City Council - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat.

Everything.

to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, colleagues. Uh, thank you. Um, we have uh we are being both audio taped and videotaped this evening. We have uh three counselors uh online. I have councelor DS, councelor Wright, and councelor Lipoff. Um, and with us in the chamber, we have several uh members elect who I'm thrilled to see here. I have councelor elect Roach, councelor elect Irish, uh, councelor elect um, Gordon. I have uh, councelor elect. Um, and did I miss anyone? I don't think so. That's pretty good. All right. Well, welcome. Um, councelor elects are welcome to come in and sit inside the rail if they'd like, but not required to if you'd prefer to remain in the audience. All right, we are going to start off. We have a number of um uh we have a number of um uh matters uh on second call this evening. I think we're going to have uh a fairly lengthy evening. So, I'm going to urge everyone to be patient. I'm also going to urge that um please do your best to keep your remarks short and if counselors have said something already that and you're simply going to be repetitive, I just ask that you try to keep it um to acknowledge what someone else has said and keep it keep it moving because we will have I think uh a fairly late evening. So, with that said, on first call, I'm going to recognize the chair

of the land use committee, Councelor Kelly. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I don't see the report for the most recent meeting in here. Am I mistaken about that? So, I do want to request some special hearings. There was no, you do not have a recent meeting to report out, but you do have some other items. I do have um some public hearings to request. Please do.

I'd like to set public hearings uh for items number 241-25, which is on page 270 um of your docket item. And uh listed here are a few other items that actually aren't public hearings. Oh, sorry. The next one is two 340-25, which is at 15 Clinton Place. And these are all for November 25th. Um, and number 339-25 at 112 Garden Road. Those are all on page 270 for November 25th. And we have a few other ones. They don't they don't require a public hearing.

I was just going to say we have a few others that don't require a public hearing that are on the list. So, thank you very much. That's it. Thank you, Chair Kelly. Next, I have Chair Baker for zoning and planning committee.

Thank you, Mr. President. And the zoning and planning committee report is found on page two uh starting on page 262. Um the first item is 18124. This is a request for discussion and possible amendments to remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses in commercial centers. That was approved 701. Um item 181242 requests for discussion and possible amendments to reduce remove or reduce parking minimums for commercial uses and commercial centers involving the table. The other involved uh business one uh business one excuse me business use one and business use two districts that was approved um 80. Um, we had item 2324 which was an update on short-term rental ordinance compliance and enforcement and that was voted after discussion, no action necessary 800. Um, then we uh had item 26925 request discussion and possible amendments to policies for a butter notifications for proposed large projects. After discussion, we voted no action necessary 80. There's item 293 25 requesting amendments to chapter 30 zoning relating to creating an adult daycare use. Um we had a public hearing and approved that item 8 to zero. And then on 3 2825 reappoint of Scott Freiedman to the Newtonville Historic District Commission and the committee approved that 8 to Z. The IR item relating to proven alterations as of right is on second call and we have an item that's carried over regarding inclusionary zoning which is also on second call.

Thank you Mr. President. Thank you chair. Let me just make one announcement for those who are following the whole question of our climate action. Uh we had anticipated taking that up in the last meeting of this month but it's actually going to be uh now on December 8th. So those who are interested in that discussion um I would encourage you to come to that conversation when the committee. Thank you. Thank you chair Baker. Next for programs and services committee chair Krenman. Thank you Mr. President. Report begins on page 264. I believe that the only item which was not held is on second call and so I would move the report. All set.

Yeah. I think the only item not on second call is uh I mean the only item not held was on second call. I'll move. Thank you. Uh, next I have chair Gman for public safety and transportation. Thank you, Mr. President. There's no report this evening. Uh, next I have Chair Albbright for public facilities.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. The report begins on page 265. The first item was held. Second item is 31225 appropriation of 1,650,000 from June 30th 2025 certified free cash for a vehicle replacement program and that was approved 70. The next item is 320-25 Eversource Energy petitioning for a grant of location to install and maintain approximately 120 feet of conduit conduit in Armory Street Northerly from Washington Street and 30t of conduit in Washington Street Northerly from the manhole and that was approved 70. Uh the next item was 338-25. We're honor the mayor requesting authorization to provide access to electrical equipment at the West Armory, West Newton Armory. That was approved 70 and the last item was held. Um I'd like to assign a public hearing.

Go ahead, please. Uh Chair Albbright. So on um November 19th, this coming Wednesday, there will be a public hearing on item 308-25, which was councilors Pharaoh, Lucas, Laredo, Wright, Lobovitz, and Block requesting a public hearing and approval to re rename 18 roadways in Oakill Park to commemorate fallen veterans who have served during their military conflicts. And that's it. I move that concludes your report. Yes, thank you. Uh thank you. I I neglected to mention that council elect Damabed's also uh online and welcome and chair gentile for the finance committee please.

Thank you Mr. President. The finance committee report begins on the page bottom of page 266. The first item was 281-25. Councilors Down and Grossman requesting to amend city ordinances to modernize parking fines in line with surrounding communities and to deter unsafe parking. It's approved 7 to zero. Next item was held uh 312-25 veron of the main requesting authorization to appropriate and expend the sum of 1,650,000 from June 30th 2025 certified free cash to support the city's vehicle replacement program. This was approved 700 313-25. Your honor, the mayor reappointing Shawn Murphy as a constable for the city of Newton approved 70 316-25 the community preservation committee recommending the appropriation of 1,997,000 in community preservation act historic resource funding uh from the unrestricted priory year reserves to control of the planning and development department for a grant to the West Newton Cinema Cinema Foundation for their building stabilization uh project. This was approved 70 318-25 was held. Next item is uh 322-25 by Ron May requesting authorization to expend 17,290 and.73 cents from the legal claims settlements account for full and final settlement of an insurance claim approved 70

honor the mayor requesting authorization to transfer and expend $8,000 from the H uh handicap App finds disability commission to the operation disability commission to conduct holiday targeted enforcement of the accessible parking violations. Uh approve 70 uh 334-25. Her honorable the mayor requesting the correction of council order 1651 165-25. Um it was a sum of uh $450 from that was transposed and this will correct that regarding some inflow and infiltration projects approved 70 365-24 councilors DS Gman Larry Ferrell Oliver Danberg Lipoff and Lobovitz requesting a discussion in possible ordinance change on residential parking programs and fee structures and whether they need to be adjusted. This item was approved 7 to zero. I'd also like to ask for a suspension of the rules uh in order to take up an item that was discussed earlier which is the 20uh 26 tax classification hearing um for which there is no written report. All in favor of allowing for suspension of the rules uh to allow this late file report, please say I. I. Opposed. Go ahead, please. Councelor Gentile.

Um the item was heard earlier this evening. our director of assessment administration uh James Shaughnessy gave a PowerPoint presentation along with a booklet of with an awful lot of information about uh current taxes values classification um steps that we've taken in the past. Um that was followed by a presentation by our chief financial officer Marin Lemieux. Um there was a uh public hearing open. There was was one speaker public hearing was closed. Uh the strong recommendation from the administration um was to support what is commonly known as a factor of 175%. However, what we actually vote is a decimal residential factor of 0.937074. Um, so that motion was made and seconded. Um, there was very little debate and um, a uh, roll no excuse me, it wasn't a roll call. It was a vote taken in finance and that item was approved by a vote of 7 to zero and I would move the report.

Thank you, Chair Gental. Councelor Baker, excuse me, Mr. President. I should have reported but I wanted to wait for finance. The zoning and planning also acted on item 31625 the CPA funding for the historic resources for the West Newton Cinema and that was approved 80 by the committee. Thank you. I'm going to recognize Chair Gman for public safety and transportation.

Thank you, Mr. President. I need to report that um public safety and transportation took up 281-25 the parking fine revision on October 22nd and approved that 7 to zero and I think you'll all recall on 365-24 um that public safety and transportation had approved that subject to second call which we heard on second call at our last meeting uh also voted that 70 to make the uh referral to finance. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Gman. Uh, Chair Derberg for real property reuse. Thank you, Mr. President. There's no report tonight. Thank you very much. Um, madame assistant clerk or Mr. Clerk, will you call the role, please?

Councelor Albbright, I. Councelor Baker, hi. Councelor Bixby, hi. Councelor Block. Hi. Councelor Danberg. Hi. Councelor DS. Hi. Councelor Frell. Hi. Councelor Gentile. Hi. Councelor Katz. Councelor Greenberg. Hi. Councelor Gman. Hi. Councelor Humphrey. Hi. Councelor Kalis. Hi. Councelor Kelly. Hi. Councelor Kinsman. Hi. Councelor Liry. Hi.

Councelor Lipoff. Hi. Councelor Lobovitz. Hi. Councelor Lucas. I with the exception of 321-25 for which I vote no.

Councelor Malaki. I. Councelor Mikley. Councelor Oliver. Hi. Councelor Wright. I President Loredo. I The eyes are 22. The actually the vote is 22 to zero with the exception of no vote on 321-25.

Uh thank you, Mr. Clerk. We are now moving on to second call. We have five items on second call. We're going to start with our unfinished business from the last council meeting. The first item is 267-25. the walk, roll, and bike network plan. We're gonna recognize the chair of the public facilities committee, Chair Albbright.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. So, um I'll give a brief report on this item. This is um item 267-25, her honor, the mayor, mayor, requesting approval of the walk, roll, bike network plan as part of the city's comprehensive plan. Um m Mr. President, should I make a motion about the change in the docket item first before I I I think you should make a motion first on the change of the docket item. Uh and then depending on how that goes, uh we can take up discussion of the rest of the items. So go why don't you complete your report? Okay.

Then make the motion. I'll take any other motions and we'll go from there.

