our street and our

2:43:44 tax dollars and I believe we should have

2:43:46 a chance to speak

2:43:49 at the end of

2:43:50 Well, yeah, but we are the executive

2:43:52 body of this town. Yes, but the

2:43:54 transportation board never took up this

2:43:55 issue.

2:43:57 You can come after our meeting and have

2:43:59 your make your comments. We're not going

2:44:00 to get into a back and forth in this.

2:44:03 There are people in this room who really

2:44:05 care about this.

2:44:06 I understand who have come to this

2:44:08 issue. At

2:44:08 this point, I have to ask you to stop.

2:44:09 I'm sorry. Thank you.

2:44:13 Okay. Any uh anyone want to make comment

2:44:16 on the noise bylaw waiver?

2:44:22 No. Okay, I will close the hearing and

2:44:25 um any questions from the board before

2:44:28 we vote?

2:44:31 Okay, hearing none, I move that uh we

2:44:33 approve the request by Laruso uh related

2:44:37 to contract PW 2638, fiscal year 26,

2:44:41 transportation and mobility

2:44:42 improvements. Um

2:44:46 so we're voting on the noise bylaw

2:44:48 waiver. I think I misread read that. Uh

2:44:50 all in favor please indicate by saying

2:44:52 I. John Vancoyak

2:44:53 I.

2:44:54 Paul Warren

2:44:54 I.

2:44:54 David Crowman

2:44:55 I.

2:44:56 Michael Rubenstein

2:44:57 I.

2:44:57 And chair votes I. Thank you.

2:45:01 Thank you to the board.

2:45:02 Thank you.

2:45:04 Thank you very much.

2:45:07 Next boards and commissions interviews.

2:45:09 Um we're going to start off with the

2:45:11 Fisher Hill Uses Advisory Committee. I

2:45:13 understand that uh uh George Cole and

2:45:16 Pam Lodish are scheduled for tonight's

2:45:19 uh interview. Are they available on

2:45:23 Zoom?

2:45:23 Well, Pam's here in front of us.

2:45:26 Okay. Okay. You want to start off, Pam?

2:45:29 But before you go, I'd like to just make

2:45:31 a little statement. Um, you know, as

2:45:33 I've said many times, and I don't think

2:45:35 it necessarily applies in every case,

2:45:37 but it's important to make clear that,

2:45:40 um, you know, when we look at applicants

2:45:43 for one of our public bodies, uh, we

2:45:46 look at whether they have the skills

2:45:48 necessary, uh, for that body, uh, do

2:45:51 they have good ideas and perspectives?

2:45:53 uh do they have relevant diversity to

2:45:55 ensure that all communities and

2:45:57 perspectives are represented in the work

2:45:59 of the public body on behalf of the town

2:46:02 and also I think very very important can

2:46:05 the applicant work effectively and

2:46:07 respectfully with other members of the

2:46:09 public body and with the town staff that

2:46:11 will be working with the public body.

2:46:14 Um, I think in this case, I don't have a

2:46:16 concern with the people we're

2:46:18 interviewing tonight, but I just want to

2:46:20 make sure that everyone knows that that

2:46:22 is a criteria uh for our um selection of

2:46:26 people for town bodies. So, with that,

2:46:29 let's start off with uh Fisher Hill uses

2:46:31 advisory committee

2:46:34 and uh who's first

2:46:37 up up at the podium, ma'am.

2:46:40 Okay.

2:46:41 I appreciate that you clarified you

2:46:43 weren't you weren't making that comment

2:46:44 about getting along [laughter] with

2:46:46 others. I have no problem because we

2:46:47 have three great kids.

2:46:48 We we've had this problem in the past so

2:46:51 I want to make sure it's very clear but

2:46:52 I don't

2:46:53 it's not an issue with Pam.

2:46:54 Excess

2:46:58 we are

2:46:59 one.

2:46:59 One just one

2:47:01 and we don't have the option to extend

2:47:04 some additional positions.

2:47:07 Um you always have that option. I'm not

2:47:09 sure that that

2:47:12 is a good idea. I mean,

2:47:13 and this is a committee that's already

2:47:14 in flight. How long has it been?

2:47:16 Oh, it's been in place for about a year

2:47:18 now.

2:47:19 So,

2:47:20 it hasn't met much, I don't believe.

2:47:22 Uh, we've met a few times. I mean, you

2:47:24 know, there's not much to meet since the

2:47:26 public schools are using the site that

2:47:28 we're

2:47:28 right

2:47:29 interested in.

2:47:31 Okay. Please introduce yourself and tell

2:47:33 us why you're interested in this

2:47:34 committee.

2:47:35 Okay. My name is Pam Lodish. I lived on

2:47:40 Fischer A. I've lived in the

2:47:41 neighborhood forever. Um I moved to

2:47:44 Fischer Avenue 45 years ago

2:47:47 approximately and then moved up the hill

2:47:49 when we

2:47:50 could inter someone I'm hearing a

2:47:52 background noise. Was that your

2:47:54 computer?

2:47:55 Could be her device maybe.

2:48:05 Okay. It's hard for me to

2:48:07 start again and maybe we'll pick up on

2:48:08 it again. [laughter]

2:48:11 Um, I have no idea. I have my laptop o

2:48:14 over there, but I wasn't signed into the

2:48:16 meeting.

2:48:22 Oh, it's Dave.

2:48:35 Yeah, David, you don't want your phone

2:48:36 conversation to be public record.

2:48:40 Oh. Oh,

2:48:41 I could hear myself talk.

2:48:45 Sorry.

2:48:46 All right. Well, I've been in the

2:48:48 neighborhood for forever. I've been

2:48:50 active in the neighborhood forever. I

2:48:52 have been and I care about the Fiser

2:48:55 Hill neighborhood. I participated for

2:48:57 many years in the reconstruction of the

2:49:00 um when the under when the underground

2:49:02 reservoir was abandoned and we bu had

2:49:04 property and then we build affordable

2:49:06 housing. I was part of a team that took

2:49:08 a long time to come to a good answer and

2:49:11 have um buildings that fit into the

2:49:13 neighborhood but met the needs of the

2:49:15 community. Um [clears throat] I also

2:49:17 then was on the committee to develop the

2:49:19 Fiser Hill Park and that took another

2:49:21 long time but it's a great asset in our

2:49:23 community as well. Um, I've had boards

2:49:27 board experience. I've had professional

2:49:29 experience. I know about I' I was told

2:49:33 somehow that you were interested in the

2:49:35 getting someone and this is totally

2:49:36 reasonable that had financial

2:49:38 experience. So, I can tell you that as

2:49:40 an undergraduate, I majored in

2:49:42 accounting. I was I have always had when

2:49:46 I professional jobs that involve

2:49:48 budgeting and ma managing the budget.

2:49:51 Well, um I did private construction

2:49:55 management for clients for up to many

2:49:59 millions of dollars and I was at one

2:50:01 point the associate director of the

2:50:02 Harvard College Observatory responsible

2:50:04 for the entire physical plant. So money

2:50:08 managing a budget isn't my issue isn't I

2:50:11 have skill set in that. I have skill set

2:50:13 in board experience. I have passion for

2:50:16 the neighborhood which is why we stayed

2:50:18 there when we chose to sell our home and

2:50:19 moved up the hill.

2:50:21 So, do you have any questions for me?

2:50:23 I have a question for each of the the

2:50:26 candidates. Um, let's see. Let me find

2:50:29 it here. So, what skills and

2:50:32 perspectives, and you answer this to

2:50:34 some degree, uh, would you bring to the

2:50:36 committee to enable it to sort through

2:50:38 the many ideas that people will have and

2:50:41 and come to a decision that will address

2:50:43 the needs and wants of every part of the

2:50:45 town? I'm very passionate about making

2:50:48 sure that we are very careful to

2:50:51 consider all the various um housing uh

2:50:56 the pool um or the making um place for

2:51:02 the um senior center for example. I

2:51:05 mean, I know those are themes that have

2:51:06 been on the that are being presented and

2:51:08 I think we have to evaluate them all,

2:51:12 look at the comp

2:51:14 integrate it with a comprehensive plan

2:51:17 and see that we can do the best for the

2:51:19 for the community. And I would say that

2:51:22 I was certainly an advocate when

2:51:25 um the Newberry College was for sale. I

2:51:29 was working I worked very closely with

2:51:31 the neighborhood itself and we came in

2:51:33 really in a very positive way to support

2:51:36 it and I would hope that no matter what

2:51:38 decision the committee came up with I

2:51:41 could be a integral part of promoting it

2:51:45 and getting the neighborhood to accept

2:51:46 it as well.

2:51:50 Any other questions?

2:51:51 Oh I'm sorry John.

2:51:53 Yeah. Um, I just want to say by way of

2:51:56 preface, not just to Pam, but to the

2:51:58 other candidates, um, I happen to think

2:52:01 Fiser Hill is one of the great success

2:52:03 stories, um, that we can claim in

2:52:05 Brooklyn in terms of what we have seen

2:52:07 done over the years to kind of take

2:52:09 advantage with what's of what's there,

2:52:12 improve upon what's there, improve upon

2:52:14 Fiser Hill as a resource for the entire

2:52:16 town. Um, you know, I'll just cite a

2:52:19 little bit of examples quickly. Um, I

2:52:21 think a lot of people don't realize that

2:52:22 there is a considerable subsidized

2:52:24 housing um, in the area of Fiser Hill.

2:52:27 Um, and some of the nicest subsidized

2:52:29 housing in in the town. It's of a type

2:52:32 that you don't see very much around the

2:52:34 town other than on Fischer Hill. Um,

2:52:36 there is also, you know, the example of

2:52:39 what is now the Newberry um, senior

2:52:41 residence complex um, senior care

2:52:43 complex. Um I know people including one

2:52:46 former select board member who um are

2:52:49 very happy um with um [laughter] their

2:52:53 situation um now that they have been

2:52:55 able to move into into that um

2:52:57 residence. Um and uh that didn't just

2:53:01 happen over you know by accident. It

2:53:03 happened by dent of a lot of effort put

2:53:05 in by a lot of people to take advantage

2:53:07 of a situation that fell into um our

2:53:10 laps when the Newberry College closed

2:53:13 and one thing after another after

2:53:15 another was done just right so that we

2:53:18 end up with a new complex serves a lot

2:53:20 of people spun off um well how how many

2:53:23 millions of dollars for the uh Brooklyn

2:53:26 Housing Authority to build 60 additional

2:53:28 units

2:53:28 625 million

2:53:30 $6.25 $25 million to for the housing

2:53:32 affordability trust. Yeah. That that

2:53:34 then resulted in an initial 60 units of

2:53:36 BHA. So, this is a precious town

2:53:39 resource and I'm really glad that we

2:53:41 we're attracting a lot of really

2:53:43 substantial and talented people to serve

2:53:45 on this Fischer Hill Advisory Committee.

2:53:47 I don't know how we're going to choose

2:53:48 between the three people before us

2:53:50 tonight. I want to say one more thing

2:53:51 about Pam. And Pam, excuse me for

2:53:53 rattling on while you're standing there.

2:53:55 Um, she hasn't mentioned it, but she is

2:53:57 she is a passionate advocate. um and and

2:54:00 really

2:54:01 h has proven her ad her her advocacy uh

2:54:06 in very substantial ways for mental

2:54:08 health and has been you know a long long

2:54:10 longtime supporter of the Brooklyn

2:54:12 Community Mental Health Center. Um in in

2:54:14 a way, you know, what we do with Fiser

2:54:16 Hill, this Fischer Hill opportunity um

2:54:19 going forward um is, I think, um

2:54:22 arguably going to um in various ways um

2:54:25 intersect with the mental health of this

2:54:27 community, you know, depending on what

2:54:29 services we provide there, depending on

2:54:30 what needs we take care of there. So,

2:54:32 I'm really glad you came forward and

2:54:34 good luck to you and to the other

2:54:36 candidates tonight.

2:54:37 Thank you. And I my husband and I are

2:54:38 very proud to have been able to um

2:54:40 support the Brook the Brooklyn Community

2:54:43 Mental Health Center. Um we chose to

2:54:46 that is our community project. I mean

2:54:48 there's so many good nonprofits in

2:54:50 Brooklyn. I'm of the mind that you do a

2:54:54 lot for one versus a little for

2:54:55 everybody. [laughter] So

2:54:57 we um we were proud to do that. Um, I

2:55:00 would also say I was involved with um

2:55:02 with the Newberry as well and trying to

2:55:05 work diligently with the developer to

2:55:08 make sure that when we finished it was

2:55:11 not only accepted by the community, but

2:55:12 it was it was fit um architecturally

2:55:15 within the town within the the

2:55:17 neighborhood as well.

2:55:18 So, it's I think fabulous.

2:55:19 Beautifully. Yeah.

2:55:21 Paul uh Pam, thanks so much for coming

2:55:24 out tonight um and being patient to

2:55:26 No, I'm late to the advisory committee,

2:55:28 but

2:55:28 Yes, I know. and that's an important

2:55:29 role that you have. But you know, one of

2:55:31 the things that I know about you is um

2:55:33 one, you are certainly um a very

2:55:36 generous donor. Um you've helped raise

2:55:40 money for a number of important

2:55:41 initiatives and I think uh John alluded

2:55:44 to the community mental health. You

2:55:46 know, one one of the things about

2:55:48 finding a a successful outcome um on top

2:55:52 of the hill is really being able to

2:55:54 reach out into your network

2:55:56 and and hear from them. Could you speak

2:55:58 a little bit about the diversity of your

2:56:00 network? Um, I know you've got you've

2:56:03 got neighborhood relationships because

2:56:04 you're integral to the neighborhood, but

2:56:06 could you talk a little bit about the

2:56:07 other network within Brooklyn, uh,

2:56:11 institutional as well as

2:56:12 Well, I would say that that, um, when I

2:56:15 was on the school committee, and you

2:56:16 know, many years ago, I was chair of the

2:56:18 school committee, but that involved much

2:56:20 more reaching out to the entire

2:56:22 community and working with um, all kinds

2:56:26 of divergent views and and some we were

2:56:29 successful in them were struggles. But I

2:56:32 would say that I certainly have the

2:56:33 ability and the the I know people in all

2:56:36 the different um precincts in Brooklyn.

2:56:38 Yeah.

2:56:38 And work with them, but I wouldn't say

2:56:40 that I have, for example, a strong

2:56:44 network specific in any one area.

2:56:47 Yeah.

2:56:47 But

2:56:47 it's diverse.

2:56:48 I would say for sure.

2:56:49 Yeah. Okay. Thank you. [snorts]

2:56:53 [clears throat]

2:56:54 Okay. Any other questions?

2:56:55 I'm good.

2:56:57 If you want to be. No, I'm happy to stay

2:56:59 and ask you ask me more questions, but

2:57:01 I'm know that you're behind schedule, so

2:57:03 I'm sure you'd be happy if I just went

2:57:05 went back down to the advisory

2:57:06 committee,

2:57:07 right? Oh, yes. Go. Please go do that

2:57:09 party.

2:57:09 Okay. Thank you for having me.

2:57:11 Thank you, ma'am.

2:57:14 Okay. Is George Cole on?

2:57:16 He said who's going to be here tonight,

2:57:18 but I don't see him online.

2:57:22 Okay. And was there another Wasn't Mike

2:57:23 Sand? Mike, but Mike said he's not

2:57:25 available till after 9:30, so we agreed

2:57:27 that he would go to a future date.

2:57:29 Okay.

2:57:30 Bernard and I talked about it and Mike

2:57:31 agreed.

2:57:32 Yeah. Okay. Um, then let's move on to

2:57:35 our next item or our next interview,

2:57:37 which is for the uh the arts commission,

2:57:41 right?

2:57:42 Yes. And our candidate is online

2:57:45 and we have

2:57:48 Candon Baron

2:57:50 online. Okay.

2:57:52 Yes.

2:57:52 Hi. Please introduce yourself and tell

2:57:55 us why you're interested in the arts

2:57:56 commission.

2:57:59 Good evening, Chairman Green and the

2:58:01 select committee. Um, my name is Candon

2:58:03 Barrett.

2:58:05 I've been a Brooklyn resident for a

2:58:07 total of over 30 years. Um, I grew up in

2:58:11 Brooklyn and graduated Brookline High

2:58:13 School. I went to Heath school for uh

2:58:16 elementary

2:58:18 and then uh as an adult I lived in

2:58:20 Brooklyn uh most recently the last 11

2:58:24 years here in Kulage Corner. Um, I've

2:58:27 spent 30 years uh in the biotech

2:58:30 industry and um last summer I stopped

2:58:35 working and I'm now interested in giving

2:58:39 back to the community that I've lived in

2:58:41 and loved for all these years. And um so

2:58:45 when I noticed that um the town of

2:58:48 Brooklyn was looking for somebody uh to

2:58:51 help with the um commission uh for arts,

2:58:55 um I thought that was something that I

2:58:57 might be able to contribute to. For the

2:58:59 record, I've also applied to the um

2:59:02 conservation commission.

2:59:05 I'm a scientist by training. Um I spent

2:59:08 the last 30 years in biotech uh across

2:59:11 the river in Cambridge primarily. Um the

2:59:15 last 12 years in the gene therapy space.

2:59:18 I'm very well connected with the

2:59:20 adjoining industries of Harvard, MIT

2:59:24 um and um you know some of the uh

2:59:27 biotech industries that are living and

2:59:31 participating in our community here in

2:59:32 Brooklyn. Um but where I think you were

2:59:37 asking chairman about what skills I

2:59:39 might bring to the table. So my hobbies

2:59:43 um have always included art and also um

2:59:48 ecology uh and um I get a lot of

2:59:52 inspiration on the art side from two

2:59:55 places. One is the Isabella Stewart

2:59:57 Gardner Museum where I find it to be

3:00:00 almost like a second home to me. And um

3:00:05 as you might know, Isabella Stewart

3:00:07 Gardner opened that palace. Uh she built

3:00:10 and opened it about a hundred years ago

3:00:12 with the intention of bringing um art

3:00:16 into uh the community and opening up her

3:00:21 um home. The palace was actually built

3:00:23 as a a museum so that the community

3:00:26 could come and visit. Uh at first it was

3:00:29 free and even today it's a very small

3:00:31 amount um that you u pay to get in. Um

3:00:35 and she just filled it with all kinds of

3:00:38 art and artifacts from around the world

3:00:40 and I've always been inspired by that. I

3:00:43 also take inspiration from uh the city

3:00:46 of Key West um that has done some very

3:00:50 interesting things in in their city uh

3:00:53 with respect to public spaces

3:00:57 um including sidewalk art that um

3:01:01 they've done and uh they've done murals.

3:01:04 Um they've done poetry in in the

3:01:07 sidewalks. Um they've done sculptures.

3:01:11 There's a very famous sculptor down

3:01:13 there, John Martini, and he does a lot

3:01:15 for the city there, and they have a

3:01:17 number of public um displays of his art,

3:01:20 and he's donated his uh very large iron

3:01:23 sculptures. And you know, we do that

3:01:26 here in Brooklyn. We have the turkeys

3:01:27 and um we have murals and um we have

3:01:32 these beautiful painted benches now, but

3:01:35 I think we can do more. Um, we have a

3:01:38 number of open storefronts that could

3:01:41 benefit from just some temporary

3:01:43 displays.

3:01:45 Um, I'm not sure what we're doing with

3:01:46 our local artists and with our schools,

3:01:49 but I see that there might be some

3:01:51 possibilities of uh encouraging them to

3:01:55 come together and doing some projects

3:01:57 together.

3:01:59 Um, I think the art commission also has

3:02:02 some leanings towards cultural

3:02:05 diversity. And I'll point out that I was

3:02:08 born in Iran. Uh, I have many Jewish

3:02:10 friends. I have many friends here in

3:02:13 Brooklyn um who are Catholic or

3:02:15 Christian or Jewish or of uh, you know,

3:02:18 from all walks of life. Um, and so I've

3:02:22 always felt comfortable standing in the

3:02:24 middle of a lot of different cultural

3:02:26 aspects of um, society here. And that's

3:02:30 one of the things I love about Brookline

3:02:32 is the diversity here because I also

3:02:34 lived in Weston for a number of years

3:02:35 and it wasn't nearly as fun to live

3:02:37 there to be honest. So um, so that's me.

3:02:42 Maybe I'll just stop there and let you

3:02:44 um, ask your questions.

3:02:47 Okay. Okay. Well, you know, you answered

3:02:49 the question that I had, but maybe you

3:02:52 can elaborate on, you know, what what is

3:02:53 what is a big bodacious idea that you

3:02:56 think that Brookline ought to think

3:02:59 about incorporating into our our art

3:03:01 scene?

3:03:04 Well, some of the things that we might

3:03:05 consider, um, so in Key West, there's

3:03:09 this concept of one human family, and to

3:03:12 me that resonates, um, very much, uh,

3:03:15 for us here in Brooklyn. Um we have so

3:03:19 many different um people from different

3:03:21 parts of the world and different

3:03:23 cultural and um and religious beliefs.

3:03:27 And um you know for me uh unifying theme

3:03:31 is the one human family. And some of the

3:03:34 things that the city of Key West has

3:03:36 done is um they have for example mosaic

3:03:39 inlay one human family design in some of

3:03:44 the important um centers where they have

3:03:48 um you know in the sidewalk in the

3:03:50 ground. Um they have sculptures for

3:03:54 that. And then they they did uh before

3:03:57 Governor Dantis overturned that, they

3:04:00 had painted um some of their crosswalks

3:04:03 uh with rainbow colors um in the center

3:04:07 right where Duval Street has uh you know

3:04:11 basically where they do the New Year's

3:04:13 um celebrations with the drag queens and

3:04:15 things. And I thought that was for me

3:04:19 the big audacious idea was to do

3:04:21 something along those lines. uh was to

3:04:24 see if that conversation has happened in

3:04:27 terms of um what we're doing with

3:04:29 sidewalks or with our crosswalks um and

3:04:32 if there's room for that, if there's

3:04:34 interest for that. So, I'm new to city

3:04:38 governance. Um, and you know, obviously,

3:04:41 uh, I'm still just beginning to network

3:04:44 with the people who are kind of, uh,

3:04:47 driving a lot of these these, uh, ideas

3:04:49 and decisions. But, um, I'm always happy

3:04:53 to listen to what other people have to

3:04:55 bring to the table. But, but that was

3:04:57 one of the things that I thought we

3:04:59 might talk about here in Brooklyn.

3:05:01 I think I think that's a great idea.

3:05:03 It's a it's a theme that could be part

3:05:06 of our art scene, but also a theme that

3:05:09 relates to how we view ourselves as a

3:05:11 community. So anyway, any other

3:05:15 selective members have questions? John,

3:05:18 uh, I just I just want to say I hope

3:05:21 that, um, if you, uh, join the arts

3:05:23 council that you will bring a little bit

3:05:24 of Key West to Brooklyn. [laughter] And

3:05:27 I'm I'm I'm envisioning the day when,

3:05:29 um, just like they do in Key West. Uh we

3:05:32 all gather at the western most point I I

3:05:35 hope I'm reciting it correctly of uh of

3:05:39 the peninsula, our little peninsula, and

3:05:41 we to all toast the setting of the sun

3:05:44 um rockously

3:05:46 because that's one of the charms of Key

3:05:48 West. Um there's a lot of other Key

3:05:50 West. Yeah.

3:05:50 As a matter of fact, if you look down

3:05:51 Harvard Street from Kulage Corner, you

3:05:53 can during certain time of the year, you

3:05:56 can watch the sunset right down there.

3:05:58 I've done that before. It's a lot of

3:06:00 fun. See, it's obvious she's already

3:06:02 thinking about this.

3:06:03 Yeah, we could do that. Yeah. [laughter]

3:06:04 But, um, thank you for applying for the

3:06:06 arts commission.

3:06:07 Yeah,

3:06:08 of course.

3:06:09 And we don't have the problem of a

3:06:11 governor who doesn't like the one human

3:06:14 family.

3:06:17 Anyway, um,

3:06:20 [clears throat]

3:06:21 did you want

3:06:22 Yes. Just looking at your uh resume, I

3:06:26 see that your background is heavy in the

3:06:28 sciences and you [clears throat] do list

3:06:31 arts as a hobby. Not that this is a

3:06:33 prerequisite, of course, but I'm

3:06:35 curious, have you had any art

3:06:37 affiliations of some kind or other

3:06:40 experience serving on art councils or

3:06:43 art groups or anything you want to

3:06:44 elaborate on there?

3:06:47 I have not. I mean, I've taken a number

3:06:49 of um continuing ed art classes at

3:06:53 Brooklyn High School and I've taken some

3:06:56 painting classes and some mosaic

3:06:59 classes, but I have never been on any

3:07:01 other councils. Um the only other boards

3:07:04 I've been on are um nonprofit sort of

3:07:07 biotechy type of boards. Um, and then

3:07:10 and I continue to serve on a nonprofit

3:07:12 board right now, but I have not been on

3:07:15 any other art councils and things like

3:07:17 that, but that's a very relevant

3:07:18 question.

3:07:21 Uh, Michael,

3:07:23 um, I know one of the recommendations of

3:07:25 the uh, public bodies handbook um is to

3:07:29 attend a meeting of uh, the

3:07:32 [clears throat] commission or the public

3:07:33 body that you're interested in joining.

3:07:35 So, I'm wondering first of all if you

3:07:37 have attended a meeting of the Brooklyn

3:07:39 Commission for the Arts. Um, and if you

3:07:41 have, what was your impression of the

3:07:44 work or before the com before the

3:07:48 commission or um the the way in which

3:07:52 the meeting was conducted?

3:07:54 Yeah, thank you for asking that

3:07:56 question. I um to be honest with you,

3:07:58 I've only just recently applied and I

3:08:01 haven't attended a meeting yet and I I

3:08:04 have poked around the website a bit. Um

3:08:08 what I noticed is that they haven't

3:08:10 really posted much on that website since

3:08:13 2024.

3:08:15 Uh last year seems to have been kind of

3:08:18 gone silent a little bit. So I was a

3:08:20 little bit curious about that. Um, and I

3:08:23 definitely if there's anybody that's on

3:08:25 the call right now that's on that

3:08:27 commission, I would love to arrange to

3:08:30 um meet with someone and and talk to

3:08:32 them even if it's not a formal meeting.

3:08:35 Thank you.

3:08:38 Okay. Uh, Paul.

3:08:39 Yeah. One very quick question. First,

3:08:41 thanks for coming forward and you have

3:08:43 some uh some really interesting ideas.

3:08:45 So, you mentioned that you're also

3:08:47 applying for another commission. Um, and

3:08:50 so can I ask you, do you have a

3:08:51 preference?

3:08:54 Um, I have a lot of time on my hands

3:08:56 right now and I I don't necessarily have

3:08:58 a preference. I I would like to serve

3:09:00 the community where there's the greatest

3:09:02 need and where um the committee might

3:09:06 see me fit the best. You you know who

3:09:10 you have and who your other candidates

3:09:12 are. Um, for the conservation

3:09:14 commission, you know, obviously I'm a

3:09:16 scientist. I'm a hobby uh tree grower.

3:09:20 I've grown some mahogany saplings in Key

3:09:22 West and here in Brooklyn, I'm growing

3:09:26 um for better or for worse uh oak and

3:09:29 and maple trees here in in my porch for

3:09:33 whoever wants them. But uh other than

3:09:36 that um you know I I love both things.

3:09:40 That's my other hobby. I also belong to

3:09:42 the association for the preservation of

3:09:44 Cape Cod and um I so as a scientist I've

3:09:48 always been interested in ecology and um

3:09:51 preservation of our coastlines and

3:09:53 waterways and um making sure that we

3:09:56 have in the urban communities enough

3:09:58 trees um so that the the birds

3:10:02 especially the migrating birds have a

3:10:03 place to feed and and to nest. Um and

3:10:08 we're seeing a lot of uh deterioration.

3:10:10 We're seeing a lot of trees getting cut

3:10:12 down in cities

3:10:14 uh in Cape Cod as well as Key West as

3:10:17 well as here in Brooklyn. And we don't

3:10:19 always replace them. If we do, sometimes

3:10:22 they're much much much younger trees

3:10:25 that don't always survive. And they

3:10:27 obviously don't have the same canopy as

3:10:29 a much taller, older tree. So, it takes

3:10:33 many more years um to reestablish the

3:10:35 shade and the canopy and and the the

3:10:38 diversity that you um have with an older

3:10:41 tree. So, that's another area that's of

3:10:44 interest to me, but um I'll leave it up

3:10:47 to you guys to see where you see me and

3:10:49 where you have the greatest need because

3:10:51 that's something that I don't really

3:10:53 know.

3:10:53 Okay. Thank you.

3:10:54 Great. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We

3:10:58 appreciate your application and uh we

3:11:01 will make our decisions at a later

3:11:03 meeting. Um, but uh, thank you for

3:11:06 coming.

3:11:07 Thank you, chairman.

3:11:10 Okay. Uh, next, Meredith, before you go,

3:11:13 uh, can we take a break?

3:11:16 Just a five minute break.

3:11:17 Sure.

3:11:20 Why not?

3:12:17 [music]

3:17:22 Ready?

3:17:28 We're going live in five, four, three,

3:17:32 two, one.

3:17:34 We are back. And the next item on our

3:17:36 agenda are is the special town meeting

3:17:40 warrant articles, uh, which is a public

3:17:42 hearing since it's the first time we've

3:17:44 heard heard this. Um, and I see Meredith

3:17:47 Mooney is at the podium is going to uh

3:17:50 begin the introduction of this Warren

3:17:52 article or these two Warren articles

3:17:54 really.

3:17:55 Good evening, Select Board. Thank you,

3:17:57 Chair Green. Meredith Mooney, economic

3:17:59 development director. Um, so here

3:18:01 tonight to present an update on the

3:18:03 Chestnut Hill uh commercial overlay

3:18:05 zoning package of warrant articles.

3:18:07 There are two articles. One is a

3:18:09 proposed set of amendments to the zoning

3:18:10 bylaw that would incorporate the

3:18:12 proposed overlay zoning. And then the

3:18:14 second is um authorization from town

3:18:18 meeting for the select board to enter

3:18:20 into a memorandum agreement as well as a

3:18:22 tax certainty agreement with city realy

3:18:24 uh which is the largest property owner

3:18:26 in the Chesnut Hill commercial area of

3:18:28 the Chesnut Hill office park which is at

3:18:30 1280 to 1330 Boilston Street.

3:18:32 Okay. And by the way, I'd like to have

3:18:34 the hearing for both warrant articles at

3:18:36 the same time unless anyone objects.

3:18:40 Okay, good.

3:18:41 Okay. Um, so for the purpose of this

3:18:43 evening, the select board um

3:18:48 has already held a public hearing before

3:18:49 the decision was made to move forward.

3:18:51 Could you speak up or speak in? I can't.

3:18:54 Is this better?

3:18:54 There you go.

3:18:55 Okay. Thank you.

