All right, good evening, everyone.

This is a special meeting of the city council.

It is Monday, May 11th.

My name is Lance Davis presiding.

I use he, him pronouns.

This special meeting of the city council has been called by the mayor solely for the purpose of convening an executive session pursuant to Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 30A, Section 21A 6.

To determine final proposals for the 90 Walk and 90 Washington Street Project.

Note that pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025, this meeting of the city council may be conducted or is being conducted via remote participation.

We will post an audio recording, audio video recording, transcript, or other comprehensive record of these proceedings as soon as possible after the meeting on the City of Summerville website and local cable access government channels.

Please call the roll.

This is roll call.

Councilor Ewan Campen.

Here.

Councilor Link.

Here.

Councilor Scott.

Present.

Councilor Klingon.

Present.

Councillor Strazzo.

Present.

Counselor Said.

Councilor Wheeler.

Here.

Councilor Hart.

Here.

Councilor McLaughlin.

Yeah.

Councilor Mbaugh.

Councilor Davis.

Here.

With nine counselors present and two absent, we have a quorum.

All right.

Very good.

Thank you.

And uh let the record reflect that pursuant to the rules of the city council, this council salutes the flag of the United States of America and remembers our oath to uphold the constitution of the Commonwealth and the United States.

First item, Madam Clark.

Item 7.1 is a request of the mayor requesting that this council convene an executive session to discuss 90 Washington Street.

All right.

Do we have members of the public here?

We have one attendee.

So for anyone, uh anyone watching now uh or uh tuning in uh to the recording later, what we're gonna here's how this is gonna work.

Uh we're gonna go into executive session.

Um actually are we gonna are we gonna talk about um are we gonna hear about the presentations uh in open session in terms of terms of the going through the details first?

Uh Director Nagim Williams, do you have that queued up?

Or is the intent to go directly into executive session?

Good evening, Amanda Nader Williams, uh Director of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Uh my understanding is we've seen a planner demurs that there will be a presentation um in the general session uh before uh going into executive session.

Is that correct?

Uh through you, Mr.

Chair, to pass in your planner.

Through the chair, yes, that's correct.

Okay, then um uh Madam Clerk, could we take up item 7.2 first then?

Of course, Mr.

President.

We'll lay item 7.1 on the table.

And the next item is item 7.2, a request of the mayor requesting approval to endorse Wood Partners and North River Learning Manager LLC as the two finalists in the 90 Washington Street request for proposals process.

Okay, brilliant.

Thank you for that clarification.

Sorry for being a half-step behind the uh logistics there on my end.

So um, here's how it's gonna how it's gonna work.

We're gonna hear a presentation uh so um just to take a step back for folks who are watching this now or later.

Um, as as if you've been following along the the ongoing saga of uh a patch of land that is desperate to be developed.

Um and uh despite its brilliant uh use as a snow farm uh for years on end, we have two proposals that were uh submitted in response to an RFB um that was put out by the city for development and nine at 90 Washington Street.

Um the uh if we had had more proposals, the city council would be um would have received the recommendation from the the um from the CAC and we would be considering which of the two are the ones we want to forward to the SRA.

The SRA owns the land and ultimately it will be their decision.

Uh this is summer redevelopment authority.

Um but because we only got two, um, we're gonna hear about those two, and then uh we will have the opportunity uh we will then go into executive session uh where the the council will have the opportunity to to have detailed conversations.

Um much of the conversations will impact the financing of that, so that's why we're having that in executive session, and we'll hear um uh in a more articulate a better articulation of that in a in in a little bit from our city attorney.

Um after that executive session, we will come back to public session, and that public session will be in this same Zoom link.

So if you're if you're watching, if you if you're if you're watching live, um keep this Zoom leak open link open and keep the volume up, and when we come back, you'll hear you'll hear our voices.

Um and and it it we we may take votes uh after the executive session um regarding this uh this property.

What am I missing?

I think that's I think that about sums it up.

So first, any any questions from members on the process, on what I just laid out.

Any anything I missed?

I just forgot about.

No.

Okay.

All right.

So with that, my I understand from the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs that we're going to uh hand over the the um the presentation here to our our senior planner, Ben Demurs, uh, to walk us through, give us sort of some details on these two conversations.

And to be clear, this was if if folks have been following closely, we heard from Mr.

Demers uh a few weeks ago um when these both of these presentations were submitted to the council, they've been available to the public uh both through that submission and on the webpage.

It's you know if you go to 90 Washington, um, it's on the city's the city's webpage slash I think it's I think it's slash might be slash 90 Washington.

Um in any event, um it's it's easy to find.

I know because I found it uh just earlier earlier today when I was looking for some details um that I had forgotten.

So um and the the community advisory committee has been having uh open public meetings and discussions on these as well.

Um so there's been lots of uh transparent public discussion on this.

It it all relates to the same two proposals.

So if you've been following that's all those along, we're talking about the same things here, but we're gonna get a um we're gonna get a uh you know uh introduction to two just in case anyone um you know hasn't uh hasn't had the opportunity to follow those process those procedures in detail, and so all of our members can uh be clear on exactly um what we have before us.

Uh so with that, um seeing no objection, I will recognize uh Mr.

Demurs.

Um Ben, if I I think I got your title and everything right, but if if you would just officially for the record introduce yourself and take it away.

I'm a senior planner with the economic development division of the Office of Strategic Planning and Community Development with the City.

Um I use he hem pronouns.

Um awesome.

All right, I'll jump into things.

Let me first note really quickly the web page.

Uh so if anybody is interested, I'm gonna have this on the slide later, but it's summerville MA.gov slash 90 dash Washington dash redevelopment.

Um I do just want to start off with a thank you to everyone for joining us this evening for this special session focused on the Nine New Washington Street proposals.

I'm gonna take a moment to share my screen.

And then I'm gonna take a moment to make everyone's face visible again.

Okay, can everyone see this?

Great.

Yes.

Um I wanna also take a moment just to introduce some other staff that are on the call this evening.

So in addition to the intergovernmental affairs staff, uh, we also have Thomas Galligani, the executive director of OSB CD, uh, as well as Rachel Medcarney, the director of economic development.

Um, and I believe I also have seen Ted Ted Fields, uh, who is also a senior planner within the economic development division.

So prior to this evening, uh we shared a memo that is summarizing where we are in the process for the 90 Washington Street request for proposals.

So the presentation this evening, it's gonna be about 15 to 20 minutes.

Um I'm gonna review the material from that memo.

Uh I'll answer any general questions and then I'll also share feedback that we've received up to this point from a few different bodies about these proposals, and then we'll take any additional feedback from the city council regarding the the technical proposals.

And when I say technical proposal this evening, I'm referring to the kind of qualitative portion of these proposals.

So the site program, the initiatives around diversity equity and inclusion within development.

So anything other than the financial components of the proposal that's been separated into the technical proposal, and then we also have the financial proposal.

So this is uh any financial offer for the land and the timing of those offers.

Um and then after we have that presentation, uh there's the item related to executive session.

So the intention is to have an executive session to discuss those financial proposals.

Are there any questions up top before I get into the presentation?

Before we get to that, let me just uh Madame Clerk, if you could reflect that Councilor Baugh has joined the meeting.

Any questions for Mr.

Demuris before we go into the presentation?

And uh President David, just say also that is the counselor say it as well.

Yes, thank you.

All right, very good.

Any questions?

No, seeing no hands.

All right, go ahead, Mr.

Demurse.

Okay, sounds good.

So as I mentioned, the redevelopment authority received two responses to the 90 Washington Street requests for proposals or the RFP as we'll refer to it this evening.

Um this RFP was put out in January and it closed to April 10th, so about a month ago.

The two proposals that we received are from Wood Partners and then North River Learn Manager LLC.

As I mentioned, each is split into the technical and financial component.

And I want to also take a second to review some of the objectives that we articulated in the RFP.

So a portion of this is to recoup a significant portion of funds paid for the taking of 90 Washington Street.

We got more into more detail on this in the fall.