Okay. Sounds good. So this plan um as described in our report uh only provides a roadmap for how Newton will plan, prioritize and deliver improvements through a citywide network of walking, rolling and biking. It's a set of prioritiz prioritization frameworks based on safety demand, balance, and feasibility. It lays out consistent design and policy guidance to ensure all projects meet the same standards. coordinates implementation across departments and tracks progress annually for transparency and accountability. Um the goals of this plan as stated in our report are to enhance safety and comfort, connect people to key destinations, build out a core network, manage speeds for safety, advance accessibility for all, and encourage active travel. Today there's been a as as we all know there's been a great deal of controversy in our email about this plan and we got an we got a memo.

Sure you speak into the microphone a little more. Sure. We got a memo from um Jen Martin who's director.

That was not what I was asking for. call for Robert.

I was just trying to practice my singing. Um the um so we got a memo today from Jen Martin who's the director of transportation planning saying what this plan is not. It does not commit the city to any specific projects for funding. And I think there's been a great deal of confusion abroad in the land about that. This plan was really developed for what we all say that we want which is transparency. so that the the residents of Newton and the citizens of our and the and the representatives of our board would know how decisions are made with respects to to biking and and pedestrians uh and and the rolling the scooters and things like that. Um it it this plan mentions the the Washington Street um pilot program in a couple of places as a project that is ongoing and somehow that became the modus operandi for everybody to think that's what this plan was all about them the reducing bike lanes and as a matter of fact we got a um an email tonight that said that

Sher Alre would you restrict yourself to uh the item and then if you want to advocate please do so afterwards.

Yes. I want to say what this what the the word reduce is important and the what what this plan tries to reduce besides these goals. It tries to reduce maintenance burdens in roadways. It tries to reduce transportation emissions. It plans to reduce travel by automobile. It plans to increase wayfinding by reducing uncertainty in signage. It tries to reduce greenhouse emissions. It tries to reduce the risk of fatal crashes, to reduce conflict points, to reduce crash frequency, and to re reduce speed at midblock crossings. That's all that's all this plan is trying to reduce. The um the vote in committee was eight in favor and none against. and it was approved.

Do you have a motion to make before we proceed or further discussion? I do. So, an error was made when creating the docket item. Um, please speak into the microphone. Chair Albbright, thank you. Yes. An error was made in creating the docket item that it would be part that this plan would be part of the city's comprehensive plan. And we would have had this discussion back at our last meeting, but of course, we we uh put this on on second call for this meeting. Um, so I would like to the motion is to amend the docket item to remove as part of the city's comprehensive plan from the docket item and that's the first thing we need to do.

Are there any other motions that you then intend to make in connection with this item? Only the motion that was made by the committee which was to approve the plan.

Right. So, there is a motion by councelor Albbright to amend the docket item to um eliminate the reference to the comprehensive plan. Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by uh councelor Danberg. Discussion on the motion. Hold on. Uh councelors Gentile Block Luke. All right. Gentile block Lucas and I'll I'll get everyone else's All right, councelor Gentile, please unpl to one or seven to zero to one. So that's the first thing. Um secondly, um there's no doubt on my mind that at some point here in the near future, um that this plan is going to be approved by either this city council or the next city council. I mean, uh that's inevitable. Um it could look a little bit different. Um, if in fact what many of us want happens tonight, which is to simply send this back to committee and the committee to hold a public hearing, which is what many people want. But if you care about process, whether it is a mistake or not, the docket item is clear. It was docketed to read requesting approval of the walk roll and bike network plan

as part of the city's comprehensive plan. That was what was docketed. That was what was taken up in committee. That was what was approved in committee. And if that is in fact not the case, I don't see how anybody can change it at this point because of the way it went through the process to this point. So, in respect for the process, please do not vote this out tonight. Send it back to committee. There's never a harm or a danger in having a public hearing and that's that's really what we're arguing about tonight and I think it could go peacefully if people would just agree to have a public hearing.

Thank you, Councelor Gental. Next, anybody who's attended a meeting that I preside over knows that we don't have any applause. All right. Next, Councelor Block. Thank you, Mr. President. Was my understanding that this was intended to be an amendment to the comprehensive plan. And I have a question for the chair through through the president. Um maybe it's just to you which is whether this was referred to the proper committee. It's my understanding that comprehensive plans are supposed to be taken up by the zoning and planning committee and I'm wondering if that's correct.

So um Mr. Clerk, do you want to comment on what law advised you earlier today? Oh, deputy clerk, please. fun. Um, so we can vote it on in the PF committee. This can be voted on in the PF committee even though those is even though it's designated an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Um, we are removing that amendment can be made the motion can be made to remove that piece of it from the comprehensive plan. I I think councelor Block's question though was it properly referred to the public facilities committee in the first instance?

Mr. President, I think I can shed some light on this problem. Go ahead, please. Chair Albbright, the the thing that gets our plan into the comprehensive plan is that it's reviewed by the planning and development board and it was not intended to be reviewed by the planning and development board. That's why this was an error. Well, my understanding, Chair Albbright, is that every change in the comprehensive plan typically goes through zoning and planning and not facilities. I'm not sure that's correct at all, but I do know that it's correct that the planning and development board was supposed to have is supposed to review things on the conference.

I'm going to recognize Chair Oliver, Vice Chair Oliver of Zoning and Planning because I think he has a comment on that.

Great. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, and if you wouldn't mind, uh, if we could have the, uh, clerk pull up, uh, the document that, uh, our own city rules, uh, city council rules, uh, to the page and reference that I spoke about earlier today. Uh, it very clearly in paragraph three calls out that any change to uh, or modification to comprehensive planning uh, does belong to ZAP. period. And that is what the item said. It was very confusing when we went through this because it's also my understanding that PF uh has substantive substantive can't stand that word uh uh say over items that are streetscape and so forth. So, it would be my recommendation that uh we not uh just send this back to PF as councelor Gentile was talking about uh with the intent of a public hearing, but to send it back to PF and ZAP jointly because our own city council rules right there, right? Paragraph C, is that what I'm looking at here? Right. Uh on the third line, community development authority comprehensive planning are to be assigned to zoning and planning. That's all I'm asking for. I think that's the appropriate modification here. Send this back to committee. Let's do exactly what you were talking about. Let's be as transparent as we possibly can. There's a

just want a hearing. I appreciate that. Councelor Block, did that answer your question? Uh yes. Though there's a similar question about the planning board and whether this and whether we we need to have a recommendation from the planning board. If this is going to be an amendment to the comprehensive plan, you do. If this is just going to be a plan, and there's lots of plans that float out there all through the city, the answer is no, you do not. Thank you. Okay, we're still on the motion. So, next I have councilors Lucas Malakei and I'm sure there's others. Go ahead, please.

Thank you. Um I am all if there is a vote to um remove that language of comprehensive plan, I will vote against it, but I'm going to ask the clerk uh to also share the screen um because this um goes to what councelor Block was getting at uh with his last comments um and it has to do with the city charter and I would like to read that into the record. So, if you could share that, please. Yeah. So, we're in article 7, planning section 7-2, comprehensive plan, paragraph B, adoption. I want everyone to read this. Every reorganization plan shall upon receipt by the clerk of the council be referred to the appropriate committee of the c of the city council which shall not more than 30 days hold a public hearing on the matter and shall not and shall not later than the second regular meeting of the city council following the hearing report either that it approves or disapproves the plan. A reorganization plan shall become effective 90 days after the date it is received by the city council unless the city council has a prior uh wait I was reading the wrong section. I apologize. Really, I do. I do. I'm reading I was reading at the top of the page B adoption. I apologize everyone. Really, I do.

Europe in article 7 section 72 paragraph B adoption. All right. Sorry about that everyone. I apologize. Go ahead. Council

adoption. Upon receipt from the mayor of the proposed comprehensive plan or a proposed modification of the existing plan, the city council shall refer the proposed the proposal to the planning and development board which shall within the time specified by the city council report its recommendation on the proposal. After receipt of the recommendations of the planning and development board, a city council shall hold a public hearing on the on the proposed comprehensive plan or the proposed modification of the comprehensive plan and shall by resolution adopt the same with or without amendments. Um, so what I believe the reason why the mayor wants this out of the comprehensive plan is because they don't want to go through this process, the transparency process. the process that we received an email blast later this afternoon and um Newton residents gathered signatures asking us to hold a public hearing. That is it. This has not been a transparent process at all. The only public communication to and from the the Newton residents from city hall occurred two and a half years ago. And then it was in the mayor's newsletter a couple months ago and then there was one 45minute discussion.

Councelor Lucas, how much more do you need? One minute, please. All in favor of additional minute and 30 seconds for council Lucas, please say I. I. Go ahead, please.

Thank you. So, this has not been a transparent process at all. And all I am asking and what others are asking is let's hear from everyone, not just the people who you agree with. We represent everyone on this side of the railing. So, let's send this back to either PF or ZAP. It probably should be ZAP because it's still as of right now part of the comprehensive plan or proposed to the comp proposed comprehensive plan. and let's hear from everyone and let's get this right and make sure every question is answered because I know many people on Zap do have questions about this uh particular plan that they did not have a chance to ask in committee. So I'm going to if if there is a vote I will respectfully vote against taking out this language and I do want to see this back in Zap or PF. Thank you.

So I have counselors Malaki, Albbright, Liry and Lovitz and right in that order. Go ahead, Bruce.

Okay. I think a lot of what I was would be saying on this uh motion has already been said. I have substantive reasons for putting it on second call two weeks ago, I guess it was, which I can go into later. Um but uh I absolutely agree that I the I'm just appalled at the thought that we would be changing docket language uh in a basically uh to circumvent the desire for a public hearing. Um, that's the kind of thing I expect out of the, you know, the Democratic leadership and the state legislature and the Republican leadership in Washington DC trying to shut down public discussion by uh strange par, you know, maneuvers. Um, and I have to ask also, you know, what what are we afraid of uh from a public hearing? Um, this is not a critical it's not a time critical thing to do. We've been told over and over again that it's not about particular projects. Each project would need its own vetting and approval and so forth. So there's nothing to be lost by uh allowing time for a public hearing and um helping the public have faith in our um allegiance to process and not um trying to do things behind their back.