3:18:57 [clears throat]

3:18:58 So, the select board has discussed the

3:19:01 uh proposed zoning and putting this on

3:19:03 the warrant several times over the past

3:19:05 couple of months,

3:19:05 many many times.

3:19:07 So, for [clears throat] the purpose of

3:19:07 tonight's meeting and my presentation,

3:19:10 um I think we were uh thinking that

3:19:13 select board member Michael Rubenstein

3:19:15 has a slide deck with a presentation

3:19:17 about the contents of the MOA. Um that's

3:19:20 not something that we've discussed um as

3:19:22 extensively within the context of public

3:19:23 meetings. So, we were thinking we might

3:19:25 start off with that and then I can

3:19:27 provide a series of updates about sort

3:19:29 of the status of the zoning. There have

3:19:31 been some changes in terms of friendly

3:19:33 amendments that we've um been gathering

3:19:36 and uh board and committee review that

3:19:38 we can provide updates on. The board has

3:19:40 also received several communications

3:19:41 from property owners within the Chestnut

3:19:43 Hill study area. So, I thought I would

3:19:45 just um bring everyone up to speed and

3:19:48 uh answer any questions and walk you

3:19:49 through some of the proposed friendly

3:19:51 amendments that we would like for you to

3:19:52 consider. Um, when you're ready to

3:19:54 formally amend the warrant article.

3:19:57 Great.

3:19:59 Do you want to bring up the slide deck?

3:20:01 Are you gonna speak from there or you

3:20:03 want to go?

3:20:04 Uh, what is your whatever is your

3:20:05 preference?

3:20:07 Speak from there.

3:20:08 Okay.

3:20:09 Uh, sorry, Michael. I have to go. I

3:20:11 didn't know I was driving the slide

3:20:12 deck. I got to go grab it.

3:20:13 Uh, so I'm not on the Zoom.

3:20:22 storm.

3:20:29 My apologies.

3:20:35 [laughter]

3:20:36 Oh.

3:20:46 Put it in the select word office and

3:20:48 No, no, no,

3:20:49 no. Sorry.

3:20:51 No, we don't want to take

3:20:52 responsibility.

3:20:52 Don't put it in.

3:20:54 Okay.

3:20:55 Yeah. I didn't mean you put it in, but

3:20:57 give it to us to put it in.

3:21:03 Can I Michael, can I just ask for a

3:21:05 timing? Like how long are we gonna will

3:21:07 it take to explain stuff?

3:21:11 hopefully five minutes or less. Okay.

3:21:13 I'm trying to be quick.

3:21:15 Okay.

3:21:17 Much appreciated.

3:21:22 [laughter]

3:21:24 It's a first.

3:21:25 So noted.

3:21:26 We'll put that in the minutes.

3:21:31 Okay.

3:21:34 Sorry, I'm having trouble finding the

3:21:35 slide deck.

3:21:40 I said, "I appreciate Regina making it

3:21:41 funny instead of giving us." [laughter]

3:21:45 No, that's okay. You didn't need to

3:21:46 hear.

3:21:48 It was a compliment.

3:22:06 Okay.

3:22:15 [snorts]

3:22:23 Did you find the

3:22:28 I think they might be trying to call it,

3:22:29 right? The owner might be trying to call

3:22:31 it.

3:22:31 Yeah. Yeah, that's right.

3:22:34 I do many things for this town.

3:22:36 [laughter]

3:22:37 And they're all appreciated.

3:22:40 Okay. So Warren article two is an

3:22:43 authorization uh for the select board to

3:22:45 enter into a memorandum of agreement and

3:22:48 a tax certainty agreement with city

3:22:49 realy. Next slide

3:23:00 or you can just scroll down. I I see it

3:23:02 there.

3:23:02 Sorry it's catching up.

3:23:06 Oh no,

3:23:08 it's not catching up.

3:23:14 be good practice for town meeting

3:23:16 Michael.

3:23:18 Okay.

3:23:18 Okay. So, as Meredith mentioned, City

3:23:21 Realy is the largest uh property owner

3:23:24 uh in the study area. They're

3:23:25 represented in this screen by the uh

3:23:27 large yellow uh block on the western

3:23:30 edge. Um you can see sort of a small

3:23:33 dashed line um which is the Newton

3:23:35 border which runs down the middle of um

3:23:39 Route Nine or Boilston Street in that

3:23:41 area um and then curves around the very

3:23:45 edge

3:23:47 of their site. Next slide.

3:23:50 What is the yellow parcel at the eastern

3:23:54 end?

3:23:54 Uh they also own that parcel but it's

3:23:57 not part of this agreement.

3:23:59 Okay, good.

3:24:01 Okay. And the next slide we can skip the

3:24:03 timeline. We've gone over this. Okay. So

3:24:06 within the MOA, uh there is a

3:24:08 description of the project that they

3:24:11 intend to build and the phasing. Uh it

3:24:13 consists of three projects. Buildings A

3:24:15 on the right, B and C. Uh A is a 14story

3:24:18 building that includes

3:24:21 retail, a hotel, condos, parking, two

3:24:24 and a half floors above ground and one

3:24:26 floor below ground. Uh there's a large

3:24:28 plaza between building A and building B.

3:24:30 Uh building B has two floors of retail,

3:24:33 two floors of parking, and eight floors

3:24:35 of medical office. And building C has

3:24:38 six floors of resident of rental

3:24:41 apartments and one floor, one floor of

3:24:44 parking above and one floor of parking

3:24:46 below ground.

3:24:48 Okay. Um

3:24:52 the planning department uh contracted

3:24:55 with RKG associates to come up with a

3:24:57 fiscal model to analyze the uh benefits

3:25:01 to the town. Um we have plugged in

3:25:04 parameters from city realy in terms of

3:25:06 the program that they intend to build as

3:25:08 well as market parameters for data like

3:25:11 uh the square foot rental for medical

3:25:14 office or retail space or the expected

3:25:16 rentals for the units and the costs of

3:25:19 the condos. Um and then use our budgets

3:25:22 in order to estimate costs for the

3:25:25 businesses and the residents of this

3:25:27 space. um and have come up with these

3:25:30 ranges of estimates um based on their

3:25:34 current design. Um so in the end the net

3:25:37 new tax growth is somewhere between 4.2

3:25:40 and $6.3 million per year of annual net

3:25:45 new tax growth. Uh and that takes into

3:25:48 account both the cost of services such

3:25:50 as schools and fire and police and other

3:25:53 town services as well as the cost uh as

3:25:56 well as the income that we already

3:25:58 received from these four parcels which

3:26:00 is roughly $1.1 million.

3:26:04 Okay.

3:26:06 There was a lot of questions about the

3:26:09 how much commercial um we would get out

3:26:12 of uh this project.

3:26:14 Um,

3:26:16 one of the select boards in uh,

3:26:19 directions for the creation of this

3:26:21 study was to incentivize net new

3:26:23 commercial tax growth. And there are

3:26:25 both mechanisms within the zoning and

3:26:27 the MOA in order to incentivize net new

3:26:31 tax growth uh, in the largest amount

3:26:34 possible. Um, the results of what the

3:26:37 program proposes in terms of the

3:26:38 percentage of the sites that are

3:26:40 commercial tax is measured in two ways.

3:26:43 um one you can measure it just by

3:26:44 comparing the square feet. Um but we've

3:26:47 also uh with the consultation from the

3:26:50 economic development advisory board uh

3:26:52 created a set of effective factors for

3:26:55 particular commercial uses. These are

3:26:57 uses that either benefit the town

3:27:00 economically such as a hotel which

3:27:02 provides excise tax as well as property

3:27:05 taxes or uses which were which reflect

3:27:09 neighborhood preferences such as small

3:27:12 retail or medium-sized retail um for

3:27:16 neighborhood uh access and use.

3:27:23 Okay.

3:27:26 So,

3:27:28 so now I'd like to go into actually it's

3:27:30 a series of four slides that talk about

3:27:32 the contents of the MOA. Uh, and I've

3:27:34 divided them into three sections. Um,

3:27:36 the first is a set of town benefits. Um,

3:27:40 in previous uh conversations we've

3:27:43 talked about the $24 million of

3:27:45 benefits. Most of that, though not all,

3:27:47 is described in this list. Uh it

3:27:49 includes the almost $11 million payment

3:27:53 to the affordable housing trust fund um

3:27:55 which is the largest uh payment set of

3:27:58 payments to the affordable housing trust

3:28:00 fund in its history. The second largest

3:28:02 one we talked about earlier which is the

3:28:04 well tower project on Fiser Hill. Um

3:28:07 there will be 21 units as reflected in

3:28:10 our inclusionary zoning bylaw within

3:28:12 section within building C um available

3:28:16 to people with 50% AMI or below. Um

3:28:20 for the first time we have established a

3:28:24 2% hard construction cost payment to the

3:28:28 town uh for improvements to our

3:28:30 infrastructure both uh transportation

3:28:33 streetscape and public safety

3:28:35 infrastructure. Uh based on the

3:28:36 estimates that we've gotten from city

3:28:38 realy of roughly $600 million in hard

3:28:43 construction costs, we're expecting

3:28:44 approximately $12 million of uh

3:28:48 infrastructure contributions to the

3:28:50 town. Um that will be paid out over the

3:28:52 course of the building projects. Um and

3:28:54 I'll talk about the details of that in a

3:28:57 couple of slides. Um there's also some

3:28:59 smaller uh benefits to the town. There's

3:29:03 uh contributions to nonprofits, access

3:29:05 to conference rooms, uh and they are

3:29:07 exploring the prospect of a business

3:29:09 improvement district. Next slide.

3:29:13 In addition to all those town benefits,

3:29:15 the MOA lays out a number of protections

3:29:17 for the town um that uh protect the town

3:29:21 from various adverse uh uh conditions or

3:29:26 risks um that we want to mitigate uh

3:29:29 that we would like to mitigate. Um the

3:29:33 first thing to note is both the MOA and

3:29:35 the tax certainty agreement will be

3:29:37 registered along the chain of title for

3:29:39 the four parcels um that make up the

3:29:42 city realy properties. Um the MOA will

3:29:46 get registered as soon as all of the

3:29:47 town conditions are met, which is

3:29:49 practically speaking when the AG

3:29:51 approves the town meeting warrant

3:29:53 articles. and the 95-year tax certainty

3:29:55 agreement for all four parcels will be

3:29:58 uh registered with the chain of title

3:30:00 upon delivery of the certificate of

3:30:02 occupancy for the first building. Um and

3:30:07 the the tax certainty agreements

3:30:11 registration is a condition of the MOA.

3:30:14 Um they have also agreed uh not to file

3:30:17 any 40B comprehensive permit

3:30:19 applications for as long as the MOA is

3:30:21 in force. um and the fossil and a number

3:30:25 of the other conditions below

3:30:27 fossil-free fuel buildings, the

3:30:29 transportation demand management plan,

3:30:31 etc. Um are all

3:30:34 uh special permit conditions within the

3:30:38 MOA. Um we have uh addressed concerns

3:30:43 expressed by the neighborhood um about

3:30:45 the possibility that they could uh build

3:30:48 one of the uh buildings or two of the

3:30:51 buildings and not complete the program.

3:30:53 Um so for building B uh which is the

3:30:55 medical office building which they have

3:30:57 said is will probably be the third

3:30:59 building that they pull a building for

3:31:01 permit for and construct. Um we have

3:31:04 introduc introduced penalties for delays

3:31:07 in the medical office building

3:31:08 construction. Um both delay there's

3:31:12 there is um a section of the zoning

3:31:15 which says that they can't get the

3:31:17 building uh the certificate of occupancy

3:31:19 for building C if they build that first

3:31:22 and they haven't broken ground and

3:31:24 delivered proof of financing for

3:31:26 building B. uh and there are additional

3:31:29 penalties for delays in the medical

3:31:31 office building in the case that they

3:31:34 actually break ground but they don't

3:31:36 actually complete the medical office

3:31:38 building within a certain number of

3:31:39 years. Uh and those penalties are

3:31:41 actually based on the assessed value of

3:31:44 the medical office building as the

3:31:47 building permit indicates would be

3:31:49 constructed. Um the construction

3:31:52 mitigation impact is is $400,000 set

3:31:55 aside for any parts of the streetscape

3:31:58 um that are damaged during the

3:32:01 construction process. Um and the

3:32:03 following

3:32:05 uh details the hotel occupancy, the

3:32:07 unvital vital unbundled parking fees,

3:32:10 the waste management plan for the

3:32:12 demolition um and the building cost

3:32:14 fundings are all separate items within

3:32:16 the MOA.

3:32:18 Next slide.

3:32:21 Um the third slide is a set of community

3:32:24 protections and benefits. So these are

3:32:26 all issues that um are uh either brought

3:32:29 up by the community members or offered

3:32:31 by city realy in order to make the site

3:32:35 more welcoming, accessible, and uh

3:32:38 integrated with the neighborhood. Um the

3:32:41 the first two are really uh the

3:32:44 significant uh uh neighborhood benefits.

3:32:48 Um we've agreed uh and city realy has

3:32:51 agreed that there will be no vehicular

3:32:53 access except for access by emergency

3:32:55 vehicles from Heath Street. Um that is

3:32:57 actually in the MOA and subsequent to

3:33:00 the MOA we also put this in the zoning.

3:33:03 Um

3:33:04 the pedestrian access path from Heath

3:33:06 Street to Boilston Street include um

3:33:09 access to the large side open space

3:33:11 directly from uh both ends as well. So

3:33:15 access to the um to the ground floor

3:33:19 retail will all be available um through

3:33:23 pedestrian access paths uh spanning the

3:33:26 property.

3:33:31 Sure.

3:33:33 Okay. Um the third item, the landscape

3:33:36 buffer at the western edge was a a

3:33:39 relatively recent addition uh uh that

3:33:42 came from a suggestion from the

3:33:43 neighborhood. Um but there is in

3:33:46 building C a pretty a long wall that

3:33:49 extends the the most of the length of

3:33:52 the western border of the site. Um and

3:33:54 there was concern about what the

3:33:56 presence of a sevenstory building wall

3:33:58 would be. So they have agreed uh within

3:34:00 the 40oot setback that we have uh

3:34:03 established on the western edge to uh

3:34:06 fill that with dense vegetation as well.

3:34:09 Um and um so that will that will both

3:34:12 serve as a sound buffer and a visual

3:34:15 buffer um to both the neighbors within

3:34:18 Brookline as well as the condo buildings

3:34:20 in Newton. Uh the public EV chargers,

3:34:23 the shuttle um and the signage dimming

3:34:25 after midnight are also conditions with

3:34:28 the MOA. Um and as Janice mentioned be

3:34:31 uh earlier during public comment, there

3:34:33 are additional neighborhood benefits

3:34:35 that are under negotiation between city

3:34:37 realy the uh precinct 14 and 15 TMM

3:34:40 which Janice is uh leading and the town.

3:34:46 [snorts]

3:34:47 Next slide. Um I wanted to just spend

3:34:50 one a few seconds on what there were

3:34:53 possible uses for the 2% hard

3:34:56 construction costs, the $12 million. Um,

3:34:59 these include uh the opportunity for

3:35:01 traffic improvement design and

3:35:03 implementation. Um, hopefully in

3:35:05 coordination with much larger

3:35:07 contributions by Mass DOT. Um, a blue

3:35:10 bike station is mentioned explicitly,

3:35:12 various streetscape improvements, trees,

3:35:14 benches, etc. Um and also public safety

3:35:18 in infrastructure is an option if we

3:35:20 choose to use it. Um which would include

3:35:24 uh potentially a ladder truck and

3:35:26 equipment.

3:35:28 Next slide.

3:35:31 The 95-year tax certainty agreement is

3:35:34 uh intended to protect the town from two

3:35:37 particular uh risks. Um the first risk

3:35:40 is that if a building is sold to a

3:35:43 taxexempt organization, um they are

3:35:46 exempt from pl paying property taxes to

3:35:48 the town. Uh the 95-year tax certainty

3:35:51 agreement says that if a building is

3:35:54 sold to a taxexempt organization, then

3:35:56 the owner must continue to make payments

3:35:58 to the town equal to what the property

3:36:00 taxes would have been. Uh there was a

3:36:02 question raised at the AC meeting last

3:36:04 night about whether those taxes would

3:36:07 increase over time and the answer is yes

3:36:09 because the calculation of those taxes

3:36:12 would be tied to the assessed value of

3:36:14 the building itself.

3:36:16 Uh the second protection built into the

3:36:18 95-year tax certainty agreement um and

3:36:21 this is I think not part of previous tax

3:36:24 certainty agreements that we have

3:36:26 engaged in is that is a protection for

3:36:28 the excise taxes of the hotel. Um so

3:36:31 that if the hotel is converted to a

3:36:33 different use then there's a calculation

3:36:35 that's performed based on um average

3:36:38 hotel excise taxes across the region. Um

3:36:42 and the owner must continue to make

3:36:43 payments to the town equal to those

3:36:46 hotel excise taxes. I've included in

3:36:49 your con for your convenience in the

3:36:50 slide deck a list of all of the terms

3:36:52 that have been established within the

3:36:54 MOA and where they're referenced in case

3:36:56 you need to know what the hotel and

3:36:58 condo buildings exist uh or what we

3:37:02 define as the town. Um and that is all I

3:37:05 have for any questions

3:37:09 and back to you Meredith.

3:37:11 Very good. Any questions from the select

3:37:13 board?

3:37:15 Paul.

3:37:16 Uh thanks Michael. Um, so we got a

3:37:20 couple of memos,

3:37:22 one from Dick Banka, uh, which I think

3:37:25 are some some amendments that have been

3:37:27 proposed. Maybe

3:37:29 some boards have already accepted them.

3:37:30 I I think some of these things may

3:37:32 impact the MOA. I don't know.

3:37:34 Um, [snorts] and then also Janice Khan's

3:37:38 um, work that she's doing.

3:37:40 Yes. So, can you can you let us know how

3:37:44 much is already incorporated into the

3:37:47 MOA, if anything, from what we've

3:37:49 received, or is that would that still

3:37:50 need to be done?

3:37:52 Okay. So, u Meredith, correct me if I'm

3:37:55 wrong, but I believe all of Mr. Banka's

3:37:57 proposals were amendments to Warren

3:37:59 Article One, and uh Ms. Mooney is going

3:38:04 to go over those, okay, subsequently. Um

3:38:07 some of those have been accepted as

3:38:08 friendly amendments, some of them have

3:38:10 not. Um or as proposed friendly

3:38:14 amendments, so proposed to the select

3:38:16 board. Um EDAB has reviewed some of the

3:38:19 some amendments um some additional

3:38:22 amendments uh proposed by uh Janice Khan

3:38:27 um and also proposed by Ken Lewis um and

3:38:32 also accepted by Janice Khan. So there's

3:38:34 sort of a few uh proposed friendly

3:38:38 amendments that fit into that bucket and

3:38:40 those Meredith will be going over all of

3:38:41 them with regard to what uh Janice is

3:38:44 referring to. So there there are really

3:38:47 three buckets of issues that that are

3:38:52 being worked amongst her proposal. The

3:38:54 first include a set of changes to the

3:38:57 zoning. um they're uh they're relatively

3:39:01 well understood but are being held while

3:39:04 we work a number of the issues to the

3:39:06 MOA so that that can all be sort of

3:39:09 brought together as as a cohesive set

3:39:11 because there are some inter

3:39:12 relationships between the zoning

3:39:14 amendments and the MOA. Um and then

3:39:17 there is a condition about the contents

3:39:20 of the design advisory team which really

3:39:22 has to be integrated with the planning

3:39:23 board and planning department and their

3:39:25 processes. Um, and those are still also

3:39:29 being worked.

3:39:29 So, there's some So, her stuff is is

3:39:32 still outstanding. It needs to be worked

3:39:34 on, which we're not voting tonight

3:39:35 anyway. But I just I would strongly

3:39:37 encourage first I want to I know she's

3:39:40 not here. She spoke earlier. Thank

3:39:41 Janice for her work.

3:39:43 Yeah.

3:39:43 Um, you know, she's been able to work

3:39:46 with um city and also their legal

3:39:50 representation to come to some

3:39:52 consensus. Um, which I think is

3:39:54 important for this thing to pass. I

3:39:56 think it greatly improves the

3:39:57 probability of this thing passing at

3:39:58 town meeting a two-thirds vote. And I'm

3:40:00 hoping that when this gets over to land

3:40:02 use, maybe they're taking it up tonight.

3:40:04 I'm not sure what.

3:40:05 No, they're not taking

3:40:06 they're not taking up tonight. Uh that

3:40:07 they will continue uh to uh seriously

3:40:11 consider those changes

3:40:12 and incorporate those so when it comes

3:40:14 back to us it's in a it's in a better

3:40:15 form. And I and I will also add to those

3:40:18 changes that um some of her changes um

3:40:22 provide additional mechanisms for the

3:40:25 town to work with other

3:40:29 um other property owners to create

3:40:32 memoranda of agreement and build those

3:40:35 relationship. So, so that's and I want

3:40:36 to follow up on that point if I may,

3:40:38 Bernard. But before I say that, I think

3:40:40 it would be really helpful uh for for

3:40:43 this effort if the board tonight could

3:40:46 in some way share back to advisory that

3:40:50 we would like to have them continue to

3:40:53 move forward seriously with the uh the

3:40:56 work that Janice has initiated and that

3:40:58 there's some agreement or I don't I

3:40:59 don't know the best way to do that. um

3:41:01 whether it's a

3:41:02 we don't know what what what uh her

3:41:04 proposals are yet. I mean

3:41:06 yeah so her so her proposals um which

3:41:09 are

3:41:10 I know they were not fully

3:41:12 yeah they but but I guess my point is um

3:41:15 Bernard is that uh she has agreement

3:41:18 with city and city has agreed with her

3:41:20 which is bringing the neighborhood along

3:41:22 and also the five that think we call

3:41:24 them the chestnut hill five the Tom mini

3:41:26 members um and again I don't even need

3:41:28 to know the details yet but um I I think

3:41:30 that AC uh the land use subcommittee

3:41:34 would benefit benefit from hearing from

3:41:36 us to say, I'm not saying which ones to

3:41:39 accept or not accept, but that work is

3:41:41 important to drive consensus to bring a

3:41:44 vote at town meeting that would exceed a

3:41:45 twothirds vote. I think that our

3:41:47 encouragement of that continued

3:41:49 collaboration would be good. Um, and

3:41:51 they can help adjudicate what would work

3:41:52 and what would not work and it will come

3:41:55 back to us. We're not going to be

3:41:56 editing articles tonight. So, that's

3:41:58 just my that's a suggestion how we do

3:42:01 that. We can talk about it or if we do

3:42:03 it.

3:42:04 Yeah. Um uh thank you to Michael for the

3:42:06 presentation. Thank you to Paul for the

3:42:08 comments. Um uh I I have um been advised

3:42:14 uh today uh that there in fact may be

3:42:18 yet another wrinkle to all of this. Um

3:42:21 if that's I hope that's the right word.

3:42:23 Um not disparaging that at all. um in

3:42:27 that

3:42:28 uh and this came out of a land use

3:42:30 committee uh meeting the other day, I'm

3:42:33 told. Um people are beginning to ask the

3:42:36 question uh why not just uh for now

3:42:41 stick to the the city realy owned

3:42:45 parcels since they're the only developer

3:42:48 that's really in front of us right now

3:42:50 with a plan. And an enormous amount of

3:42:52 work has been done towards figuring out

3:42:55 how zoning can be adjusted in a way that

3:42:59 allows them to go forward with a very

3:43:01 ambitious project and have it as they

3:43:04 say pencil out. You know, even with all

3:43:07 of these um kinds of concessions that

3:43:09 Michael has just been referencing. Um

3:43:12 and we haven't done that work with any

3:43:14 of the other developers. I mean, we

3:43:16 haven't even be begun to try to match

3:43:19 what might be

3:43:21 our proposed zoning changes or what are

3:43:24 in this prop the current proposal as as

3:43:26 proposed zoning changes to sort of

3:43:28 measure them against what are the likely

3:43:30 asks from those developers. And once

3:43:33 that happens, there's going to be, just

3:43:35 think about the process we've gone

3:43:36 through with Chestnut Hill West, uh, in

3:43:38 terms of trying to find some kind of,

3:43:40 excuse me, some kind of common ground

3:43:43 between, um, a zoning proposal and what

3:43:46 they are saying they need if if this is

3:43:49 going to be a financially feasible

3:43:50 development. Um, without there being a

3:43:53 proposal in front of us, we don't really

3:43:55 know what's going to happen to the

3:43:57 growth company's proposals. We don't

3:43:59 really know what's going to happen to

3:44:01 the what is it called? W and S

3:44:03 WS

3:44:03 WS development prop parcels.

3:44:06 Why why are we trying to solve that

3:44:08 problem? It's it's enough for one day to

3:44:11 solve the challenge of uh coming up with

3:44:14 acceptable zoning and an acceptable

3:44:16 development plan that will get

3:44:18 two-thirds vote at town meeting having

3:44:19 to do just with the city realy parcels.

3:44:22 So I you know my my reaction when I had

3:44:25 a conversation about this with someone

3:44:27 was I can't believe that this didn't

3:44:29 really occur to people until just within

3:44:32 the past week and the reaction of the

3:44:35 person I was speaking to was neither can

3:44:37 I and neither can anybody but all of a

3:44:39 sudden people are seriously talking

3:44:41 about that and I think it deserves

3:44:43 serious consideration. Um and so I just

3:44:45 want to put that out in front of people.

3:44:46 I know it's out there and I think people

3:44:48 are going to be hearing about it. John

3:44:50 David.

3:44:52 So I just want uh I echo [clears throat]

3:44:54 John's sentiments especially in the area

3:44:56 of the tax certainty agreement. I do

3:44:59 have some concern about providing

3:45:03 upzoning without a guarantee

3:45:06 uh a tax certainty agreement because why

3:45:09 would we exactly so zoning is our

3:45:11 leverage for a tax certainty agreement

3:45:14 with city realy we're going to have an

3:45:15 MOA we don't yet have MOAS with the

3:45:20 other parcel owners now I'm not saying

3:45:22 it's impossible that we could reach some

3:45:25 kind of MOA agreement with some of the

3:45:28 others even if it's very limited. Uh I

3:45:31 I'm a little concerned because town

3:45:33 meetings rapidly approaching, but I

3:45:34 don't completely foreclose that

3:45:36 possibility. And so I'm wondering if

3:45:38 tonight we'll hear a little bit more

3:45:40 about growth companies plans, WS's

3:45:43 plans, where they are in terms of

3:45:46 possibly entering into MOA agreements,

3:45:49 agreeing to tax certainty agreements.

3:45:52 And then I also want to uh emphasize a

3:45:56 point Paul made earlier in a slightly

3:45:58 different context regarding the

3:46:01 communication to the land use

3:46:03 subcommittee about the vital importance

3:46:06 of uh respecting the fact that Janice

3:46:10 Khan, the Ches Hill advisory group and

3:46:13 city realy are essentially in agreement

3:46:15 on most points and I think that message

3:46:18 needs to be relayed because that

3:46:21 obviously shows that uh there's buyin

3:46:24 from two camps that not so long ago

3:46:26 seemed that they were very far apart. So

3:46:28 that's very positive news.

3:46:31 I I guess my concern is they know that

3:46:33 when Janice is up there talking to them

3:46:35 now.

3:46:37 So So what I mean

3:46:40 we're telling them something that they

3:46:41 know. I mean how are they going to take

3:46:42 that? I Bernard, I think I think that um

3:46:46 we we don't give ourselves credit for

3:46:50 kind of the weight of our words um and

3:46:53 on something that is this impactful and

3:46:55 the work that Mike I mean you've done an

3:46:56 amazing job. I think everybody has um

3:46:59 but it's still risky to see this pass a

3:47:01 town meeting and to hear from the board

3:47:03 that we are encouraged I don't know what

3:47:05 words you want to use but we're

3:47:07 encouraged that there seems to be a

3:47:09 breakthrough with some agreement of

3:47:11 consensus with the neighborhood uh South

3:47:15 Brooklyn uh town meeting members and

3:47:17 city realy and we would encourage that

3:47:20 that that we go in that direction

3:47:22 somehow positively send that I don't

3:47:24 know what the words are to use but I

3:47:25 think it's important to do I I think I

3:47:27 think what we say does matter, Bernard.

3:47:29 Well, I agree that.

3:47:30 Yeah.

3:47:32 As longudge as long as it doesn't clash.

3:47:35 We're not committing. We're just

3:47:36 nudging. [laughter]

3:47:38 [clears throat]

3:47:39 Michael,

3:47:40 I I also want to respect the fact that

3:47:42 Chaz had his hand. Okay. Um, so to some

3:47:46 of your points, there is more to present

3:47:48 and I I would encourage us to uh uh give

3:47:54 Miss Money the floor again um to talk to

3:47:58 both uh the question that you raised

3:48:00 Paul about or David about the other

3:48:03 owners um and the other amendments.

3:48:09 Okay.

3:48:09 Thank you.

3:48:10 Is yours Meredith? So, um, overview of

3:48:14 what I want to cover in terms of what I

3:48:15 think are the important [clears throat]

3:48:17 updates to highlight.

3:48:19 Last week, um, and this week, a busy

3:48:23 week in terms of public hearings and

3:48:24 board and committee votes on the

3:48:26 proposed warrant articles. Uh last week

3:48:29 on Monday, EDAB uh voted favorable

3:48:32 unanimously favorable action on special

3:48:34 town meeting one, but then um separately

3:48:36 they also endorsed a scope of friendly

3:48:38 amendments that staff presented which

3:48:39 I'm going to share with you this

3:48:40 evening.

3:48:42 Between Monday and Thursday, the scope

3:48:45 of what was included in those proposed

3:48:47 uh friendly amendments expanded to

3:48:48 include some of um the proposed

3:48:50 amendments that um Mr. Banka had

3:48:52 submitted. So the planning board and HAB

3:48:55 have met in a joint public hearing

3:48:56 regarding special town meeting warrant

3:48:58 article one. Um the planning board uh

3:49:01 voted in a vote of um six in support one

3:49:04 abstension for favorable action on the

3:49:05 zoning warrant article and endorsed um

3:49:07 unanimously the proposed set of friendly

3:49:09 amendments. They also adopted um subject

3:49:13 to town meeting approval the set of

3:49:15 design guidelines which is a companion

3:49:16 piece that the planning board will be

3:49:18 using as reference as they review

3:49:19 applications that come through uh the

3:49:21 Chesnut Hill Overlay District. Those

3:49:23 were approved unanimously. Housing

3:49:25 advisory board unanimous vote for

3:49:26 favorable action on special town meeting

3:49:28 one and then also unanim unanimously

3:49:31 endorsed uh the scope of amendments

3:49:33 presented.