But obviously there was a significant amount paid for the eminent domain taking for the site.

So there's a goal of recouping a portion of those funds.

There's then also a goal to create a combination of several new uses.

So new housing, new commercial space, particularly ground floor retail space along Washington Street, especially thinking about replacing some of the retail uses in the Cobble Hill Plaza, new community space, and then also green space, and that's both new green space but also preservation of green space on the existing parcel.

And then the final piece, which is a bit condensed here, but you can see in more detail in the RFP itself is to abide by various development principles principles.

So this includes things like including mixed-use building formats.

So thinking about residential over ground floor retail.

There really was a strong desire to see dense development given the proximity to the MBTA station nearby, as well as the creation of a robust urban tree canopy and natural landscape.

So those were the different uh objectives that we were thinking about and that we articulated in the RFP.

So this is really what we're seeing.

Um, how do the proposals that we received in match up with these articulated goals?

So now that we have proposals, the I want to lay out a bit of kind of the process that we are partway through.

Um so the review process includes review by several different groups.

So after we receive proposals on the 10th, that's when the window closed.

We then had about a week for the city's real estate consultant for the project, HRNA to review proposals.

And they at the time prepared an initial summary memo of the technical proposals.

Um and they did a scoring of each based on a rubric within the RFP.

They've then updated those proposals based on interviews.

And so we have a final version of that memo that was attached to uh the material that was shared with council this evening.

The 90 Washington Street Civic Advisory Committee, um, this is a group that uh is made up of various stakeholders within the neighborhood.

So you have residents, you have um uh local business holder, local business owners, local nonprofit leaders, as well as uh several city councilors.

So this group has also met throughout the life of this project and will continue to meet.

And they've met several times over the past few weeks to review each of the technical proposals and to interview the two candidates.

Uh and they've then summarized this feedback in a memo that was also shared with the council for this evening.

Um, and all this material is up as well on the project's webpage.

Um then I should note as well, it's not shown in this process, but staff have also been doing a review of these two proposals to understand high-level how do these proposals um match up with any city standards that are maybe not articulated explicitly in the RFP, but which remain standards and goals of the city.

Uh so some of the summarized version of that feedback was also included for this evening.

So now that the Civic Advisory Committee has given their feedback, um, we are currently at this May 11th meeting uh of the city council.

And so the way that the process is designed is that the intention is um with the two proposals that we currently have.

Uh if the council moves them forward, then we enter what is called a best and final offer period.

So this is essentially a final negotiating period where with each of the these two teams.

Um the way that the process was designed, if there were more proposals, they would be whittled down to two at this point.

But because we only have two, these are the two that we intend to enter the best and final offer period with.

So we'll look for them to strengthen their proposals.

And then once they have updated proposals, we will come back together in the beginning of July.

Um, the civic advisory committee has requested kind of one more meeting where they're able to see the results of those updated proposals.

Um, so this is not yet scheduled.

We were just discussing that with them in the in the past week, but you'll see an additional date added in early July for the CAC to review.

Um and then the goal is that the redevelopment authority makes a selection between the two development teams or decides uh technically they can decide not to go with any of the teams prior to July 13th.

So this July first date will probably be pushed back slightly, um, but early July is really when the CAC and the SRA are going to be looking at the updated proposals.

And Mr.

Demares, can I just jump in for a quick kind of not clarification, but um just to sort of put a final point on on part of that.

So as you noted, and I had sort of alluded to earlier, you know, if we'd had more, if we'd had more proposals, then uh that this process would have been the council refining the two that we um that we recommend.

My understanding from um meeting and sitting down with the city attorney on this is that um the the memoration, the the memorandum of understanding between the council and SRA is that we will that the council will um submit two proposals.

That is basically a formality.

We don't have any choice but to vote yes to subs to forward these two.

So if and when you see that later, understand that's sort of where it is.

In the executive session, we'll have an opportunity to really dig into the finances and et cetera.

And they're there and the council may take another vote tonight to authorize our representative to um, you know, to share the details of that discussion with the SRA for their consideration.

Or not, but that's that that's sort of the option.

So because there's only two proposals, the council's role is a little bit limited.

Um, but we structured this uh with the intent to sort of at least give us an opportunity to provide some some feedback and some context if if the if the SRA cares to hear it.

Um, you know, we're happy to provide.

So that's what we're intending to provide here tonight.

Um with uh, you know, and as I said, most of that conversation because of the nature of where we are with the finances is is will have an executive session, but I want folks to understand.

I want to be as transparent as I can, um, given the nature that um will we we will we are effectively obligated to vote to push these two to move these two forward because it's the only two we've got.

Um so thank you, Mr.

DeMaris for the for uh indulging me there for a moment.

Please go ahead.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, one thing I do want to note it's so this is the calendar up until the selection is made between the development teams by the redevelopment authority.

This is obviously not the end of the process.

Um, the way that this is structured is that after a selection is made, we intend to enter a let's say four to five month negotiation period, which is also the period in which the selected development team would be allowed to more time for their due diligence period, so things like additional environmental testing, et cetera.

And the goal is for that period to end with execution of what we call a land development agreement.

So essentially the more detailed agreement between the redevelopment authority and the selected development team about the details of the proposal.

And that LDA needs to be approved by the city council.

So I just want to make clear this is not the last touch point within the process for the council.

There will be that future touch point.

Um that's just the only one on the slide.

Okay.

So I'm gonna jump into walking through the two proposals.

So the first proposal that we received is from Wood Partners with PCA as their listed architect.

This the program for this project consists of one building uh, which is seven stories.

So you have ground floor retail uses and then five to six stories of residential above.

Um, the total unit count for this project is 324.

It would intend it would be intended to follow the city's inclusionary zoning policy or the IZ policy.

So 20% of those units would be set aside as income restricted.

So that's about 65 units.

Um, this proposal also lists 15,000 square feet or just under 15,000 square feet of retail space.

And you can see, and I'm going to show this larger in a second, but you can see some of the retail space in purple in their site plan.

Uh, and then also a little bit under 15,000 square feet of amenity space.

And so you can see the amenity space here in red, as well as 6,000 square feet of community space.

And so exactly what that community space would be at this point is not detailed, um, but some sort of community facing there's this proposal also includes a parking structure in the center uh around which the residential units are wrapped.

And this parking structure includes 398 structured parking spaces.

Um, a few other things to note here.

So this proposal adds an access drive that kind of cuts through the block along the eastern edge of 90 Washington Street.

So you can see where my cursor is moving.

This cuts through from Washington Street to New Washington Street.

Um and the intention here is that it allows for access to the parking structure as well as access to the western portion of a Cobble Hill building called building 84.

Um, and one of the notes that came up in the RFP process is we want to make sure we maintain fire and trash access to the western portion of that building.

So that is part of the intention of the access drive here.

So you can see those proposals in a little bit more detail.

This is a vantage on the left from the intersection of Washington and New Washington streets.

You can see also in the foreground here a 7,000 square foot uh civic space, um, as well as a few spaces that are sort of raised plazas.

Um and on the right, you can see from the site plan view, they also have kind of a raised plaza space as an amenity space with a pool and a deck.

So that is the wood partners proposal.

And then the second proposal that we received is from North River Learing.

Uh, the full name in the proposal is North River Learning Manager LLC.

Um, I'll shorten that to NRL and North River Learing this evening.

Uh so they are on as the project lead with uh Handel as their architect and Scape as their landscape architect uh to get into the site program.

So they propose three buildings, um, which range from six to sixtees.

The program of this site, the uses are similar to the other proposal.

So it's residential with ground floor retail and art spaces.

The total unit count that they have listed is 426, with again 20% of those set aside as income restricted, so around 85 units.

In their original proposal, they proposed up to 600 units.

So if you look at their original proposal, you'll see that language.

But then in the interview they did with the Civic Advisory Committee, they added a little bit more detail and they refined the site program and they came down from 600 to 426.

They also note 700 17,000 square feet of retail space as well as an 8,000 square foot community space.