Thank you, Councelor Maliki. Councelor Albbright. Again, folks, we're just speaking on the motion, not anything else.

Thank you, Mr. President. The And if you've read this plan, so-called plan, you will know that it really isn't a plan. It is a description of the networks. It is descriptions of gaps in networks. It has policies for safety related to safety and and it describes ongoing projects. There is no planning involved. There is no um description of what will come over the next year, five years, 10 years. It is not a typical plan. It is I don't know why that when I first read it I spoke with Miss Martin and I said why are you calling this a plan and she said because it is sort of a plan but as as you will all know if you have read it it is just a description of policies the network the gaps in the network with no recommendations for future so it it doesn't it it never should have been sent to the as a comprehensive plan because it isn't one I I if you've read it, you would know that. Please do not I I don't mind a public hearing. It's It's fine. I mean, 2400 people commented on this plan within the last year. I if that's also if you had read the emails and the reports, you would have seen that 2400 people commented on this. Um and there were plenty of public meetings of lots of public meetings. Maybe you weren't notified, counselor Lucas, I don't know. But um please it it it this is not a plan and it didn't belong in the comprehensive plan.

All right. Next I have councelor Liry.

Thank you Mr. President. So on the motion, um, I would vote to take the language out out referring to the comprehensive plan and I would like to comment specifically on the on the plan itself and I can wait to do that. Please wait to do that. Okay.

Thank you, councelor Larry. Next I have councelor Lovitz. So, uh, Councelor Albbright, uh, uh, addressed in part my question. So, it's really a question. Um, I'm not sure how whether you call this a plan or not, whether uh, it would be considered a modification of the comprehensive plan. And I would just ask someone to speak to that point only because I'm not familiar with the definition of a comprehensive plan and how something like this would relate to that.

I'll I'll try to answer the question uh councelor Lovich and I of course defer to my other experienced colleagues if I get it wrong. Um the comprehensive plan is a formal city document prepared under the charter. It is updated periodically through a variety of amendments. Uh the comprehensive plan is used as a formal planning tool by the city including the planning department. So that for example in land use hearings we'll often hear that something is consistent with or not consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh what Chair Albbright is suggesting is that this was never really intended to be a change to the comprehensive plan. I can't speak to the accuracy of what the administration thought it was doing or not. Uh and I really can't if it's just a plan, I'm not sure why it was presented to us in the first instance to be quite honest. I mean, I if it's a plan, it plans typically don't require city council approval if they're just internal plans. But I'll defer to councelor Albbright if she wants to differ.

So, I'm not sure that Miss Martin would want me to say what I'm about to say, but I'm going to say it anyway. um when you just made a comment of you're not sure why it was given it to us in the first place and what Miss Martin said was I thought transparency was important. I wanted the council to know how we will make decisions in the future on bikes, pedestrian access, and the scooters. And so I was I wanted to be transparent and to provide all this information. She said, "I've learned my lesson the hard way." Well, I' I'm not going to let me be very clear. I have no doubt that staff was completely well-intentioned in how it presented. We are faced with a verbiage that says a change to the comprehensive plan. That's what we have. There's a motion pending to amend that. I have a number of people wish to speak on that still. I have councelor Wright, then I have councelor DS who's online, and then I have councelor Baker, and I'm sure there may be others. Councelor Wright, go ahead, please.

I have a point of inquiry. So, um, I've been emailing back and forth with, uh, Miss Jen Martin, director of transportation planning, on this plan, and I've had multiple questions and comments and things like that. And what she told me today is that this plan is not the final plan. It's not the final version. There's going to be updates to it, including the document and on the website. So, how can we be voting on something that isn't a final version because I can't. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Councelor DS.

Thank you. And um I would love to be there but not able to be. So I um have a just a couple of comments. I really wish this were um going to go in the comprehensive plan but uh it is not. Um and uh I will also recall uh my colleagues that in 2018 public facilities passed the street design guide which is very similar to this and it says these are the kinds of things we're going to be using when we are uh redoing our streets and this is what we're going to call it and this is the various tools we'll be using. This is a very similar document. Um it it tells us what our priorities are, where the gaps are. Um it tells us where uh children are having trouble uh safely getting to school.

Councelor DS, we're we're speaking to the motion right now.

I am speaking to the motion because it is not what you know it is not a comprehensive plan type plan. When I look at the rules that counselor Oliver mentioned, I do not see things like street design or street planning as something that goes under um the the zoning and planning committee. That is things from the I just don't see that language. And if this is not in the comprehensive plan, the charter amendment that councelor Lucas mentioned that that also the charter um language also does not apply to this. Um so I fail to see why this is a uh a problem on both of those. And to counselor uh Wright's comment, this is a living document. It will never be final. That is the the you know the point is that once you hit a priority and it is done, you aren't going to be going back again. you know, you're going to be going back again and removing that from your priority list. It's like the it's like the um capital improvement plan. Yeah, you have a plan, but once once you've built the school, it goes back down to the bottom of the list rather than being on the top. Thank you.

Thank you, Councelor Dallas. Councelor Baker. Councelor Baker. So part of the challenge that this poses is that if you go to the public facilities report from October 22nd, attached to it is a whole um description of the work and the document that's involved and at the very end of it the presentation it says um implementing the plan over time is one page and then the final is ask adopt into comprehensive plan. So in the document itself, it speaks to this particular purpose. Um and it says formal adoption ensures consistency, coordination, and smarter long-term investment. So part of the difficulty, I think, is that ultimately a document like this for its intended purpose is supposed to be approved by the city council. The question is what's the proper mechanism to get to that approval? Um I'm loathed to given the work the committee has undertaken and will continue I hope to undertake in the future to uh take on extra responsibilities. But it does seem to me that if the objective here is to get to an approved document that can guide the city going forward even if it's a work in progress there's an advantage to having another committee take a look at it. So, I'm going to uh respectfully descent from the motion and support the recommendation it come to the zoning and planning committee.

So, anyone else wish to be heard on the motion? Councelor Farrell. Mr. President, I'm new and easily confused. Um I hear people saying that this is a living document that will be change over time. is the comprehensive plan not a living document that will change over time. The comprehensive plan is a living document that can be changed through the city council mechanism. It can be amended or modified by only by city council vote.

Thank you. Then why wouldn't something like this as comprehensive is as it is be part of a reference to the comprehensive plan? Thank you. Yeah. Hold on. Anyone else wish to be heard as spoken? I'm going to recognize councelor Albbright and then gentile again.

So I think uh councelor DS talked about the street design guide that was done by public facilities many years ago. This is exactly the same kind of pl of document. So that's why I I don't know why zoning and planning is another committee that I sit on, but I don't know why the like the street design guide certainly you wouldn't have wanted that in zoning and planning. Um and it's the same kind of document. So I don't think it belongs in zoning and planning.

Okay. Thank you councelor Gentile and then councelor Kais. Look, I don't have the street design guide in front of me, but I'm willing to place a bet that when it was docketed, it was not docketed to be part of the comprehensive plan. That's a big difference. Let's let's cut the BS. The thing was docketed to be part of the comprehensive plan for a reason, and it's a probably a good reason because it's a plan you would might want to have, but that's the way that it was targeted. I've never in 36 years seen a an item docketed a certain way go through a committee and then because they're faced with having to have a a public hearing all of a sudden we're hearing that well it wasn't meant to be docketed that way. That's not credible folks. And if you vote for it, boy oh boy, what the heck is going on? We know what's going on. But the main but the bottom line is as as councelor U. Malaki said, what are we afraid of? Why are we fighting to have a public hearing, whether it be by zoning and planning or whether it be by um public facilities? What are we afraid of? Are we afraid that somebody might come up with an idea that others didn't think of that will make it a better plan? because I think that's a good thing and we should be open to that. Um, my colleague from W 2, I think she heard her own cause by relaying what Jen Martin said. Jen Martin, according to council Albbright, said that this was going to be this is was going to be a plan to show how we were going to be making decisions in the future about

bike paths and other things. that are under this subject. Well, people want to weigh in on how those decisions are going to be made and they should have the right to be able to weigh in. So, please, let's not continue to beat beat this up and fight about whether or not it's going to go to a committee. just send it to a committee, have a public hearing, and at the end of the day, you'll have a better document in my opinion, and I won't be around for it. So, it doesn't matter to me in that respect, but it's the right thing to do. And if you really care about transparency, but it wasn't a mistake that it was docketed this way. It was docketed this way because someone, and I don't know if it was transportation, the mayor's office, or whatever, felt that it was a worthy enough cause that it should be um um added to our comprehensive plan. So, don't try to say it was a mistake that we're now going to correct on the floor of the city council. That's not the way we do business.

All right. Uh before I recognize counsel, hold on. Before I recognize councelor Kais and Albbright and Larry, I do want to recognize the council elect uh Yume Charm is among the attendees uh I believe online correct online. Uh so welcome now councelor Kais then councelor Albbright then councelor Larry.