3:49:35 Upcoming public hearings. Last night we

3:49:37 were at uh advisory land use

3:49:39 subcommittee. That meeting has been

3:49:40 continued to April 22nd. Um we have

3:49:43 backto-back public hearing commitments

3:49:44 on April 22nd. We'll also be going to

3:49:46 the housing advisory board. They voted

3:49:48 on the zoning, but they also would like

3:49:49 to um hold a public hearing and

3:49:51 potentially vote on warrant article 2.

3:49:54 Um prior to that, what day is it? So,

3:49:57 when uh tomorrow, we'll actually be at

3:49:58 the zoning emissions advisory board for

3:50:00 a public hearing. We'll be going back to

3:50:02 the planning board on April 16th because

3:50:04 um they wanted the opportunity to uh

3:50:07 vote it to support to endor or review

3:50:10 any additional um proposed friendly

3:50:11 amendments. Um and then our we're slated

3:50:15 to go before full advisory on April

3:50:17 30th.

3:50:19 So, uh just an update. Um there's been

3:50:21 several communications that the town

3:50:23 select board have received from property

3:50:25 owners within the Chesnut Hill

3:50:26 commercial area. So, just for the sake

3:50:27 of giving getting everyone on the same

3:50:29 page and summarizing where things stand.

3:50:32 Uh so, the light green here is WS

3:50:34 development. They own the street uh on

3:50:37 the Newton side and uh WS has I believe

3:50:41 it was last week they submitted a letter

3:50:43 formally opposing the zoning. They're

3:50:45 concerned about the minimum parking

3:50:48 requirements in the particularly in the

3:50:50 4.0 subdist where the city realy

3:50:52 redevelopment proposal would be. Um

3:50:55 they're concerned that there's the

3:50:56 potential for a development to be

3:50:58 underparked. Um and given that the

3:51:01 adequate parking capacity wouldn't be

3:51:03 provided that would increase demand for

3:51:05 their surface parking um and create a

3:51:07 lot of operational challenges for them

3:51:10 um in the management of their property.

3:51:12 You also received uh a letter from the

3:51:15 green properties here. This is Salvatore

3:51:17 Capital Properties. Uh they um have come

3:51:20 out and uh supported the zoning. And

3:51:23 then there was also a letter from

3:51:26 Chestnut Hill Realy Ventures which is

3:51:29 the Heath and Chief 40B developer.

3:51:31 They're uh received their comprehensive

3:51:34 permit. It's under litigation. You know

3:51:35 they intend to follow through with that

3:51:36 but they did expressed um interest in

3:51:39 sort of the outcomes and uh you know

3:51:41 giving serious consideration to any

3:51:42 alternative redevelopment pathways that

3:51:44 might be presented to them as part of

3:51:46 this overlay zoning.

3:51:48 So for growth companies I have a couple

3:51:50 other slides. Um I'm not quite sure

3:51:52 where they stand in terms of formally uh

3:51:55 supporting or opposing the zoning at

3:51:56 this point. Um but we we did continue to

3:51:59 have conversations with them about

3:52:00 additional amendments beyond the

3:52:01 amendments that you considered before

3:52:03 you finalized the special town meeting

3:52:04 warrant article um on March 17th.

3:52:09 Can I ask a quick question? Yes. Just to

3:52:11 clarify on on WS development. Um they

3:52:13 did they opposed it for the parking

3:52:15 minimums as you mentioned, but they also

3:52:17 have very significant concern about the

3:52:18 traffic pattern. uh they raised that as

3:52:21 well as in their uh in their letter

3:52:23 asking for an independent uh traffic uh

3:52:27 study or review. Is that correct?

3:52:29 Yes, I think

3:52:30 I think that's important that when they

3:52:31 when when we talk about that letter,

3:52:33 there was two really big points and it

3:52:35 wasn't just about parking minimums.

3:52:37 Thank you.

3:52:39 So, this is an excerpt from uh the

3:52:42 letter that we received from Salvatore

3:52:44 Capital um property partners. Um and I

3:52:47 think it helpful sort of um concise

3:52:50 summary of really what we're trying to

3:52:52 do in terms of providing the zoning

3:52:54 framework um to create more incentives

3:52:56 for property owners to you know look for

3:52:59 meaningful redevelopment and

3:53:00 reinvestment in their sites which they

3:53:02 feel the current zoning really does not

3:53:03 provide.

3:53:05 So uh recent proposed and requested

3:53:07 zoning changes. I'm going to talk about

3:53:09 growth companies. We can I'm going to

3:53:11 pull up a word document and we're going

3:53:13 to review some track changes which we

3:53:14 can go through quickly. Um and then I

3:53:16 will talk about um answer any questions,

3:53:20 talk more about um Mr. Banka's proposed

3:53:22 amendments. I was prepared to talk about

3:53:24 the um amendments Janice Khan had

3:53:27 proposed, but it sounds like that still

3:53:29 needs some additional thought and we can

3:53:30 really tackle that in AC subcommittee

3:53:32 discussions and circle back.

3:53:35 So growth companies on the left side,

3:53:38 these are all of their requests that

3:53:39 they raised back in mid-March where they

3:53:42 really felt that the current overlay

3:53:44 zoning did not provide any pathways for

3:53:47 them to um redevelop their properties.

3:53:49 They asked for some accommodations uh

3:53:51 which the select board um with input

3:53:54 from the economic development advisory

3:53:55 board agreed to incorporate into the

3:53:56 zoning sort of resolving the the most

3:53:59 significant hurdles um uh as presented

3:54:03 by growth companies. Um we continued uh

3:54:06 to have conversations with them about

3:54:07 some additional proposed amendments. Um

3:54:10 and in reviewing these at the staff

3:54:11 level um and we have circled back to

3:54:13 growth company's legal representation to

3:54:15 sort of relay our conclusions. We feel

3:54:17 that several of these are adequately

3:54:18 addressed in the zoning and they were

3:54:20 asking for a level of specificity that

3:54:21 we weren't providing um for any other

3:54:24 potential property owners or developers

3:54:26 in the study area. um and that you know

3:54:28 ultimately it would be through the

3:54:30 design review process and special permit

3:54:32 process that you know the the required

3:54:34 zoning setbacks were going to land where

3:54:35 they were going to land. Um but we do

3:54:37 feel like in order to meet the

3:54:39 dimensional requirements they were

3:54:41 saying that they would need particularly

3:54:42 for the Tully Street lot the

3:54:43 opportunities exist for them in the

3:54:45 current zoning. The one um uh proposed

3:54:48 amendment that we think is reasonable

3:54:50 and we're happy to continue working with

3:54:51 them on, but it is was ruled out of

3:54:53 scope by the moderator is the idea of

3:54:55 adding different stepback requirements

3:54:57 for um uh developments that are sort of

3:54:59 in that lower scale. They're proposing

3:55:01 buildings that don't exceed seven

3:55:02 stories. The stepback requirements were

3:55:04 really um contemplating larger um uh

3:55:08 taller scale development. So again,

3:55:11 we've conveyed to growth companies,

3:55:12 their legal representation that we think

3:55:14 this is reasonable. We're willing to

3:55:16 continue to work with them with proposed

3:55:17 amendments to the zoning um perhaps as

3:55:19 their own development proposal becomes a

3:55:23 little bit more clearly defined.

3:55:24 A quick question I have on that around a

3:55:26 tax certainty agreement. Have they

3:55:29 expressed a willingness to do that? At

3:55:31 what point would we have an answer to

3:55:33 that? So um and I and I can circle back

3:55:36 to the very important kind of critical

3:55:38 question raised by um select board

3:55:41 member Ven Skoak and um we we've

3:55:44 discussed this before in discussions

3:55:46 about this proposed resoning. Um the

3:55:50 challenge with city real or sorry the

3:55:51 challenge with growth companies and

3:55:53 being able to uh negotiate an MOA where

3:55:56 a tax certainty agreement might be part

3:55:58 of that MOA is that the proposal that

3:56:01 they have submitted includes property.

3:56:03 They're in the process of assembling the

3:56:04 residential properties facing Heath

3:56:07 Street that abut their commercial

3:56:08 properties that front onto Boilston

3:56:09 Street. but they do not currently own or

3:56:12 control all of the properties that they

3:56:14 would need in order to follow through

3:56:16 with the development proposal that they

3:56:17 shared with us. So we it would not make

3:56:21 any sense for the town to go through the

3:56:23 exercise of negotiating an MOA, an

3:56:25 attack certainty agreement on property

3:56:26 that growth companies

3:56:29 has no control over um and that couldn't

3:56:31 get into the chain of title. So that's

3:56:33 really an obstacle specific to growth

3:56:35 companies in terms of our ability to you

3:56:37 know even if their proposal which is

3:56:39 still very conceptual at this point was

3:56:40 further along. Um the fact that includes

3:56:43 property they don't owned means we

3:56:45 wouldn't be able to do that. However, in

3:56:47 the zoning, we currently have two and

3:56:49 depending on the outcomes of um Miss

3:56:52 Khan's proposed amendments, there could

3:56:53 be a third potential sort of placeholder

3:56:55 that we have strategically included in

3:56:57 the zoning that would um provide relief

3:57:00 from certain zoning requirements subject

3:57:02 to an agreement with the select board.

3:57:04 And those discussions about an agreement

3:57:06 for relief from certain aspects of the

3:57:08 zoning are going to be the future select

3:57:09 board's opportunity to um broach the

3:57:12 subject of an MOA and tax certainty

3:57:13 agreement. Paul.

3:57:15 Yeah. So, um, thanks, Meredith. And I I

3:57:18 want to I'm gonna kind of zero in a

3:57:20 little bit on John's comments and D and

3:57:22 David's, um, because they got me

3:57:24 thinking here. Um, but you know,

3:57:26 Michael, uh, rightly so, asked me a

3:57:29 while back, Paul, would you want the

3:57:32 zoning to be brought forward and

3:57:33 approved by town meeting without a

3:57:35 memorandum of agreement and a tax

3:57:36 certainty agreement in place? And my

3:57:38 answer was, hell no. Those that's a

3:57:41 package. We need that, right? because we

3:57:44 wouldn't want to give away the zoning

3:57:45 because that's our leverage without

3:57:47 getting an MOA or tax certainty

3:57:49 agreement. Why are we willing to do that

3:57:51 with growth companies or these other

3:57:52 parcels? I mean, I don't understand why

3:57:55 we're giving away our leverage

3:57:58 to negotiate. I just let me get I know

3:58:01 you're his hands up and your hands up.

3:58:02 If I could just get my question out, I'd

3:58:04 really appreciate it. Thank you. Um

3:58:07 gosh.

3:58:08 um why would we give away our leverage

3:58:12 uh with growth companies or WS or

3:58:15 whoever these other land owners are? Um

3:58:18 but we're not willing to give it away

3:58:20 with city. What we this whole project

3:58:24 we've spent 90% of our time talking

3:58:28 about city realy every conversation is

3:58:30 about city realy. Your whole

3:58:31 presentation was about city realy,

3:58:33 right? MOA, a tax certainty agreement.

3:58:36 Every public hearing I go to, I've sat

3:58:38 on EDAB for a year. Um, it was all about

3:58:42 city realy's program. We never talked

3:58:44 about the rest of the zoning that I can

3:58:47 remember. There was no attention on it.

3:58:49 Why on earth are we giving away our

3:58:52 leverage

3:58:55 with zoning without having an MOA in a

3:58:58 taxon agreement for these other major

3:59:00 parcels which is part of the comp plan

3:59:01 by the way um but we're not willing to

3:59:03 do it for city

3:59:05 um I'm sorry

3:59:07 I mean this is it's just I didn't mean

3:59:10 to try and cut you off um

3:59:14 when we started this now more than two

3:59:16 years ago it was about the zoning at

3:59:19 large

3:59:20 and there is there are ample

3:59:23 opportunities through the special permit

3:59:25 process through this through what

3:59:28 Meredith is talking about you know you

3:59:30 know conditioning things on approval of

3:59:32 the select board that allow you to still

3:59:35 have that um that opportunity for tax

3:59:39 certainty if they want to do things

3:59:41 above and beyond but there's also this

3:59:43 question of right like do you want to

3:59:45 like Salvatore for example you know Like

3:59:49 if we're like we didn't go into this

3:59:52 under the assumption that for every

3:59:54 single project large or small we would

3:59:56 need to be able to do this in order to

3:59:58 get a tax certainty agreement for larger

4:00:00 scale projects. I think you're right.

4:00:02 You want to make sure that you're not

4:00:03 you know creating and [clears throat]

4:00:05 setting that up. But

4:00:08 the I'm just you know I what I go back

4:00:10 to is you know first principles of this

4:00:13 entire operation was when this started

4:00:16 it was about reszoning this in an

4:00:19 optimal way that would encourage

4:00:21 development but still retain the

4:00:24 opportunity for us to

4:00:27 make sure that larger scale projects

4:00:29 were subject to thing controls like tax

4:00:31 certainty agreements. And the way you

4:00:32 can do that is not just through zoning,

4:00:34 if I'm correct me if I'm wrong, but

4:00:36 there are

4:00:38 steps along the way that allow you to

4:00:40 ensure that if you're going to get

4:00:42 something big, you've got to have a tax

4:00:44 certainty agreement in place. Um, so I

4:00:47 don't necessarily think that you give up

4:00:49 all of your leverage with the zoning.

4:00:51 And I think a little bit of it is the

4:00:52 sort of chicken and egg problem. are you

4:00:54 going to you know in the city realy case

4:00:57 you're fortunate in the sense that you

4:00:59 have a willing developer to talk through

4:01:01 this and you're developing this in

4:01:02 concert what we lack in some of these

4:01:04 other parcels is that partner either

4:01:07 they're not far enough along like growth

4:01:08 companies or they're not willing to do

4:01:10 it right now like WS or they are

4:01:13 somewhere somewhere in between like

4:01:15 Salvatore where they say we we we would

4:01:18 love the opportunity to think about

4:01:19 redeveloping this parcel but we wouldn't

4:01:21 do it unless we knew that the town was

4:01:23 serious about, you know, giving us a

4:01:25 platform off of which to work. And so

4:01:27 the zoning is the opportunity to provide

4:01:30 that platform. Um, but there's also

4:01:32 protections that are can be built into

4:01:34 that that where if they need to

4:01:36 ultimately negotiate with the town.

4:01:38 There are things like the special permit

4:01:40 process and then there are things like

4:01:42 if there needs to be changes to the

4:01:44 zoning to accommodate an idea that they

4:01:46 have that is broader than what we

4:01:47 initially intended,

4:01:48 then they go back to town meeting. And

4:01:50 as part of town meeting, you say, "Hey,

4:01:52 tax certainty agreement. Let's go. Um,

4:01:53 I'm sorry, Meredith. I will let M.

4:01:55 And just to build off of that last

4:01:56 comment, Chz, it's also a very different

4:01:58 discussion for a developer to approach

4:02:01 the town requesting modifications to an

4:02:03 existing zoning overlay as opposed to

4:02:06 showing up to the town to start from

4:02:08 square one on a long, unpredictable,

4:02:11 expensive, time-consuming process to

4:02:13 reszone their property.

4:02:15 So,

4:02:16 so I I and I appreciate I appreciate

4:02:19 both your comments. I think that that

4:02:22 when you when you if we were to upzone

4:02:26 the whole area, right,

4:02:29 you're already giving away if if they

4:02:32 fit within that range of zoning, you're

4:02:34 not going to get an MOA for public

4:02:37 benefits and all the stuff that you've

4:02:38 gotten or how they develop it or when

4:02:40 they develop it or the tax certain

4:02:41 agreement if they stay within the

4:02:42 framework. Why give that away now? Um,

4:02:45 this is like the last

4:02:47 Go ahead. I'm sorry. I'm just I'm almost

4:02:49 done. You know, this is the this when we

4:02:51 looked we just did a mapping the other

4:02:52 night uh uh with the comprehensive plan.

4:02:56 This is a this is considered a major

4:02:58 major major transformative area. Um and

4:03:02 we should be doing it through special

4:03:04 negotiations. Frankly, we now have a

4:03:06 framework uh that the public and the

4:03:09 developers now understand that we're

4:03:10 working towards. Hopefully through the

4:03:13 work that's been done and through

4:03:14 agreements with city realy, we can prove

4:03:17 to other developers that own or other

4:03:20 land owners there that we're serious

4:03:21 about developing the area. Right? You

4:03:24 don't have to pass zoning for something

4:03:26 where we don't have any agreements with

4:03:28 them to demonstrate that we're willing

4:03:30 to re reszone with them and partner with

4:03:33 them because we're just doing it with

4:03:34 city. So again, I just I want to give

4:03:37 credence to this idea that David and

4:03:39 John have kind of percolated up that

4:03:43 there really is no compelling reason

4:03:46 right now to reszone the other areas.

4:03:50 We've done a lot of good work. Doesn't

4:03:52 mean it has to go away, but we really

4:03:54 should be focusing on city realy and

4:03:57 getting that done. Um, and going back

4:03:59 when when these other land owners are

4:04:01 ready to go, they can see the framework

4:04:04 that we've used, how serious we are, how

4:04:06 to get it done through town meeting. I

4:04:08 think that might be a better way to go.

4:04:10 Meredith, you wanted to

4:04:13 say something.

4:04:14 I I think

4:04:15 or maybe I maybe you didn't I thought

4:04:18 you raised your hand. So just to um

4:04:21 circle back to this I think

4:04:24 in EDAB as you know listening to those

4:04:26 conversations there is sort of this

4:04:28 acknowledgement of the town's practice

4:04:30 which you have traditionally done of you

4:04:32 wait for a developer to knock on your

4:04:33 door for your opportunity to negotiate

4:04:35 you get your MOA your tax certainty

4:04:37 agreement

4:04:38 is perhaps not serving the town's goals

4:04:41 in in terms of expanding the commercial

4:04:43 tax base diversifying the commercial tax

4:04:45 base in that you are not sending clear

4:04:50 signals to developers. Us having a

4:04:52 proposed set of zoning I don't think is

4:04:55 going to be sufficient to encourage

4:04:57 developers to like talk to us about

4:04:59 this. If town meeting approves the

4:05:01 zoning that's very different. That's a

4:05:03 very it's a real more tangible thing. Um

4:05:06 so what I think and what EDAP has been

4:05:09 talking about is like there needs to be

4:05:10 a balance where the town can proactively

4:05:12 pursue create incentives clearly

4:05:14 demonstrate that there is an openness to

4:05:17 redevelopment um you know in appropriate

4:05:19 areas at an appropriate scale ju just to

4:05:22 let me finish um and what I think in the

4:05:24 Chesn Hill overlay is that the you're

4:05:29 doing both so we have achieved both the

4:05:33 securing protections um an attack

4:05:35 certainty agreement and an additional

4:05:37 set of packages for the largest most

4:05:39 significant economic development

4:05:41 redevelopment opportunity the town has

4:05:43 period we have that it's for your

4:05:45 consideration we're asking town meeting

4:05:46 to authorize um your ability to to

4:05:48 execute that agreement

4:05:50 while also pro providing a planning

4:05:53 framework for the rest of the commercial

4:05:54 area so that the rest so the rest of the

4:05:57 area as this catalytic parcel is

4:05:58 redeveloped is prime for redevelopment

4:06:02 so it does both things that the town

4:06:04 needs to to achieve in order to advance

4:06:06 the goals of expanding the commercial

4:06:08 tax base.

4:06:09 Amy,

4:06:10 so I I appreciate this feedback. And

4:06:12 then in addition, there's also probably

4:06:15 the issue of coherence between parcels.

4:06:17 You don't want a situation where the

4:06:19 neighboring parcel has something

4:06:21 completely different that's incompatible

4:06:24 with one parcel over. So I appreciate

4:06:26 those aspects. But with respect to the

4:06:28 tax certainty agreement and having a

4:06:30 provision about uh select board offering

4:06:34 uh relief, could we hear from town

4:06:37 council about the limitations on that

4:06:39 about building that into the zoning?

4:06:41 Sure.

4:06:42 So, yeah, we can. Yeah. Right. The the

4:06:43 short answer is you can't force someone

4:06:45 to sign a tax certainty agreement. You

4:06:46 can offer an incentive for them to enter

4:06:48 into a tax certainty agreement, but you

4:06:50 can't force it. Um uh because that's an

4:06:53 unlawful we you know town council is

4:06:55 currently at advisory but I can have him

4:06:57 come back and I see I'm here.

4:06:59 Oh I'm sorry Jonathan you're online. Um

4:07:01 go ahead. I don't I didn't mean to speak

4:07:03 for town council's office. Sorry.

4:07:05 Oh no it's fine. I I think that that the

4:07:08 we were able to based on what growth

4:07:10 companies was telling us which is that

4:07:13 we we need this provision this this uh

4:07:16 loosening of the phasing provision in

4:07:19 order to proceed. We were able to again

4:07:22 uh utilize the leverage in that

4:07:24 situation to say that's absolut we we

4:07:27 are willing to entertain that however um

4:07:30 we'll entertain it um by you know upon

4:07:35 you know at at the discretion of the

4:07:37 select board. So, the zoning allows for

4:07:39 it. You can have it, but you have to

4:07:41 come to the select board. And I think

4:07:42 we're making it very clear that there

4:07:44 that agreement with the select board is

4:07:48 um something that is very much we're

4:07:51 contemplating will involve a a tax

4:07:53 certainty agreement. Um we don't we we

4:07:56 can't specify that but the the agree the

4:08:00 getting the agreement of the select

4:08:01 board uh in in this in this case is is

4:08:04 you know it's if you guys have

4:08:06 prioritize a tax certainty agreement

4:08:08 then that's what you can you can then

4:08:10 require. But if we're already providing

4:08:12 them the [clears throat] amendments to

4:08:15 the zoning that enable their project to

4:08:18 move forward as they envision it, then

4:08:20 why would they exercise that clause to

4:08:25 speak with the select board?

4:08:26 Because we haven't given them the

4:08:28 because [laughter]

4:08:29 because the because that the they have

4:08:31 again we're basing this on what they've

4:08:33 told us which is that we can't use this

4:08:35 zoning. We're only going to support this

4:08:38 zoning if it has if you loosen a

4:08:41 critical provision related to phasing

4:08:43 and we have made we have gated that

4:08:46 loosening behind a future agreement with

4:08:48 the select

4:08:49 right and again that's that's kind of

4:08:51 how the system is right is is supposed

4:08:54 to work right you know they say okay

4:08:57 this is a good start but we can't do

4:08:59 what we want to do because we can't do

4:09:00 everything and they said we've said okay

4:09:03 well then you need to go to the board

4:09:05 and what the board is likely to ask of

4:09:06 you is to enter into a tax certainty

4:09:08 agreement in order to get the rest of

4:09:09 the way there. To Meredith's point,

4:09:12 right, it is so much easier to start

4:09:16 from that base of shared understanding,

4:09:18 but then, you know, have 90% or not even

4:09:21 90%, it's less than 90%, because the

4:09:23 phasing is so integral to what they want

4:09:24 to do from an economic perspective. They

4:09:27 say it doesn't work unless, you know,

4:09:29 we've built we've built the car, but we

4:09:30 can't turn the key. Um, we don't have

4:09:32 the we don't have the key to turn. You

4:09:34 have the key. the select board has the

4:09:35 key and the only way you're going to

4:09:36 hand the keys over is if they give you

4:09:38 what you want. Um, and that's that

4:09:41 creates

4:09:43 a better structure because I think what

4:09:46 this goes back to and what Merith is

4:09:48 saying and what Edab is saying is,

4:09:51 you know,

4:09:53 we have this perception that it's hard

4:09:54 to do business here. Um, and we have

4:09:57 this and it gets borne out this idea

4:10:00 that, you know, so so much uncertainty

4:10:04 that's built into our processes that it

4:10:06 becomes difficult to to establish trust

4:10:10 and build things out. So having a

4:10:13 baseline of zoning that makes it easier

4:10:15 to get the rest of the way there, a

4:10:17 staging zoning that if there are smaller

4:10:20 projects that go in there that use that

4:10:23 zoning and are 100% fine, so be it. Um,

4:10:26 do you run the risk potentially of a

4:10:28 nonprofit swooping in there and taking

4:10:29 that? Maybe. That is a that is a risk.

4:10:32 Um but it's also part of this broader

4:10:35 you know framework of do we want to

4:10:39 create sort of a new paradigm where we

4:10:41 say

4:10:42 it's you know Brookline is a place where

4:10:45 you can do business where you can you

4:10:47 know you know where you do have this

4:10:51 friendly framework that can be modified

4:10:54 um if you want to do something bigger or

4:10:56 slightly different um and you know

4:11:00 basically kind of reset those

4:11:02 expectations. Um, you know, when we

4:11:04 spoke to um the mayor in Newton, you

4:11:08 know, it was an it was an interesting

4:11:09 conversation, you know, and there there

4:11:11 was that dialogue, too, of like, well,

4:11:12 why are you doing it this way? Like, we

4:11:15 just wait for developers to knock on our

4:11:16 door. I said, you know, but I, you know,

4:11:20 that is one way of doing business, but I

4:11:22 don't necessarily think, especially

4:11:24 given the difference between the city

4:11:26 and town forms of government, um, we

4:11:29 maybe we want to be in that space.

4:11:32 U Michael.

4:11:33 Um

4:11:35 first of all uh thank you John for

4:11:38 raising this question and uh it uh

4:11:42 contrary to to the conversation you had

4:11:44 I I will say that this is not a new

4:11:47 question. Um it's it's actually existed

4:11:50 in the conversations of the community

4:11:52 advisory group in the past and and other

4:11:54 conversations over the last couple of

4:11:56 years. So that's point number one. Uh

4:11:58 point number two um I want to reiterate

4:12:00 the point that Meredith made about the

4:12:02 fact that the largest commercial site is

4:12:05 we have under protection and we have the

4:12:07 mechanism as Chaz described it for for

4:12:12 the growth companies and if you look at

4:12:14 the at the map you know you will notice

4:12:17 that between those companies and for

4:12:21 example the the NMU area which is which

4:12:25 is smaller scale um and not necessarily

4:12:28 as commercially related. Like one of the

4:12:32 things that we're balancing, as Chaz

4:12:34 said, is the risks of of of of

4:12:39 an taxexempt organization taking control

4:12:42 of one of these one of these sites. Um,

4:12:44 and that risk relative to the risk of of

4:12:50 not being able to develop because we

4:12:52 haven't laid out the framework and the

4:12:54 difficulties there. um I think way in

4:12:59 the sense that we should do things you

4:13:02 know

4:13:03 do things in order to get that framework

4:13:05 present so that we have the

4:13:07 opportunities to move forward um and I'm

4:13:11 a little unclear in the ma in the

4:13:14 framing of this argument that we should

4:13:15 be doing this one at a time how we think

4:13:19 about comprehensive planning broadly in

4:13:23 the town

4:13:24 um because because I I mean I would love

4:13:26 to have an an answer to

4:13:29 happy to answer that but before

4:13:30 Well, wait. Okay, John.

4:13:32 Yeah, I'm sorry, Paul. I didn't mean to.

4:13:33 That's okay. I think I did have my hand

4:13:35 up. Yeah.

4:13:36 Um so I I Meredith, excellent answer. Uh

4:13:41 Chaz, excellent answer. Um I I think

4:13:44 people who had that conversation with me

4:13:46 this afternoon um are going to seriously

4:13:48 think about those answers. But I think

4:13:51 they would also ask and these are people

4:13:53 from the community advisory group. Um I

4:13:55 would specify um they they are are also

4:13:58 going to um say a couple of things on

4:14:02 behalf of this idea of um why take you

4:14:06 know one huge bite of the whole thing

4:14:08 when we really have spent an awful lot

4:14:11 of time just to bite the Chesn Hill West

4:14:13 part and we've barely you know begun the

4:14:16 discussions on on the rest. What's in

4:14:18 the background of some of this

4:14:19 consideration is um something we have

4:14:22 barely mentioned tonight. I'm not sure

4:14:24 we've mentioned it at all. The effect on

4:14:26 on traffic in the area. And so we've got

4:14:28 this um preliminary kind of a look at

4:14:32 what the impact on traffic in the area

4:14:34 would be. that's that's kind of hovering

4:14:36 in the background of all of these

4:14:38 discussions which raised these really

4:14:40 kind of shocking numbers as to ho how

4:14:43 much additional car traffic uh would be

4:14:46 posed by just the Chestnut Hill West

4:14:50 part of things. Um and uh it's going to

4:14:54 it's going to take a a little

4:14:57 considerable amount of time before we

4:14:59 get a feel for let's say Chestnut Hill

4:15:01 West goes forward pretty much as

4:15:03 drafted. um and actually on schedule. Um

4:15:08 we will find out pretty quickly what the

4:15:10 trans traffic impact is of all of that

4:15:13 development. Um Michael, what's the

4:15:15 multiple of the amount of development on

4:15:17 that parcel right now? Is it six, six

4:15:19 times what we have there now? Seven,

4:15:21 eight.

4:15:22 You're talking about

4:15:23 square footage of development.

4:15:25 So the total F in of the parcels is

4:15:29 3.8, right? 3.8

4:15:32 3.8 times what is there now?

4:15:33 No. No, the the F that they're

4:15:37 proposing.

4:15:37 No, but I've se I've seen quotes of

4:15:39 thousands of square foot of development

4:15:41 in the future versus what's there now.

4:15:43 Um and and so it's not F I'm talking

4:15:45 about. I'm just talking about, you know,

4:15:46 the developed what's developed there now

4:15:48 versus what will be developed there.

4:15:50 Thousands of square feet.

4:15:52 They will be adding, you know, 246

4:15:57 residentially.

4:15:58 Well, okay. I'm sorry. It's it's I'm

4:16:01 asking question number

4:16:03 to look it up.

4:16:04 There's 266 residential units. So

4:16:06 regardless of the square footage,

4:16:08 there's that many residential units in

4:16:10 the plan. And then there's there's

4:16:12 additional square footage. There's about

4:16:14 50,000 square feet of retail. Yeah. You

4:16:17 know, there's eight floors of medical

4:16:18 office. But you know, as a multiple I I

4:16:20 I've seen this worked out, you know,

4:16:22 x,000 square feet in the future versus

4:16:25 6,000 square feet now. And it, if I

4:16:27 remember correctly, it came to a

4:16:28 multiple of six, seven, eight, nine

4:16:30 times what's there now.

4:16:31 I don't think

4:16:31 um well, okay. Well, five, six, seven

4:16:34 times what's there now. We'll see. Um in

4:16:36 in any event, um the transportation

4:16:39 consultant tried to do their best job of

4:16:41 figuring out what will that mean to the

4:16:44 additional um traffic put onto Route 9.

4:16:47 And again, came up with kind of a

4:16:49 startling multiple. And that's just

4:16:52 Chestnut Hill West. So, I think it's

4:16:54 kind of reasonable for people to be

4:16:57 thinking, why why don't we see if we can

4:17:00 accommodate the amount of traffic that's

4:17:01 going to be generated by Chesn Hill West

4:17:04 before we sign off in advance on some

4:17:07 zoning that will also multiply several

4:17:10 times over the amount of development on

4:17:11 the other parcels in the in the area.