And several of these spaces, in addition to fronting Washington Street or New Washington Street, would also front this central green space, which is also a key element of their site plan.

They propose doing 200 parking spaces, which would be below ground, primarily located, it seems, although there's not a lot of detail on this particular piece, but uh below this building along New Washington Street, as well as potentially below the tower building at the corner.

And again, you can see these proposals in a little bit more detail.

Um it's if if you're really interested, they have several graphics, each of them that are not included here, which if you go into the proposals online, you can dig into.

So you can see here a tower building, and then a nine to ten story building along Washington Street, and then a building here along the Washington.

And I'll note these buildings in the foreground are existing buildings at Cobble Hill.

And then you can see the central grain space here.

So you can compare here the two programs.

Um, so Wood Partners, one building about seven stories, North River, three buildings, six to sixtees.

Um, in terms of the number of residential units, you have 324 units in the Wood Partners proposal versus 426 with the North River Learing.

And so that's 65 income restricted units versus 86.

Uh, you then have just under 15,000 square feet of retail space compared to about 70,000 square feet of retail, and then around just under 400 parking spaces for the Wood Partners proposal compared to 200 with the North River Learing.

And one other piece that I should note here is that the Wood Partners proposal.

Um, it's difficult to see here.

They discuss essentially giving what we call the tail portion, and I apologize to not have a better graphic of it on the slide.

Um, this is a portion like of the parcel that continues along New Washington Street, and it's a fairly thin, somewhat difficult to develop parcel.

Um, so they essentially propose giving it back to the city at the end of the development period.

Okay, so I want to take some time to also dive into what we've been hearing in the review of these technical components of the proposals from the groups that we mentioned earlier.

So the Civic Advisory Committee and then city staff and HRNA.

Um's proposal going each going through each of those groups.

So in general, highlights from the CAC review in terms of positives from the project.

So several CAC members appreciated the access drive that the team proposes along the eastern edge of the site.

They also appreciated the experience of the development team in Somerville.

So Wood Partners is the team that built ALTA Revolution in assembly.

If anyone's familiar with that project, so they have an existing residential project in Somerville that is around this number of units.

In terms of areas for improvement, and I'll also note in general, we have tried to structure this feedback as areas for improvement because of the fact that we're looking to enter this negotiation period, and we really want to know kind of what should we be pushing on in the discussions with these teams.

So I will note that most CAC members expressed concerns with how large the single building feels on the parcel.

Uh the word monolithic was repeated several times by CAC members, and they wanted to see more density on the site.

So even with one large building, they didn't feel like this the number of units was achieving the density that they were hoping to see.

Most CSE members and several members of the public also expressed concern with the proposal's high parking ratio.

So 398 parking spaces for 324 residential units and then about 15,000 square feet of retail and about 6,000 square feet of community space, especially given the site's adjacency to the MBTA station.

Most CSC members also noted that the proposal doesn't include significant new green space, and that the 7,000 square foot space that they do propose at the intersection of Washington and New Washington streets isn't sufficient for gathering.

They were also concerned by the amount of space given to private amenities.

And then several CSC members also noted a lack of detail in the development team's retail strategy, and they wanted to better understand how the development team would prioritize small and local businesses.

So this was asked in the interview.

It's still a desire from CAC members to hear more from the team about how they were going to be prioritizing those local and small businesses within the tenanting strategy.

In terms of staff review of this proposal, so staff review largely mirrors what we heard from the Civic Advisory Committee.

So proposals, the proposal includes a very high number of parking spaces for the site's proximity to the MBTA station.

And the proposal would benefit from reducing the number of parking spaces.

So this is definitely feedback that we would plan to give this team.

And it's already something that they started to hear and talk about at the uh the interview with the Civic Advisory Committee.

We also note that the proposal doesn't create significant new open space that is easily accessible to the public.

And the development team might consider adding some additional public open space accessible from Washington or New Washington streets, such as at the southwest edge of the site.

So this is kind of the area here that currently shows a private amenity deck.

And that the team might also consider consolidating some of the private amenity spaces on top of the parking garage if this is possible from a design standpoint.

And that would maybe create more room for public spaces.

So currently there's nothing shown on top of the parking garage beyond parking.

And then the last case here is that the development team in the interview, they referenced the desire to break up the facade of the building using these recesses from Washington Street.

So you can see here how it kind of dips back.

It's unclear if the goal of those recesses are also to fit more residential units.

It might be the most efficient design from a residential standpoint.

So looking for a little bit more detail on that and definitely curious the feedback of the Urban Design Commission and thinking about how materiality might be a better way to kind of break up the facade of the building.

So those are just a few things that came up in the staff review.

From HRNA's review, I'll note that they they note that the proposal is a strong executable proposal, grounded in regional precedent and direct local execution capacity.

So again, they're really looking at can the team deliver this based on what they have done previously, and based on examples like Alta Revolution and other projects that they've done in the region, they believe they can.

However, they do similarly expect further iteration on the parking program, the ground floor activation and tenanting strategy, the massing transition along the Cobble Hill edge, and the proximity of that edge to the Cobble Hill buildings, the overall site density, especially compared to the full capacity of a high-rise district designation, and then also the public realm strategy.

So, how are they going to create more civic space and what exactly is the treatment of the tail parcel in the Southeast.

Okay, so moving on to North River Learing.

The CSC expressed a lot of appreciation for the greater density in this proposal.

So again, this started at 600, it came down to 426, but still greater density in this proposal overall.

And this was delivered across multiple buildings, which also helped kind of break up that density while allowing for a central green space, which a lot of people appreciated.

And in general, I'll note that the CSC members strongly preferred this proposal.

They are excited to see kind of what would come out of a best and final offer period, but there was based on the existing technical proposals, CAC members really appreciated this proposal.

In terms of areas for improvement, so like I mentioned, CAC members were disappointed that the number of units dropped.

And so they would hope to see how they can still allow for greater density on the site.

Several CAC members also had concerns that the central green space would feel privatized.

And so they hope to see improvements to either invite in pedestrians along Washington or New Washington streets.

And several CACA members also wanted to better understand the development team's ground floor activation strategy.

So there was some initial mention of potential large brochure units, uh, tenants like Trader Joe's.

And so they were interested to hear how they might prioritize some local options for those spaces.

In terms of the staff review for North River Learn's proposal, um, so similar to the CAC's feedback, definitely concerned that that central green space would, although it provides a large green space for the residents, it doesn't necessarily read as accessible to the public.

Um especially thinking about lines of vision and access points from Washington and New Washington Street.

So things like widening the entrance to the space between the buildings, and then also other design elements that would invite in the public might help counter this concern.

Um, one other point that came up for this proposal.

So the development team, the North River team proposes using low-income housing tax credits or LITEC to build the income restricted units for this project.

Um, generally for large multifamily projects, they are required by Somerville's inclusionary zoning policy to set aside 20% of the units as income restricted.

Um, and so this proposal instead uh looks to, and sorry, and I'll note that those units are required to be spread throughout the project.

Um, in this case, they propose using LITEC funding in one building of the project.

So this is the lowest rise building along New Washington Street and concentrating the income restricted units there for financing purposes.

So there's some concern here from staff, A, because the units are generally meant to be spread throughout the project.

These programs, so LITEC requirements and then the requirements of the city's inclusionary zoning policy, they have different requirements around how income levels are set for the units.

So there's some concern here just around implementation and kind of how this would be done from a zoning perspective, because generally that IZ set aside or that IZ set aside is captured within zoning requirements.

And then there's also some concern here.

And so if it's instead using an outside subsidy source, uh, which is itself a finite source, is that the best way to be creating these new units?

So those are some of the concerns that were expressed by staff.

And this last point here is just around those units being consolidated in one building.

So the proposal will be strengthened by spreading those units throughout the project, as is the intention with the IC policy.

And then the last thing I'll note here is from HRNA.

So they note that the proposal reflects a thoughtful design vision and a clear public realm anchor in the central green.

And they also note the sustainability was a central theme throughout the interview.