So councelor Gentile um I believe it was a mistake. Okay. I believe it was a mistake. I think the words comprehensive plan should be removed. I also think it needs to go back to the committee. Nobody is afraid, and councelor Albright already just said this. She's not afraid of having a public hearing. I think everybody here knows that it takes a lot to build up trust, but one action to destroy it. So, we're going to send it back. I mean, this isn't even on the motion, but it should be sent back. But to believe that it's a a mistake is not a big thing. it was a mistake and we all looked at it, read it, discussed it for many months and then it was nobody really saw that. So either way, I I believe the word should be taken out. It should be corrected, go back to PF where I think that's where it should be debated, but we should have public hearings.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor Kis. Councilors Albbright and Liry. And then unless something someone has something really important to say, I'm going to ask that we vote on the motion. Before we go back to the main item,

just to be clear, the motion to remove the words comprehensive plan was part of the docket that would have been discussed two weeks ago. It has nothing to do with the fact that some folks are asking for a public hearing tonight. Nothing to do with that. And I uh Deputy Clerk Cassidy Flynn, I I think you know that that was part of the motion that was to be made two weeks ago. Um so when it when it came to the council, we were going to remove that because it was done in error. Now that's the first thing. So that has nothing to do with the fact that people are asking for a uh a hearing. And what cons what councelor Kayla suggested just now is fine if you want to send it back to committee for a public hearing. I I hope there's time and we can fit it in. We can have an extra meeting. Come on folks. We don't have enough meetings.

So can a friendly suggestion. Chair Albbright, if you are willing to send this back for a public hearing, I would suggest that we not take up the motion in in the full council that this go back to public facilities for a hearing. That at that time the docket item is amended. that you hold a public hearing if you can do so this term and then if you're able to it comes back before the full council having been properly labeled with a full hearing that deals with the objections folks had about the lack of process then everybody knows when it comes to the council what we're voting on

I think that's a fine suggestion so will you withdraw your motion to amend and accept and make a motion instead to refer this back to public facility I will do so and my colleague from Ward 4 will be very happy for that. So I will withdraw my motion and ask for a motion for to send it back to PF for a public hearing.

All right. There's so councelor Albbright's hold on. Councelor Albbright's motion to amend is withdrawn. The substitute motion is to send it back to public facilities. Councelor Danberg. Councelor Danberg has seconded the motion. All right. Um, we are going to do this on a roll call. Is there any I'm sorry, Councelor Liry. Go ahead. You're right. We still need to discuss. Hold on. There's a motion to send it back to committee. Do you wish to speak on that motion?

I will speak with that on that motion, which I agree with, but I waited on my comments because I thought we were going to talk about the substance of it and I wanted to respond to that a little bit. I I will uh even though it's not directly on point, councelor Larry, I will indulge you and let you speak to the general concept. Well, thank you for indulging me for be able to raise my voice and comment on this. Um proceed procedurally, councelor Albright, there's a motion pending, but go ahead. Council,

I just wanted to respond to some of the comments that made tonight. Um I'm totally in, you know, in favor of a public hearing. This is that's not what the issue is. If people want a public hearing, I'm happy to send it back to committee. I had been waiting for this plan for years and was so happy when it was finally talked about. But I'm sitting here thinking, are we are we going to put a nuclear power plant in Newton Center with all this ruckus that's coming up and concern? I mean the plan it just aims to create low stress routes for walking cycling throughout the city identifying priority cor corridors and future projects to improve key connections to schools parks transit stops and um that's that's sort of what we're doing here. We're just working to improve the city's transportation. And I'm just shocked at the the real um unhappiness and sort of accusations that there's something else going on here. It's it's simply it is a working document. It's a it's a resource. It's basically full of data. And we had meetings like March 17th and May 8th, 2023. There was advisory committee meetings. there was a public meeting June 13th. There were stakeholder meetings. Um and and um if that wasn't enough discussion, then let's have a a public meeting as well. But what we're doing here is something I think is really important that a lot of people in the city care about. And it's like we're trying to like pull something over on people and I really really resent it.

All right. Is there any other comment on the motion by councelor Albbright to send this back to the public facilities committee? Seeing none, I'm going to ask us to call the role, please. An I or yes vote is to send it back. A no or or nay vote is to keep it here. Go ahead, please. Councelor Albbright. Councelor Baker. Hi. Councelor Bixby. Hi. Councelor Block. I councelor Danberg. Hi, Councelor DS. I councelor Frell. Hi, Councelor Gentile.

Hi, Councelor Katz. Councelor Greenberg. Hi, Councelor Gman. Hi, Councelor Humphrey. Hi, Councelor Kalis. Hi, Councelor Kelly. Hi, Councelor Kinsman. Hi. Councelor Liry. Hi. Councelor Lipoff. Hi. Councelor Lavitz. Hi. Councelor Lucas. Hi. Councelor Malaki. Hi. Councelor Mikley. Councelor Oliver. Hi. Councelor Wright. Hi.

President Laredo. Hi. The eyes are 22, the nays are zero. The motion passes. All right, Mr. President. Yes, Council Gentile. Um, I rise to make a point of personal privilege that I promise will take um, no more than 60 seconds. It's similar to council Larry and I'm rising to make it because I don't think I'm going to have an opportunity to comment or there's a good likelihood maybe. Go ahead please.

So what I the one point I wanted to make tonight was this. Northland Riverside Riverdale Destiny Sunrise 528 Boilston 78 Craft 160 Stanton 771 Winchester Haywood House 2-4 Los Angeles 15-21 Lexington Street 429 Cherry 136 Hancock 114 Beacon Walker and Wash 114 uh Walnut um I think that's no that's right the Highland A 1314 Washington Street West Newton Armory Rice valley and and several other small developments. There's roughly in the last 3 to four years, there are 3,700 units that we as a city council and the ZBA have approved. Um the MBTA Communities Act, I think it was 8600. We always argued about how many. It's not going to be 8600, but it's not going to be zero. We are embarking on the most comprehensive change that the city has ever seen when it comes to increasing our housing stock and the people that will fill that housing stock. With all due respect, they're not going to all come here with bikes and they're not going to come here planning to walk the city to do their uh chores. They're going to come here with cars. And all I wanted to comment on last meeting and tonight is you got to please you have to be realistic and you have to keep that in mind that you have to work to do both work together to improve our bike lanes to improve pedestrians but you also have to keep in in mind that we have an awful lot of people it's over it's like over 11% thank you council right of an increase that's going to have a profound effect please Don't lose sight of that.

Okay. Thank you, Councelor Gentel. We are That concludes our discussion on that item. We have four more items to go. Next, uh again, Chair Albbright. Uh this one I hope goes a little bit easier. I hope so too, Mr. President. So, this item is by the way, the vote on the last item was 8 to0 in the report. So, we'll we'll correct the report if but uh that's not a problem. I'm sure Miss So, the next item, Mr. Wilson will speak to the question

is 317-25, which is um it's councelor Albite requesting review and discussion of the conceptual plan for the Newton Highlands Village improvement prior project prior to advancing the to final design phase. This came about because the mayor and the commissioner were concerned that there was not enough support for this project and they wanted to be sure that the council was interested in moving forward towards final design and that's how that docket item came about. We discussed this at two two meetings, one um on October 22nd and one on October 29th. And um the plan um began as an accessibility project, interestingly enough, because the Newton Highlands tea station was being renovated and to match the accessibility that was planned for that Newton Highlands station. Um the decision was made that we should go to Newton Highlands as the next village that was enhanced after um I guess West Newton was the one right before this. Um it was uh the commissioner explained in the meeting that the initiative began as an accessibility project focusing on overcoming the steep topography, the long crossing distances and other barriers that make it difficult for people with mobility challenges to navigate the Newton Highlands area. It then evolved into a broader vision that addresses not only accessibility but also traffic economy, safer bicycle and pedestrian connections, improved parking, beautifification, traffic, traffic signals, and expanding the green infrastructure. And by green infrastructure, they mean the issues having to do with um water retention and storm water retention. Um we had two meetings where the consultants presented their plans. Um there are a significant it's it's a significantly larger project than either

West Newton or Newtonville because it has uh Lincoln Lincoln Street and Walnut Street going up into the new intersection onto Center Street and then a few of the side streets. So it's a significantly larger project. Um the project um which became part of the issue has been funded with ARPA funds. Um, approximately $500,000 has already been spent. I think I'll speak about this in a minute, but a little bit more than the 500,000 has already been spent. And the question is, should the rest of the money be spent to continue to final design and a reminder that the final design does come back to the council at 25%, 50%, and 100% um design. um counselors asked questions about the time frame for the final design and it's that this ARPA money has to be spent by next December and the idea it related to um the fact that the money is only here for planning but not for operations. So the question was raised where is the operations money going to come from once we have a final design and the mass works we've had sever we've we've had a great deal of success with massworks grants and the idea would be to be able to uh give an indication of our interest to apply for a massworks grant in the spring and then a final design would be submitted as a grant to massworks in um in the early winter next year but probably November December time frame. Um, let's see what I make sure I'm covering everything I need to cover. So, there are several there the the there were several points of contention that were brought up frequently with the air Newton Highlands Area Council. Um, undergrounding the wires in um Newton

Highlands was something that was greatly desired by the area council. Um there was a bit of a controversy over how much it costs to do the undergrounding. Um there were members of the area council who felt that the plan could be developed for $75,000. Unfortunately, there was a memo from a meeting with um the commissioner and and some of her engineering staff with Eversource to show that it cost $750,000 to do a design. But there there is a controversy over the cost of this plan to do the planning even and that the undergrounding itself would probably cost in the neighborhood of six or seven million dollars which just adds to the the amount of money that could be spent on this project. Um it wasn't this is an ongoing controversy has not yet been settled but I note that there is a meeting with members of the area council with um town of Weston which did a project similar to this that um they redid their town center and they undergrounded the wires and and so members of the town of Weston will be meeting to discuss this and the town of Weston did have a significant override to pay for all of that. Um, okay. Was there enough public input was another question that the area council uh raised significantly that counselors raised and there were um a number of public meetings but for many for various reasons um members felt that there wasn't enough public input. Um let's see. We funded it with Yep. Yep. So the the um after the second meeting um the vote of the committee was let me get the vote right. Eight and no that's the wrong one. I don't know if it's seven or eight.

The committee approved a subject to conditions uh 50.