4:17:13 So, uh, Meredith, what what what is the,

4:17:17 uh, concern with just doing

4:17:20 the zoning for, um, city properties and

4:17:24 not the others, which I think seems to

4:17:26 be what people are suggesting.

4:17:29 Is there a problem with that?

4:17:30 The

4:17:31 Okay.

4:17:33 I I would also I would gently remind the

4:17:35 select board that um about 18 months ago

4:17:38 um we had recommended that we take the

4:17:42 resoning in phases and we start with the

4:17:46 western portion of the study area

4:17:48 reszoning that and then return to the

4:17:50 rest of the study area. And I think very

4:17:52 wisely the select board as did members

4:17:54 of the community advisory board group

4:17:57 pushed back and said we want a

4:17:59 comprehensive vision resoning proposal

4:18:01 for the entire area. That's what we have

4:18:04 developed. That's what we've presented

4:18:06 and we think that the outcome is

4:18:07 something that we stand by for what I

4:18:09 said before. We've secured protections

4:18:11 for the most significant site for

4:18:13 economic development potential for the

4:18:15 town and we have established a vision

4:18:16 and a framework that will complement uh

4:18:19 the proposed um 4.0 no zoning for the

4:18:22 rest of the district. And then just as a

4:18:24 correction, um the uh I'm happy to

4:18:27 provide an update on the future traffic

4:18:29 capacity analysis that was presented.

4:18:31 That was not just for city realy. That

4:18:32 was for assumptions we made about the

4:18:34 buildout of the entire study area over

4:18:36 the next 20 years.

4:18:38 Okay.

4:18:38 Okay. Chaz, you were definite that we

4:18:42 couldn't do that,

4:18:43 right?

4:18:44 Um you No, you could. You could. I mean,

4:18:46 I'm just I'm just saying that

4:18:47 you shouldn't,

4:18:48 right? I mean I for the for the reasons

4:18:50 that we've discussed uh and for the

4:18:52 reasons that Meredith brought up, but I

4:18:53 I think to Meredith's got the answer to

4:18:55 John's question, but I know Paul wanted

4:18:57 to to speak on something before we talk

4:18:59 about traffic maybe. I don't know.

4:19:00 Okay, Paul.

4:19:01 Yeah, I just I there was a question

4:19:03 about the comprehensive plan, but before

4:19:04 and I'm going to answer that, but before

4:19:05 we do that, I do want you made an

4:19:07 assertion. I just want to respond to and

4:19:09 it was quite a while ago, so I'll remind

4:19:10 you the assertion was that probably not

4:19:12 yours, but it was EDABS. uh you are

4:19:14 communicating EDAB's assertion that you

4:19:16 know uh waiting for a developer to come

4:19:18 to us um is not effective. Well, the

4:19:21 most effective thing that's coming out

4:19:23 of this work right now is that a

4:19:25 developer came to us just by

4:19:26 [clears throat] the mere fact that we

4:19:28 opened the door to have a conversation

4:19:30 about reszoning this area to do a study.

4:19:32 It was within I think four weeks of

4:19:35 initiating that study did we immediately

4:19:39 hear from city realy that they wanted to

4:19:42 propose and we spent all our time on

4:19:45 that. So, I'm just not I don't agree

4:19:47 with this I this uh assumption assertion

4:19:51 that uh having a developer come to us

4:19:54 and do what we did which I think is a

4:19:56 good outcome frankly um means that that

4:19:59 we would undermine the work that that's

4:20:02 been done for the framework. We have a

4:20:04 vision for the area. You've done it.

4:20:05 You've done a good job. Doesn't mean we

4:20:07 need to convert it into into zoning and

4:20:09 the zoning code thereby losing our

4:20:11 leverage. And I'm I'm really worried

4:20:13 about losing leverage. But let's talk

4:20:14 about the comprehensive plan for a

4:20:15 little bit because we just had a big

4:20:17 meeting last night where Cara Brutin was

4:20:19 there. Um the team is doing great. We do

4:20:22 have a vision. We're rallying around a

4:20:24 vision uh for comprehensive planning.

4:20:26 And there's really we've went parcel by

4:20:29 parcel, corridor. We looked at the

4:20:31 entire town. There's three areas uh of

4:20:34 uh that we're classifying. I'm gonna

4:20:37 boil them down to three. I think there

4:20:38 were six, but they're all related. The

4:20:40 first is an area where we would conserve

4:20:42 and maintain. Think of neighborhoods

4:20:46 that you would see some development ADUs

4:20:48 and stuff, but it wouldn't be

4:20:49 transformative. Um, expanding. This

4:20:52 would be infill development similar to

4:20:54 what we uh zoned for Harvard Street.

4:20:56 Think Beacon Street, think Route 9, um

4:21:00 uh you know uh Washington Square, uh

4:21:03 Puttingham Circle. These are areas where

4:21:06 um it wouldn't be transformative meaning

4:21:09 it would be a completely different use

4:21:11 but it would be infill and expansion. Um

4:21:13 and then the last is transformative

4:21:15 areas and that transformation is very

4:21:18 limited. There's only a few areas within

4:21:21 Brookline where you could truly

4:21:22 transform what's there. The areas on

4:21:25 comm over by Target, we've talked about

4:21:27 that before. That's an area of

4:21:29 tremendous opportunity transformation.

4:21:31 Um, Chestnut Hill West is another area

4:21:34 of potential major transformation, Stop

4:21:37 and Shop, uh, TJ Maxx, but there's very

4:21:40 few of these parcels and, um, my concern

4:21:45 about giving away,

4:21:48 uh, it's one thing to do the ex if we

4:21:52 were to do a study and do infill zoning

4:21:55 for the entire corridor of Beacon

4:21:57 Street, which is something that we

4:21:58 discussed last night, instead of doing

4:22:00 it neighborhood by neighborhood, do an

4:22:02 entire corridor, you would get infill

4:22:04 development and you wouldn't need to

4:22:05 have a tax certainty agreement. But when

4:22:08 you get to major parcels like Chestnut

4:22:10 Hill West, you want to have the leverage

4:22:12 of zoning to get what you want out of

4:22:15 that negotiation. And I think that we

4:22:18 it's a principle actually that frankly

4:22:20 my thinking has evolved on this Meredith

4:22:23 from originally having a project that

4:22:24 kicked off to have a vision for the

4:22:26 whole area and upzoning it to realizing

4:22:28 the benefits of having zoning

4:22:33 and the leverage in order to get what we

4:22:35 want for tax certainty agreements and

4:22:37 memorandum of agreement on how the

4:22:38 development happens. I think we need to

4:22:40 be very cautious about how we trade that

4:22:44 zoning on a major parcel. Um, it doesn't

4:22:47 negate the work that you've done uh to

4:22:49 date. It really doesn't at all. You've

4:22:51 already created a vision through the the

4:22:53 work of yourself and the committee and

4:22:55 Michael that shows that we're ready for

4:22:58 business here, but come to us so that we

4:23:00 can negotiate in good faith about what

4:23:02 that specific solution might be for you.

4:23:04 Uh, where it's it's very financially

4:23:06 benefit to the town.

4:23:07 Okay. in terms of the item on the table

4:23:11 which is foreign article one of special

4:23:15 town meeting. Um what is your proposal?

4:23:18 Well, I don't I I I don't think I have a

4:23:20 proposal yet, but what I'm hearing is

4:23:23 that there's there's some reservations

4:23:26 about upzoning everything right now and

4:23:29 that we just focus on the city realy

4:23:32 parcel that would in that would be the

4:23:35 package of zoning for city realy, the

4:23:37 MOA and the tax certainty agreement and

4:23:40 that would send us that one we get

4:23:42 through that and that would give us send

4:23:44 a strong signal to the devel to other

4:23:47 land owners. that Brookline is open for

4:23:50 redeveloping this area and we're going

4:23:52 to work with you and here's here's the

4:23:53 potential vision which is the work we've

4:23:56 already done. It's a framework but it's

4:23:57 not built in our zoning code yet.

4:23:59 Thereby we didn't give away our

4:24:00 leverage. So if I had to make a proposal

4:24:03 I'm not saying I'm doing this but I'm

4:24:04 hearing the concept of peel off

4:24:10 just chest ju just city realy. So that

4:24:12 means taking out the north parcels and

4:24:14 everything else and the only article one

4:24:17 would only be the zoning for city realy

4:24:21 and the MOA and tax certainty for city

4:24:23 realy. That's what I'm hearing. I'm not

4:24:25 proposing that but that's what I'm

4:24:26 hearing.

4:24:27 So how would you even do that?

4:24:30 Where would it have to go in terms of

4:24:32 various committees etc in order to make

4:24:35 that change to what's being proposed

4:24:38 now?

4:24:40 uh just

4:24:41 time for town meeting

4:24:43 I can't answer the town meeting process

4:24:45 but I think you know if you gave us the

4:24:46 instructions that we would only I would

4:24:48 recommend not saying the city realy

4:24:50 properties but the west block of the 4.0

4:24:53 so just we would go and rewrite the

4:24:55 entire zoning to just speak to um the

4:24:59 that west block of the 4.0 And then the

4:25:02 design guidelines as the planning board

4:25:03 has uh adopted them would only be

4:25:07 applicable to that corner of the study

4:25:09 area.

4:25:10 Maybe not to further complicate this but

4:25:13 there is the issue of the 40B on Chief

4:25:16 Street

4:25:16 that if we see some upzoning there

4:25:20 instead of being a 40B they might uh

4:25:22 pursue commercial. There's been talk of

4:25:24 it possibly being a hotel. So I'm not

4:25:27 sure that we necessarily need to only be

4:25:30 focusing on one parcel, but to the

4:25:32 extent that as you were [clears throat]

4:25:34 discussing in the context of the

4:25:35 comprehensive plan that there are some

4:25:38 parcels that are very high revenue

4:25:41 generating potential

4:25:43 and some other parcels along this Route

4:25:46 9 stretch, it's a little lower revenue

4:25:48 generating potential.

4:25:50 So I think it would be possible to

4:25:52 consider that we don't necessarily just

4:25:55 leave uh the western most parcel as the

4:25:58 only part of the zoning. There might be

4:26:00 other portions of it that we could move

4:26:02 forward at this time, but I agree with

4:26:05 you that the growth company's part,

4:26:08 which is essentially zoned exactly the

4:26:11 same or close to exactly the same way as

4:26:14 the western most parcel,

4:26:16 uh we potentially are losing some

4:26:18 leverage there. I'm a little less

4:26:20 concerned about the uh Salvatore portion

4:26:23 where there's less height allowance. I'm

4:26:26 a little less concerned about the

4:26:28 portion approaching uh Hammond Street

4:26:31 where there seems to be uh some more

4:26:34 buyin from the community about the

4:26:36 potential of converting what would be a

4:26:38 40B into something else.

4:26:40 So, so the interesting I mean I'm glad

4:26:42 you brought that up. um you know that

4:26:44 that that land owner is also represented

4:26:47 by the same lawyer as that's

4:26:48 representing City realy. It's my

4:26:50 understanding they're the ones that

4:26:52 brought forward the 40B and they've

4:26:53 communicated to us they want to work

4:26:55 with us to do something different than a

4:26:57 40B. So they've already indicated to us.

4:27:00 So take the same process that you just

4:27:02 did for I forget the name of the parcel

4:27:05 but I'm just going to call it the city

4:27:06 parcel for now. just I know that's not

4:27:08 the right term, the city parcel and go

4:27:10 start the negotiations with this land

4:27:14 owner to come up with a solution that

4:27:18 fits generally within the framework but

4:27:21 may be customized for them to get them

4:27:22 away from a 40B that would certainly be

4:27:24 beneficial to us and that zoning would

4:27:28 give us leverage to have a better

4:27:30 agreement similar to what cities is. I

4:27:32 think I think it's a good model.

4:27:34 I want to make two points. One is just

4:27:35 to point out that in their letter they

4:27:37 were they were very clear that their

4:27:40 examination was contingent on the

4:27:42 zoning. Now that may just be a

4:27:44 negotiating technique but that is what

4:27:47 they

4:27:47 simple phone call to.

4:27:49 The other thing is can you bring back

4:27:51 the map of the of the zoning. So I just

4:27:54 want to make sure that that we're all

4:27:55 clear about the the tax certainty risk

4:27:59 that we're talking about. Right. So if

4:28:01 you look at at the yellow block, the tax

4:28:05 certainty agreement covers that entire

4:28:08 block, right? If you look at the the

4:28:12 city realy uh the growth company's

4:28:15 project based on what they proposed,

4:28:17 right? The six you the six units there

4:28:20 that space is all they are proposing is

4:28:24 a combination of housing and parking,

4:28:27 right? So the the value of the tax

4:28:29 certainty agreement there is slim to

4:28:32 none. Okay. And if you look at the

4:28:34 parking lot where they're actually

4:28:36 proposing medical office space, right?

4:28:38 As as is indicated there, the that space

4:28:43 as they've designed is roughly a what

4:28:45 five or six story building is what

4:28:48 they've proposed. Um on a on a space

4:28:51 that is 80 feet wide. Um and the medical

4:28:54 office portion of that is only I think

4:28:57 the front the front section and the back

4:29:00 is the parking that they need that they

4:29:02 claim to need for to support the medical

4:29:05 office. So the comparison of the value

4:29:07 of the tax certainty agreement that

4:29:09 you're proposing negotiating or putting

4:29:12 off is roughly the size of that little

4:29:15 corner relative to the size of most of

4:29:19 the of that yellow block. So just to

4:29:22 give just to give you a sense of the

4:29:24 different proportion and and the the the

4:29:28 cost of mitigating against that risk

4:29:31 relative to the risk of moving forward.

4:29:33 Okay, John and then I want to open up.

4:29:35 Yes, I promise to be brief. Meredith,

4:29:38 thank you for correcting me as to the

4:29:40 multiple of traffic uh and it's for the

4:29:43 entire uh uh area, not just for Ches

4:29:46 Hill West, but what is the multiple that

4:29:49 that the consultant came up with?

4:29:52 Off the top of my head, I I would want

4:29:54 to Okay, there needs to be context to to

4:29:57 this response. Um, so

4:30:00 we had talked about in our earlier

4:30:01 presentations, we were waiting on the

4:30:03 consultant to wrap up the final phase of

4:30:05 our transportation study and we wanted

4:30:07 to sort of pressure test the capacity um

4:30:10 within the area. You know, would it be

4:30:12 able to sustain the additional trip

4:30:13 generation that would be associated with

4:30:15 the upzoning that we're considering

4:30:16 here?

4:30:16 Yeah.

4:30:18 So the assumption that we gave the

4:30:20 consultant to work with was very

4:30:21 conservative in that we probably

4:30:24 overestimated the amount of development

4:30:25 that this area will see over the next 20

4:30:27 years. And we also overestimated the

4:30:30 types of development that are a lot more

4:30:32 intensive in terms of the traffic that

4:30:34 they generate like medical office

4:30:35 because appointments are booked

4:30:36 backtoback has a much higher trip

4:30:38 generation rate um and parking

4:30:40 requirements for example. So we

4:30:41 overestimated the amount of medical

4:30:43 office and residential that would be in

4:30:44 this area very intentionally to kind of

4:30:46 create like a worst case scenario. Yeah.

4:30:48 In terms of traffic impacts.

4:30:50 So um with that in mind um I think the

4:30:53 estimates and I can go back and follow

4:30:54 with the select board but it was you

4:30:56 know an increase of like 300% in terms

4:30:59 of um the trip generation potential and

4:31:01 all of the um intersections would uh

4:31:05 degrade to a a level F in terms of level

4:31:07 of service which is failing.

4:31:08 Thank you. And um I you know I want to

4:31:10 do justice to the people who had this

4:31:12 conversation with me this afternoon. And

4:31:14 I know that that is very much on their

4:31:17 minds. And I think it number one

4:31:20 probably in their in their reasons for

4:31:22 saying we think maybe if you really want

4:31:25 the neighbors to come on board with this

4:31:28 the way to do that is to only go forward

4:31:31 with Chestnut Hill Realy right now. Um

4:31:33 because

4:31:34 you mean city realy?

4:31:35 Huh? City realy. I'm sorry. I apologize.

4:31:39 Excuse me. Go forward with only the city

4:31:41 of reality parcel right now. Uh portion

4:31:44 of the development right now. Um is that

4:31:47 if if going ahead with the entire

4:31:50 package means that there is by estimate

4:31:54 of the traffic consultant the potential

4:31:56 for 300% increase in trips. um then

4:32:00 maybe we're not ready to go ahead with

4:32:01 the whole thing and we better take a

4:32:04 little bit of cautious approach to this

4:32:06 and maybe just go ahead with the city

4:32:08 realy part and and hopefully find out

4:32:12 what the nobody has said that we have

4:32:15 figured out what we're going to do about

4:32:16 that 300% uh increase in trips.

4:32:20 Okay, quick Mike and then then we're

4:32:22 open up the uh hearing.

4:32:24 I just want to point out John that

4:32:26 that's 300% over 20 years. So when you

4:32:28 say we haven't figured it out, you also

4:32:31 have to acknowledge we have 20 years to

4:32:35 to work on this problem.

4:32:37 Okay. So let's hope so.

4:32:39 Sorry, I'm so sorry. Just one additional

4:32:41 so that I think the

4:32:42 the flip side to that is that you know

4:32:47 we the I think the benefit in

4:32:50 undertaking this transportation study is

4:32:51 that we are starting conversations with

4:32:54 mass DOT that much farther along. We

4:32:57 have done our homework. We've identified

4:32:58 a scope of possibilities, what we think

4:33:00 could work, and at least one

4:33:01 intersection redesign option at Boilston

4:33:03 and Hammond Street that would

4:33:04 significantly mitigate the anticipated

4:33:06 traffic impacts that we were just

4:33:07 talking about

4:33:09 in order to continue those

4:33:11 conversations. If we only move forward

4:33:13 with a portion of the proposed zoning

4:33:16 and the rest of the study area remains

4:33:18 unclear, it's going to make continuing

4:33:20 those conversations with Mass DOT about

4:33:22 what interventions are needed in this

4:33:24 area that much harder to advance because

4:33:26 we don't know. Um, and we're going to

4:33:28 and it sounds like, you know, just

4:33:30 within the bounds of this conversation,

4:33:31 there's the interest in maybe deferring

4:33:33 to, you know, when developers are ready

4:33:35 and that could take decades. So, I think

4:33:37 um almost in service to wanting to be

4:33:41 able to, you know, be more proactive and

4:33:44 aggressive in um advancing

4:33:46 infrastructure improvements, they're

4:33:47 going to support the development we need

4:33:49 for economic development. It would be

4:33:50 helpful to keep the zoning overlay

4:33:52 intact so we can plan accordingly.

4:33:54 Okay, let's open up the hearing.

4:33:58 Stop share.

4:33:59 Do your magic.

4:34:01 If there's anyone that wishes to speak

4:34:03 on this topic, please raise your hand

4:34:05 using the raise your hand feature

4:34:06 online. And if you're in the room, just

4:34:08 make your presence known by coming to

4:34:10 the podium. I do have a couple of people

4:34:13 that did sign up prior. Mark Bearer was

4:34:16 first.

4:34:17 Okay. Uh have Mark Bear first.

4:34:20 Are you Mark Bearer?

4:34:21 I am Mark.

4:34:21 Oh, I'm sorry. Good. [clears throat]

4:34:23 You better be.

4:34:24 All right. Well, good evening. Good

4:34:26 evening everyone. Um thank you for

4:34:28 letting me have a few words. Um just a

4:34:30 little context and overview from EDAB.

4:34:33 Um you know I've sat on EDAB for a

4:34:35 couple years now. Um and we've worked

4:34:38 really hard for two years trying to

4:34:41 finesse a resolution to find common

4:34:44 ground a bunch of very varied

4:34:46 stakeholders. Um you know one respecting

4:34:49 the community the neighborhood number

4:34:51 two maximizing the position from you

4:34:53 know the town of Brooklyn and and tax

4:34:56 revenue. Number three, understanding

4:34:59 what's the clear go no-go economics for

4:35:02 a developer, any developer. And finally,

4:35:04 just really respecting the market

4:35:05 forces, right? What's with all the

4:35:07 oscillations, the headwinds that come up

4:35:08 and down, how do we position this site

4:35:11 for success, right? And I think that the

4:35:13 Warren article at hand does position

4:35:15 this site for success. And right now,

4:35:17 it's clearly underutilized and and

4:35:19 undervalued.

4:35:21 Um so that's you know just kind of the

4:35:23 the overview at least from you know

4:35:25 working on a EDAB subcommittee um you

4:35:28 know with all all parties at hand. Um

4:35:31 also just to address kind of the the the

4:35:33 bigger picture when we're saying about

4:35:35 you do one parcel versus many parcels.

4:35:37 Um you know we've brought in a couple

4:35:39 different brokers right and and and I've

4:35:41 been personally in real estate

4:35:42 development for about 25 years. Um

4:35:45 uncertainty is always the enemy of of

4:35:46 good economic development, right? I

4:35:48 think um if it's a peacemail approach,

4:35:51 one parcel at a time, um you're just

4:35:54 making it that much more difficult for,

4:35:56 you know, a a prominent um and quality

4:35:59 development. You know, if it's a big

4:36:00 tenant with lots of jobs wants to come

4:36:02 in and you're not sure, well, did the

4:36:04 guys next door, am I going to get what

4:36:05 they got? I don't know. Maybe, maybe

4:36:07 not. You're just adding more headwind,

4:36:10 you know, to I think to to the entire um

4:36:12 you know, problem at hand. So again, I'm

4:36:15 I'm would just in and just good best

4:36:17 practices when you look at other, you

4:36:19 know, neighboring towns, upzoning is the

4:36:21 main tool and through a special permit,

4:36:23 those are always the hooks, right? And

4:36:25 and the hooks to make sure that you get

4:36:27 the right agreements for the development

4:36:28 downstream. Um, so I just think again

4:36:33 the ability to zone the consistent way

4:36:35 which is a clear and distinct message to

4:36:37 the marketplace be it brokers, tenants

4:36:39 and whoever else um I think is loud and

4:36:42 clear and I think we'll at least

4:36:44 facilitate as best we can and position

4:36:46 the site for success.

4:36:49 Thank you.

4:36:50 Y

4:36:52 uh who's next? Paul Ser and Kathle

4:36:56 Seidman are have their hands up. Uh

4:36:58 Blair Hines signed up to said in person.

4:37:02 Oh, okay. Blair

4:37:09 seem [clears throat] to have lost touch

4:37:11 with my

4:37:13 what I was going to my written remarks

4:37:15 here over this time. So I'll be very

4:37:17 brief. It's late. I wanted to first

4:37:20 start with

4:37:21 into the mic if you don't mind.

4:37:23 I'm sorry. I want to first

4:37:24 and just identify yourself for the

4:37:25 record.

4:37:26 Blair Hines, a resident at 745 Heath

4:37:28 Street uh down the street from the

4:37:31 proposal. I want to start by saying that

4:37:34 the neighborhood has been in favor of

4:37:36 redevelopment of this site and um

4:37:42 over the course of from the very

4:37:44 beginning we understand that this site

4:37:47 has needed to get redeveloped. I think

4:37:49 the challenge has been how much it has

4:37:51 been redeveloped and I want to support

4:37:53 the um amendment that um Janice is

4:37:58 developing which really represents I

4:38:01 think uh two very important uh pieces.

4:38:03 One uh

4:38:06 this zoning does need to pass we

4:38:09 believe. I think that if it doesn't I

4:38:12 think that would be worse for the town

4:38:13 and be worse for the neighborhood. So, I

4:38:15 want to emphasize that we've come a long

4:38:18 way to uh see the importance of passing

4:38:21 this. Uh secondly, uh we were really

4:38:25 looking to um have the base zoning be at

4:38:29 uh what the neighborhoods uh supported,

4:38:32 which was basically 125 ft, 10 stories,

4:38:36 similar to what was done in the

4:38:38 children's hospital redevelopment

4:38:40 between Pearl Street and Washington

4:38:42 Street. We thought that this was

4:38:44 reasonable. And the reason that we see

4:38:46 this as a compromise is that it puts the

4:38:50 neighborhood in a little better position

4:38:52 in the event that the entire city real

4:38:56 estate uh management uh proposal doesn't

4:38:59 in fact get built. uh if there's any

4:39:02 modifications in the proposal that is in

4:39:07 the me memorandum of agreement with uh

4:39:09 the select board uh we would have I

4:39:12 think a stronger voice and that has been

4:39:15 one of the thorns in our side is we feel

4:39:18 like through this whole two-year process

4:39:20 we become complainers rather than uh

4:39:24 people who could help to forge what this

4:39:26 redevelopment zoning would consist of.

4:39:30 Thank you.

4:39:31 Can I ask question?

4:39:33 Uh, sure.

4:39:35 Thanks. Thanks, Blair, for your

4:39:37 comments. I just I do have a question

4:39:38 because you reference the zoning, right?

4:39:41 And then you talk about city realy the

4:39:44 under the underutilized and it's

4:39:46 important. Are you talking about the

4:39:48 entire corridor at this point? Are we

4:39:49 just talking about city real?

4:39:51 Well, I think in terms of it really

4:39:53 would be the uh the CH4 zone. Yeah.

4:39:57 would have instead of just the bonuses

4:39:59 uh being at 12 and 14 stories with with

4:40:02 the overlay, it would basically have the

4:40:05 first step being at 10 stories.

4:40:06 I understand. I I I understand. But

4:40:08 you're not talking about the rest of I

4:40:10 mean the the warrant article one that's

4:40:13 coming in front of us. No, I think I'm

4:40:14 I'm in favor.

4:40:15 There's only a little piece that

4:40:16 Well, no, I think that uh I mean at

4:40:19 [clears throat] Janice's uh you know

4:40:22 suggestion, you know, myself had met

4:40:25 with uh growth companies on two

4:40:27 occasions along with George Cole to try

4:40:29 to understand uh their concerns about

4:40:32 the zoning. So, we are interested in the

4:40:35 resoning of the entire area and um so I

4:40:39 think I'm in support of resoning of the

4:40:42 entire area.

4:40:43 Okay. Thank you.

4:40:45 Okay, next uh speaker. We have someone.

4:40:48 Um we have three people online raising

4:40:50 their hand.

4:40:50 Okay,

4:40:51 Kath is first.

4:40:52 Katha,

4:40:58 good evening. Thank you for letting me

4:41:00 speak. Um my name is Kathy Seidman. I'm

4:41:03 a town meeting member in precinct 2, a

4:41:05 member of the Brooklyn Commission for

4:41:07 the Arts, and a board member of Brooklyn

4:41:09 for Everyone. But I speak here only for

4:41:11 myself. The Chestnut Hill commercial

4:41:14 area is the largest and most promising

4:41:16 commercial area in Brooklyn and holds

4:41:18 enormous potential for tax generating

4:41:22 development that includes a mix of

4:41:23 commercial uses as well as housing at

4:41:26 all price points. Adopting new zoning

4:41:28 regulations that allow this site to

4:41:30 achieve its full potential pres presents

4:41:32 an opportunity that must not be

4:41:34 squandered by the town, especially now

4:41:37 when a developer that owns the requisite

4:41:39 size parcel has presented a specific

4:41:42 proposal proposal to actually build out

4:41:44 that potential. Passing the zoning

4:41:47 outline in STM1 warrant articles 1 and

4:41:49 two would not only allow the proposed

4:41:52 development of 5.3 acres of Chestnut

4:41:54 Hill commercial area to move forward,

4:41:56 but obviously incentivizes other

4:41:59 developers to come forward. Brookline

4:42:01 has a history of making new development

4:42:03 impossible by never changing it zoning.

4:42:06 expecting a developer to ask for zoning

4:42:09 to meet a developer's program could as

4:42:11 easily as not run into the same 20-year

4:42:14 process roadblocks as the city realy

4:42:16 property encountered. I want to

4:42:19 congratulate all those who worked on

4:42:20 this project from CHCA study committee,

4:42:23 the neighbors, staff, and select board

4:42:25 members who all worked tirelessly to

4:42:27 upgrade a stagnant Chestnut Hill office

4:42:29 park and reszone the other areas

4:42:31 proposed in the 2005 comp plan into what

4:42:34 has the potential to be a placemaking

4:42:37 model for future developments of this

4:42:39 scale in Brooklyn. I would like to also

4:42:42 take this opportunity

4:42:44 to point [clears throat] out what I

4:42:46 believe has been an overlooked benefit

4:42:47 of this upgrade to Brooklyn side of

4:42:50 Route 9.

4:42:52 Our developers to our west, Newton,

4:42:54 Welssley, and as far away as South

4:42:56 Burough, have all added residential and

4:42:58 commercial development along Route 9.

4:43:00 The traffic those residents and shoppers

4:43:02 generate flows through Brooklyn to

4:43:05 Boston and back, adding traffic and

4:43:07 congestion to Brooklyn. Those towns get

4:43:10 increased property tax revenue from

4:43:12 their new developments. Brooklyn gets

4:43:14 the traffic. We can and should take

4:43:17 advantage of the revenue from both the

4:43:19 new development of homes for folks who

4:43:21 want to live closer to Boston and the

4:43:23 economic activity generated by folks

4:43:25 visiting Brookline's new placemaking

4:43:28 experience. In particular, I am

4:43:31 delighted to learn that the neighbors

4:43:33 and the developer and the town have

4:43:35 reached consensus on amendments to the

4:43:37 original zoning. I hope the advisory

4:43:39 committee, the select board, and every

4:43:40 town meeting member will now fully

4:43:42 support these articles. I urge this I

4:43:45 urge the select board to recommend

4:43:47 favorable favorable action on STDM

4:43:50 warrant articles one and two. Thank you.

4:43:58 Next is Paul Ser.