This came through very clearly in the presentation that the team gave.

So they have the score here for Wood Partners at 37 out of 45 and for North River Larynx at 29 out of 45.

And a lot of this, again, is based around kind of the ease and feasibility of the entitlement strategy as well as the experience of the development team in delivering very similar projects of this scale.

I'm going to pause there.

Thank you all for listening to the presentation.

I want to see if there are any questions on the feedback that I summarized, as well as any additional pieces of feedback or just questions about the proposals.

So colleagues, for questions at this stage in open session, these should be limited to the, as Mr.

Dummer has here, the tactical elements.

And based on my conversation with the city attorney, that is something that we absolutely want to have in executive session.

So I see four hands here.

But let's do that and keep them very narrow, and then we will have uh ample opportunity to have uh a more fully fleshed out discussion in executive session.

Uh so counselor Strauss, you're first.

Thank you.

This is a tech tactical element and policy um comment uh about the last uh proposal of North River um Lyric.

Um I will go on record now and I will go on record any step forward that to segregate the lower income units is just that.

It would be a segregation of some units over others.

And that is very much a nefarious uh policy suggestion that I will uh denounce now and going forward.

So for me, that's a non-starter.

That's all I'm saying.

Council again?

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um I may have just missed this.

Forgive me.

You you mentioned that there was a concern, the central green proposed for the North River.

There was a concern that that would be a private amenity.

Um is that proposed as a private amenity?

Or is it unclear and there's just concern that it could be inaccessible.

The president to counselor doing camp in.

Um it's unclear on whether this would actually end up being kind of the the privately owned public space or even a publicly owned public space ultimately, or if it would be essentially a courtyard for the green.

The intention definitely that it is publicly accessible.

The concern is more um just from a design standpoint with the way that it is included in this site plan that it's not easily visible from Washington or New Washington Street, and our public space and urban forestry team really looks for those.

How is the public going to be invited in?

Um so the concern here is less from they haven't gotten into as much description around the ultimate ownership, but it's more from a design standpoint, not feeling like the public would be invited into this space.

Okay.

I'll hold my further comment.

Counselor Link.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Uh, through you, just uh couple quick comments that I that I I'm gonna keep very specific.

Uh so one is just in general, uh I uh obviously um as I'm sure many of my colleagues would agree.

There's um I I like seeing less parking.

Um I have to uh agree um with the my good colleague for at large, uh Councillor Strozo that having the the buildings separated is is not a good idea.

Um beyond the the equity issues, um, there's just we've we've seen um time and time again what happens is uh it's it's the last building to get built.

Um and uh maybe it doesn't even get built uh like we've seen so far in USQ.

So uh, you know, I've got a lot of reservations there.

Um and then obviously I uh personally I would love to you know see the um more height and more burn um just in general for the the Cabahill residents not to lose all their their beautiful trees and for us to maybe shift some of that over.

Okay, counselor Hart.

Thank you.

Um I have uh a question about um just because I'm not familiar with how these things happen, with the big risk of or uncertainty of not knowing if the underground parking would be feasible at this site.

What is the timeline of them being able to figure that out if it would be feasible?

The president to counselor Hart.

Um, the intention is that they would be able to work out some of these feasibility concerns during the due diligence period.

So again, the way that it's structured is that the redevelopment authority mid-July is selecting a development team based on the proposals.

Um and then in the four to five months following that selection, there is going to be a negotiation around more details of the site.

Um, and then also they would be doing their due diligence work in that time period.

So especially getting them to things like soil samples, et cetera, that will have financial implications for whether they could do underground parking.

So it would be if I may, uh, President Davis, just to clarify.

So it would be after the they, you know, the potential selection of them, not before.

Through the president to counselor Hart.

Yes.

Uh it would be prior to the execution of what we call a land development agreement.

And when that land development agreement is executed between the development team and the redevelopment authority, that's really what kind of locks in the proposal.

Um, in this case, we are selecting the development team in July to really go into that more concentrated negotiation.

But yes, it is after a development team is selected from these two.

Thank you.

Counselor Wheeler.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

And uh, and thank you, senior planner de Murz.

Um I have a counselor and I'm serving on the SRA board and on the 90 Washington CAC board.

So I'm gonna try to keep the hats straight that I'm that I'm wearing here.

And uh first of all, appreciate uh senior planner de Murs.

Um I think through this whole process, you've done a really wonderful job of trying to capture everyone's voices and articulate a synthesis uh while not excluding even you know, sort of minority opinions.

And I think you presented the the thoughts of these bodies very well.

And really, I just wanted to say some things to underline some of the things you said and some of the things my colleagues have said about the wood partners uh building.

Um just to give a a tiny bit more context on the parking.

When the uh the CAC asked about the uh the parking setup, one of the things the team said was that their um their engineering design approach is to use uh precast concrete uh parking structure, which really is is pretty set in its dimensions, at least in its footprint.

Uh and they said they they could add or subtract levels of parking there, but it would be it would be hard to make the footprint smaller with that sort of general approach.

Um also I'll just note something that came up in uh these discussions was that the Wood Partners uh team, which has extensive experience as senior planner has mentioned, with building tons of buildings of sort of about this scale around the country, including in Somerville, um, does it doesn't seem that they have experience with um high-rise structures, you know, that go sort of beyond that primarily wood-based you know, cap out at kind of seven or eight stories level.

Um so uh the CAC was um really asking about possibilities for more housing with uh change in the wood partners uh approach.

I'm still hopeful that we might see that, but I I just want to highlight that in a lot of ways, height-wise, they may be sort of reaching a cap with their approach.

It does bring up the question of what if there were a no-parking or a radically reduced parking approach.

That's something that I'll say has some financial implications, maybe that we'll be discussed in executive session.

Um, to just move on quickly, I promise, to the North North River Lirank uh proposal, like the CAC and the SRA.

That is my preferred one of these two.

Um, and again, there's some points that have been raised that are it's not without its problems.

I'll just repeat what others have said in appreciation to my colleagues' focus on really the the segregation of affordable housing into one building being something really out of step with the vision that we want to see with development in Somerville.

The questions around the feasibility of underground parking, and I appreciate uh Counselor Hart sort of asking, you know, will we already be committed to this and then learn that the parking will have to be above ground anyway?

And that again brings up this question of is there an approach here that could work with no parking or radically reduced parking?

And you know, I I'm not somebody who is deeply anti-car uh uh you know, I I understand that many people need cars um in in different places.

If there's ever anywhere where feasibly speaking, it makes sense to have people uh come and want to live who are gonna move in and not need cars and be expecting not to have a car, it's here.

It's right next to the green line.

It's a 10-minute walk to the orange line, it's on bus routes.

Um, you know, it if that direction for the city means anything, I really feel like we we need to push as much as we can here for as little parking as possible.

Um I and I'll just finally note uh I would love to see many people would love to see uh more stories in that tower in the North River Lyrank proposal.

I know taller engineering is not just a linear thing.

You have to start building with more uh strong steel and and the engineering gets more expensive.

Uh, but I think it might be worth it for the housing.

Uh thank you.

Okay.

Uh thank you for those questions.

Oh, I see uh Counselor Said.

Uh through you, Mr.

President.

Um yeah, I also want to say for the record that in the uh the North River Learn LSC uh proposal, I am uh yeah, very much not in support of um having all the affordable units in one building.

And um, to agree with my colleagues and also uh I'm looking forward to our conversation executive session about like parking uh because it is next to the MBTA and how can we build as little parking as possible?

And then the only thing I wondered about always about these projects, and because here we have two proposals, two big you know, projects.

Um yeah, maybe this is a dumb question, but I will ask it.

Uh why do we not have in these big projects?

I have some in my ward playgrounds, upplay grounds only on city property.

Uh yeah, to talk to the uh whether that was uh considered us a factor in the RFP.

I mean, it is the kind of thing that we I'm thinking of the markup project up in Hoid 7.

I think we've done that sort of thing before, but that was like a different different process.