Yes. So um we we developed a motion. There were two choices that were presented to the committee at our October 29th meeting. One was to reject the plan, have it stop, and the second one was to move the plan forward, but with a series of conditions. Um, and I hope that the memo with all those conditions, there were 22 of them, were in the packet, and I hope you had a chance to review it. And that was voted um 780 in favor of moving this forward. After that meeting on October 29th, there was still concern by some of the Ward 6 counselors that um that the conditions were not strong enough and that there was concern that this plan was not really exactly what we wanted. Um, we had a meeting this morning with a representative of the of our incoming mayor. Josh Morse was there. Jonathan Yo was there. The commissioner was there along with her deputy and the three Ward 6 counselors were there along with councelor Frell and and I was there and we discussed is this plan is this Newton Highlands plan going to be something that we will all be proud of and is this the right way to spend ARPA money. the end. I I will I will let councelor Bixby tell you the final condition that was added to the um um to the conditions that were um approval on the approval of this plan and and if you call on her next she will tell you what that was.

So that's the report chair all break. Yes. I just want to make sure that everyone knows that the vote was a sense of the committee to move forward and that was the 80 vote. So this is not we're not approving any design. We're just it was a sense of our committee and this would be if if we choose this as a council. It would be a sense of the council that we would like to move forward. And I think if you call in councelor Bis Bixby, she will tell you how this was qualified. My records indicate that was a five nothing vote. Five. Thank you very much. It's it's wrong.

But that's fine. Um so that's the report. I'm going to entertain a motion by councelor Bixby. I expect a motion to amend the proposal. Go ahead, please, councelor Pittsby. Thank you, Mr. President, and um thank you, Chair Albbright, uh for the report and for um facilitating this process. Before I start, I I don't think I've asked for extra time so far in my term on the council. Can I have three minutes, please? We'll give uh councelor Bixby three minutes more from her initial three minutes. All in favor, please say I. Thank you. Hopefully, we won't use all. Go ahead.

Okay. So, um I'm rising uh to introduce a condition to the vote as um Cherald Bright just outlined which came out of an agreement this morning um to establish a working group and to charge this group with an initial report on whether to continue the current project scope or redirect the remaining planning funding to another ARPA funded contract. Up until moments before this meeting, I have heard questions and concerns about the project from residents and from business owners. I've also heard over the past three years a lot of support for the goals of this project, accessibility, environmental benefits, beautifification. I am hopeful that the working group can use the next few months to weigh the concerns, questions, and worthwhile overarching goals and determine the best way to proceed. As Chair Albbright outlined, what we as a council are voting on tonight is a conceptual plan, goals of accessibility, environmental benefits, and neighborhood enhancements and areas of the village center that could see work. I believe there's broad consensus on these goals both in the neighborhood and the council and I support moving forward on them tonight. Now, many of us both in the neighborhood and on the council have seen slides depicting what the scale, phasing, and contents of a project in Newton Highlands may ultimately look like and there's definitely less consensus on these pieces. And that's why we're proposing adding in the working group to ensure neighborhood representation from the very beginning of these next planning stages. The working group will first make an initial report on whether or not this project should go forward at all at this time. If they recommend not to go forward for now, the conceptual plans can sit on a shelf until such time as both the city and the neighborhood are ready. If they determine it is worthwhile to proceed, they will give this will give time to express interest in grants and there will be a dedicated representative group incorporated into the remaining planning process to bring their perspective and the perspective of the various interested parties in the neighborhood into the planning and to bring bring plans and ideas back to the

neighborhood for feedback over the course of that process. I'm grateful for the flexibility and creativity of our DPW leadership, my fellow W 6 counselors, and our colleague from W 8 uh and public facilities chair Albright for creating this path which allows for neighborhood input and decision-making. The exact text is up there. I can read it if needed. So that your motion is to add that language to the docket item proposal. All right. Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by councelor Kais. Is there any discussion on this um amendment? Discussion on the amendment only. Go ahead, please. Councelor Wright.

Uh thank you, President. Um who and how is going to be on the working group that's part of the amendment? I I think that's directed through the president to the maker of the motion. Go ahead, please, council. So, um, the text above says, "The working group shall include appropriate city staff, elected officials, and representatives of the Newton Highlands community as a designated by the mayor in consultation with the mayor elect." Um, so I think some of these details are still to be determined, but there's a established process for creating working groups that I was assured by, you know, many people who have been through this uh from different parts of the city um would happen very quickly. Okay. Thank you.

Does that answer your question? Okay. Anyone else? Yes. Councelor Malaki Kis Lucas Block. Hold on. I'll get you all. Malaki Kalis. Councelor Kalis might have been before me. All right. Councelor Kais,

I appreciate that. Councelor Maliki. So, um I would just suggest for the working group um that you make it larger than usual just to make sure that there's more voices there. Um, I would also suggest uh that you think about on the working group a cap for the uh the dollars spent in the budget because we are years into this. There's 22 plus I think four new conditions from the neighborhood group. So 26. It's it's almost like we're starting over. So I feel like there needs to be some reigning in of what's going to what actually is going to happen and what can be done with the addition with the remaining $400 and something,000. So that's that's my suggestions. Thank you.

Can I just to re just to be clear here, these are ARPA funds. the mayor, the current mayor, and then myself as a future mayor have control over the funding and how the money is spent. I I appreciate the suggestion, Vice President Kais, which is to be very sensitive about using consultant time and therefore city or ARPA money uh on this work. And I think that that is well stated uh and at least acknowledged by me. Okay. Councelor Maliki Lucas Block and Danberg. Sorry.

Yeah. I uh so I had a I guess kind of similar question. Um I was going to ask and hope that this would sort of free spending on the consultant while the working group discusses whether what has been done so far is what they want to pursue. Is there no chance of that? Could you speak into the microphone a little bit more, Council Malik? Yes. So, is is is there I was hoping that this would sort of freeze spending on the consultant while the working group um looks at the plan so far rather than continuing to spend money on it.

Uh again, I I think that's all suggestions for the working group and the administration, the current and the future administration. And that's very well noted. And um I just wanted to also suggest make sure to in include representatives of the businesses in the Highlands. Of the whom? Make sure to include representatives of the business community in the Highlands on the working group.

I I I think councelor Bixby I think the intent with the use of the word community is to be fairly broad. Is that right? And the suggestion for the mayor and and the mayor elect myself is to reach out broadly to the community. All right. Thank you, councelor Maliki. Uh it is a little awkward to speak about oneself in the third person. Uh, councelor Lucas.

Um, I have no problem with the I have a little problem with the wording up there. Uh, I have a question to councelor Bixby through uh the chair. Will members of the Newton Highlands Area Council be on the working group? Councelor Bixby, I mean, I can respond to that. it. Uh, councelor Lucas, I think that's certainly appropriate. I'm not going to commit, at least I wouldn't commit to the exact composition, but that's the type of suggestion that's very well noted and makes a lot of sense. I hope you will consider it.

Fair enough. And it's on the record. So, uh, I note that councelor Danberg then, uh, I'm sorry, council block Danberg Farrell, forgive me. Well, Councelor Lucas stole my question. Um, I I'm a little surprised that the Newton Highlands Area Council is not specifically mentioned in this item, and I think that's a weakness. That's all I'll say on the matter. Okay. Uh, Councelor Danberg,

thank you. Yes. uh by all means uh the uh business community and uh the area council will be members of this of this working group. Um I'm just in the interest of time uh going to mention a couple of things that were either details that um that I could add that weren't uh spoken about um or other things that uh that other people have not said. Um I think that uh councelor uh Bixby and Albbright have done a very good job in explaining uh what the issue is and and what the uh working group will be um and what this motion is all about. Uh I believe the number that we spoke about this morning in the meeting uh as having been spent um actually I've got the number that is left and that was $389,000 left. Um the um report will have a 90-day deadline. It actually says there says that in the last line I now see the deadline would be March 31 because if this working group decides that uh they want to move forward with it, we need to have enough time that would be uh three quarters of the year to be able to uh encumber and spend the funds because the URPA funds must be spent by the end of the year 2026. Uh and the another important thing is that uh in regards to how would we fund the actual uh project

uh the administration and planning department uh and DPW feel strongly that because of the improvements in the tea uh the that the MBTA is doing with accessibility at the uh Newton Highlands uh tea stop that there is a very good chance that the that uh we would be able to get state funding to do this project once we have um a a plan. So we have a a concept plan now we we're going to give not give three months to decide whether uh we're going to move forward. We hope we do. We certainly in W six hope we do and we're unanimous in that. Um and uh when we have a plan um uh we've got we've got the three quarters to develop the plan to to spend the money and uh then we would start to the city would start to go for grants.

Thank you councelor Damber. I have council Farrell then Lobovitz. I don't see anyone else after that. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Mr. President. Many of the issues have been covered, but I just want to be clear because there's been a lot of conversations and confusion about this. The um working group that will be established um will work on no budget. It may be necessary, according to the group that met this morning, to use some of the 300 remaining $380,000, but it is clear that the intent of this is not to use the overwhelming amount of the remaining dollars. And that the uh part of the intention of the working group is to look at the existing plan which has grown over time and try to come to a consensus. And we are asking the administration and the mayor elect to make certain that all rep all appropriate agencies are represented so that we can finally have one conversation at the same time with everybody in the room. that's been a bit of the problem over the past three years. So, um I think and I'm hopeful that this meets the interest that have been expressed particularly by the Newton Highlands Area Council and that have been quietly expressed by some of the other um organizations and groups that have been involved in this. Uh thank you very much.

Thank you, Councelor Ferrell. next to council lovitz and then I think we'll take this up in a vote. So I just want to make one additional point uh uh the March 31st date in part is because at that point as I understand it if there is money left over we would be able to uh meaning the new mayor would be able to shift that money to another project in the city. Um and and if we went beyond that, it would be either impossible or very difficult to shift the money. So that's in part why the March 31st date is there. Thank you.