4:44:00 Thank you. I'm Paul Sainer, precinct 13

4:44:02 town meeting member and I had been a

4:44:06 member of EDAP for 28 years up until a

4:44:09 few years ago. I want to recall Bob

4:44:12 Spurber who um was the beloved

4:44:16 superintendent of schools and the

4:44:19 founder of EDAB. Bob would um constantly

4:44:23 ask real estate people about certain

4:44:27 sites [snorts] in Brooklyn's history,

4:44:30 most of which bordered on other

4:44:32 municipalities. One of his favorite

4:44:34 sites was the northwest corner of um

4:44:38 Hammond in Boilston uh where the star

4:44:42 market was developed

4:44:45 um in 1950. He would always ask, "Why is

4:44:49 that building in such an odd shape?" And

4:44:53 he knew the answer because he had spoken

4:44:54 to the developers because they built

4:44:57 around Brookline, giving Brookline the

4:45:00 parking. Um the um Chestnut Hill

4:45:03 commercial area is riddled with decades

4:45:08 long opportunity costs to the town. The

4:45:11 WS development letter of last week I

4:45:15 felt was absolutely laughable. I want to

4:45:17 make sure you all know that WS

4:45:21 development

4:45:22 controlled

4:45:24 um Chestnut Hill Office Park the parcels

4:45:26 that city reality is looking to develop

4:45:29 for about 20 years and despite many

4:45:32 overtures

4:45:34 by those of us on EDAB never got out of

4:45:37 their own way to seriously look at

4:45:39 redeveloping it. while they were

4:45:41 developing the street across the street

4:45:43 and frankly they were one of the most

4:45:44 prolific developers in the metropolitan

4:45:47 area. Um I um um believe that the select

4:45:53 boards support the planning department's

4:45:56 work and um upzone the entire proposed

4:46:01 area because there will be missed

4:46:04 opportunities like the one that Bob

4:46:06 Spurber used to ask about um that will

4:46:10 continue at a time when we cannot afford

4:46:14 it as four out of the five of you along

4:46:17 with they correctly, in my opinion,

4:46:21 endorse the override. I think it's

4:46:23 really important to show um the voters

4:46:26 that the town is really serious about

4:46:29 long-term strategic

4:46:31 economic development. Lastly, I know a

4:46:33 lot about tax certainty, having been

4:46:36 involved in all previous six tax

4:46:39 certainty agreements where there were

4:46:41 developers across the table to negotiate

4:46:44 with. The only concern I have is medical

4:46:48 office at scale, not a hotel of which we

4:46:51 have four and maybe a fifth tax

4:46:53 certainty agreement. The real risk is

4:46:56 large medical office and the only parcel

4:46:59 where that can happen um beyond city

4:47:03 reality is uh the growth companies.

4:47:05 Your time is up

4:47:06 and you've heard Meredith's answer. So,

4:47:08 I urge you to please support the

4:47:11 extraordinary work of Meredith Moody and

4:47:14 Michael Rubenstein. Thank you very much.

4:47:17 [clears throat]

4:47:19 Ann Meyers is next.

4:47:24 Thank you. I'm Anne Meyers. I live in

4:47:27 Precinct 9 and I chair the Economic

4:47:29 Development Advisory Board. Um, I

4:47:32 actually live in precinct 8 now. I keep

4:47:34 forgetting. I moved from one to the

4:47:35 other not that long ago. Um, I was

4:47:38 actually on the 20 uh 20 2005, excuse

4:47:42 me, uh, comp plan committee and I

4:47:46 remember when the res need for resoning

4:47:49 at Chestnut Hill was raised in that comp

4:47:51 plan and was discussed uh, quite a lot

4:47:54 and was one of the elements of that

4:47:56 plan. Since then, the town has responded

4:47:59 to development proposals on a

4:48:00 case-bycase basis. And people, including

4:48:03 many town meeting members, always

4:48:05 complain that Brooklyn just responds to

4:48:07 proposals and never got ahead of the

4:48:09 game by issuing resoning in advance of

4:48:12 proposals. Uh, the Chesnut Hill

4:48:15 commercial area study started as a way

4:48:17 to look at the entire area and develop

4:48:19 resoning before there were any

4:48:21 development proposals on the table.

4:48:23 Having zoning in place lets a

4:48:25 development community know what the town

4:48:27 is looking for and what they can do by

4:48:29 right, even for sites that are unlikely

4:48:31 to be developed for many years. In this

4:48:34 case, part of the site was purchased and

4:48:36 a proposal submitted just as the work

4:48:38 was beginning, which did change some of

4:48:40 the focus of the work, but it did not

4:48:42 eliminate the need for the entire site

4:48:44 to be zoned. Now, if it is, it will make

4:48:47 it much more desirable for developers to

4:48:49 come in and start a project in the area.

4:48:52 one that helps to generate the

4:48:54 commercial tax revenue that Brookline so

4:48:55 desperately needs. And again, I I want

4:49:00 to urge the select board to support

4:49:02 these warrant articles and thank all the

4:49:05 work that's been done by the staff and

4:49:08 the committees and everybody else. This

4:49:10 has been several years of very hard work

4:49:12 and I hope that we can bring it to a

4:49:14 conclusion. Thank you.

4:49:18 Anyone

4:49:21 else?

4:49:24 Okay, seeing no one else on Zoom or in

4:49:27 the audience, I'll close the hearing and

4:49:30 um I'll close this discussion. We'll

4:49:33 have further discussion later on when we

4:49:36 vote

4:49:38 or not on whether to

4:49:41 give favorable action on proposals.

4:49:44 Bernard,

4:49:45 when are we taking this up for CH? Do

4:49:47 you know when this is going to come back

4:49:48 to us?

4:49:49 Um, I think there's more committee work

4:49:51 to be done. Um, but we can obviously,

4:49:53 you know, what I would propose doing is

4:49:55 we can schedule updates for you as this

4:49:57 progresses through the various hearings

4:49:58 and so forth so that you can be ready to

4:50:00 vote on it when it's ready to be vote

4:50:02 when it's ready to be voted on when it's

4:50:03 gone through all the committees. But in

4:50:04 the inter room, we'll just continue to

4:50:06 provide you with updates on how it's

4:50:07 moving through.

4:50:08 Okay. Updates by memo or on the agenda?

4:50:11 We'll put we'll put it on the agenda and

4:50:12 and then so that if you if you have

4:50:14 question that also then allows you if

4:50:16 you have questions or if things come up

4:50:17 that you want to discuss with us you

4:50:19 know on staff or like for example if as

4:50:22 advisory land use comes through the

4:50:24 process and you want us to say something

4:50:26 to them in addition to what you've been

4:50:27 telling us tonight we can you can have

4:50:30 that be continually a part of the

4:50:32 iterative process.

4:50:33 Okay. Uh David

4:50:35 I just want to make sure that staff

4:50:37 doesn't feel that we are indicting their

4:50:39 work in some way. I notice some ruffled

4:50:42 feathers, furoughed brows, which is

4:50:44 understandable. You put a lot of work

4:50:45 into this, and so you get frustrated

4:50:47 when you perceive push back, but I

4:50:50 wouldn't characterize it as push back.

4:50:52 So, we hear from lots of constituents.

4:50:54 We hear from lots of different interest

4:50:56 groups, and through discussions like

4:50:58 these, we learn more from these

4:51:01 exchanges. So, I just hope nobody's

4:51:03 taking it personally when it sounds like

4:51:05 somebody's taking a uh taking an

4:51:08 approach that might be opposite of what

4:51:11 you're advocating for uh in your

4:51:13 professional expertise. It's that we're

4:51:14 asking questions. We're trying to learn.

4:51:16 That's what this is.

4:51:17 Yeah. And I I I don't I don't think we

4:51:19 we take it that way. I think it's I I

4:51:21 wasn't going to draw this comparison,

4:51:23 but it was just interesting to think

4:51:24 about this in the context of the bike

4:51:26 policy that we were talking about

4:51:27 earlier, right? this has now been a two

4:51:29 plus year process and we've heard you

4:51:33 know some sometimes it feels like a step

4:51:34 forward a step back and I and I

4:51:36 appreciate what Paul said actually about

4:51:37 how this is also an opportunity for

4:51:39 people to people's views to grow and to

4:51:41 evolve and to change and that's not a

4:51:43 bad thing either it's just you know we

4:51:47 it's I don't think we're we're

4:51:49 frustrated at the questions being asked

4:51:50 I think it's good for us to have those

4:51:52 conversations I think sometimes it can

4:51:54 just feel a little bit like step forward

4:51:56 step back yeah it's a a little bit of

4:51:58 whiplash. But you know what that's but I

4:52:00 I I think we all understand that that's

4:52:02 in the service of there are people who

4:52:04 have not been engaged in this two years.

4:52:06 There are people who tuned into this

4:52:07 yesterday like whoa whoa wait a minute

4:52:08 why are we doing this? Um and we have to

4:52:10 be responsive to those questions without

4:52:12 saying well you know where were you? Um

4:52:15 because not everyone tunes into this

4:52:16 stuff.

4:52:17 So if I one quick comment because you

4:52:19 know my opportunities to provide comment

4:52:20 are coming to a close. Um, but I do

4:52:24 there are two things that that for me I

4:52:26 think are are important that I think

4:52:29 this board should consider as important.

4:52:30 One is we don't want to lose leverage

4:52:33 and I think we heard about leverage

4:52:34 tonight. I don't know maybe that means

4:52:35 special permits provide leverage. I

4:52:37 don't know but leverage is important to

4:52:39 be able to get the outcomes that Michael

4:52:41 has been able to negotiate with city.

4:52:43 Um, and two we need to make sure that we

4:52:46 have people on board to pass a

4:52:48 two-thirds vote. That is that's number

4:52:50 one. And we should make sure that we're

4:52:52 doing any everything that can be done to

4:52:55 add votes to have it pass a town

4:52:58 meeting. I think you add votes

4:53:02 by supporting Janice Khan's amendments

4:53:05 that's just negotiated. Um, I think you

4:53:07 potentially add votes by thinking hard

4:53:10 about whether that north parcel uh is is

4:53:13 ready for prime time or do you peel that

4:53:15 off because people say that's what's

4:53:17 causing the traffic issues. Uh that's

4:53:20 what's causing some risk associated with

4:53:22 uh you know uh whatever our relationship

4:53:26 with Newton and others. So those are my

4:53:29 two okay two things were important to

4:53:31 me. I just want to share.

4:53:32 Okay, let's move on. Next we have a

4:53:34 bunch of warrant articles with public

4:53:35 hearings. uh foreign article four close

4:53:38 out uh um

4:53:40 close out bills here. Pardon me.

4:53:42 I was just saying thank you to

4:53:43 Thank you, Meredith.

4:53:44 Oh, thank you, Meredith.

4:53:45 Thank you, [laughter] Meredith.

4:53:46 Hey, Meredith, we really appreciate you

4:53:47 and we know you're a tough tough person,

4:53:49 so we don't have to worry about

4:53:53 I told her to strap in about a month ago

4:53:55 for the ride she's going to be on. So,

4:53:59 okay. is um um is Melissa

4:54:02 Melissa is uh down at advisory, but I

4:54:04 will uh be a poor substitute for her for

4:54:07 Warrant Article 4. I'm the understudy.

4:54:09 Um um so Warrant Article 4 is required

4:54:12 by the town's bylaws. Uh it's to give an

4:54:15 update on where certain, you know,

4:54:17 project accounts are, bond accounts, and

4:54:18 so forth. Um you have in your packet the

4:54:21 current updates. Uh the the two uh the

4:54:25 document labeled um K is um sorry the K

4:54:29 report um is projects that are cash

4:54:32 funded. The capital report are projects

4:54:34 that is are uh uh are projects that have

4:54:38 um bond funding involved in them. Um and

4:54:43 so you can see where we are as of 316.

4:54:46 The comments there are from the

4:54:49 departments. Um, you know, we have work

4:54:52 that is in process. If there is excess

4:54:55 revenue for projects that are completed

4:54:56 at the end of the fiscal year, it will

4:54:58 be returned in accordance with the terms

4:55:00 of article 4. That's how that works. So,

4:55:03 we've got um, you know, some available

4:55:06 balance. Uh, but again, this is, you

4:55:08 know, we're this is Q3 of a four quarter

4:55:11 year. Um, and these numbers will go

4:55:14 down, I hope, pretty significantly,

4:55:16 um, before we reach the end of FY26.

4:55:21 Okay, any questions about Warren Article

4:55:23 4?

4:55:24 Let's open up the hearing

4:55:28 and see if anyone would like to speak

4:55:29 from the audience or from uh, the Zoom

4:55:35 hearing. None, we'll close the hearing.

4:55:38 And um

4:55:41 are we are we ready to do favorable

4:55:43 action on this? I mean,

4:55:45 we know

4:55:46 the board actually doesn't need to take

4:55:47 action on this.

4:55:48 There's no action. Sorry, Chaz.

4:55:49 Yeah. It's [laughter] technically just a

4:55:50 report. Um Okay.

4:55:52 Yeah.

4:55:53 Um okay, next. Uh why so why do we do a

4:55:56 hearing?

4:55:57 Because it's technically a warrant

4:55:59 article.

4:55:59 Uh

4:56:00 okay.

4:56:00 I think you actually do vote no action

4:56:02 on it. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply

4:56:04 you don't have to do anything, but you

4:56:05 don't need to vote favorable action on

4:56:06 it. It just needs to appear in the

4:56:08 warrant. It's a part of the town bylaws.

4:56:10 Let's just move on then. Article six,

4:56:12 unpaid bills. Do we have any unpaid

4:56:14 bills?

4:56:16 Charlie, do we have any unpaid bills?

4:56:17 Lincoln. There's Lincoln. Yeah,

4:56:18 we do have one. Yeah, Lincoln will.

4:56:21 I thought we I thought we

4:56:22 It's always a long explanation when you

4:56:23 have one.

4:56:25 All right, Lincoln is online.

4:56:27 Try to make it snappy, though. Good

4:56:29 evening. Um, well, uh, Lincoln Heidman.

4:56:31 I'm the director of finance for the

4:56:32 town. So, we do have one uh unpaid bill

4:56:36 that uh we we do need town meeting

4:56:39 action to approve to for the town to be

4:56:42 able to pay it. According to MLA chapter

4:56:45 44, section 64, it was a bill um that uh

4:56:50 that was not received in a in a timely

4:56:53 fashion from the vendor. We did receive

4:56:55 it later um past the incumbrance

4:56:58 deadline. Uh and so we we were not we

4:57:00 were able to pay a portion of it with

4:57:02 incumbing incumbrances but not uh the

4:57:06 remainder uh of $5,959.

4:57:10 And so this article six um seeks the

4:57:14 necessary town meeting approval to pay

4:57:16 that valid bill.

4:57:18 Okay. And there no there no bills that

4:57:20 we

4:57:22 are not aware of that could come

4:57:23 forward?

4:57:26 None that we're that we're aware of. We

4:57:27 we do do a very robust process to remind

4:57:32 um uh those who who who we know we owe

4:57:36 uh funds to to get us bills in a timely

4:57:39 fashion. Um and there's none none others

4:57:42 that we're aware of.

4:57:44 Okay, Paul.

4:57:45 Yep. Uh Lincoln, what's the bill for?

4:57:47 It's it is for postage.

4:57:50 Postage for

4:57:51 the postal service is late.

4:57:53 No, not the postal service. a a vendor

4:57:55 that uh that mails our property and real

4:57:58 estate real estate and personal property

4:58:00 taxes.

4:58:01 Michael real quick.

4:58:01 And where do the funds come from if town

4:58:04 meeting approves this?

4:58:06 Yes. So the there there were there was

4:58:08 sufficient uh funds elsewhere in the

4:58:10 finance department. It's just that it

4:58:12 they weren't um they weren't able to be

4:58:14 encumbered for this purpose.

4:58:16 It it gets paid out of the current

4:58:17 fiscal year budget, Michael.

4:58:19 Yeah.

4:58:20 You mean fiscal year 26?

4:58:23 Correct.

4:58:23 Okay. Correct.

4:58:24 Um, okay. Uh, let's open up the hearing.

4:58:27 See if anyone wants to comment on this.

4:58:31 Anybody want to have us not pay it?

4:58:34 Okay, I'll close the hearing and um I

4:58:37 think we can do favorable action on this

4:58:40 one if no one objects. Okay, I move

4:58:42 favorable action on warrant article six

4:58:44 unpaid bills. All in favor John Skoyak.

4:58:47 I Paul Warren.

4:58:48 Hi.

4:58:48 David Corman.

4:58:49 Hi.

4:58:49 Michael Rubenstein.

4:58:50 Hi.

4:58:50 Chair votes.

4:58:52 Uh next, uh article nine, annual

4:58:54 community. Oh, this is a significant

4:58:56 one. It's not going to be a quick I see

4:58:58 Nancy Heler's approaching the podium on

4:59:01 this.

4:59:02 Patiently waiting, very patiently.

4:59:08 Good evening. You've all had a long

4:59:09 night, so I'll try to be brief. I'm

4:59:12 Nancy Heler, uh chair of the Community

4:59:15 Preservation Act committee. I'm joined

4:59:18 by David Lecoy who's the vice chair and

4:59:20 you all know him. Uh and I'm also joined

4:59:24 online by Laura Sme who is our CPA

4:59:28 planner. Um I would like to just say a

4:59:32 couple of words about Laura. She joined

4:59:34 us in January of uh this year and she

4:59:39 hit the ground running. She's got a lot

4:59:41 of CPA experience

4:59:44 uh in when she worked in the planning

4:59:46 department in Canton, but she also

4:59:49 worked for the consultant who helped us

4:59:51 develop our CPA plan and she did some

4:59:53 work in Brooklyn then. So, we're very

4:59:56 happy to have her. She's really uh going

4:59:59 to be we're going to be the best

5:00:01 organized CPA uh

5:00:05 committee in this in the state of

5:00:07 Massachusetts when she's done. Um, so I

5:00:10 want to um

5:00:12 um Laura, can you put up the slides? Are

5:00:16 you controlling them?

5:00:23 Okay. So, um that's our basically our

5:00:27 logo. I want to go to the next slide,

5:00:29 please.

5:00:32 Um we want you to understand what CPA

5:00:36 delivers. This is a a short slide, but I

5:00:38 think it's very important. We're not

5:00:40 only preserving very critical community

5:00:43 assets, and when I say community assets,

5:00:45 I'm talking about town properties as

5:00:48 well as uh community properties that

5:00:52 deliver a community benefit. For

5:00:54 instance, the uh we've funded a couple

5:00:57 of churches and uh a temple. uh they all

5:01:01 provide huge community benefits in that

5:01:04 they uh their space is utilized by

5:01:07 community activities.

5:01:09 you most most notably I'm sure you know

5:01:12 of the food bank which is in the United

5:01:14 parish uh church on Harvard Street but

5:01:18 there are many others in addition to

5:01:20 which we have leveraged significant

5:01:23 outside funding um and I'll talk about

5:01:26 the amounts in a minute and all of those

5:01:28 things bring long-term value to the town

5:01:32 and the this year's recommendations

5:01:34 continue the the same strategy

5:01:36 um [snorts] now our next slide please

5:01:39 Gloria

5:01:40 uh these are revenue sources. Uh CPA is

5:01:44 basically uh the funds are from tax base

5:01:49 1% sir charge on real estate property

5:01:52 tax bills. Um the state community

5:01:56 preservation trust fund provides us a

5:01:59 certain match each year. It varies each

5:02:01 year depending upon the real estate fees

5:02:04 that are paid at the registry. That's

5:02:07 what community preservation act funds uh

5:02:10 uh get as a state match and uh and

5:02:14 interest as well. So our total revenue

5:02:16 to date and is uh through through 27 by

5:02:21 the way. Uh so that's some projection in

5:02:24 there of 22,700,000.

5:02:28 Next slide please.

5:02:32 Now this is another slide about what the

5:02:34 CPA delivers. We have on our website

5:02:36 this interactive map which will show you

5:02:39 if you go to it all of the different

5:02:41 projects from fiscal year 25 and 26. We

5:02:44 had 29 projects that have already been

5:02:47 approved. Fiscal year 27 of which we're

5:02:50 approaching. We're uh bringing you eight

5:02:53 new eight new projects for a total of 37

5:02:56 projects. Uh the CPA funds involved in

5:02:59 those projects is 16.5 million. And

5:03:03 additionally, we've leveraged, and I was

5:03:05 actually surprised by this number, um,

5:03:08 is 15.9 million. So, we're pretty close

5:03:12 to a one-on-one

5:03:14 u basic match for the total of of 32

5:03:19 million um 500,000.

5:03:23 Next slide, please.

5:03:26 Now, we're going to be um

5:03:33 sorry, I'm missing my [snorts]

5:03:37 using old fashioned using paper and one

5:03:39 got stuck. All right. CPA funding

5:03:42 projects by amount. Um we keep we track

5:03:46 the category of funding because uh we

5:03:50 are uh we have a plan which uh obligates

5:03:54 us in a state uh scheme which obligates

5:03:57 us to fund in three areas community

5:04:00 which is affordable housing, historic

5:04:02 preservation, open space and recreation.

5:04:05 So, we want to uh uh categorize those

5:04:09 and figure out where we are, how we're

5:04:12 doing in that uh in the in this

5:04:16 comparison. And uh the total by category

5:04:20 um will for both the ones we've already

5:04:25 uh secured and also the ones we are

5:04:28 going for for this round will be 52% in

5:04:31 housing, 16% in historic preservation

5:04:35 and 32% in open space and recreation.

5:04:39 So, you can see that we are ahead a bit

5:04:41 in community housing, behind a bit in

5:04:44 historic preservation, and we're looking

5:04:46 at this as a five-year

5:04:49 uh effort. So, we're hoping that they

5:04:52 those level out uh as we get toward the

5:04:55 the end of the five years. Um, next

5:04:58 slide, please.

5:05:00 We have

5:05:02 three [snorts] motions before town

5:05:03 meeting. Two of them are represented in

5:05:05 the first chart. Um and they are um for

5:05:11 the first motion will be for 1 2 3 4 5.

5:05:15 The fif the the total five the fif the

5:05:18 first five um data points in this chart

5:05:23 ending with community housing uh are the

5:05:26 amounts in the first motion and what it

5:05:29 this motion does because this is

5:05:32 anticipated revenue. It's not revenue in

5:05:35 hand. And I'll explain that in a minute.

5:05:38 But what this motion does is when the

5:05:42 tax dollars come into the general fund,

5:05:44 when the state match and the interest

5:05:46 amounts go into the general fund, the

5:05:49 treasur then moves them into these

5:05:52 categories.

5:05:54 um so that when we're ready to start

5:05:57 using them in a future year, uh they

5:05:59 will already be set up in that category

5:06:02 for us to uh bring projects to you and

5:06:05 to the town meeting. Um so the uh

5:06:09 unallocated budget reserve for next year

5:06:12 would we estimate it'll bring in 2.5

5:06:16 million and the 10% uh budget reserves

5:06:21 for open space 10% for historic

5:06:23 preservation and 10% for community

5:06:26 housing which is dictated by the statute

5:06:28 by the way uh are going to be 393,400.

5:06:33 So that's the first motion. Then the

5:06:35 second motion is our administrative

5:06:37 costs. The statute permits us to set

5:06:40 aside 5% for administrative costs and

5:06:44 those include salaries uh dues to the

5:06:47 state organization from which we get a

5:06:50 lot of technical assistance. Um but it

5:06:53 also pro uh gives us the the funds to

5:06:57 hire consultants to do certain things.

5:07:00 We've had Jen Goldson uh who has helped

5:07:05 us develop our CPA plan and we've also

5:07:08 consulted with her and a couple of other

5:07:10 issues. So uh anything that we don't

5:07:13 spend in that category will go back into

5:07:17 our unallocated budget reserve. We never

5:07:19 lose the money. It we it always stays

5:07:22 with us. Uh and but it goes back into

5:07:25 our unallocated budget reserve for

5:07:27 spending in another year. Um and that's

5:07:30 the difference between the two motions

5:07:33 is that the monies in the first in the

5:07:36 uh unallocated budget reserves and the

5:07:38 10% reserves will not be spent next

5:07:41 year. They will be uh moved into the

5:07:46 into the categories for CPA. They will

5:07:49 not be spent. We don't spend money that

5:07:51 we don't have in hand and we never know

5:07:54 exactly uh how much money we're going to

5:07:57 actually have. These are estimates. Um

5:08:00 we like to spend money in hand because

5:08:03 for to to um

5:08:07 one year we didn't we did not estimate

5:08:11 correctly or we didn't uh um I should

5:08:15 say plan correctly and we had to do

5:08:17 what's called a true up and it's kind of

5:08:20 a pain in the neck frankly. So we want

5:08:22 to avoid that. true up is is correcting

5:08:26 uh the uh amounts that go into uh in

5:08:29 each project and and and go up into

5:08:32 these categories. So but in the

5:08:34 administration uh

5:08:37 category we spend that this year uh in

5:08:40 the year that we collect it and that is

5:08:43 because in the first two years when we

5:08:46 were collecting money uh we weren't

5:08:48 spending it on projects we were busy de

5:08:51 getting organized and developing a plan

5:08:53 etc. Uh so that we did have a large uh

5:08:56 amount of cash that first year. Uh but

5:08:59 that's not been the case with the

5:09:01 administrative budget. So we spend that

5:09:04 we expect to spend that next year. Um

5:09:06 the third motion is the one for the

5:09:09 appropriation of awards and I believe

5:09:11 you have that in front of you. I'm going

5:09:13 to go through those quickly so you'll uh

5:09:17 just to highlight the uh important

5:09:20 points. We have a total of over $4

5:09:23 million. Unallocallocated budget reserve

5:09:26 is 1.9 plus open space 430

5:09:31 historic preservation 878300

5:09:34 and community housing 798400.

5:09:38 Next slide please.

5:09:42 Okay so the community housing projects

5:09:45 the affordable housing I wish they'd

5:09:47 always call called it that. Um we have

5:09:51 1.1 million allocated for the Trustman

5:09:54 roof preservation.

5:09:56 Um and an important thing to note about

5:09:59 this is a uh Brookline Housing Authority

5:10:02 project and an important thing to note

5:10:04 about that is that we have been able to

5:10:06 secure a very favorable leverage and

5:10:10 matching funds from the state. Uh so we

5:10:13 anticipate a one and a half uh match

5:10:17 although for a prior project the Eggmon

5:10:21 Street roofs which have already been

5:10:23 approved we had 500,000 in 2025

5:10:27 um another 500,000 in 2026 and those

5:10:31 were matched they were doubled actually

5:10:34 so this we put in a million RCPA put in

5:10:37 a million and the state put in two

5:10:39 million so um that's one of the reasons

5:10:42 our leverage uh number is high because

5:10:46 of those kinds of projects from uh BHA

5:10:50 and also uh we'll get to some of the

5:10:52 private projects which have attracted

5:10:54 also a lot of private money um the 398

5:10:58 Nancy could you sort of include

5:11:00 you want to go faster

5:11:01 yeah your time is up so if you can

5:11:04 okay so you can see uh you can read for

5:11:06 yourself then the uh the projects under

5:11:09 community housing historic preservation

5:11:12 We have the United Parish steeple.

5:11:14 Again, we have a large amount of

5:11:16 matching funds and the old burial

5:11:18 grounds restoration which we are

5:11:21 continuing. We funded other projects in

5:11:23 in the previous two years. We're

5:11:24 continuing that. Uh open space and

5:11:27 recreation. Next slide please.

5:11:30 Um D Blakeley invasive species

5:11:33 management. We're continuing to fund

5:11:35 those kinds of projects. Tree inventory

5:11:38 is also continuation. And now we're

5:11:41 coming to the Lars Anderson green

5:11:43 infrastructure study. Um, so that's it.

5:11:47 Uh, we hope you'll vote favorable action

5:11:49 on these projects. If you want to know,

5:11:51 you want to get into the weeds, I can

5:11:53 certainly do that, but I my sense is you

5:11:56 would rather not.

5:11:58 Okay, this is a public hearing, so let's

5:12:00 Well, let actually does anyone have

5:12:03 questions from the board?

5:12:05 No. I I have had some uh constituents

5:12:08 reach out wondering is there going to be

5:12:10 a plan at some point to try to pull more

5:12:13 money together for larger scale projects

5:12:16 and what are some of the limitations

5:12:18 around that such as you mentioned about

5:12:19 the 10% minimum per category.

5:12:22 Right. We we do have to spend uh we have

5:12:25 we have to put money into the 10%

5:12:28 category unless we don't have any

5:12:30 projects in that category and then we

5:12:32 can't spend it. Uh but um we

5:12:36 really the um the limitations

5:12:41 are um that we never lose the money. So

5:12:44 that's not a problem. And we do have

5:12:46 quite a bit built up now. And there have

5:12:49 been I think some of your constituents

5:12:50 may have been talking to you about open

5:12:52 space projects, recreation projects. And

5:12:55 we have been reluctant to to

5:12:59 uh spend every single cent we had in the

5:13:02 hope that we would be able to help the

5:13:04 town if there is such a project, an open

5:13:06 space purchase or uh or a um renovate uh

5:13:12 creation of a park for instance. Uh, by

5:13:15 the way, we are creating a park on

5:13:16 Harvard. Uh, it's called the public

5:13:18 health park park that that land there

5:13:21 that's already been approved. But, um,

5:13:24 so, you know, we're reluctant to spend

5:13:27 every dime because we want to be able to

5:13:31 have a bit of a cushion to be able to to

5:13:35 uh uh spend that kind kind of money. I

5:13:38 mean,

5:13:40 right. Well, that that was the intent

5:13:41 behind my question. So that's good to

5:13:42 hear because I think people are

5:13:43 wondering whether CPA funds could be

5:13:46 utilized for something larger scale and

5:13:48 it sounds like they're

5:13:50 Yeah. Well, certainly we have used

5:13:52 larger scale uh projects. We had $3.8

5:13:54 million $3.75 million for uh the Walnut

5:13:59 High development

5:14:00 as you know and we did that the first

5:14:02 year when we had a lot more money. Um

5:14:05 we're now facing less money each year.

5:14:08 Uh so we have about four million. Um but

5:14:12 we have some that gets returned like in

5:14:15 you know and that begins to build up our

5:14:17 unb unallocated budget reserve so that

5:14:20 we could potentially meet some of these

5:14:24 larger uh requests you know a million or

5:14:28 two million say

5:14:29 for uh land. And there's also the rink

5:14:32 and the uh you know we funded the uh

5:14:35 design and the and that plan for the

5:14:37 rink. Um but we know that it has to be

5:14:40 built. Probably we wouldn't be able to

5:14:41 do the whole thing but we might be able

5:14:43 to u contribute to it. So

5:14:46 and the 3.75 million was just half of

5:14:49 what went into walnut high pro uh

5:14:52 project.

5:14:52 Correct. The uh

5:14:53 the HAB providing

5:14:54 the HAB put in the other that's so

5:14:56 there's $7 million there. It's supposed

5:14:58 to be a $70 million project, I think.

5:15:01 Yeah.

5:15:01 But that we we get we allocated the

5:15:03 money in order to leverage uh the other

5:15:07 monies that are that are coming in now.

5:15:09 Okay, let's open up the hearing.

5:15:13 Um John Heert online has his hand

5:15:16 raised.

5:15:16 Okay, John Heert.

5:15:22 For whatever reason, uh my camera is not

5:15:26 working. Uh, can you are you able to

5:15:28 hear me?

5:15:28 Yes.