I I guess I do want to know, Counselor Wheeler, I know you raised your hand.

Was it to respond to that comment or it's a separate comment?

Yes, I just wanted to mention um a few blocks away there is the Florence Playground, a small playground.

Uh not to say that that's enough, but I thought that's just worth mentioning.

Thank you.

Um I'm gonna give some answer and then I may ask um senior planner fields if there's any context in terms of the conversations around civic space that occurred throughout the CAC process.

Um but in general, we have positioned the entire parcel for uh redevelopment and the we note based on the conversations at the Civic Advisory Committee, the types of civic space that people were have been hoping to see to some extent um in this neighborhood.

Part of the thought is also that the development teams that are responding would kind of do additional research on what are the types of civic spaces that are needed in the neighborhood, um, and then would include that type of detail in their proposal.

I'm not aware of playground specifically coming up uh within the conversations with the civic advisory committee, but I'm curious, Ted, if that came up at all in conversations.

Thanks, Ben.

For you, Mr.

President to Councillor Said.

Um the Citizens Advisory Committee for 90 Washington Street was convened in 2023.

Uh we've had substantial discussions about all aspects of redevelopment of 90 Washington Street since that time.

Uh we've talked about open space, uh public space uh in general.

We have not uh specifically uh mentioned playgrounds very much.

I think there was one or two passing uh comments about including playgrounds as part of other elements in uh public open space on the site.

And I um Councilor Say, I will just note in general the RFP doesn't get into detail really about any type of civic space, so it kind of allows the development teams to propose particular kinds of of space.

Um and I will say there's the specific type of civic space that would end up on the parcel is definitely something that we would imagine through the negotiation, kind of the ongoing negotiation process, it was determined that a playground was the best kind of civic space to have there, and that's really what feels like it's lacking in the neighborhood, but something we would still have the chance in the negotiation to make sure it's included.

Uh, through uh through you, Mr.

President.

Uh thank you.

Thank you for that response.

So it sounds like it is an option, it's always an option in big projects like this to uh have propose the playground and have a playground, it's not just on city property.

I think that for me was important to know that piece of information.

And um, yeah, so yeah, again, I'm only mentioning this because that are here constructions like that in World Five, where having a playground on site when we have like so many units like in the center, you know, it's not just like about the kids playing, it's a place where people gather.

Um, the basic creates community, and I'm also I grew up in a place uh where you know projects of like that are very common, and they're all hundred percent affordable, and usually there's always a park, a playground, a dog park.

It's just yeah, these are things that folks use a lot and it creates community.

So um again, I understand if this is not you know priority for this specific project, but I encourage, you know, uh the city to always think about including it where it's needed.

Thank you, Councilor Seat.

And if the council would indulge, I'll speak from the chair remote since it's harder to step down from the chair when we're remote here.

Um whether or not a playground ends up in in the final project, uh I'll I'll throw out there for something to think about that might be one way to solve that, get people uh make it clear to people that this is a public space.

It could be an opportunity to engage people in that public space.

Uh so it's not seen as sort of a privatized space and like a nice little gateway element.

Just a thought, the uh the the secret planner brain that's latent in my uh existence somewhere creeping through.

Um, and I apologize for every time that happens.

You guys all know best, but just a thought.

Uh thank you for phrasing that counselor site.

Uh counselor Bott.

Thank you.

Uh President Davis.

I guess um, I agree with what all my colleagues have said, especially that which came from the deaths of John Link.

Um, but I guess what is the land value?

Like what are they each offering?

Like Council Bob, we're gonna talk about the financial aspects of this in executive session.

Oh, okay.

So let's let's hold those questions for that.

All right, anything on the on the technical elements, or do you um uh yeah, I mean the side the fact that I've spoken to a few different people from that uh uh CAC in the you know, they're very much you know, in support of not uh the not lead uh forgotten the name.

Not the not the Woods project, but the other one North River Lyric.

Yeah, yeah.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Okay, Council McLaughlin.

Uh thank you, Mr.

President.

I have a lot of thoughts to share, and then a couple questions.

Um it seems like there's a lot of consensus around option two over option one.

I haven't heard anybody speak in favor of option one.

I'm also prefer option two, not only because it gives us a lot of benefits for the community, uh, but it's less intrusive on the Cobble Hill seniors.

Uh I see that the berm is all but gone in option one, whereas option two, it's at least partially preserved, and there's a green space option.

Uh so that's just something to put out right away.

Is it seems like there's one proposal that looks better than the other?

Uh and I would prefer as well.

I know some people talked about this high rise.

Uh, I think the buildings could go even taller than they are to save space.

Uh, I want to preserve as much of the berm as possible.

Underground parking, I'm gonna use my crystal ball and guess that the land is contaminated and that the underground parking is gonna be very difficult.

And it's already expensive.

Underground parking is always expensive.

If there's land contamination, it's expensive/slash impossible.

So that kind of uh puts a damper on some of the conversations we're having, and it's just a concern I want to say up front, because I think that we're gonna go down the road and find out that we knew exactly what we thought to begin with.

Uh playground, I think that's a great idea as well.

I do want to also make sure there's a lot of benches for seniors, uh, because the 90 Washington Street is majority seniors, uh, and we've been talking about giving them more open space.

Uh I let's see.

Oh, um affordable housing.

I I've always preferred having it mixed residential.

I do want to flag to people, I could imagine the issue with this is cost.

So not only if we have it mixed income and didn't have it uh segregated, which is a term someone used, uh, that would probably drive up the cost and reduce the amount of affordable units, or possibly uh reduce it to the bare minimum affordable units possible.

And it would also potentially interrupt uh the the uh tax programming, the the lycra that would uh lie tech uh funding that would potentially make this affordable housing.

So that's just something to put out there that there is a trade-off for these things, and I would like to see if we're building affordable housing, the most affordable housing is possible that will also impact the cost of return that we get, which we're not talking about now, but that's obvious to people that if we're building affordable housing, it's less money for the city, which we can discuss at a later time.

I just want to put all these thoughts out there to say that I do prefer option two.

I do have a lot of questions about its feasibility.

Real quickly, um, did we discuss any storefronts in option two?

Uh I missed that part.

Mr.

Dumuris.

Through the president, uh Council McLaughlin.

Just give me one second to get their site plan up.

Uh, but yes, they have about 17,000 square feet in the North River Learning proposal of um ground floor result.

Okay, thank you.

And there's an issue with the 90 with the Cobble Hill Plaza around uh the parking spaces and the trash.

Could just for the audience, could you explain how uh that problem is being resolved with either project?

The issue is that uh there's trash collection behind the building that might be interrupted if we uh use the land to the fullest possibility to the president's uh council mclaughlin, just gonna be one second to share my screen again.

Um okay, so quickly here showing the site plan, which you can see the retail spaces um primarily along Washington Street here, as well as the corner of Washington and New Washington.

Um and then to get into the detail around the access drive to building 84.

Did it is did I understand correctly, you're looking for more of a description on that?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

So it's difficult because I don't have an existing condition slide here, but um currently the this building here, which you can see in the North River Larynx proposal.

This building is what is called building 84.

Sorry, there's a bit of an echo.

Uh it's called building 84 of Cobble Hill residences.

And the trash collection for this building occurs on the western side of the building based on the location of the chutes within the building.

Uh, and then also we've discussed throughout there's a strong preference of the fire department to maintain access to the western portion of this building for um for fire trucks.

So currently they would be able to access from the central green.

I'm actually going to just take a second to show what the existing site conditions look like on Google Maps.

Ben, sorry, you made it.

Thank you, Rachel.

Um, you can see here 90 Washington Street.

Um, it's you can't see the divide here with Cobble Hill, but you can see uh the way that you get to the western portion of this building here.

So this is building 84, and the lot line is around here.

Um the way you get to the western portion of this building now, you come to the entrance of Cobble Hill.

We kind of come through their central roundabout, and then um you're able to come over to the western portion of the building.

Uh and so that is beneficial for trash and fire access.