Thank you, councelor Lopez. Councelor Albbright. Thank you, Councelor Lovitz. The other reason that that date was important was that an indication for the Mass Works grant is due in the spring. So this was an indication of knowing whether or not a grant was going to be applied for. So that's a perfect date for that as well.

Thank you. All right. Seeing no other discussion, we are voting on the motion to amend first and then we'll come back if that's approved and vote on the full item. So let's call the role on the motion to amend. A yes or an I vote is in favor of the amendment. A no or a nay vote is against it. Councelor Albbright. Hi. Councelor Baker. Hi. Councelor Bixby. Hi. Councelor Block. Hi. Councelor Danberg. Hi. Councelor DS. Hi. Councelor Ferrell. Hi.

Councelor Gentile. Councelor Gats. Councelor Greenberg. Hi. Councelor Gman. I councelor Humphrey. Hi, Councelor Kis. Yes, Councelor Kelly. Hi, Councelor Kinsman. Hi, Councelor Liry. I councelor Lipoff. I councelor Lobovitz. Hi, Councelor Lucas. I councelor Malaki. I councelor Mikley.

Councelor Oliver. I councelor Wright. I President Laredo I. The eyes's are 22, the nays are zero. The amendment is adopted. All right. With uh three more items to go, our new colleagues elect may be wondering what they signed up for, but um Pardon?

Oh, thank you. I'm just trying to move us along so quickly, Councelor Humphrey. So, we are going to take up the main item. Uh, is there any further discussion on the main item? All right. Again, I think we Yes, Councelor Lucas. See, I was trying to avoid this, Council Lucas. And now Council Humphrey made me go through this motion.

Oh, good. Sitting uh back there. Maybe I'll uh Anyways, um I am not going to support the main item. I'm going to vote no on it. Um I've had I was I attended the last two Newton Highlands Area Council meetings and they are not fans of any part of this planning process. They are not fans of the um actual design and what they any part of this. They have not liked any part of this at all. And when you don't have buyin from the local community, in this case, this is the Newton Highlands Area Council. It is time to start over. It really is. Um what I understand what a yes vote does is that a yes vote continues the process. Um, and a no vote essentially kills the pro kills the project or the process. It kills the planning and it would be appropriate to start over. Um, in gambling terms, you're chasing good money after bad and I don't think we should be doing this. Uh, so I am going to vote no on the main item. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Lucas. Councelor Farrell,

I think this gives the community the opportunity to have a serious discussion about what they want to do in Newton Highlands. It is not throwing good money after bad because we have clearly said the only money of the remaining $380,000 that we agree to expend is if the the working group itself says we need a specific amount of money to bring somebody in to answer a particular question and we are not throwing that money after. It may be several thousands, but it's not going to be all 380. Secondly, and more importantly, I don't believe that the Newton Highlands Area Council is they are concerned about the what the process has been without question. But they are not concerned or they don't disregard all of the advancements that have made with the plan. there are aspects of this plan that they do think are good and can be useful to the to the uh the area. So, I'm going to vote yes to give all interested groups in Newton Highland the opportunity to come together over a very structured process or a very structured amount of time with a clear intent to come back to us and say, "Okay, we think there's a way to move forward or we don't think there's a way to move forward." Thank you.

Thank you, councelor Frell. I have councelor Kais Danberg. Larry,

I fully agree with councelor Frell there. Um I one other point is that uh the funding there are things that need to be done in the Newton Highlands and um whether the working group decides it's going to be minimal work or they're going to try to maximize the the the work, I want these dollars going to Newton Highlands so they can um improve that area. Um, if we stop the process right now, the mayor takes that money, it can be spent anywhere. And, uh, I'm just saying I think it should be it should be focused in Newton Islands right now.

Thank you, uh, Councelor Danberg, then Larry.

Thank you, Councelor Farrell, for articulating exactly what I have in my mind also. Um and um and councelor Kais, this is not throwing good money after bad. I'm very sorry to hear that comment because it it could not be less of a of a correct characterization of the process that has gone on here. Um the process that we have just voted on which is creating a working group is what is going to bring this community together and allow what should have been done from the very beginning and that is that a working group if we had had a working group from the very beginning we would not be here arguing this right now. So I will be voting yes. This is something that uh the Newton Highlands uh area drastically needs. We it it uh it has many uh problems with uh pedestrian safety, with bike safety, with with car safety. And if you've ever gone into Newton uh Highlands and been behind the car that made a Uturn in front of uh Rodney Barker Square, you'll agree with me. So, let's move this forward and and be done with it.

Thank you, Council Damber. Council Larry. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to associate my comments with councelor Frell. Um, those were very eloquent and thoughtful comments. Um, and I also feel like this is important that we move forward. It is a process. Um, it Newton Highlands is one of my favorite villages and I certainly love their village day and I want to have the area council also involved and I think the working group is an excellent idea. But this is a good project. There's a lot of good things in it and to say that it's good money after bad I also think is not right at all. So I will be voting yes. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to be heard on the main item? Seeing none, now we will take a vote on the main item. Please call the role. Mr. Clerk, Councelor Albbright, hi. Councelor Baker, I. Councelor Bixby, hi. Councelor Block, hi. Councelor Danberg, I councelor DS. Hi, Councelor Ferrell. Hi, Councelor Gentile. Hi, Councelor Gats. Councelor Greenberg. I councelor Gman. I councelor Humphrey. Hi, Councelor Kis. Hi, Councelor Kelly.

Hi, Councelor Kinsman. Hi, Councelor Liry. Hi, Councelor Lipoff. Hi, Councelor Lavitz. Hi, Councelor Lucas. No. Councelor Malaki, no. Councelor Mikley, Councelor Oliver. I councelor Wright I. President Ledo I. This motion the eyes's are 20, the nays are two. Motion carries.

Uh we next go to the third item of unfinished business. This comes out of uh the zoning and planning committee. This is item 44-24. And let me note at the outset, colleagues, this requires 16 votes to pass. 2thirds of the entire council, not twothirds of those present and voting. And I do note that we have two members absent this evening. So, in order to pass this evening, of the 16 um of the 22 members who are here, we will need 16 affirmative votes. I want everyone to be clear on that from the outset. Go ahead, Chair Baker.

Thank you, Mr. President and colleagues. Um, this is one of those items that the zoning and planning committee has spent a considerable amount of time working over with the assistance of the planning department and a consultant uh to the department. We've had seven meetings as the docket item will indicate spread over the year and we concluded our deliberations with a recommendation for a variety of changes to our inclusionary zoning ordinance. Uh I'd asked the planning department to prepare a memo that was submitted supposed to be in the packet um again this time but it was prepared for the last meeting that went into the substance uh and of these amendments in detail unless any member of the council wishes me to go into that detail orally. uh I propose not to do so but to report the item as the committee recommended it with these various changes that are outlined in the memorandum dated October 29th uh to the council from Barney Heath director of planning and development. My understanding uh from what happened at the last meeting because of the postponement there is an amendment is going to be proposed to a component of the recommendation of the committee um and the maker of that amendment uh is entitled to be heard and to make uh the recommendation that she feels warranted. However, I should indicate at the outset because of the length of this meeting and the degree to which members wish to be able to discuss the substantive items that if the motion is made to amend and then is made to recommmit the item, I would uh accept that motion as a uh and take it back into committee to deal with at our next meeting at the end of the month so that we could report it out because it is an item, excuse me, it is an amendment that we did not discuss in the committee itself. we discussed a different framework and I think that that might be fruitful. So I'll leave it

at that. But the committee report um is again on page uh 262 and the final vote was 503 abstensions. Who is making this motion? Councelor Wright, I believe.

All right, councelor Wright. Go ahead, please. Um I agree with um Councelor Baker and this is something that we didn't discuss specifically back in committee and doing it here on the floor. It's going to be a much longer later night. So I move to recommmit it. Um the my amendment was at the last page of the uh planning department. Um which is what we would like uh memo which we'd like to

So you you've made a motion to recommmit to the zoning and planning committee. Is there a second for that motion? Council Lopez has seconded that motion. Is there any discussion on the motion to recommmit? All right. Seeing none, I think we can do this on our voice for colleagues. All in favor of recommittal, please say I. I. I. All right. It's unanimous. It's recommitted to the uh zoning and planning committee. The expectation uh Chair Baker is it will come back to us hopefully uh on our December 1st meeting.

That's correct. I don't want to have a situation where we're taking up a matter of great substance like this item uh at our last meeting. I want to make sure that we do it. Yeah. uh at the meeting in the first meeting in December. I

I fully agree with that sentiment and just as a a word to all of us, I would hope that we take up really all substantive items if we can at our December 1st meeting and holding over to the December 15th meeting either things that could not be resolved on the first or what I'd call more routine items that we can just pass along quickly. We don't want to end at the end of the term with items that are somewhat in limbo and then have to be restarted again. Okay, we have two more items to go. Um 20624 uh Chair Krenman for programs and services.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is the um changes to the rules of the city council. And in a moment I'm going to defer to uh councelor Oliver who led the subcommittee. Uh uh but I will report out that the vote in programs and services was 7 to zero subject to second call. Uh again I'm going to defer to councelor Oliver who led the subcommittee. If you don't like the uh changes, please understand that it was councelor Oliver who led the subcommittee. Uh, and if you do, please understand that it it was I who appointed councelor Oliver. You know, I hope he gets the credit, too. Chair Kman. Go ahead, Council Oliver.

Great. Thank you for that uh wonderful introduction to the item. Uh, councelor Kinsman. Uh, I will point out, however, you you did vote for most of them. But anyway, um, so colleagues, uh, before I go through the process here of reading to you what it is has already been written in the packet. Uh I'm going to forego that and I'm going to assume that everyone here or trust that everyone here has read through them. I know that we are or I am expecting an amendment uh for an additional edit to the rules. But before we get to that, uh you know, Mr. President and and Chair Kinsman, uh are there any other comments or questions on the items that are here? because there's only one that I really wanted to kind of speak to um myself.