5:15:29 Great. Um, I'm John Heert. I'm a town

5:15:33 meeting member in Pre67. I live at uh 21

5:15:37 Auburn Street. And I I have a it's more

5:15:40 of a curious uh question and it pertains

5:15:45 in part to the um

5:15:49 to the previous uh discussion about uh

5:15:51 the CHCA

5:15:54 uh and relative to the 10.93 million

5:15:57 cash in le of payment that uh under that

5:16:01 MOA city realy would make uh to the

5:16:05 housing afford uh to the affordable

5:16:08 housing trust fund. And um I'm just

5:16:11 curious to know if I I see overlap

5:16:14 between that money for the affordable

5:16:17 housing trust fund and some of the

5:16:19 projects here on the um on the CPA

5:16:25 such as the Trustman apartments roof

5:16:27 replacement and the um

5:16:31 uh the housing advisory board uh

5:16:34 affordable housing trust purpose of

5:16:36 community housing creation preservation

5:16:39 support and I'm curious to know with

5:16:42 that overlap

5:16:44 uh is it is it possible for some of the

5:16:47 10.3 9 to sorry some of the 10.93

5:16:51 million for example

5:16:54 to be used in for purposes that are

5:16:59 described here for the CPA funding

5:17:02 thereby freeing up more CPA funds for

5:17:07 additional projects. Are is is there

5:17:10 separation between these uh two uh silos

5:17:14 if you will?

5:17:20 Uh

5:17:22 wait,

5:17:23 you want me to answer the question?

5:17:24 Uh yeah, it was a direct question.

5:17:26 Okay. Um well the uh to date the HAB the

5:17:31 housing advisory board and with who that

5:17:34 manages the trust the housing trust um

5:17:37 has focused on creation of new housing

5:17:40 and while we at the CPA have also

5:17:43 focused on creation with the $3.75

5:17:46 million for the Walnut High projects

5:17:49 have focused on the preservation of what

5:17:53 we have in Brooklyn now as affordable

5:17:56 housing. housing. A lot of it is

5:17:58 unfortunately dilapidated

5:18:01 and um our tenants are living in um

5:18:06 conditions that we would prefer they not

5:18:07 live in and we want to uh to uh we want

5:18:12 to uh help that situation. So, we've

5:18:16 funded, for instance, the um Brookline

5:18:19 Community Development Corporation in its

5:18:22 house in its affordable housing to fix

5:18:25 their um

5:18:28 outside the uh uh preservation of their

5:18:31 roofs and uh there are other things

5:18:35 which which uh correct deficiencies in

5:18:40 the uh and and deterioration in the

5:18:44 structure of the building to preserve

5:18:46 it. Uh that's in turn corrected uh uh

5:18:49 attracted other money which w which is

5:18:52 used to rehab the interior of the

5:18:57 building which CPA is does not uh do

5:19:02 when it has not created the actual uh

5:19:05 apartments to begin with. In addition,

5:19:08 as I say, we've done we've done u

5:19:11 projects for the BHA roof preservation,

5:19:14 uh window restoration, that kind of

5:19:16 thing, which are very important to

5:19:18 tenants because they prevent le they

5:19:21 keep keep them dry and uh also keep the

5:19:25 energy costs down and the feel of how

5:19:28 they what it feels like to live in an

5:19:30 apartment where the wind is blowing in.

5:19:32 Uh so we're cognizant of that and we are

5:19:36 um

5:19:38 working on that. HAB has not really done

5:19:42 that to the extent that uh at least

5:19:46 since I've been involved in it since um

5:19:50 uh CPA has come into existence. And I

5:19:53 think that's a good role for us to play

5:19:56 because I think it's important for us to

5:19:58 support this housing that we have and to

5:20:02 um ensure that our tenants the tenants

5:20:05 in those buildings and they're not town

5:20:08 uh owned. They are the BHA is stateowned

5:20:10 although I I think of it as a quasi town

5:20:13 agency since we vote for the

5:20:14 commissioners but uh and the BCDC is uh

5:20:19 uh a nonprofit uh that's operating in

5:20:22 the town but these are town residents

5:20:25 and they deserve to live in uh decent

5:20:28 conditions and uh I think it's you know

5:20:32 certainly morally um correct to uh

5:20:37 pursue this path.

5:20:38 of making sure that the tenants we have

5:20:41 are in are living in good conditions as

5:20:44 well as building more units for tenants,

5:20:48 prospective tenants.

5:20:49 Can I ask you a really quick question?

5:20:50 Sure.

5:20:51 Um the BCDC funding um is what I'm

5:20:56 thinking of. Could you do that for a

5:20:58 privatelyowned

5:21:01 um three-story or three-unit building uh

5:21:04 that is uh reasonably priced because for

5:21:08 example the owner lives in the building?

5:21:13 I don't know the answer to that question

5:21:15 off the top of my head. I think it would

5:21:17 depend upon um a lot of agreements with

5:21:22 the owner.

5:21:22 Oh yeah. um you know and uh the uh

5:21:28 apartments would have to be designated

5:21:31 as affordable in perpetuity.

5:21:33 That would be one a CPA requirement that

5:21:36 you might not get with a private owner.

5:21:38 But then again, you could

5:21:40 but you could try.

5:21:40 Yeah.

5:21:41 And and the reason I mentioned that

5:21:42 so I'm not ruling it out, but I'm saying

5:21:44 there are some addition additional um

5:21:47 con constrictions, you know.

5:21:50 Yeah. The reason why I mentioned that is

5:21:52 that we have a lot of housing in this

5:21:54 town that's that's affordable, middle

5:21:56 income affordable um that uh is

5:22:00 basically old and run down and maybe you

5:22:03 know if uh an owner gets some subsidy

5:22:06 for keeping the u roof in shape or

5:22:09 something um they can they would be

5:22:12 willing to enter into an agreement to uh

5:22:15 keep it affordable for perpetuity.

5:22:16 Right. I mean it it would require a

5:22:19 unique situation but it's something that

5:22:22 um

5:22:22 it would require a unique situation and

5:22:25 we did have originally I believe we had

5:22:27 an applicant who came forward but the

5:22:30 idea was that that they would transfer

5:22:33 the prop the the apartments to other

5:22:38 owners who would you know be able to

5:22:40 sell them at market rate at some point

5:22:42 and again that's not CPA is not uh

5:22:46 interested in doing that. We're

5:22:48 interested in preserving and increasing

5:22:50 affordable housing in the community.

5:22:54 Okay, let's open up the um

5:22:57 public is open. Okay.

5:23:00 Sorry, John. [laughter]

5:23:02 No, I I if if I may just um make a

5:23:05 comment uh here in followup, I I

5:23:08 certainly don't want anybody to

5:23:09 misconstrue that I'm that I'm against

5:23:13 this. In fact, I'm I'm all for this. And

5:23:15 I'm my question is is it possible to

5:23:18 free up even more funding that we have

5:23:21 in the CPA that could be used from this

5:23:24 for example this $10.93 million that is

5:23:29 um that would if the MO if if the

5:23:32 contract went through with city realy um

5:23:37 would we be able to use some of that

5:23:38 $10.93 million for some of the purposes

5:23:41 that are now used by CPA to free up

5:23:45 those funds. In other words, it sort of

5:23:49 amplify uh the effect or

5:23:54 or would that money uh have to be used

5:23:58 for other purposes and not be able to

5:24:02 use uh for the same purposes as CPA

5:24:05 funds are used?

5:24:07 Are you suggesting they should be used

5:24:08 for open space and recreation and

5:24:10 historic preservation as well? I'm just

5:24:13 saying I'm asking to clarify the

5:24:15 question.

5:24:16 Okay. And uh

5:24:17 maybe maybe I should jump in here. Um

5:24:21 so

5:24:22 the mitigation funds for from city realy

5:24:26 from theou are a different are are could

5:24:29 be you know for different purposes right

5:24:31 but the the general purpose of that

5:24:33 money is to right to mitigate the the

5:24:36 impact uh of the additional development

5:24:40 in town. So yes, it can be used for

5:24:43 similar purposes to CPA, but it's got to

5:24:45 be built around this idea of mitigating

5:24:48 the impact. And yes, theoretically,

5:24:52 um, if there was overlap between those

5:24:54 two pots of money, then yes, that money

5:24:56 could be used for something that could

5:24:57 then be used for CPA, but right now that

5:25:00 it it doesn't seem to me that there's an

5:25:03 immediate overlap there. Um, that could

5:25:05 change. Um but yes, you know, you got to

5:25:09 remember that in order to for them to

5:25:11 make that payment, it's got to be

5:25:12 related to something uh involving why,

5:25:16 you know, the the building being there

5:25:18 in the first place or the additional

5:25:19 development being there in the first

5:25:20 place.

5:25:22 And if I can jump in here briefly too on

5:25:24 the CPA funding side, we've historically

5:25:27 used over half of the CPA funds

5:25:29 available for housing uh purposes. at a

5:25:33 minimum we need to have 10% for housing

5:25:37 purposes. So the difference in that has

5:25:39 been made up with the unallocated budget

5:25:41 which can be used for any of those

5:25:42 purposes. Um, and I mean in theory you

5:25:47 could use more of those unallocated

5:25:49 purposes for things other than housing,

5:25:52 but I think that um when it comes to

5:25:54 housing often the the need is so great

5:25:57 and the expense is so great that um

5:26:01 really it like all of the above usually

5:26:05 when it comes to affordable housing. So

5:26:07 um I think it would take an overwhelming

5:26:10 amount. It sounds like a very large

5:26:12 amount of mitigation funds, which is

5:26:14 great, but I I would suspect that

5:26:16 there's still going to be a pretty big

5:26:18 role to play for CPA and community

5:26:19 housing even with that mitigation funds.

5:26:23 Okay,

5:26:23 thank you everybody.

5:26:25 Unless there is anyone else who would

5:26:28 like to speak, I'd like to close the

5:26:29 hearing.

5:26:31 And um I think I I would like to, you

5:26:35 know, vote favorable action, but I think

5:26:38 as a as a policy matter, we ought to

5:26:40 wait till another meeting in order to

5:26:43 make that decision. So,

5:26:44 okay.

5:26:45 Good. Thank you.

5:26:47 Thank you.

5:26:47 Thank you, Nancy.

5:26:50 So um it is 10:47

5:26:54 and some I I understand some people in

5:26:57 this uh audience are fading.

5:27:01 No names will be mentioned. Um is there

5:27:04 some way we can put off

5:27:05 I have I have some good news for you

5:27:07 which is that article 19 has been

5:27:09 withdrawn. Um so that's out.

5:27:12 Um articles 17 and 25 there have been

5:27:16 some changes some revisions. Um, but a

5:27:19 motion was just offered to refer today.

5:27:22 So, and that's not in your packet.

5:27:24 Motion by refer

5:27:26 by Marty Rosenthal was offered to refer

5:27:29 17 and potentially 25 to a

5:27:32 two motions to refer.

5:27:33 Yes. Well, there's one joint there's a

5:27:34 motion to refer both articles. Uh, and

5:27:36 theoretically,

5:27:37 yeah, a joint motion to

5:27:39 that's how it's styled. I don't know how

5:27:42 the parliamentary procedure on that

5:27:43 works. Um

5:27:46 um but it's unclear at this point

5:27:48 whether Marty Rosenthal he's oh so sorry

5:27:50 so to whom he's he's referring it to a

5:27:53 select board committee.

5:27:54 Oh my god. [laughter]

5:27:55 Select board committee.

5:27:58 Um anyhow um so that's that's out there.

5:28:01 Um but that hasn't been um vetted yet.

5:28:05 So I don't think there's action

5:28:06 necessarily for you to take on 17 and 25

5:28:09 yet given those. Um that

5:28:11 put that off for another

5:28:12 right another day. That leaves you with

5:28:15 12

5:28:17 uh and 24. Um 12 uh is the article about

5:28:22 publishing public records requests. And

5:28:24 I'm sorry I you have the petitioner

5:28:26 here. Um you also have Marty who's here

5:28:31 who's raised his hand if he wants to

5:28:33 talk about his referral motion. Um and

5:28:35 then you have the petitioner for 12 and

5:28:38 uh

5:28:41 20 um

5:28:43 uh 24 which is the two offer two

5:28:47 articles offered by Mike Toffel and Alec

5:28:49 Labitz. Um

5:28:51 maybe you want to

5:28:52 Yeah.

5:28:53 I I and so I mean all right if people

5:28:57 if folks on 17 and 25 want to talk about

5:28:59 them that's fine. Um,

5:29:01 well, look, I I'd like to hear from

5:29:02 Marty in terms of, you know, motivation

5:29:06 behind his referral

5:29:07 and then you should hear from the

5:29:08 petitioner. Yeah.

5:29:09 Yeah.

5:29:10 I I think given that we have the

5:29:11 petitioners here, we hear from them,

5:29:13 too.

5:29:14 Oh, I'm sorry. They made some changes,

5:29:15 right?

5:29:16 They made some changes, right?

5:29:18 Okay. So, why don't we start off with

5:29:20 the petitioners giving us their changes

5:29:23 and then go to market.

5:29:25 What are we doing? 12 12 first.

5:29:27 No, no, no. So it looks like they're

5:29:29 17 and 24.

5:29:30 Looks like their hands are up. So why

5:29:32 don't we why don't if it's all right

5:29:33 with you when you do 17 and 25.

5:29:36 Okay. Yeah.

5:29:38 And so Chi-Chi Wu is on.

5:29:40 Okay. Chi-Chi, why don't you speak

5:29:42 regarding uh 17 and 25? Um

5:29:49 okay, great. Thank you uh very much.

5:29:51 Chi-Chi moving meaning member pre

5:29:53 precinct 7 co-petitioner on article 17

5:29:56 and 25 joined by uh my co- petitioner

5:29:59 Jessica Kiko um appreciate the board

5:30:02 hearing from us since we have been on

5:30:04 since you know 8:00

5:30:07 um we have made changes to uh both 17

5:30:11 and 25 as a result of feedback both from

5:30:14 me uh members of the select board as

5:30:16 well as advisory committee um I sent

5:30:21 those to uh you and I'm hoping you have

5:30:25 a copy of them if you would like. We

5:30:27 actually have slides we which we can

5:30:29 show you the changes if you'd like.

5:30:32 Why don't you do that?

5:30:33 We do have the and we do have the

5:30:34 revised versions in the packet. So yes.

5:30:36 Okay.

5:30:37 Okay. Great. Let me see if I can

5:30:40 uh

5:30:42 It's on page 720 of the packet.

5:30:50 My AP.

5:30:54 All right. My apologies. The

5:30:59 Zoom is not giving me an option for

5:31:03 uh

5:31:04 Can you make her as co-host?

5:31:06 She's co-host. She should be able to

5:31:07 Yeah. No, it's just it's just giving not

5:31:09 giving me the option for um Can you see

5:31:13 a PowerPoint right now?

5:31:15 No.

5:31:16 So, Chaz, is this in our packet as

5:31:18 revisions to article 17 round two?

5:31:20 Yes.

5:31:21 Chi, I have it pulled up if you want me

5:31:23 to screen share.

5:31:25 Oh, awesome.

5:31:27 Zoom is just not giving me an option for

5:31:29 to share it from um from Google Drive.

5:31:33 Yeah. You you want the slides, right?

5:31:35 Yeah.

5:31:42 Sorry. Do you want me to go back or

5:31:44 start here?

5:31:46 Okay. Yes. Thank you, Jessica. Um, so

5:31:48 the first change is um at the paragraph

5:31:53 one of the article where uh we added the

5:31:56 federal um before some civil immigration

5:31:58 enforcement in response to um Michael uh

5:32:02 Rubenstein's suggestion. We also added

5:32:04 uh at the end a um sentence that for

5:32:08 purposes of the article the term town

5:32:10 facilities does not include streets,

5:32:12 roads or other public ways and that is

5:32:15 um uh at the suggestion of the advisory

5:32:18 committee subcommittee. Next slide

5:32:20 please.

5:32:23 Um on paragraph two, we tweaked the

5:32:26 language um per suggestion um to focus

5:32:30 on the activity and not the personnel of

5:32:33 central immigration enforcement

5:32:35 prohibiting it in non-public spaces. We

5:32:38 struck the second sentence. We were

5:32:39 getting a lot of feedback that, you

5:32:42 know, it could possibly be interpreted

5:32:43 to actually weaken um some of the other

5:32:46 prohibitions, some concerns about

5:32:48 language and um back and forth and and

5:32:50 we finally decided it was just uh easier

5:32:52 to strike that. So, that has been

5:32:53 struck. The next slide, please.

5:32:57 Um on paragraph three per the suggestion

5:33:01 of advisory committee we noted that it

5:33:04 was town employees that would document

5:33:06 violations of um first and second

5:33:08 paragraph and notify the to

5:33:10 administrator's office. Um we have made

5:33:12 violations not only civil in nature but

5:33:14 also not subject to section 10.1 of the

5:33:17 bylaws which is the uh police criminal

5:33:20 enforcement of bylaws. So it's

5:33:22 absolutely clear this is civil and uh

5:33:25 nature only. We've struck paragraph 4 um

5:33:29 that we had suggest we had thought about

5:33:31 suggesting earlier. Um we were getting a

5:33:33 lot of comments about different aspects

5:33:34 of the language and um it was getting

5:33:36 complicated and we came to the

5:33:38 realization that um also putting in the

5:33:41 bylaws would mean that um it would be an

5:33:44 actual prohibition on on officers doing

5:33:46 anything to interfere with federal law

5:33:49 enforcement including even uh the

5:33:51 example we heard from the police a

5:33:53 couple of meetings ago where um you know

5:33:56 they basically they said what happens

5:33:58 some in the police station is that um

5:34:00 ICE officers are politely to wait

5:34:02 outside and um that could be construed

5:34:05 as interference. So, we wouldn't want to

5:34:06 prohibit that. So, we've struck that.

5:34:09 So, those are our changes. Happy to

5:34:11 answer questions. I I don't know if I

5:34:13 was hoping you might vote one way or

5:34:16 another just to vote. I'm not sure we

5:34:18 can be back for a fifth time. Um we've

5:34:22 been before you three times. We uh our

5:34:25 motion was deferred another time when we

5:34:27 waited. So, I I'm I'm really hoping um

5:34:30 the board would like to take some

5:34:32 action. Thank you. And then 25. Jessica,

5:34:35 do you want to do that or you want me to

5:34:36 handle that?

5:34:38 I I can do it real quick.

5:34:40 Um let me just make that.

5:34:42 Uh we made three.

5:34:44 Can we can we take up 17 and just

5:34:47 resolve it first because I think we may

5:34:49 want to do different things between the

5:34:51 two of them.

5:34:51 You want to make a motion?

5:34:52 You've got you've you've got a referral

5:34:54 motion. Yeah. Too. So, you might want to

5:34:56 hear from after Marty.

5:34:57 Oh, that's right.

5:34:58 Because that's going to take precedence,

5:34:59 right?

5:35:00 Well, it would be voted on first.

5:35:02 Yeah.

5:35:02 At town meeting.

5:35:05 So,

5:35:05 but I mean, we can we we can recommend a

5:35:08 favorable action.

5:35:11 We could, but until we hear the case for

5:35:13 referral, I

5:35:14 Yeah. No, I'm not saying we should do

5:35:16 that before hearing Marty, but

5:35:18 Right.

5:35:18 Yeah. We're not restrained by

5:35:21 the rules of town meeting.

5:35:24 Um Okay, Jessica. You said you wanted if

5:35:27 you want to take up 17, you should

5:35:28 probably hear from Marty referral.

5:35:30 Yeah. Okay. Um Marty,

5:35:34 why don't you in I think I'm in

5:35:35 just on 17.

5:35:38 Uh go never mind.

5:35:41 Am I Can you hear me?

5:35:44 Oh, all right. Sorry. Um so I got the uh

5:35:48 petitioners

5:35:49 u latest version today.

5:35:53 um and wish they had sent it to me as

5:35:55 well, but that's a separate issue. And

5:35:57 then I decided I better put my referral

5:36:01 uh draft into writing because I've been

5:36:04 talking about it for a month or three

5:36:07 weeks and haven't put anything into

5:36:10 writing. So, the motion uh I I think you

5:36:13 got it. Wait a minute. Who made my

5:36:16 screen go full? Somebody. All right. The

5:36:20 the motion at this point is and and the

5:36:23 moderator said it's within the scope is

5:36:25 to refer the subject matters tentatively

5:36:29 17 and 25

5:36:31 uh including potentially related

5:36:35 police general orders to a

5:36:39 promptly appointed select board

5:36:41 committee with in part representation of

5:36:43 CDICR and the police commissioners

5:36:46 advisory committee with staff including

5:36:49 bus the police and town council's

5:36:52 assistance in keeping in place the

5:36:54 board's February 10 proclamation

5:36:57 regarding civil immigration enforcement.

5:37:01 That's basically the motion. I think you

5:37:03 have it uh about an hour or two ago. I

5:37:07 sent it at least to Jessica and I I

5:37:09 maybe she shared it with the

5:37:11 petitioners. I hope

5:37:14 you're explain why Marty.

5:37:16 Yeah. Okay. So, I I have been saying for

5:37:20 a couple of weeks that I don't

5:37:22 understand why the petitioners are want

5:37:26 to run the risk of having a bylaw

5:37:29 reviewed by the attorney general and

5:37:32 voiding not only this bylaw but also all

5:37:36 the executive orders by by implication.

5:37:38 I think and the reasons are I've stated

5:37:42 them before. I think it's loaded with

5:37:44 legal issues and the town council memo I

5:37:47 thought was very cursory saying that

5:37:50 paragraph one was okay. Even that one

5:37:53 has issues aside from the ICE issues.

5:37:56 And I hope anyone has looked at the Vera

5:37:59 report that I talked I've talked about

5:38:01 and cited for you that talks about the

5:38:03 ICE issues, the sovereign immunity

5:38:06 versus the 10th amendment. But there's

5:38:09 also issues about essentially a trespass

5:38:12 law. Doesn't call it a trespass law. And

5:38:15 I think that's probably preempted by

5:38:17 state law. I don't think it's adequately

5:38:20 enforceable. I think it's still got a

5:38:22 lot of vagueness, which criminal laws uh

5:38:26 scrutinize for vagueness. And the

5:38:29 enforcement provision that's been

5:38:31 changed is just not going to work. I'm

5:38:34 sorry. Uh, you cannot

5:38:37 make 10.1, you can't overrule it. 10.1

5:38:42 says a violation of the bylaws is a

5:38:44 misdemeanor. And that comes from state

5:38:46 law. Last week, uh, the chief and I

5:38:49 think Chi-Chi agreed that it's a general

5:38:52 law. It's not a general law. It's state

5:38:54 law that goes back to common law. In

5:38:56 fact, it goes back to for any lawyers in

5:38:59 the room, Blackstone's commentaries that

5:39:02 that anything that is deemed to be a

5:39:05 violation against the state a state of

5:39:09 or where the state is the plaintiff is a

5:39:13 crime. It's a misdemeanor. And that's

5:39:15 where 10.1 comes for. This bylaw

5:39:18 doesn't, the draft doesn't try to

5:39:20 overrule uh 10.1 and the enforcement

5:39:24 provision that civil enforcement that's

5:39:27 already in our bylaws that something can

5:39:29 be enforced civily, but that doesn't

5:39:31 take it out of the designation as a as a

5:39:34 misdemeanor and a crime that gets

5:39:36 scrutinized by the attorney general. So,

5:39:38 I just think that paragraph one, there's

5:39:41 other issues as well. says, "I brought

5:39:44 up the streets and sidewalks issues, but

5:39:46 what about parking lots and and parks?

5:39:49 If the police see someone they want to

5:39:52 kidnap a alleged detainee in a park or

5:39:58 uh in a parking lot, are we saying they

5:40:01 can't go in there?" That's going to run

5:40:03 into the the sovereign immunity issues

5:40:06 and and the police station is now

5:40:08 considered banned. They can't go into

5:40:11 the police station and ask if someone is

5:40:13 in detention or when they're coming out.

5:40:15 I have proposed last week that we add a

5:40:20 a general order along the lines of the

5:40:22 Plymouth provision that John Van Goyak

5:40:25 sent me uh which is that our our in

5:40:29 keeping with our sanctuary order the

5:40:31 desk officer could say I'm not

5:40:33 authorized to tell you anything. But

5:40:34 that's a separate issue. But the point

5:40:36 is, how can we make the police station

5:40:39 out of bounds for ICE? The other thing

5:40:42 about this is that Alec brought up last

5:40:45 week that we want it to be that you

5:40:47 folks and I do too. I want something

5:40:50 more binding to so that people can count

5:40:53 on it. But the fact of the matter is, no

5:40:56 matter what happens here, ICE is not

5:40:59 going to care about what we say in

5:41:00 Brooklyn. And the fact is that people

5:41:03 should not be told, as Alec said last

5:41:05 week, with all due respect, I know it

5:41:07 was well motivated, that people should

5:41:10 be are counting on this. Nobody should

5:41:12 be counting on this. And I I hope that

5:41:15 the petitioners are not telling people

5:41:18 that

5:41:19 even the proclamation

5:41:22 is is going to save them from ICE right

5:41:24 now. It isn't. In fact, ICE doesn't care

5:41:27 about homicide laws and kidnapping laws.

5:41:30 So, why are they going to care about an

5:41:32 a trespass law that's not called that?

5:41:35 And and lastly, um I I know that uh you

5:41:39 want to get on and get get the meeting

5:41:40 over with, but um the the uh the the

5:41:45 definition of the uh oh, by the way, the

5:41:48 it's there's a case called Sherman

5:41:50 Manufacturing 1905 that says a uh crime

5:41:54 or misdemeanor is an act committed or

5:41:57 omitted in violation of the public law.

5:42:01 So that's where the Blackstone's

5:42:03 commentary comes in that this is going

5:42:05 to be a crime no matter how you slice it

5:42:07 and the police shall enforce town

5:42:11 bylaws. So you're putting them in a

5:42:13 bind. What are they supposed to do with

5:42:15 this?

5:42:16 The bottom line is I really believe that

5:42:19 this would create a monkey wrench for

5:42:22 the at least six cities that now have

5:42:26 executive orders and maybe the governors

5:42:28 as well because some of the language is

5:42:30 the same as the governors. And I don't

5:42:32 think that's a risk worth taking. I

5:42:34 think it should be a study not by the

5:42:37 board but a committee created by the

5:42:39 board and that it should act quickly and

5:42:43 try to revise especially the general

5:42:45 orders. Whether there should be a bylaw,

5:42:48 I'm really reluctant that a bylaw.

5:42:50 Okay, we got we got it. David,

5:42:52 so just the uh portion you mentioned,

5:42:54 Marty, about concern of an attorney

5:42:56 general review. So the town of Plymouth

5:42:58 this past Saturday, they passed at town

5:43:02 meeting their version of this warrant

5:43:05 article. So that attorney general review

5:43:07 is going to happen regardless. So beyond

5:43:10 that point, however, you uh raised the

5:43:13 concern about uh police and for Brooklyn

5:43:17 police enforcing the bylaw in spaces

5:43:20 such as public parks. I'm wondering if

5:43:22 we can hear from the petitioners whether

5:43:26 you've had further discussions with the

5:43:28 police department about that enforcement

5:43:30 issue and about whether other public

5:43:33 spaces need to be exempted beyond

5:43:36 sidewalks.

5:43:40 So um we have not had further

5:43:44 conversations with the police

5:43:45 department. Um, we did, uh, as I said,

5:43:51 make enforcement of this civil and not

5:43:53 subject to the criminal enforcement

5:43:55 penalty in the bylaws. Um, so, uh, it,

5:44:02 um, I mean, the the obligation of the

5:44:06 police would be the same as any town

5:44:08 employee with a civil offense. And um

5:44:14 you know we took out the part about um

5:44:17 you know public spaces being for the

5:44:19 purpose that they were intended for and

5:44:23 so that particular paragraph only

5:44:25 applies to non-public spaces now. Um

5:44:31 yeah Jessica I don't know if you want to

5:44:32 add anything to that. Um, no. I I think

5:44:36 that's right. And I take the point that

5:44:38 just because we have a bylaw, it doesn't

5:44:39 mean that immigration enforcement agents

5:44:41 are going to follow it. And and we are

5:44:44 certainly not, you know, telling people

5:44:46 that, you know, we have this

5:44:48 proclamation, we will have a bylaws and

5:44:50 therefore nothing can happen to you in

5:44:52 Brooklyn. I mean, I I have spent the

5:44:54 past 16 months training literally

5:44:57 thousands of immigrants in Massachusetts

5:44:59 about their rights, and let me tell you,

5:45:02 nobody is feeling reassured, right?

5:45:04 Like, nobody feels completely safe no

5:45:06 matter where they live. Um, but I do

5:45:09 think um it it's important for the town

5:45:13 to say, "Look, th this is our property.

5:45:16 These are our facilities. We don't think

5:45:17 this activity is appropriate and

5:45:19 necessary in our space." Um and and I

5:45:23 think that that's still a really

5:45:24 important message uh to send and and

5:45:27 this bylaw does that. Uh and we you know

5:45:31 we we've listened um as Chi-Chi said to

5:45:35 the concerns expressed by our police

5:45:37 department regarding enforcability and

5:45:40 we've made amendments to to reflect

5:45:42 those concerns. Um and we think that um

5:45:47 it does what it needs to do in its

5:45:49 current version.

5:45:51 Okay. Uh, Michael, did you have your

5:45:53 hand up?

5:45:54 Um, yes, I did. Um,

5:45:58 I guess the question I asked I wanted to

5:46:00 ask Marty, but I think he may have

5:46:02 answered it already is, you know, um, a

5:46:05 referral motion as opposed to just

5:46:07 trying to defeat the amendment is for

5:46:09 study to bring it back um, for

5:46:12 reconsideration. So, I'm just wondering

5:46:15 what you expect the result of that study

5:46:18 to that study to be if all of if you

5:46:21 feel like the warrant article is just

5:46:24 riddled with um uninforcable or

5:46:28 inappropriate language.

5:46:31 May I be May I be heard?

5:46:34 Yeah, go ahead.

5:46:36 Well, it first of all, I don't think it

5:46:38 has to come back. I'm hoping frankly

5:46:41 that the real best way to handle this is

5:46:45 to do general orders that give the

5:46:48 police enforcement powers and it could

5:46:50 be also something to other employees

5:46:54 could come from a select board. So I'm

5:46:56 not convinced that the that a bylaw is

5:46:59 the best route on this. I think you

5:47:01 could do those things pretty quickly.

5:47:03 And I'm asking that the proclamation

5:47:05 stay in place, which is partly in re

5:47:09 along the lines of what Jessica is

5:47:11 saying that the message has been sent

5:47:13 and needs to be sent. It was a great

5:47:16 message, but I just don't think it's

5:47:18 going to accomplish the goals. It's

5:47:20 going to create problems for the police

5:47:22 department. And and the other thing that

5:47:24 Chi-Chi just said something about the

5:47:26 police will not be enforcing this. other

5:47:29 people will be enforcing it. The police

5:47:31 are obligated to enforce bylaws. That's

5:47:34 I think uh 10.2 or three. 10.2, isn't

5:47:37 it? Police are shall enforce bylaws. So,

5:47:42 I don't think they can ignore a a bylaw

5:47:45 violation whether it's in the police

5:47:47 station or in the town hall parking lot

5:47:50 or the playground the the park right

5:47:53 around the corner from town hall or any

5:47:54 playground park. So I just think this is

5:47:58 very difficult and it's much more

5:48:01 complicated and I wish somebody would

5:48:03 look at the Vera article because these

5:48:05 are going on all over the country and

5:48:07 that it raises some very complicated

5:48:09 issues and I don't think any of them

5:48:11 have been upheld yet which was uh

5:48:15 one of the things that came up last

5:48:17 week.