The site line here, so the the dividing line between the parcels, it runs kind of east of the parking lot, and then it actually runs east of the access drive, so it's west of the building.

Um, but 90 Washington Street includes this access drive.

Um, and so one of the priorities that is articulated within the RFP is making sure that we maintain access to the western portion of the building.

So this access drive is not kind of used, like you're not developing right up to the edge of the green space here because that would take away access to the western edge of the building.

Okay.

And that's option two, correct.

Um I'm gonna pull the proposals back up, but both proposals currently are showing um both proposals appear to currently be showing the one second.

Uh access drives along the eastern edge.

It's more explicitly called out within the Wood Partners proposal, and it appears to be a bit wider, but the updated site plans from North River Learning do also appear to include an access drive along the loosern edge.

And you and Mr.

You said that was a requirement of the RFP, right?

Uh correct.

We we don't require how exactly they will maintain access.

So both of these proposals are showing access drives that essentially cut from Washington to New Washington Street.

It essentially creates like a new alley or road down the eastern edge of 90 Washington Street between the two parcels.

Um we didn't specify in detail what that needed to look like, but both have proposed something that looks fairly similar.

Um it's just a little bit difficult to tell the width in the North River Lyric proposal or exactly kind of the intention, but it appears to have a similar intention.

Council Bergman back to you.

Thank you.

Uh just final question.

So we we have one project or one proposal that I haven't really heard any uh positive vibes towards, and then one that does general positive vibes with some serious concerns.

Uh so my question would be what is the advantage of moving both of these to the redevelopment authority uh when there are still so many questions remaining.

Well, uh, and I can speak to that um as I mentioned earlier.

And we have uh a city attorney Amara on on the uh call here.

So um attorney Mar, please please correct me if I've if I've gotten any of this wrong um from our our sit-down conversation this week, but um in and just sort of reviewing the the memoration memorandum of understanding.

Um effectively the the council is effectively obligated under the terms of that MOU to advance two proposals.

We only have two, so we we kind of don't have a choice.

So that's a bit of a formality.

please please correct me if I've if I've gotten any of this wrong um from our our sit-down conversation this week but um in and just sort of reviewing the the memories memorandum of understanding um effectively the the council is effectively obligated under the terms of that MOU to advance two proposals but we only have two so we we kind of don't have a choice so that's a bit of a formality the idea here was to enable a conversation like this and then um you know perhaps a more detailed um conversation specific to financial elements in executive session um which we could then if we if the if the council chooses we could then um authorize our representative on the SRA Council Wheeler to uh to share with the SRA in in that discussion so um to specifically to your question it it it's because we agreed we would we would send two along when when we when we uh when we agreed to the MIU uh a while back I do understand that but we well we have two proposals before us uh why can't we as the council send those two back for redesign before we send it to the redevelopment authority and then that's two that we're two that we actually want like we're gonna send one forward that there's really no consensus on at all and then a second that uh this concerns about yeah so so again uh my my understanding uh of the the contractual obligation and uh I'll I'll defer to the city attorney to uh to to to back me up or or correct me here is that um we said we would send two there are only two so we have to send those two that will be a that would be a um sort of a uh you know uh pro forma vote because we don't have any choice there um I would imagine the SRA probably won't put a lot of weight in that because there's clearly was no thought or or uh value added to that because we didn't have a choice um where there will be more uh more value is in um council wheeler being able to convey well first of all this conversation and then council wheeler being able to convey um if if we vote to authorize it to do so to convey um the the discussion that happened is that happens in executive session once we get to that point.

Attorney Amara I I know you're here if I have I conveyed that accurately or am I a step out myself there?

Mr.

Chair before that I guess would it just make sense to discuss an executive session if it is a legal issue.

Well I I guess I'll defer to uh attorney amar on that one too attorney you have the floor no I I think we can have this conversation right here um the language as drafted requires that two proposals be put forward um and because we only have two proposals two proposals have to be put forward I believe that originally when the memo was drafted there was an expectancy that there would be more than two so you would be able to pick the top two in your mind to put forward however um I I will also say you've only heard the technical sides of the proposals at this point in executive session we'll talk about the financials and then how they work together um and you will still have an opportunity even though you have to put these two proposals forward to either recommend that they go with them or not or whatever your beliefs are on the two proposals.

But I believe Rachel wants to speak substantively to this well and and attorney amara if I if I may on that recommendation because this is something that you and I went back and it it took a little bit for for me to understand that the concept here um so so let let me um let me make sure that that I've still got it um and and for the for the benefit of my colleagues um to the extent that there is any any recommendation and and obviously you know this discussion as it's appropriate in in in a meeting it you know the SRA can can review this and take from it what they will um to the extent that there are any additional thoughts or or or um or you know preferences expressed in executive session my understanding from you is that one option that the council has will be to when we come back to um to to open session to authorize um our representative on the SRA Council Wheeler to share the details of that executive session because because the nature of the executive session is that it's you know it's it's it's confidential information that that impacts the city's negotiations and we and therefore in that case the city council can choose to effectively waive that in a narrow scenario which would be council wheeler sharing it with the SRA so that they can have that context if they want it right do I have that correct so when you when you say we we have an opportunity to make a recommendation to share information it would be through that through that mechanism right council us authorizing council wheeler to share all of the discussions both in public and public session in open session and executive session do I have that correct correct and in my understanding is it would also be in an executive session to preserve the executive nature of what you're conveying that that conversation in the SRA in the SRA executive session at the SRA yes I thank you for that yes exactly that I left out that detail um okay council McLaughlin does that address your question.

No, yes.

Okay, very well.

Thank you.

Treasure Narcarney, is there anything else that you wanted to add to that?

I know yes, it's in your hand up.

Um Mr.

Chair, but comment I was going to just thinking back to our predecessors who designed this the pro the way we are approaching this, uh, having to move forward to this final negotiating period is is by design so that you have to weigh against each other and to be able to push those two.

And that's I think why the design going back several years now was advanced to play them off, see what comes of it, push them to the best place that they can on the financials and on the technical, and then proceed with one.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Umset, Council McLaughlin.

Take silence as a yes going once going twice.

There was a thumbs up.

I see a thumbs up.

Thumbs up.

Very good.

No worries.

Um, so counselor Scott, and then we'll go to Councilor Clayton.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I just want to follow up, maybe this is an adjacent question to what was just asked there, but we have a straightforward vote, I understand, to forward two proposals.

Um was there also uh did I hear you say also that there is a uh a potential for the city council to vote to endorse uh or to support one particular proposal?

So no.

And that's the exact question I asked the to the city attorney uh on whatever day that was.

Sydney, okay, Wednesday, maybe Tuesday was it.

Um what's today?

Monday?

So probably Friday, maybe, but I don't know when it was.

Anyway, at some point last week, I was sitting up in City Hall and we had this conversation.

I asked that exact question.

So because of the nature of sort of of where we are, the the the idea would be that um you know, obviously, this open uh this conversation open meeting, the SRA could can watch it and review it.

Um, but uh you know, Council Wheeler certainly can can um pass along the the thoughts that were expressed.

Um and the the council when after executive session, this body may also choose if if if we choose to do so, to authorize councilor wheeler to share the conversation from executive session with the SRA in executive session, right?

So it's not a vote that we we there wouldn't be a vote on one or the other uh proposals that that we don't have that authority, that's not baked into the MOU.

The formal vote in that context is to send them both along and let the SRA choose.

We can, however, if we if we choose to do so, um, authorize Council Wheeler to share our opinions, such as they are.

So the SRA has that context when weighing the the the relative merits of the two uh the two proposals.

That does that make sense.

Certainly, sir.

Certainly.

So um I guess let me just say I really appreciate the thoughts of my colleagues, and I wanted to uh just express how grateful I am that actually sorry, Councilor Scott, but before you guys, I just I see uh attorney Amara has her hand raised, and I want to make sure if I screwed up anything there, that I give her the quick opportunity to correct me.

No, you've done a great job.