Why don't you speak to the item you want to speak to? Do that first and then if there are questions for you, Chair Oliver, they can be directed through me as the president. And I think if if councelor Humphrey I know wants to make an amendment, if we could hold that till we deal with the other stuff, that'd be great. Go ahead, please.

Fantastic. So, the item that I wanted or the the change that I wanted to direct everyone's attention to is on page 23 uh of the rules document itself. And that has to do with this little thing called the city council caucus uh during which the city council uh elects both of our both our president and our vice president. Um, we discussed a a change, an edit that would allow for the presiding officer of that elections process to allow for a recess between what I'm calling the series of votes as opposed to the rounds of votes that happen between two or more candidates. And for those of you who have been through this process, I think you know what I mean. Uh there is a pause between rounds as I'm calling it to accommodate for a recess to allow new uh nominations to happen. But this change is going to allow the presiding officer to accept or to allow a recess to happen between the series of votes between the same candidates because we take three votes each round with the same candidates. I'm trying to explain that the best way I can because I think it's kind of an a slightly confusing process, but uh I think councelor Humphrey has an interesting perspective on this because this happened exactly while he was one of the candidates.

Hold on a second. Are you all set with the report? I am. All right. I'm going to recognize uh Councelor Humphrey, then councelor Albbright, then councelor Kelly, and anyone else who wish to speak? Councelor Humphrey, go ahead. Yes. on the on the main report. We'll save the amendment to later.

This is yeah, this is just briefly to help clarify again. So, for those since some people uh weren't in the room for that and some people were and but may have forgotten, I'll just recap that last time we had three consecutive rounds of voting between two candidates. Then we recessed. There were new sets of candidates. Three consecutive rounds of voting there. No break. Then a break. Then back to the original candidates and then several more, you know, and so on, right? And so the proposal here is just to allow for at least some possibility of break and deliberation with the same set of candidates after one of those rounds has become clear. It's also, you know, potentially useful in a scenario where you actually didn't have two candidates. You may have had three candidates and one person gets eliminated, right? This allows this makes sure that you have the opportunity and everything to to have a discussion amongst yourselves before proceeding to another round. And then, you know, maybe it doesn't prevent the possibility of deadlocking, but it might help uh avoid some of that. And it just seems sensible to let people now that they know where everyone has shook out on something, you know, let's have another discussion about who's going to get what uh patronage. All right.

There's not much patronage in this city council. Councelor Humphrey, Councelor Albbright. Councelor Humphrey just answered my question. Great. Thank you. Uh councelor Kelly and then Krenman. Thank you, Mr. President. Through you to either councelor Oliver or Baker, a related question to the changes, if I missed it, does it also allow for voting by phone or remotely at the caucus because in the past when I was elected, it was not allowed. I was out of town becoming a grandmother for the first time and I was not allowed to participate um have a voice or a vote. So, is that something that you folks looked at this time? Go ahead, councelor Oliver.

As far as I'm aware, there is no accommodation in the rules that either, and correct me if I go astray because I I have not seen this. I see nothing that precludes someone from participating remotely, nor have I seen anything that explicitly says the opposite. Uh, can I ask a question to councelor Kelly? Was this prior to CO? Yes, that's probably why I, Mr. Clerk, am I correct that postcoavid given the changes in state law that that remote participation would be permitted. That is correct. Specifically for the caucus.

For the caucus, Mr. President, go ahead, councelor Baker. I think it's worth clarifying that the caucus is different from the council. Let me if I can explain a little bit if I can. Is that agreeable? Just Oh, go right ahead.

Okay. So, for those new members elect of the council, you're about to enter a process that sounds a little strange to you. And uh it is strange because it was designed to remedy a difficulty which I personally was involved many years ago. Um the city council has to elect a president by tradition by 13 affirmative votes. However, because there is nothing in the charter that says that you need 13 affirmative votes. The council adopted as a rule of decision in the prior election as part of the caucus that you would need 13 votes and is a way of making sure that whoever is going to be the council president has 13 votes. We have a process where if the election takes place in the council itself, not in a caucus but in the formal council itself, the council goes into a committee of the whole and the committee of the whole conducts the deliberations and the vote and if and only if the committee of the whole reaches a conclusion of 13 affirmative votes does it report out to the full council which the full council then votes for. in the full council because the as the clerk has indicated and under the uh when we're operating in the regular council you have remote meetings but the practice and the tradition has been that in the caucus you need to be present personally. Now um this is an interesting question. We could refer to the law department for resolution because the caucus is not in fact meeting of the council formally because it is a caucus. The caucus elect is all of those folks who are elected to office but not yet fully sworn to take on that role. So it is not formally a meeting of the city council. However, the law department ruled that the open meeting law applied in terms of the requirement for votes to be open and public. In the past, they used to be secret ballots. So I just want to indicate that at least

the tradition for the caucus is that everyone has to be present in order to count because that would have been a very interesting conversation in a different way. But as far as the u role of the uh uh the the specific recommendation to allow some opportunity for uh discussion between the various ballots. The various ballots are designed to asssure that you get to a majority of 13 votes before you report it out. We had when I was uh uh at one point councelor Gentile remembers uh we had a long conversation about who should be president went almost 80 days into the council this the formal council. So that uh is why this particular rule exists. The only other thing that I would um indicate that if the conversation occurred in the uh full council that normally speaking the chair votes last, the presiding officer in the in when the president is voting votes last and I would uh think that it might be useful for what happens in the caucus for that to occur too, but that's not formally part of the rule of recommendation. So I I I think based on councelor Baker's statement, one ought to assume that you do need to be present at the caucus in order to vote unless a the caucus says that's not necessary and which that's the case it's fine or b there's some change to the rules and right now the rules is silent on that just to be clear. So, councelor Kelly, your comments noted. I've got

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you want to speak to the point, Councelor Humphrey? Go ahead, Councelor Humphrey. And then I'll recognize councelor.

Yeah. So, you know, I'll just This is my sort of advisory opinion for lack of a better term since I'm not going to be, you know, part of this caucus. Uh I I don't necessarily know that it does need to be formally changed. If we think there's some ambiguity that should be corrected and it's the will of the council to make that correction, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think our practices have changed overall as a result of COVID. But the other thing is, I could be wrong on this, but technically the function of the caucus is to basically work out an informal agreement ahead of inauguration day. And if that's the rationale, which then allows people to technically miss inauguration day without worrying about, you know, oh, someone's going to change the outcome from the caucus because they counted up and realized someone was going to be absent on January 1st, which would be kind of a ridiculous way of doing things. I don't think there's a real prohibition on participating virtually. I think there's no reason to say that that going forward that that's not allowed. Maybe we should clarify it in the text of the rules. Um, you know, I personally I would recommend if you can be there in person, it's going to be much more effective to be there in person. But like I think we should be allowing people to participate remotely if need be. In part because this is a unofficial sort of uh agreement amongst the counselors elect on what they are all going to do on January 1st. We're not taking a partisan so to speak vote on January 1st because of the decision at the caucus. And obviously someone who's absent for the caucus unless they are deliberately not participating, you know, because they don't want to vote, they are their opinion still matters for the purposes of deciding what happens on January 1st. So I I think we should allow remote participation going forward. If that needs to be in writing, we can do that, I think, relatively quickly right now.

Councelor Krenman and then Auburn.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to speak to I'll I'll get to that. um through my initial comment which has to do with the effectiveness of the rules. Uh one of the reasons the subcommittee reported out and the programs and services committee reported out so late in the term is because the intention was always for the rules to take effect essentially with the next council. Um there's nothing in in these changes that is going to overly or prescriptively change the functioning of the council now. But I don't think we explicitly stated an effective date. But again, the intention was always for the next council. The way that actually happens is that at the beginning of the council term, the city council adopts rules and usually it's a vote something about continuing the rules as they you know came from the last council. In this case, it would essentially be either as they came from the last council or as amended by the last council. My suggestion um because the caucus takes place even before that um is that at the beginning of the caucus or let me first say that at the beginning of the caucus there is a similar vote that the caucus takes a vote about the rules that are going to govern the caucus proceedings um which are taken from the council rules. I would suggest that at at that time it is the appropriate time for uh any member of the of the caucus, a counselor, councelor elect, all counselors elect uh to specify in that motion that the rules governing the council elect the election for the council president should be as uh recommended by the 2425 city council and that would be the appropriate time to make a recommendation about remote participation. I will also say that nowhere in the rules is remote participation contemplated including by the committees and we all know that that's allowed by the full committees. So um I think we should have taken it up as a subcommittee. I blame councelor Oliver obviously for the fact that we didn't um as a member of the subcommittee but I do think it's an appropriate consideration for the next council.

All right. is councelor Albbright. Because we don't have a 100% agreement on whether remote participation is allowed or not at the caucus, I would like to make the motion that we include that language in the rules for the caucus that we allow remote participation. Okay. So, is there a sec is there hold on hold on. First, I'm going to entertain a second for the motion seconded by councelor Humphrey. Then I'm going to recognize councelor Baker. Then I'm going to recognize councelor Gamberg on the motion. Go ahead, please.

It's a small point, but the caucus has to adopt its own rules. And so if you want to do that, that would be appropriate to do at the caucus. You can't bind the caucus until the caucus actually acts. You create the rules for the council. The council will operate with remote participation if it comes to the council, but the caucus doesn't have any rules until it adopts them. So, I just want to clarify that I think that's an appropriate motion, but it's not for amending the rules because that's not it's already built into the rules if we are actually in the full council when we do this. Councelor Danberg,

thank you. Although I will not also uh will not be participating in the caucus. Um I'd like to bring up that I think it would be important to deal with this prior to that time. Um because I'm sure there are people here that would like to uh make plans. Um so I would just encourage us to uh take this up uh prior to the caucus or tonight if possible. Uh do you want to respond uh councelor Oliver? Well uh my my comment uh again I'll start with the fact that councelor Kinsman didn't remind me to take up this particular uh item.