5:48:18 Thank you Marty. I think you answered my

5:48:19 question and I appreciate it.

5:48:20 Sorry. Yeah.

5:48:23 Anyone else with comments or questions

5:48:25 on select board?

5:48:30 No. Okay. Anything further from the

5:48:32 petitioners

5:48:34 specifically to warrant article 17?

5:48:39 On 17? No.

5:48:40 All right. So, do we feel ready to take

5:48:43 a vote on this? Sounds like you do.

5:48:45 I do. Yeah.

5:48:45 All right.

5:48:47 I'm ready to recommend favorable action.

5:48:49 I do have a question. So, um this maybe

5:48:53 it's a rhetorical question, but if if

5:48:55 there's no fines, there's no

5:48:58 enforcement,

5:49:00 um

5:49:02 it's seems like it'd be more civil, not

5:49:04 criminal. I I think probably the

5:49:06 exclusion of 10.1 probably covers you on

5:49:09 that. Um what's the point

5:49:13 uh of of moving it from a bylaw or not

5:49:17 from a policy chichi to to the bylaw?

5:49:20 What's your thinking there?

5:49:22 So, uh, as I mentioned in one of the

5:49:24 earlier presentations, um, part of the

5:49:26 reason that triggered this warrant

5:49:29 article was when someone said, well, uh,

5:49:32 you know, to enforce the proclamation,

5:49:34 we would go to court and ask for an

5:49:36 injunction enforcing the ordinance. And

5:49:39 of course, an ordinance is a bylaw. It's

5:49:42 not a proclamation. So, it makes it um,

5:49:45 have more legal weight so that it's

5:49:46 enforcable civily through an injunction.

5:49:50 Um and you know the idea is that all

5:49:52 town employees you know whether it be

5:49:54 librarians, teachers or police officers

5:49:56 report it to the town administrator's

5:49:58 office and the town administrator um

5:50:00 would then you know have to make the

5:50:02 decision whether to seek uh an

5:50:04 injunction in court.

5:50:06 So you're just saying it carries more

5:50:08 weight broadly. Is that what the issue

5:50:10 is?

5:50:10 Yes. Yes. Um it it has more legal

5:50:13 enforcibility if you're going to go to

5:50:14 court and ask for an injunction that

5:50:15 it's a bylaw. and and others here can

5:50:18 remind me if I'm misremembering but I

5:50:21 think the police chief had stated that

5:50:24 effectively the police does act they do

5:50:26 exercise discretion on what they are

5:50:29 enforcing and when they are enforcing

5:50:32 it. Uh so I think that mllifies perhaps

5:50:35 some concerns about questions of uh

5:50:38 would we seek to go after ICE if they

5:50:41 utilized a public park for example as uh

5:50:45 space to your uh question just now Paul

5:50:48 about uh what's the point I think maybe

5:50:50 to some extent the point is a statement

5:50:54 of our values

5:50:56 uh even if ICE is going to realistically

5:50:59 ignore it the main reservation that I

5:51:02 had initially was the point that Marty

5:51:05 made about attorney general review, but

5:51:07 given that Plymouth has passed their

5:51:09 version, that's going to happen

5:51:11 regardless. Uh, so I'm prepared to

5:51:14 support Warrant Article 17, uh, and

5:51:18 sounds like Michael is moving that

5:51:19 Yeah.

5:51:20 question,

5:51:20 right?

5:51:22 Okay.

5:51:23 I move that we recommend favorable

5:51:25 action on Warren Article 17.

5:51:26 Okay. All in favor, John.

5:51:29 [clears throat and cough]

5:51:31 Well, with a lot of reservations because

5:51:33 I do think um Marty has a very good case

5:51:36 for referral. Um but I'll say I

5:51:42 Paul Warren.

5:51:43 Paul Warren. I'm going to abstain.

5:51:45 David I

5:51:48 and chair votes I.

5:51:51 Okay.

5:51:52 Thank you. Select board.

5:51:54 Thank you.

5:51:54 That's 17. Now we have 25.

5:51:58 Thank you. Okay. Okay.

5:51:59 Discussion.

5:52:03 Um, is it okay if I share my screen uh

5:52:05 and show slides with the edits we've

5:52:08 made?

5:52:08 Yes, go ahead.

5:52:11 Okay. And I'll be as brief as humanly

5:52:13 possible.

5:52:15 Uh so again in response to feedback that

5:52:19 we received both um before the select

5:52:22 board and in public hearing before a

5:52:24 subcommittee of the advisory um council

5:52:27 we've made three specific edits um to

5:52:30 the local planks of warrant article 25.

5:52:33 Um the first one is with regards to

5:52:35 fingerprinting. Um our resolution calls

5:52:39 for not fingerprinting juveniles or

5:52:41 following arrest for misdemeanors. Um,

5:52:43 and there were some concerns expressed

5:52:45 by our uh, police department um, that

5:52:49 doing so would mean that we would not be

5:52:51 in compliance with state police

5:52:53 accredititation standards. Um, this is

5:52:56 not an area of expertise for me. The

5:52:57 research that I found indicates that

5:52:59 state law requires fingerprinting only

5:53:01 for felonies. Um, and I couldn't find

5:53:03 anything specific in our police

5:53:05 accreditation that requires

5:53:06 fingerprinting across the board for

5:53:08 every arrest. Uh, nonetheless, we

5:53:11 included um this qualifying language

5:53:13 unless required by state law or police

5:53:16 accredititation um to address those

5:53:18 concerns.

5:53:20 The second uh is that we also added a

5:53:23 qualifier to applying for UASI grants

5:53:26 and we added that we shall cease

5:53:29 applying for grants unless such grants

5:53:31 do not require cooperation, support of

5:53:34 or data sharing with federal immigration

5:53:36 enforcement or border crisis response.

5:53:39 participation in the brick or

5:53:42 cooperation with federal election

5:53:44 interference.

5:53:45 And then the last one, not as

5:53:47 substantive, we struck um the names of

5:53:50 the individuals in the very last uh

5:53:53 bullet um and instead just referred to

5:53:56 uh officers by title and removed

5:53:59 reference to the select board and the

5:54:01 police chief as they will of course um

5:54:04 be aware of the warrant article. So

5:54:06 those are our three uh recommended ch uh

5:54:11 suggested edits uh in response to the

5:54:14 feedback that we've received.

5:54:16 Okay,

5:54:17 we're happy to answer.

5:54:18 Okay, so since Marty has also referred

5:54:20 this, why don't we hear from him and um

5:54:24 briefly Marty?

5:54:27 I see two pastors on the uh uh doesn't

5:54:31 have her hand up, but looks like she's

5:54:33 wanting to speak.

5:54:37 Well, assuming I I'm likely to still do

5:54:40 the referral motion, I'm likely to

5:54:42 include this as well because I think

5:54:44 there's things in this that could be

5:54:46 improved and the resolution

5:54:49 goes back to the board basically to do

5:54:52 things anyway. So, um I think that

5:54:55 there's things in here that could be

5:54:58 improved and added like what I talked

5:55:00 about about improving the what's not

5:55:04 called whatever it's called the

5:55:05 sanctuary order uh that police could

5:55:08 decline to answer a question for

5:55:10 instance and I had other ideas that I've

5:55:13 mentioned in past meetings but I'm going

5:55:15 to also probably put those into writing

5:55:18 as a possible amendment if my referral

5:55:23 motion fails. But I do think that uh for

5:55:26 the same reasons I talked about earlier,

5:55:28 if it's going to be referred on 17, I

5:55:32 think that should refer this one too,

5:55:34 which doesn't really detract from this

5:55:37 one at all because this one is a

5:55:40 resolution that basically is referred

5:55:43 back to the select select board anyway.

5:55:45 So, it seems to me that um I have some

5:55:49 ideas on how to improve this that I hope

5:55:51 the petitioners would be open to. Uh and

5:55:55 if that's the case, then I think this

5:55:57 should be referred as well. And I'm not

5:55:59 going to get into those specifics now,

5:56:01 partly because of the hour and partly

5:56:03 because they're all scribblings in my

5:56:05 computer.

5:56:06 Okay. Thanks. Um Chief Sullivan, I see

5:56:08 has his hand raised. Why don't we hear

5:56:10 from him?

5:56:15 Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, John Sullivan,

5:56:18 fire chief and emergency management

5:56:20 director. Um, again, I would ask the

5:56:24 board to vote non-favorably on this

5:56:26 article um in my capacity as the uh

5:56:29 jurisdictional point of contact for the

5:56:31 UASI region uh for the town. Um this

5:56:35 this article um has [clears throat] a

5:56:38 poison pill in it that would restrict us

5:56:41 from going for any grants um based on

5:56:46 the various

5:56:48 items that are in there and which is

5:56:50 really veiled in um the the petitioners

5:56:56 political stand against the immigration

5:56:57 enforcement and I get that. Uh but this

5:57:00 is this is not this is not the vehicle

5:57:03 to do that. We we get a great deal of

5:57:06 funding and a lot of our uh capacity for

5:57:10 emergency management from the Yasi

5:57:12 region. Uh and it is throwing the baby

5:57:15 out with the bathwater. we would we

5:57:17 would potentially lose hundreds of

5:57:19 thousands of dollars worth of equipment

5:57:21 and um resources [clears throat]

5:57:24 and uh not just in Brooklyn but

5:57:26 regionally if we were to just withdraw

5:57:30 UASI alto together. I know it's saying

5:57:33 not to go for UASI grants but that it's

5:57:35 effectively the same thing. Um it's it

5:57:38 is a temporary situation. We lived

5:57:41 through this administration before.

5:57:42 We'll live through it again. uh we've

5:57:44 gone through all kinds of uh iterations

5:57:47 of this over the course of the 25 years

5:57:49 since 911 and I really think it is uh it

5:57:53 is not in the best interest of the town

5:57:55 uh to withdraw from Yuasi uh whether

5:57:58 it's just the grants which in effect is

5:58:00 the same same thing. So that's all I

5:58:03 have to say.

5:58:03 Hey uh chief can I ask you a question?

5:58:05 So this warrant article also talks about

5:58:08 withdrawing from brick. Um, yeah.

5:58:10 And frankly, I'm sympathetic to that

5:58:14 because brick, uh, as it's alleged, is

5:58:18 really running wild. Is there any way

5:58:22 I I don't have any I don't have I can't

5:58:25 speak to brick. I I don't have any

5:58:27 direct con connection to it as the fire

5:58:29 chief or EMD. And that's kind of my

5:58:31 point is that that's the poison pill in

5:58:34 this particular piece of the article. uh

5:58:37 just as the poison pill that I I brought

5:58:39 up at the at the uh statewasi meeting uh

5:58:43 was that the the grant itself required

5:58:47 um you know some funding for immigration

5:58:49 enforcement and border protection. It's

5:58:52 the same thing but in reverse. They're

5:58:54 doing the same thing in this article as

5:58:56 the federal government did uh in in

5:58:58 their uh iteration. And I just think

5:59:01 it's it's using the it's using this

5:59:06 against its best interest. And I and I

5:59:09 don't think it's the right thing. It's

5:59:10 political activism uh when we're trying

5:59:12 to run town government. And that's

5:59:14 that's my opinion.

5:59:16 No, I and I get that, right? But the

5:59:18 concern is that um Brick is compiling

5:59:22 information on people alleged to be gang

5:59:25 members who are behaving like children.

5:59:28 um and that that that they have a a

5:59:30 database of of uh alleged gang members

5:59:34 that is overwhelmingly people of color.

5:59:36 All these allegations, which I don't

5:59:39 know whether they're true or not, but

5:59:41 you know, we have to find some way to

5:59:43 basically open the books and see if that

5:59:45 is the case and if it is to to find some

5:59:48 way of preventing or to stopping it.

5:59:51 I mean I mean may I let chief pastor

5:59:54 speak on this too, right? I think this

5:59:56 is the thing where we got to talk about

5:59:59 What are the allegations? When were they

6:00:01 made? What are they in in in response

6:00:04 to? What has happened since those

6:00:06 allegations were made? You know, I

6:00:08 understand where the petitioners are

6:00:09 coming from. I understand the case that

6:00:11 they reference from nine years ago prior

6:00:14 to the enactment of the trust act.

6:00:17 The trust act doesn't address brick.

6:00:19 It does address brick though.

6:00:21 Not the one not the Boston trust act I

6:00:23 read. I mean it addresses the activity

6:00:25 of the of law enforcement in Boston. Um

6:00:29 and you know I think the other big thing

6:00:32 that was raised is a more recent issue

6:00:34 which is the monitoring of protest

6:00:36 activity. Um and to the extent that that

6:00:40 is a concern um that is something that

6:00:43 we can you know is obviously something

6:00:45 that can be talked about. But I think

6:00:47 the biggest thing here is that when

6:00:50 Mayor Woo was a city councelor, she

6:00:53 voted to against funding the brick. Um

6:00:56 there was that period of time in which

6:00:58 we, you know, we were worried that the

6:01:01 brick was going to move to Quinsey. Um

6:01:02 nothing against Quinsey, but you know,

6:01:04 it's just like it was it would have been

6:01:06 a massive downgrade in terms of capacity

6:01:09 and ability to do the work. Um, and I

6:01:12 think, you know, I I think rather than

6:01:17 just say to your point, right, we we got

6:01:20 to get to the we got to get to the

6:01:21 bottom of these allegations because

6:01:22 these allegations are serious um and and

6:01:26 are worth discussing. But I feel like

6:01:29 we're just accepting them as as true um

6:01:32 and we're not looking at the broader

6:01:34 history of this because now that

6:01:35 Michelle Woo is Mayor Michelle Woo, she

6:01:37 has been resolute against defunding the

6:01:40 brick. What I'd like to what I'd like to

6:01:43 know is what is it that Michelle Woo has

6:01:46 found out about the brick that gives her

6:01:49 that confidence. See, I I think what we

6:01:52 got to do is tell Brick, "Open your

6:01:53 books. Let us know."

6:01:55 Well, I Bernard, I think that that, you

6:01:58 know, there's probably still legitimate

6:01:59 concerns. Have the have all the reforms

6:02:02 been done to solve all the problems that

6:02:05 have to do with you know the gang

6:02:06 database is really I think where the

6:02:08 issue is with the brick but the brick

6:02:11 also provides important regional

6:02:14 infrastructure for law enforcement to

6:02:16 respond to terrorist attacks the boss.

6:02:19 So you know I think we got to be careful

6:02:21 about throwing the baby out with the

6:02:22 bath water here.

6:02:23 Um I'm not suggesting that matter of

6:02:25 fact ICE does legitimate things. Yeah,

6:02:28 we're not concerned about the legitimate

6:02:29 things they're doing. We're concerned

6:02:31 about the things that really are way off

6:02:33 off.

6:02:34 Well, we're not Well, we're not asking

6:02:36 we're not getting rid of ICE with the

6:02:38 with the uh the thing that we just voted

6:02:41 on. No, I'm I'm saying, you know, the

6:02:43 fact that there are good things that

6:02:45 brick does is important, but it it

6:02:48 doesn't address the issue that I think

6:02:50 this warrant articles is trying to

6:02:52 address and that I'm concerned with, and

6:02:54 that is in some ways they are out of

6:02:56 control or seem to be out of control and

6:02:59 and you know, we have to know whether

6:03:01 that's true. Um, and and if it is, you

6:03:04 know, what what can we do about it?

6:03:07 I'm sorry, David. I I think Paul's point

6:03:09 is that the a distinction between the

6:03:11 two warrant articles. So Warren article

6:03:12 17 does not seek to eliminate ICE. Not

6:03:16 that we could do that anyway.

6:03:17 Yeah. No, I mean

6:03:18 whereas Warren article 25 is saying

6:03:21 withdraw from brick. So

6:03:23 doick eliminate it essentially.

6:03:25 And it seems like you're

6:03:29 acknledging.

6:03:30 No, I'm not ex I don't think that that's

6:03:32 necessarily the right answer. But before

6:03:34 we do anything, we got to basically

6:03:36 figure out what it is that brick is

6:03:37 doing.

6:03:38 What we're hearing from our police

6:03:40 department that being part of brick is

6:03:42 very important. So absent proof of

6:03:46 ongoing malfeasants that's not several

6:03:48 years old and that reforms are not

6:03:50 working. I think the burden is the

6:03:53 opposite of how you're placing it.

6:03:54 You're basically saying brick needs to

6:03:56 prove that it's uh fully safe. Now, I

6:04:00 think we need proof that what brick

6:04:02 brick is continuing to engage in

6:04:04 misdeeds before we withdraw from

6:04:07 something that our police department

6:04:08 says is critically important without

6:04:10 having all the facts.

6:04:12 I'm not suggesting withdrawing. I'm

6:04:13 suggesting let's find out some

6:04:15 information before we go for at some

6:04:18 point. That may mean, you know, finding

6:04:20 out what Mayor Woo has determined to be,

6:04:24 you know, where Brick is now, um, where

6:04:27 where it wasn't a few years ago. Uh,

6:04:30 and, uh, we we just need to know before

6:04:34 we, um, and we commit ourselves to to an

6:04:38 organization that that is a little

6:04:41 scary. Uh John,

6:04:43 well uh I I think that what what's uh uh

6:04:49 persuading me that that we should not

6:04:51 support this article is actually a kind

6:04:55 of a simple matter of um what we as

6:04:59 select board members um the relationship

6:05:02 we bear towards the police department

6:05:06 and the question of whether the police

6:05:08 department participates in brick is

6:05:11 always in front of us. I mean, we could

6:05:14 at any time, you know, decide in our

6:05:16 capacity as select board members that we

6:05:20 we're not comfortable with um our police

6:05:23 department participating in brick. Um

6:05:26 but I don't want to seed that decision

6:05:29 to town meeting. Um

6:05:31 I John, I agree.

6:05:33 Yeah. My only concern is we don't know

6:05:37 we don't know enough about brick to say

6:05:39 that we should continue

6:05:41 working with them.

6:05:42 Yeah. But but we can

6:05:44 we also don't know enough to say not to

6:05:46 work with

6:05:46 Yeah. Yeah. I mean we we of course

6:05:48 we can we can take that up, you know,

6:05:50 and we owe it, you know, a thank you to

6:05:53 um the sponsors of this Warren article

6:05:55 for, you know, kind of putting the

6:05:57 pressure on us to not just sort of

6:06:00 casually go along with brick. But I

6:06:03 don't think we should resolve questions

6:06:05 that we might have once we learn more in

6:06:09 and it all comes down also to our

6:06:11 collaboration with our fire chief and

6:06:14 our police chief and we owe it to them

6:06:18 to re really take seriously the

6:06:21 questions raised by this article but not

6:06:24 by seeding decision- making over whether

6:06:28 Brooklyn should participate in Brook to

6:06:30 brick to town meeting.

6:06:32 Um, it's for us to decide.

6:06:35 Disagree with that. All I'm saying is

6:06:37 that

6:06:39 the credible allegations have been made

6:06:41 over many, many, you know, months and in

6:06:45 many situations that brick has some

6:06:48 problems. I don't know whether they're

6:06:50 true or not, but we have an obligation

6:06:52 to determine to extent we can whether

6:06:55 this is an organization that we want to

6:06:57 be involved with. I mean it it but

6:07:00 we don't need this warrant article that

6:07:02 No, we don't need the warrant article.

6:07:03 This is so this is a little separate.

6:07:05 No, you're raising I think you're

6:07:06 raising an important point that that the

6:07:08 board should get more information. I

6:07:11 think John is also raising an important

6:07:13 point that we're hearing from our fire

6:07:15 chief. We're hearing from our police

6:07:17 chief.

6:07:17 He doesn't know anything about brick.

6:07:18 No, I know. And well, but he's opposing

6:07:20 the article and we're

6:07:21 [clears throat and cough] hearing from

6:07:22 our town administrator who is saying,

6:07:24 you know, we can't just bail on brick.

6:07:26 We've heard that from our our chief of

6:07:27 police. So I'm inclined to say no action

6:07:30 on the article and let's go initiate an

6:07:33 investigation of brick to get the

6:07:35 answers that you want and we could

6:07:36 always withdraw it from it from in the

6:07:38 future. But that's two separate

6:07:40 questions. Do we withdraw from brick

6:07:42 after we get more information? We're not

6:07:44 going to get more information before

6:07:45 town meeting.

6:07:46 No

6:07:46 your satisfaction.

6:07:47 But we have to start the process. I mean

6:07:49 you know

6:07:50 this kicks us in the pants to go start

6:07:51 the process.

6:07:52 Okay. I'm sorry.

6:07:53 But I agree with what Sean and Paul are

6:07:55 saying and you to an extent. There's

6:07:56 nothing wrong with getting more

6:07:58 information and committing ourselves to

6:08:00 doing that. I totally agree. But the

6:08:02 question before us right now is this

6:08:04 Warren article.

6:08:05 I agree. I'm deviating from that.

6:08:07 And also I'll add there are eight other

6:08:09 municipalities that are a part of brick

6:08:12 including Cambridge and Somerville. Not

6:08:14 one of them is withdrawn.

6:08:17 Maybe this issue hasn't come up.

6:08:20 I mean no you know there there was there

6:08:22 were these issues in Somerville. You

6:08:23 know, I talked about the Romea outur

6:08:25 case. You know, that's even in the

6:08:28 aftermath of that case, then Mayor

6:08:30 Valentine didn't talk about withdrawing

6:08:31 from the brick. You know, it's it's

6:08:33 But was a brick involved with that?

6:08:35 No, they weren't. No, but again, that

6:08:37 was ICE. But I'm saying, you know, in

6:08:38 the the aftermath of something like

6:08:40 that, the issue of to what degree did

6:08:42 the Summerville Police Department, you

6:08:44 know, coordinate in any way with federal

6:08:46 law enforcement? That was a salient

6:08:48 question. Um, and even then, now to be

6:08:51 fair, Mayor Valentine is no longer the

6:08:53 mayor. Um, but I haven't seen Mayor

6:08:56 Wilson have any have that conversation

6:08:58 either. Um,

6:08:59 so by the way, Chief Pastor has her hand

6:09:02 up. Let's hear from her.

6:09:04 Thank you all very much. Um, I would I

6:09:08 you know am in agreement with uh Chief

6:09:11 Sullivan

6:09:13 um that I would recommend a vote of no

6:09:15 action on this or non-favorable action.

6:09:17 I think there's a lot of there's a lot

6:09:19 of confusion which I understand. Um not

6:09:21 everybody has been living the brick for

6:09:24 15 years or whatever as long as I have I

6:09:26 guess longer. Um Uassi and the brick are

6:09:29 not the same thing. There was some

6:09:31 information um you know in some of the

6:09:35 public hearings people came forward.

6:09:36 There was a resident of Newton who

6:09:39 testified that you know she lives in

6:09:40 Newton. Newton's a safe city. Newton's

6:09:42 not part of the brick. And that's simply

6:09:43 not true. I think that we're all in

6:09:45 agreement that law enforcement, the

6:09:46 Brooklyn Police Department, uh,

6:09:48 specifically, you know, we need our

6:09:49 partners. We need our relationships with

6:09:51 other police departments in order to be

6:09:53 effective in keeping our community safe.

6:09:55 The brick is operations. The brick is

6:09:58 how we do that. Um, the brick extends

6:10:01 far beyond the UAS, the nine cities and

6:10:03 towns that make up. I can't think of a a

6:10:06 single city or town in our immediate

6:10:08 area that doesn't contribute to the

6:10:10 brick, including the colleges and

6:10:11 universities, Newton, the other, you

6:10:13 know, surrounding cities and towns. Um,

6:10:16 it's not, it's more than just the UASI

6:10:18 cities and towns. And I understand why

6:10:19 that's confusing. Um, UASI funds the

6:10:22 brick, but the brick serves as a

6:10:23 regional hub similar to the Commonwealth

6:10:25 Fusion Center. Those are the two for the

6:10:27 state. Um so we would be removing

6:10:30 ourselves

6:10:32 from the [snorts] hub of information um

6:10:34 gathering you know collecting and and in

6:10:37 um you know synthesizing and sharing out

6:10:41 it just it operationally wouldn't make

6:10:43 any sense for us and we don't have the

6:10:46 capacity and it just wouldn't be good

6:10:48 practice to try to replicate that on our

6:10:49 own. Um there were a few other things

6:10:53 mentioned. You know, I think somebody

6:10:55 talked about the brick, for example,

6:10:56 being present at

6:10:59 um Occupy Boston. I mean, those things,

6:11:02 you know, you can take there's a little

6:11:03 bit of truth in everything that I think

6:11:04 was said. Occupy Boston, I remember back

6:11:07 in the day there were there was crime

6:11:08 there. It was they weren't there to

6:11:10 impede on First Amendment rights. They

6:11:12 were there because there was drug open

6:11:13 market, open air drug dealing happening,

6:11:15 sexual assaults were happening.

6:11:18 um it it was becoming violent towards

6:11:20 the end and so you know a police

6:11:22 presence was warranted. Um and I think

6:11:25 with regard to you know the statistics

6:11:27 that are being shared um regarding

6:11:29 demographics we should be troubled by

6:11:32 that. But I have to say you know if you

6:11:34 go on the Boston Police Department

6:11:35 they're pretty transparent. They have a

6:11:37 crime dashboard. They share out their

6:11:39 homicide statistics. And if you look at

6:11:40 the demographics of who's being killed

6:11:42 in instances of gang violence in the

6:11:44 city, the statistics and the

6:11:46 demographics are a pretty close match.

6:11:48 And that's unfortunate. That's something

6:11:49 to be solved for. But illuminating us

6:11:52 from the brick does nothing to solve for

6:11:54 that.

6:11:56 John,

6:11:57 um I just want to raise one other um

6:12:00 aspect of this. Uh, and I I don't do it,

6:12:03 you know, to um create um tension. Uh,

6:12:06 but but I think some people might bridal

6:12:09 at what I'm about to say. Um, this is

6:12:13 worded as a request, you know, request

6:12:16 that uh the site board or the town

6:12:19 withdraw from participation in brick.

6:12:23 If if we were to recommend to town

6:12:24 meeting that they not adopt this for the

6:12:27 reasons that we've been discussing here

6:12:29 and town meeting went ahead and adopted

6:12:32 it anyway. I frankly I don't think it it

6:12:36 would um actually have the power of uh

6:12:40 of what what's the phrase I'm looking

6:12:42 for? force of law,

6:12:44 the the force of law to to require us as

6:12:47 the police commissioners to uh decide uh

6:12:52 to um bow to, you know, something that

6:12:55 we disagree with in terms of police

6:12:57 policy. If after discussing with the the

6:13:00 chief and the fire chief, if if we came

6:13:02 to think that the chiefs are right, um

6:13:05 they are more or less under our

6:13:07 authority and uh why would we be bowing

6:13:11 to a request to deny them something that

6:13:14 they have told us in very clear terms

6:13:16 they want to continue to have access to.

6:13:18 So I'm I'm not sure that we would even

6:13:21 have a clear end to this discussion even

6:13:25 if town meeting went ahead and adopted

6:13:27 this article.

6:13:28 You're right,

6:13:30 Michael. Um, I guess one of the things

6:13:33 that I'm struggling with is, you know,

6:13:36 this the there are eight different

6:13:39 sections to this and there are some

6:13:42 sections that I I think are more

6:13:46 reasonable and are worthy of adoption

6:13:49 and then there are others that are

6:13:51 problematic.

6:13:52 So, one of the things that I'm wondering

6:13:55 from the petitioners

6:13:57 is whether they have any interest in

6:14:01 identifying the common ground within

6:14:05 their uh their resolution.

6:14:10 um and moving forward where we have

6:14:12 common ground and then continuing to

6:14:14 work the other issues or whether or not

6:14:16 they feel like the entire set of eight

6:14:19 are sort of bound together in such a way

6:14:22 that that separating them is uh

6:14:26 unacceptable.

6:14:32 Gi, do you have an answer?

6:14:36 So Jessica has had her hand up for a

6:14:39 while and and we are all co-etitioners.

6:14:42 Yeah. And and our um transcript is over

6:14:44 her over her face.

6:14:46 Oh yeah, we can't see. Can we

6:14:47 Okay, Jessica.

6:14:49 Oh, sorry about that. I wasn't actually

6:14:51 It's not your fault. It's our fault.

6:14:54 That particular question. I think we

6:14:56 would uh need to consult with one

6:14:59 another first. I personally am inclined

6:15:01 to bring the whole thing before town

6:15:03 meeting. Um what what I was going to

6:15:06 address was some of the comments that

6:15:08 were made about Yuasi and brick. I mean

6:15:10 I think first of all you're right. We

6:15:12 don't know exactly how the brick works

6:15:14 and that is by design. It's not an

6:15:16 accident. Um city council in Boston um

6:15:20 just issued a demand for a series of

6:15:22 hearings on the brick to better

6:15:24 understand how data goes in and who it's

6:15:27 shared with. And we know that under the

6:15:29 current administration, if any federal

6:15:30 agency has access to that data, we can

6:15:32 be sure that immigration enforcement has

6:15:35 access to that data. Uh, with regards to

6:15:37 the UASI funding, I just wanted to say

6:15:39 to Chief Sullivan that, you know, we we

6:15:41 heard from you the importance of these

6:15:44 funds to our town. And so we we

6:15:48 specifically craft the language to say,

6:15:49 "Hey, we can get these funds unless they

6:15:52 require us to do immigration enforcement

6:15:55 or they require us to be complicit in

6:15:57 the brick or they require cooperation

6:15:59 with federal election interference. So,

6:16:01 you know, if if what we're hearing is

6:16:03 you can separate the brick from USI

6:16:07 um and if what we're hearing is right

6:16:09 now there is no immigration enforcement

6:16:11 requirement, right? Then that that

6:16:13 should address u those concerns. It's

6:16:16 not our intent um to to strip the town

6:16:19 from funding that we have access to as

6:16:21 long as it doesn't feed into these very

6:16:23 specific things that that I thought we

6:16:25 all it I know that there's controversy

6:16:28 around the brick but in terms of

6:16:29 limiting immigration enforcement um

6:16:32 collaboration and immigration

6:16:33 enforcement I thought that there was

6:16:35 common ground there um that's not you

6:16:37 know just our activist stance it's the

6:16:40 stance uh that the town has taken.

6:16:44 Michael.

6:16:45 Um,

6:16:46 actually, I think he had his hand up for

6:16:48 Okay, go ahead. Go ahead.