Um I just wanted to clarify that you you do have to pass two on because there are only two, but in the course of executive session, if you come to a consensus that you feel a particular way, either about a specific part of a proposal or about a proposal, you can authorize that that opinion be conveyed.

I just wanted to clarify in case there was some but by Councilor Wheeler in that future executive session of the SRA.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you, Kathy.

Uh uh attorney Amara.

Uh Councilor Scott, uh, I appreciate that.

Back to you.

Uh sure.

Uh I I guess I just want to appreciate my my colleagues' questions and priorities here, and also uh express some gratitude that um we live in a place where uh there is a seemingly unanimous understanding that uh transit-oriented development, transit adjacent development uh needs to make the most of the hype.

Um and doesn't seem to be any concern or fear around that.

So I think that's a positive thing.

Um I I guess I just want to speak to this in the uh context of uh, you know, uh the proposals have already been put out there, and I think there's uh room for improvement, obviously, in both of them.

Um I do want to speak to North River as a developer who has done work in Ward II uh that I've had to do a lot of neighborhood meetings around and uh a lot of uh a lot of uh let's say coordination with um and uh you know I found them to be generally very creative and uh uh collaborative partners down here.

Um so I I know the city has worked closely with them throughout the course of their 28 Chestnut project uh and has worked with them before.

Um I think when we're looking at these proposals and look at the ways in which we hope they can be improved, whether they're both in the program side or the or the financial side.

Um I think one problem that any proposal is going to have is that they're coming at it from uh a perspective of what they can deliver uh independently.

And quite frankly, I feel like we have uh the opportunity as a city uh to deliver uh stronger projects and stronger benefits uh from a more collaborative approach.

So when it comes to what the final scope of this thing is, I could certainly say I'm you know disappointed in the uh the you know the above ground parking is uh to me a total full stop.

Uh and I understand the concern about underground parking, but I also know that you know, of the of the folks that are eligible for street parking permits in the in the US two tower, there's 90 of those units that are eligible for street parking permits, and only nine people went out to get them.

So the actual utilization of parking in this kind of transit oriented development is extremely low.

And I think there's room to uh to meet to meet that higher standard of development goals that I think a lot of us share um through creative partnership.

And I'm sure there will be more discussion of that when we get into executive session.

Um, but I would just say uh in terms of people capping the whether it's the height or the extent or uh feeling constrained in their initial proposals, uh, I actually have a lot of hope that this can be a process uh with the city and whoever the final uh final bidder is on this uh to to deliver, I'd say a substantially improved uh version from what's been in initially either one of these proposals.

So uh I I share the same concerns and priorities expressed uh earlier tonight.

I think my colleagues have said it quite well, so I don't need to say it again.

Um, but I I appreciate it, Ms.

Mr.

President.

All set.

All right, thank you, Councillor Clogan.

Mr.

President, if I may uh interrupt, uh I have to step up.

Yes, this is Councilor Shezzo.

I have to step out.

So I I may uh I uh but I will come right back into this.

Um if it if when you come back, we're not here, you have the other link for the executive session.

If if we're in executive session, you can join that and we'll recognize you in that when you come in.

So just you know, note that we might be at that other link when you come back.

We want to have your uh your voice there.

Okay, very well.

Thank you.

Counselor Clayton.

Thank you, Mr.

President, through you.

Um so just a quick question around the parking, the outside parking, the um, you know, the non-underground.

Um, did any questions come up to the development team about and I and it sounds like I think the answer was it sounds like because it's pre-cast, that's why they have like a higher number because in order to get to their one per unit, they probably it's like a whole nother floor.

So is that why they have the more or did they plan on like renting out spots to you know, or something for people to back them up at all.

Through the president to counselor Klingon, and again, I'm seeing counselor Wheeler's hand, so probably has more detail to add on this.

Um, they did not get into any detail on whether they would intend to rent out some of those parking spaces.

Uh it does seem that the way that it was structured is they used this pre-cast parking structure, and then they built that parking structure up to the height of the building.

So counselor Wheeler talked a bit about this.

Um, you know, when some initial concerns were brought up in the interview from the Civic Advisory Committee about how high the number of parking spaces was.

That's why they went to the idea of kind of taking floors off of the top essentially to keep that same um structure.

So that was, I think the idea is truly that they took a pre-cast parking structure, brought it up to the height of the building.

Counselor Wheelers, anything you want to add in terms of detail?

Uh thank you, Councilor Wheeler on that.

We're gonna we're gonna we're we're gonna keep going through the present here, but that's that's okay.

That's okay.

Just for the formality.

Through the chair, through the chair, thank you.

Through the chair and uh and with thanks to senior planet or Murz.

Um you help remind me uh uh senior planner.

Um I remembering correctly that the wood partners uh folks mentioned that if there were to be uh retail or you know, a smaller supermarket uh on site that they also envisioned a possible use of some of the parking for people who are coming in and you know, buying things or going to the shops.

Through the president to counselor Wheeler.

Um yes, I can't remember the detail to which they spoke about this, but in general, the um it's anticipated that if there are commercial or retail or community uses, there are a certain number of parking spaces within the parking garage within the overall count of parking spaces allowed um that they would anticipate using for those other non-residential uses.

Okay.

Um I mean, like many of you, I I you know, just out of the gate, I I share a um uh a preference for the North River uh project.

But I also agree and understand that it's smart to kind of play them off each other.

There's still a period of time.

You know, I I hear um the potential uh desire to make like a whatever uh unofficial recommendation.

Um but I I do think we should you know go on executive session here.

We have to hear um and you know, kind of just play the process out.

All right, so I won't keep us from that any any longer, except to say since we're all making sort of statements about our you know values.

Um I heard you know, whether it'd be the the breakdown of the affordable versus non-affordable.

I just want to say that um, you know, fully understanding the cost constraints and the serious now, you know, how how uh tight these margins are gonna be.

Uh, I want to say that I want to go on record and say that I would like to see this be built as much union as possible.

Um that may not be the case where it's 100% uh at the very least, uh similar to 299.

I would say that I would at least like to see uh contractors that share our community values and don't have bad track records of uh any type of uh wage theft or unf unfair labor practices.

Um so again, that's just because we we're just for we're just discussing these two uh things today and seeing and you know looking them over.

Uh, I just want to go saying that.

Um definitely want to make sure that whoever we choose is in line with our our values, and that means uh safe fair labor practices.

That's all thank you.

Uh you muted, Mr.

President.

Sorry, just testing if y'all could read my lips.

Um thank you, Catholic Klingon.

Um so seeing no for the discussion item on this.

I uh no further discussion on this item at the moment, we'll lay it on the table um and we will take up uh off the table item 7.1.

Um and uh attorney Amara, can you speak to uh can you just confirm that this item is appropriate for executive session?

President Davis, this is appropriate for executive session as long as you declare that to hold this session in open session would be detrimental to the city's negotiating position.

I think that that that is uh that that is our view.

Um as we've made clear in our discussion, we we want to have the discussion of the any discussion about the the financial elements um uh in in executive session, uh pursuant to the uh to the executive session statute that uh authorizes executive session.

So uh with that, um uh madam clerk, would you please call the role to uh go into executive session?

On the motion, counselor you and campen.

Yes, counselor Link, yes, counselor Scott, yes, counselor Klingon, yes, counselor Strazzo, Counselor Said, yes, Counselor Wheeler, yes, counselor Hart, yes, Counselor McLaughlin, yes, counselor counselor mba.

President Shall I call that a yes?

Yes.

Great, counselor Davis.

Yes.

With 10 counselors in favor, none opposed, and one absent, the motion is approved, and this council will enter executive session.

All right, very good.

Thank you.

Um we will go into executive session.

We will return to open session uh following executive session.

So that will be in this same Zoom link.

So if you're if you're here in the public, um stay here.

Um that's probably about the best I can do.

If you've joined uh I uh Madam Clark, I guess can we uh can we in the note that goes on the screen?

Can we indicate that that the council will return to public session or something like that, just in case folks tune in and wonder what the heck's going on?