6:16:49 Okay. So, um I mean I I I know that uh

6:16:54 at least one of the petitioners is aware

6:16:56 of this, but um I I gave feedback uh to

6:17:00 the to the petitioners around number

6:17:02 seven. Um, I have concern about the

6:17:05 language, the amended language as

6:17:07 they've written it because it removes

6:17:10 the possibility of Brookline uh actually

6:17:14 being in control of whether or not we

6:17:16 are meeting those requirements. I know

6:17:18 that in some other circumstances, the

6:17:21 fact that the federal uh government has

6:17:24 required something uh hasn't prevented

6:17:27 us from in order to access funds has not

6:17:30 prevented us from challenging that

6:17:32 requirement. and and uh accessing or at

6:17:36 least requesting access to the those

6:17:38 funds. Anyway, so um I would I'm just

6:17:41 saying I would be much more comfortable

6:17:43 with number seven if it were in

6:17:46 Brookline's capacity whether or not we

6:17:48 determine

6:17:50 whether or not we are meeting those

6:17:51 requirements as opposed to whether or

6:17:54 not the federal government decides to

6:17:56 write requirements into their grants.

6:18:01 Okay. See, I'm sorry, David.

6:18:02 I just want to say I think that's an

6:18:04 excellent point, Michael. And uh if I

6:18:06 understand you correctly, in part at

6:18:08 least, you're saying if we don't have a

6:18:09 seat at the table, we're not part of the

6:18:12 discussion about the direction. If if we

6:18:14 were to withdraw, we don't have an

6:18:17 influence anymore on the condition of

6:18:20 appropriation.

6:18:21 Um I was specifically referring to the

6:18:23 UASI grants and the way that they're

6:18:25 constructed. I wasn't

6:18:26 Okay. For UAS grants,

6:18:27 yeah. Uh, for me, the overall structure

6:18:30 of the Warren article I find a little

6:18:33 problematic. I think it's very

6:18:34 well-intentioned and I'm not imputing

6:18:37 the motives in any way, but unlike War

6:18:39 in Article 17, which seemed focused on

6:18:43 trying to uh prevent ICE from continuing

6:18:48 to commit unconstitutional actions and

6:18:52 from uh persecuting people in our

6:18:55 community unreasonably, this warrant

6:18:58 article, even if it has that same motive

6:19:01 behind it, it seems to really be hamster

6:19:03 stringing our police department uh and

6:19:06 the town in a way that uh I'm not sure

6:19:10 why we would want to essentially punish

6:19:13 or make more complicated

6:19:16 uh policing in Brooklyn because we don't

6:19:19 like how ICE is acting. Uh and that's

6:19:22 the way this warrant article seems to be

6:19:24 structured. So I'm not comfortable

6:19:27 supporting it at this time.

6:19:29 Okay, I see Chi-Chi W's hand is up.

6:19:35 Hi. Yes. Uh thank you, uh Chair Green.

6:19:39 Um so I mean um I am you know kind of

6:19:45 seeing where the winds are blowing this

6:19:46 one and also um agree with my

6:19:51 co-petitioner Jessica Kiko that um

6:19:54 petitioners um probably lean be leaning

6:19:57 against taking those planks out um and

6:20:01 you know hoping in the interest of just

6:20:03 sort of um

6:20:06 you know moving forward on this um you

6:20:10 know I would say uh it is very likely

6:20:13 that we would not be taking those planks

6:20:15 out if if the board wants to vote

6:20:17 tonight.

6:20:20 Okay. Uh board, what do you say?

6:20:24 So Bernard, I um first I I I do

6:20:27 appreciate the petitioners and Chichi

6:20:30 your remarks and I I appreciate your

6:20:32 commitment to your own article that you

6:20:34 know take a vote and uh and we may still

6:20:36 bring it anyway. I do think taking out

6:20:39 the brick,

6:20:41 removing the the requirement of

6:20:44 withdrawing from the brick and also

6:20:45 removing the requirement to not

6:20:48 participate in wasi would basically gut

6:20:50 your article. Um, so I I'm not surprised

6:20:53 that you would you would not want to

6:20:55 make those changes. Um but for me, you

6:20:58 know, I it's when both of our uh lead uh

6:21:04 public safety officials are saying

6:21:06 please don't. Um and the town

6:21:08 administrators are saying please don't.

6:21:11 Um I feel like we almost have an

6:21:13 obligation to support them. Um we don't

6:21:16 always support everything they say, but

6:21:18 this seems to be unanimous from our our

6:21:21 public safety folks. So, I'm I'm

6:21:22 inclined to to to uh support no action.

6:21:27 Um, and Chichi, as you you're probably

6:21:28 aware of for mo many articles where I'm

6:21:32 either undecided or I want to take a

6:21:33 vote at town meeting because I I will

6:21:35 likely be in town meeting. Um, that's

6:21:37 why I've been abstaining on stuff to

6:21:40 leave me open an open path to hear the

6:21:42 arguments at town meeting as opposed to

6:21:44 committing right now. But for this one,

6:21:46 I I'm I'm I feel pretty confident that

6:21:49 I'm no action at this point.

6:21:52 Yeah.

6:21:53 Okay. Well, why don't someone move make

6:21:56 a motion?

6:21:57 So, I move uh no action on

6:22:00 Right.

6:22:01 I just I just moved it. I move no

6:22:04 action.

6:22:05 Okay. All in favor? Senator Vanco. Hi.

6:22:08 Um, Paul Warren.

6:22:09 Hi,

6:22:10 David Farman.

6:22:11 I Michael Rubenstein.

6:22:13 Regretfully, I

6:22:15 um chair abstains on this.

6:22:21 Okay. So, that's it.

6:22:23 All right. Thank you, Sucker. We're

6:22:25 going to go to bed now and

6:22:26 hopefully not see you again for a little

6:22:28 bit.

6:22:28 Thank you.

6:22:29 See you at town meeting.

6:22:30 Thanks for taking this.

6:22:32 We We We didn't take a vote on the

6:22:34 We have one more thing we need to do. We

6:22:36 have one more.

6:22:36 What's that? Oh, local ballot

6:22:37 information.

6:22:38 We do need to do that. But I I I will

6:22:40 just note we didn't take a vote on

6:22:42 either of the referral articles.

6:22:44 Oh, we didn't take the seven we

6:22:46 we didn't do 12 favorable.

6:22:48 You got 12 and 24 still to go

6:22:51 and the petitioners have been waiting

6:22:53 and they were actually ahead of

6:22:55 Yes. Well well 12 well 12 well 12 well

6:22:56 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well 12 well

6:22:56 12 well 12 well that's they were they

6:22:57 were ahead and behind. Um,

6:22:59 so, uh, Mike Tel is online. Um,

6:23:05 Mike, if you want to talk about where

6:23:07 you've been with 12 and 24.

6:23:16 Hi, guys.

6:23:18 Uh, is is Alec on the line here?

6:23:20 I don't see advisory.

6:23:22 Yes, I'm there as well.

6:23:23 There. Yep. Sorry.

6:23:24 I think Alex's gonna speak to it.

6:23:26 Yep.

6:23:27 Um yes. So um for warrant article 24 we

6:23:33 sent some suggested uh language edits to

6:23:37 CHAZ and uh Fang uh that sought to

6:23:41 address the concern that was raised by

6:23:42 select board member Paul Warren. Um that

6:23:46 language um clarifies I think what the

6:23:50 what would what we would be requesting

6:23:53 of town administration to um do to

6:23:56 verify the adoption of the recommended

6:23:59 policy in regards to archiving um public

6:24:02 record communications. Um so the actual

6:24:05 change in language

6:24:08 um would come in the last whereas clause

6:24:12 um where usage were were you routinely

6:24:15 monitored, excuse me, would be struck

6:24:17 and replaced by adherence was

6:24:19 periodically assessed. Um and similarly

6:24:23 the word monitoring would be struck from

6:24:24 the uh that the resolve clauses and

6:24:28 replaced with the word assessments. Um

6:24:30 so I think you know we wanted to be

6:24:32 sensitive to this concern. Um and in

6:24:35 Chaz's correspondence with us I think he

6:24:37 offered some clarification as well uh as

6:24:39 to what the town would maybe view their

6:24:42 mandate to be with this new language.

6:24:43 Chaz, do you want to speak to that?

6:24:45 Yeah, thanks, Alec. I think it's just

6:24:46 right. It's not, you know, we have no

6:24:48 intention of reading people's emails.

6:24:49 Um, it's just the the count. It's just

6:24:52 figuring out who's sending what. All

6:24:54 right, what board are they on? Okay,

6:24:56 that gives us a general sense to Paul's

6:24:58 point. Some people are on multiple

6:24:59 boards, so it's not a perfect count. Um,

6:25:01 but we generally know, okay, there are

6:25:03 folks who are using it and folks who are

6:25:05 not. Um, we send an email to the boards

6:25:08 on a regular basis saying, hey, here's

6:25:10 here's the number of emails that we got.

6:25:13 um from members of your board. Um just a

6:25:16 and you know not not even a you know

6:25:19 just a reminder this number doesn't mean

6:25:20 necessarily that you're not doing your

6:25:22 job because what if you have no email

6:25:24 traffic from doing from being on a board

6:25:26 but as a reminder if you are doing

6:25:28 official if you are conducting official

6:25:30 business you need to be copying this

6:25:32 board archives email. But to so may I

6:25:34 bring up?

6:25:34 Yeah.

6:25:35 Uh so but to be clear, you're still

6:25:37 saying you're going to go query the

6:25:39 email database

6:25:41 and see if

6:25:43 Paul Warren or whoever's on the

6:25:45 commission uh has actually had email

6:25:48 traffic. Yes.

6:25:49 Um I think I I I think that's a terrible

6:25:51 idea. I think if if you wanted to assess

6:25:54 uh you could send an email to uh the the

6:25:57 the board periodically and say, "Are you

6:25:59 aware of this requirement? Are you doing

6:26:02 it? please let us know yes or no. But to

6:26:05 actually go and do data mining around a

6:26:09 person's activity um I think I think is

6:26:12 is is a terrible idea. It's

6:26:14 surveillance. I don't think we should be

6:26:15 doing it.

6:26:16 Michael

6:26:18 um

6:26:19 I I have a question. Uh, have you

6:26:23 considered

6:26:24 uh in in sort of this this search um

6:26:28 that

6:26:31 you could also look at emails from

6:26:35 uh public body members to

6:26:39 anybody with a Brooklynmma ma.gov

6:26:41 address. So, for example, if a if the

6:26:44 chair of the Brooklyn Commission for

6:26:45 Women sends the select board leazison,

6:26:49 who is a select board member an email,

6:26:51 that would that would be captured within

6:26:55 our system. And I'm just wondering

6:26:56 whether or not the the analysis should

6:27:01 include such information as evidence of

6:27:03 activity or are we trying to measure

6:27:06 something else?

6:27:06 We're trying. So I I think you know at

6:27:09 that point and then it starts becoming

6:27:11 too much of a too much of rig

6:27:13 rigomearroll you know I I think what

6:27:15 we're trying to do is we're trying to

6:27:17 ensure that in situations where there's

6:27:20 interaction with the public as opposed

6:27:23 to interactions with staff um or other

6:27:26 individuals that have made.gov email

6:27:28 addresses that we are adequately

6:27:31 capturing that so that if there is a

6:27:33 public records request for those files,

6:27:36 it can be easily addressed and in such a

6:27:39 way that doesn't require the board and

6:27:43 committee member the border committee

6:27:44 members to do more work um or worse come

6:27:48 up with come up against a situation

6:27:49 where a border committee member refuses

6:27:52 access and then we have public records

6:27:53 that we just can't access. Um, so I

6:27:58 think for our purposes, I don't want to

6:28:02 build a giant system that tries to

6:28:04 figure out what every what every board

6:28:07 and commission member is emailing at any

6:28:09 given point. I want us to do enough to

6:28:12 ensure that compliance is being adhered

6:28:15 to. And so if that's something less than

6:28:18 checking people's names and making sure

6:28:21 that that's happening okay um we can

6:28:23 send a more general compliance note. Um

6:28:27 but you know at a certain point the

6:28:30 proof is going to be you know at at some

6:28:33 point someone will test this right at

6:28:34 some point there will be an issue you

6:28:36 know there will be a you know I don't

6:28:38 know a ZBA member or something um and

6:28:41 there will be an issue of with public

6:28:43 records from emails back and forth and

6:28:45 then the question will be do we have

6:28:46 those yes or no we know they exist

6:28:49 are did they copy

6:28:50 and then you'll find out

6:28:52 right the question is what what are we

6:28:54 doing to ensure compliance before that

6:28:57 point.

6:28:57 So, so I I do think I do think education

6:28:59 is important, but you know, let's run a

6:29:01 scenario. You send Warren, Warren's on

6:29:03 moderators committee,

6:29:05 moderators committ a bad example. You in

6:29:08 your wisdom, you appoint me to some

6:29:09 select board committee, which I don't

6:29:11 want you to. Uh please don't if I ask,

6:29:14 don't. Um and and I get this email uh

6:29:18 you know, you haven't you haven't sent

6:29:19 any emails to the to the the thing yet.

6:29:23 I I what I realize is, oh, I need to

6:29:25 send an email with X in it,

6:29:27 right? X. And that's what you're gonna

6:29:30 get. I'm gonna I'm gonna satisfy the the

6:29:32 the the the surveillance requirement of

6:29:35 being present in in the surveillance

6:29:37 database. I again I just I think it's

6:29:40 creepy. It's creepy. And I actually I I

6:29:43 mean, if I I'm going to volunteer and

6:29:45 you're starting to say I'm modering your

6:29:46 emails, like talk about scaring people

6:29:48 off from wanting to participate. I think

6:29:50 it's a terrible terrible idea. I am not

6:29:53 in favor.

6:29:57 And I guess I'm not really clear as what

6:29:59 purposes.

6:30:01 I mean, if I wanted to send emails to

6:30:04 someone, you know, town emails to

6:30:07 someone outside the system, I can do

6:30:09 that.

6:30:10 Yes. But you have a So, the whole point

6:30:11 of this, as Paul knows because we talked

6:30:14 about this, is that when this initially

6:30:16 came to us, it was a why don't we give

6:30:18 everyone Brooklyn.gov email addresses.

6:30:20 And the reason for that, as we've

6:30:22 discussed, is twofold. One, it's

6:30:23 expensive. Two, it's a security risk.

6:30:25 Um, so we don't want to do that. Um,

6:30:28 it's a bad idea. Um, but we understand

6:30:31 that the petitioners want to promote

6:30:33 transparency and allow for public

6:30:35 records requests to be better done. And

6:30:37 there is a benefit to having a

6:30:39 centralized place where public records

6:30:40 are kept. It's actually better for

6:30:42 boards and committee members because

6:30:43 then they have it's less invasive for

6:30:45 them if they get a hit with a public

6:30:46 records request to be able to say, "Hey,

6:30:49 just check broad, you know, let the let

6:30:51 the town do that work for me instead of

6:30:54 me having to go search my Gmail for my

6:30:56 my stuff." Um, that does, you know, that

6:30:59 feels pretty invasive. It feels more

6:31:00 invasive. Um, so I think there's a happy

6:31:04 medium here. I think I think the if the

6:31:06 concern is we don't like the idea and

6:31:08 again I I wouldn't be sending an email

6:31:10 saying hey I noticed that you don't you

6:31:12 haven't been sending enough emails

6:31:14 there's no quota it would just be like

6:31:15 here here's the data um there's no

6:31:18 judgment call about it just says here it

6:31:20 is um please be sure that you're copying

6:31:23 this if you're having conversations

6:31:24 outside of the ecosystem um so that we

6:31:28 always have a record on a Brookline

6:31:30 server so if that's the concern if the

6:31:32 concern is we don't want to do that we

6:31:34 want want to just we want to just do

6:31:36 monitor we want to ensure adherence

6:31:40 through education only that's if that's

6:31:43 the will of the board sure I'm happy to

6:31:45 do that I just think you know we got to

6:31:48 we got to balance that out um and you

6:31:50 know I balance out the competing

6:31:52 priorities here because I really don't

6:31:54 want us to be back in this situation

6:31:55 where everyone's saying we need agov

6:31:58 email addresses that's that's just it's

6:32:01 asking for trouble um

6:32:04 Um, first of all, um, I think in support

6:32:08 of what Paul is saying, um, this is

6:32:10 another case where, um, I I appreciate

6:32:14 the intent. Um, but I think the intent

6:32:18 and the impact are significantly

6:32:19 different. Um, and I think Paul has has

6:32:23 clearly identified the the potential

6:32:26 impact of of presenting the data. Um,

6:32:30 and it it's not neutral. it's it's not

6:32:34 neutral. Um

6:32:38 I mean yeah I think that's that's clear

6:32:40 to me that the will what the will of the

6:32:41 board is. So I'm happy to I'm happy to

6:32:43 structure this in such a way that

6:32:45 doesn't mine the data and just instead

6:32:48 reminds people on a regular basis of

6:32:50 their obligations to comply with this

6:32:51 rule.

6:32:52 But you have to get the approval or the

6:32:56 comments of the petitioners.

6:32:57 Yeah. I mean I I'm reminded of the TMMA

6:33:00 list serve monthly announcement. for

6:33:03 example, I mean,

6:33:04 if I can briefly just respond on on this

6:33:06 point, I I would say, you know, we

6:33:08 we've, I think, deliberately tried to

6:33:10 soften the language to to allow for more

6:33:12 flexibility here. And certainly, you

6:33:14 know, this is a resolution. Uh we make

6:33:17 no specific prescription for how this uh

6:33:19 verification has to be done. Um I I

6:33:22 would suggest that uh you know the

6:33:24 executive branch is well within their

6:33:26 purview to to set parameters and uh I

6:33:29 don't necessarily think that you know

6:33:32 going to a proactive outreach approach

6:33:34 would in any way really impinge the

6:33:35 spirit of the article and uh I'm

6:33:37 certainly open to that.

6:33:39 So I guess what I what I would like to

6:33:41 um what I'd like to propose is we change

6:33:43 the word. So, I do appreciate you went

6:33:45 from surveillance. I forget what you

6:33:47 what the word monitor.

6:33:48 Oh, monitor. Sorry. Monitor. [laughter]

6:33:50 Uh, and now what's the word we're using?

6:33:52 Assess.

6:33:53 Assess. Um, I I would change the assess

6:33:55 to educate.

6:33:58 Yeah, that's kind of where we are now.

6:34:00 Yeah. Educate. Yeah. I mean, and

6:34:02 basically what I mean what the

6:34:03 resolution is doing is saying there the

6:34:07 primary issue here is to expand the ask

6:34:10 to other boards and commissions, right?

6:34:13 um beyond what I think the select board

6:34:14 had done. I think we're now into uh into

6:34:17 moderators committees and stuff, right?

6:34:19 Is that the is that the expansion, Alec?

6:34:22 Who knows?

6:34:22 There there were two expansions. So that

6:34:24 is one uh Paul for sure.

6:34:26 Yeah.

6:34:27 Expanding scope. The other was that the

6:34:29 new word was evaluate

6:34:31 uh instead of monitor with the idea of

6:34:34 giving CHAZ and others the opportunity

6:34:37 to evaluate the effectiveness of an

6:34:40 education campaign for example because

6:34:42 maybe it is effective but if it's not

6:34:45 the idea is to allow you to evaluate it

6:34:47 and see whether other options are are

6:34:50 more appropriate

6:34:51 to folks adhere to the select board's

6:34:54 own policy.

6:34:55 Right. So, so I think an alternative way

6:34:58 to to assess is when you actually do get

6:35:01 a public records request, if you can't

6:35:04 fulfill it,

6:35:05 yeah,

6:35:05 from the from, you know, the archive

6:35:09 email account, um there there's an

6:35:12 educational email that goes out to

6:35:14 boards and commissions and says, "Hey,

6:35:16 we've got a we had a a request for this

6:35:21 particular commission and we were unable

6:35:23 to fulfill it because we couldn't find

6:35:25 responsive documents because you're

6:35:26 because no one was sending them. Um,

6:35:29 that to me is a way to do it with

6:35:33 information because there was actually a

6:35:34 proactive request to do it versus

6:35:36 something that appears to be more like

6:35:38 surveillance that would be

6:35:39 misinterpreted. Um, so again, I would I

6:35:43 would I would just call it I would I

6:35:46 could be I could be supportive of the

6:35:48 article if we changed that word to

6:35:50 educate um or in you know, educate the

6:35:53 boards and commissions and you can do

6:35:55 that as as regular as you want.

6:35:58 Okay. Um, by the way, Joe, do you have a

6:36:01 deadline of midnight tonight?

6:36:04 Oh, okay. Good. Because it's five up.

6:36:09 Okay. Okay. So, what are we what are we

6:36:10 doing here? Um,

6:36:12 so I I would like to I I'd like to move

6:36:14 I'd like to move uh I'd like to make an

6:36:16 amendment to the article,

6:36:18 propose an amendment. I I don't know

6:36:20 where I don't have the article in front

6:36:22 of me, but the the word that you had of

6:36:24 assess um I would like to change it to

6:36:27 educate.

6:36:33 Just so you know, it's the word is

6:36:34 evaluate that you're changing.

6:36:36 Evaluate to educate.

6:36:40 Not sure a big difference.

6:36:42 Well, evaluate

6:36:44 evaluate

6:36:46 was interpreted by the by the town

6:36:48 administrator to go mine the data. Um,

6:36:51 educate would be send a regular

6:36:53 reminder. We could actually call that

6:36:55 specifically say it. Send out regular

6:36:57 reminders that to to uh to use the uh

6:37:00 email address.

6:37:02 Okay, let's wrap this up. Um,

6:37:04 you want to make a motion? So I think I

6:37:07 think basically what you're saying is

6:37:08 you want to remove So tell me if I'm

6:37:11 tell me if I've got this right. So the

6:37:12 the proposed amendment would be the

6:37:14 whereas clause currently reads whereas

6:37:16 the town administrator and IT director

6:37:17 believed that the handbook procedure

6:37:19 could be more comprehensively used if

6:37:20 public body members were better trained

6:37:22 adherence was periodically assessed and

6:37:24 reminders were more regularly sent.

6:37:27 Get rid of adherence was periodically

6:37:30 assessed.

6:37:30 Yes.

6:37:31 Public body members were better trained

6:37:32 and reminders were more regularly sent.

6:37:34 Then the other change is at the bottom

6:37:36 of page two reads, "Town Meeting asked

6:37:39 the town administrator and IT director

6:37:40 to provide a report in December 2026 to

6:37:42 update town meeting on the extent to

6:37:44 which their training assessments and

6:37:46 reminders, cut assessments, just

6:37:47 training and reminders.

6:37:49 Does that sound right?

6:37:50 That works for me.

6:37:51 I don't you know so that's that's the

6:37:54 select board's motion on this."

6:37:55 Well, I just Well, we have to with vote

6:37:57 on it motion.

6:38:00 Okay. for the petitioners.

6:38:06 Uh so the version that we uh spoke about

6:38:10 tonight had already changed the word

6:38:11 monitoring to evaluate

6:38:14 and we are uh pretty comfortable with

6:38:18 the idea that we want to keep the word

6:38:19 evaluate which gives a lot of difference

6:38:22 to uh Chaz's team to figure out how to

6:38:25 evaluate but we think evaluation is a

6:38:28 useful thing to keep in our in our

6:38:29 petitioners.

6:38:30 Okay. Okay. So, there'll be two versions

6:38:32 going to town meeting.

6:38:33 Oh, one version with an amendment.

6:38:35 With one version with an amendment.

6:38:38 So, I I would I'd like to move the

6:38:40 amended article for favorable action.

6:38:45 Second.

6:38:46 Okay. John.

6:38:49 Hi.

6:38:51 David.

6:38:52 Hi.

6:38:54 No.

6:38:55 And um

6:39:00 I don't like it though. Say I.

6:39:05 Okay. Um that brings us up to

6:39:10 uh

6:39:13 Joe's matter.

6:39:15 Ballot mailer. ballot.

6:39:17 Oh my god.

6:39:17 What do you have to say?

6:39:18 Happy Wednesday, by the way.

6:39:20 We had two. There's more in article 12.

6:39:24 Oh, I'm sorry. 12. Never mind.

6:39:26 We've already gone into another day.

6:39:28 Uh Mike and Alec, I'm sorry. I said

6:39:30 thank you before you were done.

6:39:32 You've got article 12.

6:39:38 I don't recall receiving any amendments

6:39:41 on this one. Have there been any

6:39:42 amendments?

6:39:48 Mike Alec.

6:39:51 Uh, nope.

6:39:54 Okay.

6:39:56 Has advisory voted on this yet? I don't

6:39:58 know.

6:39:59 Nope, not yet.

6:40:00 Okay.

6:40:04 So, I'd like to prop

6:40:07 uh to propose an amendment.

6:40:12 Okay. Uh and that is uh in to add the

6:40:16 word clerk

6:40:18 after the word town. Where it says the

6:40:21 town shall ensure that all public record

6:40:23 requests, it should say the town clerk

6:40:25 shall ensure because the town clerk has

6:40:29 jurisdiction over public record

6:40:31 requests. And it gets the select board

6:40:33 out of the position of having to direct

6:40:36 the town clerk to do something.

6:40:40 Is this considered a friendly amendment

6:40:41 by the petitioners?

6:40:43 I do not know the answer to that

6:40:44 question.

6:40:49 John,

6:40:50 well, [clears throat] I actually agree

6:40:53 that that is how it should be worded.

6:40:56 Um, but I also, um, would argue that by

6:41:01 making that clarification, we get to the

6:41:03 heart of a problem with this article,

6:41:07 which is I'm not sure that we can order

6:41:10 the town clerk um, on aspects of how the

6:41:14 town clerk is required to do the town

6:41:16 clerk's job.

6:41:17 town clerk reports to the secretary of

6:41:19 state uh in terms of recordkeeping and

6:41:23 in matters where the town clerk has not

6:41:26 complied with the state secretary of

6:41:27 state's requirements for recordkeeping

6:41:30 that then becomes a matter of appeal to

6:41:32 the attorney general.

6:41:34 Uh it's not for town meeting to dictate

6:41:38 to the town clerk how the town clerk

6:41:39 does the town clerk's job.

6:41:41 Yeah. Michael

6:41:42 um section 3.4 four of the bylaws, which

6:41:45 is entitled town clerk, um specifies a

6:41:49 number of uh activities and requirements

6:41:53 that the town clerk has to do in terms

6:41:55 of managing the seal and transmitting uh

6:41:59 information in various places. And I

6:42:02 believe that this warrant article uh

6:42:05 comports with those other warrant

6:42:07 articles in its direction of the town

6:42:10 clerk. It's been a long time since I

6:42:11 checked all of the duties of the town

6:42:13 clerk, but I think you might find that

6:42:14 the ones um in the bylaw are the ones

6:42:17 that are are in fact covered under state

6:42:20 um you know statute.

6:42:24 Joe, do you have an opinion on his

6:42:26 point?

6:42:27 Not at this time.

6:42:29 [laughter]

6:42:29 Well, then why are you here?

6:42:34 Why don't we put this off until someone

6:42:37 come up with the answer to that

6:42:38 question?

6:42:40 I I would like to know if the

6:42:42 petitioners are ready to answer the

6:42:44 question of whether they would consider

6:42:46 this a friendly amendment.

6:42:50 Uh thanks Michael. So I think what we

6:42:52 would want to do is check in with both

6:42:55 the town council and with the town clerk

6:42:59 and with the moderator to understand

6:43:02 first of all if this is a scope issue

6:43:04 and also to you you're you made an

6:43:07 assertion that I just want to check in

6:43:09 with both Ben and Joe where you said the

6:43:13 town clerk is responsible for I think

6:43:16 you said all public record requests and

6:43:18 I would just want to verify that that's

6:43:20 true. If all that's true, I would be

6:43:23 comfortable, but I'm not sure that's

6:43:25 true. And so I I'm not comfortable at

6:43:26 this moment.

6:43:28 Okay. So, let's take this up in our next

6:43:29 meeting.

6:43:30 Okay. Just

6:43:31 just

6:43:34 Okay, Joe.

6:43:36 Are there any other amendments? Are

6:43:38 there other any any other amendments we

6:43:40 should be considering just so that we

6:43:41 can think about them as a package?

6:43:45 Uh, no. I hear I don't see any. Okay.

6:43:49 Thank you, Mike. You have a quick

6:43:50 question. I'm sorry. With your original

6:43:52 phrasing of the town shall ensure, what

6:43:55 did you envision for how that would

6:43:57 work? You envision that the the town

6:44:00 clerk just takes control of it or

6:44:02 because the town that is somewhat openly

6:44:05 phrased?

6:44:07 Well, David, the current petitioner's

6:44:09 motion um has been amended. So now the

6:44:12 expectation is that the um clerk would

6:44:15 be periodically producing the index

6:44:17 essentially of the request the town

6:44:20 receives with a summary description

6:44:22 including a list of the actual public

6:44:24 documents produced for response. Um so

6:44:28 it's changed somewhat since it was

6:44:30 introduced but that is the current

6:44:31 expectation.

6:44:33 Okay.

6:44:35 Okay. Mike

6:44:36 um just for reference uh to Mr. Mr.

6:44:39 Toffel's question. Um, he should check

6:44:41 Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 66,

6:44:44 Section 6A.

6:44:48 Okay, good.

6:44:50 So, let's hear from the from town

6:44:52 council.

6:44:55 Good evening, uh, Joe Kalan, town

6:44:57 council. So, I'm before you on this last

6:44:59 item to seek your approval to send out

6:45:02 in mail 30,000 copies of the section 18B

6:45:05 local ballot question mailer. Uh I was

6:45:08 before you a couple weeks ago about the

6:45:09 process that we uh went through. We

6:45:11 solicited uh arguments from proponents

6:45:14 and opponents. We got a principal

6:45:16 advocate. We worked with them. We got

6:45:18 their 150word

6:45:20 uh argument along with a graphic and a

6:45:23 QR code. I prepared a summary. You guys

6:45:26 um uh voted on the question. Uh the town

6:45:29 clerk has a cover letter, so it's ready

6:45:31 to go. There's a final draft in front of

6:45:33 you and I'd seek your approval to send

6:45:36 it out. Any objection?

6:45:40 I move approval.

6:45:41 I'm sorry. I did have a question.

6:45:42 Yes. Um and does does this um um what

6:45:46 you're referring to get into the

6:45:47 language of the of the calculator of of

6:45:51 uh

6:45:51 No.

6:45:52 No. Okay.

6:45:53 Thank you.

6:45:55 Okay. All in favor of approving the um

6:45:58 ballot language uh please indicate by

6:46:00 saying I. John Vancoy. Hi.

6:46:02 Paul Warren. Hi.

6:46:03 David Pearlman. Hi.

6:46:04 Michael Rubenstein. Hi. Chair votes.

6:46:06 Thank you very much.

6:46:07 Thank you.

6:46:07 Is there anyone in the audience who

6:46:09 would like to speak in public comment?

6:46:11 [laughter]

6:46:13 Okay. Uh with that uh I will end this

6:46:17 meeting.

6:46:19 Thank you.

6:46:23 Record.