Um Mr.

President, we always do.

Thank you.

Brilliant.

And um, if uh if you can't find it, um perhaps text uh Madame Clark and we'll get it to you somehow.

Um, so we will be back, I promise.

Um stay tuned.

All right, Madam Clerk, looks like we've got everyone.

Well, we can find out with a roll call.

Let's let's do exactly that.

This is roll call to establish quorum.

Counselor Ewen Campen.

Here.

Counselor Link.

Here.

Counselor Scott.

Present.

Counselor Klingon.

Present.

Counselor Strezzo.

Present.

Counselor Said.

Here.

Counselor Wheeler.

Here.

Counselor Hart.

Here.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Counselor Ma.

Councilor Davis.

Here.

With all counselors present, we have quorum.

Brilliant.

All right.

No votes were taken in executive session, other than the vote to exit executive session.

We will uh item seven dot one we will place on file.

I get that right, Madam Clerk.

You actually already voted on that one when you voted to go into executive session, so it has been approved.

I correct.

I was testing you on that and you passed brilliantly.

Thank you.

That was what your little going away present.

Thank you so much.

Yes, that's I tried to do this for a few people.

Very good.

Uh all right, let's pick up item seven dot two off the table.

Um and uh and have uh have a little bit more discussion.

So I I want to actually add a little um uh uh uh something to consider.

So council McLaughlin, but I believe you would like to move to uh uh to authorize uh the city council's representative on the SRA, Council Wheeler, as well as senior planner de Murs to share the details of the discussion that happened in executive session in executive session with the SRA.

To put that another way for folks watching at home.

We just had a whole conversation about some stuff that's appropriate for executive session.

And as it relates to this property, it is the SRA's ultimate decision uh which, if any, uh uh proposal they go forward with.

So we would like to convey the city council's thoughts, including those that were expressed in executive session because of financing considerations and and all the things that make it appropriate for executive session.

Uh we'd like the SRA to have that information.

So uh the intent of this motion is is to so uh uh Councilor Wheeler, Councilor Large Wheeler is a member of the SRA, it's the city council's designee, uh appointed to the SRA.

So we would like to to um authorize Councilor Wheeler as well as senior planner de Murs.

So the two folks that were part of that whole conversation, uh, to check each other to make sure that they get everything accurate, uh, to be able to share that context with the SRA to the extent that the SRA wants to hear it.

That's that's their discretion, of course.

Um so that that's the nature of uh of this uh of this motion.

Um I wanna uh I want to throw out a uh uh uh uh um Madame Clerk, i if if we wanted to authorize uh Council Wheeler to be able to reference the minutes of that exact session, is that something that we could do, or is that something that we would be wise to not do and just to to rely on the two folks who are uh who are authorized in that meeting?

Mr.

President, thank you for the question.

That is something that the council could do.

I would recommend that it perhaps be limited in duration, so that the councilor be authorized to view the minutes uh with the city clerk or the city attorney until such time as the SRA meets, so that it isn't any time in the future that that counselor wants to have those minutes, for example.

Okay, so so the idea would be if the council chose to go this route.

The idea would be that um after uh after the the council president and and the city clerk got together and and I confirmed the minutes, um, then uh councilor Wheeler would have the opportunity to to reference those minutes prior to the SRA meeting, uh, just to make sure that his recollection was consistent with um the minutes are consistent with the recollection vice versa.

Is that do I understand that correctly?

That sounds right, yes.

All right.

Um procedurally, I'm trying to think of so we we have a motion on the table.

Um counselor bah would like counselor, I believe you would like to uh to to move to amend the motion on the table to uh to add that uh councillor wheeler may uh ask do we have to matter?

Do we have to do we have to put this in a motion or is that something that we can just do because it's good policy?

Mr.

President, thank you for the question.

Since we are you are already in the midst of a motion, I do think best practice would be to include it, but the motion is not in fact before the council just yet.

So an amendment to the motion does not need to be formally made.

Uh that would be more of a friendly amendment to change.

Oh, well, here I thought Councilor McLaughlin had already made the motion.

All right, didn't agree to any of this, by the way.

Council, so Matt.

So we have a motion before us to uh to authorize uh uh the city council's representative on the SRA, Councilor Wheeler, as well as senior planner de Murs to share the context, the content, the substance of the discussion in executive session uh in executive session with the SRA, and further for Councilor Wheeler to be able to reference the uh to review the the uh minutes of the executive session after they are approved um prior to that uh SRA meeting for purposes of refreshing as recollection.

I thought I saw the city attorney's hand come up, which always makes me make always makes me want to stop talking and find out how I've screwed up somehow.

Uh solicitor Amara.

Sorry.

Um, don't be sorry, please.

President, you did exactly what I would have done, which was I didn't like the use of the word reference, but review was fine.

And you you that's why the hand went up and then it went down.

All right, brilliant.

Thank you.

Well, we'll credit the clerk for reminding me that uh counselor Wheeler would be reviewing the minutes for the purposes of refresh his recollection prior to the SRA meeting.

Um so madam clerk, do you have that motion that I have articulated at length and without any uh brevity or clarity whatsoever?

Mr.

President, I'd be happy to read the motion back to this council that this city council authorizes councilor Ben Wheeler and senior planner Ben Demurs to convey its discussion from executive session regarding each of the two proposals to the Somerville Redevelopment Authority in executive session and for Councilor Wheeler to review the minutes of this executive session following approval by the president in advance of the Summerville Redevelopment Authority meeting.

I'm so glad I put it so succinctly.

Fantastic.

Thank you, Councilor McLaughlin for making such a perfect motion.

Discussion on the motion.

Going once, going twice, seeing no hands.

Uh I don't think we need a roll call.

Uh we do need a roll call because we're virtual, right?

Uh Madam Caller Roll.

That is correct, Mr.

President.

On the motion, counselor you and campen.

Yes.

Counselor Link.

Yes.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

Counselor Klingon.

Yes.

Counselor Streso.

Yes.

Counselor Said.

Yes.

Counselor Wheeler.

Yes.

Counselor Hart.

Yes.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Counselor M Baugh.

Uh Counselor Davis.

Yes.

With all counselors in favor, that motion is approved.

All right, very well.

And we have a an additional motion.

I believe Councilor Wheeler moves to Madam Clerk.

Uh, what was the motion that Councilor Wheeler was going to make to move forward the two proposals to the SRA or something along those lines?

Mr.

President, that is the item that is on the table currently, item 7.2.

I am indeed making that motion.

Thank you, Councilor Wheeler.

On the item requesting approval to endorse Wood Partners and North River Learn Manager LLC as the two finalists in the 90 Washington Street request for proposals process.

Counselor Ewan Campin.

Yes.

Counselor Link.

Yep.

Counselor Scott.

Yes.

Counselor Klingon.

Yes.

Counselor Strezo.

Yes.

Counselor Said.

Yes.

Counselor Wheeler.

Yeah.

Counselor Hart.

Yes.

Counselor McLaughlin.

Yes.

Counselor Mbaugh.

Counselor Davis.

Yes.

With all counselors in favor, that item is approved.

All right.

Thank you, kids.

This was a really complicated conversation, and I appreciate everyone's diligence.

And uh to everyone in the administration, um, thank you very much.

Folks, this these things are complicated.

And uh I'm glad we have this conversation tonight.

So uh Madam Clark, is there any further uh are there any further items on the agenda?

There are no further items before this council.

Are there any late items?

There are no late items.

There being no late items, council you and camping moves to adjourn.

Madam Clerk, please call roll on adjournment.

And on adjournment, counselor you and campen.

Yes, counselor Link.

Yes, Counselor Scott, yes, counselor Klingon, yes, counselor strezzo, yes, counselor Said, yes, Counselor Wheeler, yes, counselor Hart, yes, Councilor McLaughlin, yes, counselor mbah, from the death of Willemba, yes, counselor Davis, yes, with all counselors in favor, this council is adjourned.

Uh thanks everyone.

Good work.

Thank you.