You know this infighting doesn't seem to happen in any other committees. Duly noted. Go ahead.

Hey we have a lot of fun in programs and services let me tell you. Uh so I'm happy to work with not only councelor Baker uh and whomever else uh who wants to participate and and work with the clerk's office to ensure that uh at the onset of the caucus uh the rules that if they are indeed adopted specific specific to the caucus that that item is is included uh meaning that remote participa participation is allowed. I'm happy to take that on as it feels to me like it's slightly separate from the rules, but obviously clearly related. Okay, hold on. Okay, thank you. I have councelor Lucas and Humphrey.

Well, I'm confused. I'm sorry. Um I agree with Councelor Albright and Councelor Humphrey's um motion to include remote participation in our city council rules for the caucus. Sorry, but if I understood correctly, councelor Baker says that is not appropriate. Is that correct? Question to the president and councelor Baker.

Remote participation in the council is not part of our rules in the first place. If you want to have it in the caucus, I think the sense of the meeting tonight would be that it should be in uh available, but it's not a rule. It's just part of the way they in in in other words the rules that are being made here. You can't make rules for the caucus. You can only make rules for the council. I want to make that distinction. And but I think the sense of what I'm hearing around the room is that people should be able to participate remotely and I hear the the chair of the rule subcommittee saying that he would work to that end.

So councelor Baker, I just want to ask you a question on this procedurally. uh councelor Oliver has promulgated or set forth a series of changes to our rules. One of those changes changes the way we allow proposed changes changes the way we allow for breaks between certain rounds of voting for president. That would seem to me to be a caucus procedural rule, not a city council rule. Am I missing something? It would be a city council rule. What would happen just to be clear, what is being amended is the city council rules.

Can I can I can I just add that I'd like to resign as chair of the rule subcommittee at this point in time. Pardon?

Can I suggest this? Rather than having a debate back and forth, I'm going to ask for a fivem minute recess. Let everyone stretch. I'd like a quick consultation with counselors Humphrey Baker and Oliver. I want to get clarity on this and then we'll move forward. Do we have all in favor of recess, please say I? I. We're in recess for five minutes. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Thursday. All right, colleagues, I did say five minutes, but we've resolved the issues. So, let's try to move it on since it's quarter 10. You could all take your seats, please. So um I will try to summarize where I think we are procedurally. Um after consulting with councilors

Humphrey and Baker and Kinsman and Oliver I think the consensus is as follows. The rules of the council are just that, the rules of the council. The rules relating to the caucus are meant to be in place so that at the caucus there's not debate about what goes in the rules or how you process it. And instead, you can have a very simple motion to adopt what is in the rules of the council regarding the caucus as the caucus rules. Theoretically, a caucus could change its rules if it so chose, but the idea is not to have that kind of fight or deliberation in the caucus itself, but rather to set it out impartially before there's some kind of vote on the president and vice president in a manner that seemingly is fair to everyone. So with that, we have a motion to amend by councelor Albbright. Uh councelor Humphrey, do you want to take a shot at just as adding the language you had suggested? So and see if councelor Albbright will adopt that as a friendly amendment.

I'm a little reluctant to spot the specific spot that it needs to go in at this point. And I know we have other stuff to take up as well, but I think somewhere uh it's basically says shall convene and then you say uh uh in person or remotely, but we can we can hammer out obviously the exact spot that it goes.

Well, I think what we would do is the motion is to add language regarding the caucus to allow participation uh uh remotely or in person. and we'll add that language uh Mr. Clerk and and Miss Deputy Clerk appropriately. All right. Okay. So, can we do I think we can do the amendment on a voice vote. All in favor of the amendment, please say I. I opposed. Okay. Are there any other Oh, councelor Gman. Um I have a question through you to the subchair subcommittee chair. Um so I uh brought up quickly the point about deliberation at the caucus and I understand that there was some discussion in the rule subcommittee about that. Um, part of my uh, question comes out of my experience in the last four caucuses where there's not a clear moment where deliberation is called for. Um, and there's, I think, usually sort of an awkward moment where some folks wonder if discussion is merited or not merited. And where this rules change that we're talking about is talking about permitting a recess. Um, to my mind that's essentially saying, so we're talking about going off and talking privately and then, you know, sort of resolving things out of the public eye, but councelor Baker also reminded us tonight that we have to cast these votes publicly because of open meeting law considerations. So, the implication that we would go off and deliberate privately versus how we would debate publicly is something that I'm trying to uh wrestle with in my own mind. I don't even know that I have a clear view. I just was curious based on this little interaction

we had what the discussion was in the council Oliver through the present. Great. Uh let me uh I'll I'll kind of continue if I may. Uh I highly recommend someone um running the rule subcommittee. It is a lot of fun. But uh and if I Council Crus volunteered that session.

Yeah, exactly. Uh actually I might volunteer him. Uh but I'll do my best to recap uh the conversation that we had about uh the ability to have what I will call conferences on the side uh within the structure of open meeting law because it is according to our law department relevant during the caucus. Uh and it's just that that small conversations on the side are you know in limited numbers acceptable. Were there to be a group of 13 for example or more counselors uh stepping to one side to have a conversation clearly off camera outside of public eye for example uh that would be frowned upon. That would be a violation of open meeting law. And from that perspective, I'm certainly welcomed to any other perspective.

My understanding of the open meeting law, councelor Gman, is that um if you have a quorum, which is more than 50% 50% or more, uh you violate the open meeting law. If you meet, if three counselors want to talk about something and they're not a quorum, that does not violate the open meeting law. Councelor Lucas. A question on that particular um instance. You could have counselor elects who have not been sworn in. Is that still an open meeting law violation?

You know, I don't know the answer to that. I would uh heir on the side of assuming that counselors elect for this purpose would be part of the open meeting law process. Councelor Humphrey, I

think we discussed and sort of concluded it is very hard to figure out the answer to this and I think there had previously historically been back and forth between the law department and the League of Women Voters and who knows who else. And it is hard because one of the things that I brought up in the discussion we had in committee is uh you're basically having serial deliberation all the way up until the point of the meeting, right? As to how many votes do I have or you have or somebody else have, right? So, if if we were being super strict about it, the whole entire thing doesn't make sense. And how would you be able to conduct your business on January 1st either, unless it's supposed to be a purely magical process by which someone obtains a majority without ever talking to anyone? So, I think that the compromise essentially is that you have your votes publicly recorded by name, and that's about the best you can do under the situation.

Anybody else wish to be heard? Councelor Krenman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I think that um the esteemed chair of the subcommittee stated it well um as I knew he would when I appointed him, chair of the subcommittee. Um there what we've all seen the love of this committee is just amazing. Go ahead.

Um the what we've all seen is that you have three successive votes, nothing changes, and it it's kind of like the definition of insanity. And so this change in the rules was intended to address that by saying, okay, we don't need to take three votes in a row, boom, boom, boom, where nothing changes. And if it's a if it's a deadlock tie, it's a deadlock tie all three times. So to allow for some discussions in between each of those votes without having to uh get new candidates necessarily. It is not an invitation to violate the open meeting law, but it is an invitation for folks to think about what they're doing and perhaps have a conversation with a couple of their colleagues. Okay, councelor Baker then Kais.

Let me just make one other comment. I think the thrust of councelor Gman's question was about deliberation, whether you could have deliberation in the caucus and I think that the caucus allows conversation in the caucus about the candidates. I don't think it is that you are nominated and then vote. deliberation has been sparse in the past, but it doesn't mean I think it's precluded as far as I'm concerned. So, councelor Kais,

so what I'm concerned about is the specificity here, the details. Um, is the is the conversation and this might be through the president a question to the subcommittee chair. Is the conversation uh by done led by the clerk where people are called on? Is it people just clumping up? And then for those who are not yet counselors and haven't been exposed to open meeting law, how are they supposed to know what open meeting law is? And it makes me just feel like we need to really figure this out with law so we don't have challenges after this and and and confusion um to make sure we're doing it correctly.

So let me offer a suggestion here. Councelor Kis we and I can't remember who mentioned this and it may have been council Gman. We have struggled with how the open meeting law interacts with the practicality as it were of trying to elect uh leadership of this council because as councelor uh uh Humphrey said if you if you really avoided all s serial communications literally no one could put their name out there and say I'm running until the day of the council. there'd be no discussions and it would that just logically doesn't make sense. So what I would suggest is between now and the time of the caucus that the president ameritus who is a senior member of the council confer with the law department and try to get some basic guidance as to what is permissible and what's not permissible at the caucus that be provided to the uh counselors elect. And that way there's some form of legal guidance here rather than us trying to hash it out on the on the floor of the council. Councelor Kman,

uh, fully support everything you just said. I just want to be clear what the actual amendment in the rules says is that nothing prohibits the person running presiding from calling up to a 10-minute recess during those votes. That's it. Okay. the the the rules formerly read as these must be consecutive votes. They must take place in succession. Nothing else is to happen. Boom, boom, boom, vote, vote, vote. That's where I thought we got into insanity. We don't have to take a recess. We don't have to pause. But the rule allows explicitly now allows the presiding officer to call a recess up to 10 minutes and then everybody's back in. Now I think the discussions with the law department about what is or is not permissible if per chance a recess is called fully within the realm and we can get some clarity before December 4th on that.

Okay. Anyone else before I entertain? So we have the motion to add the language. We've approved that by voice vote. We now I think are there any other questions on the rules before I turn to councelor Humphrey who I know has an amendment to offer as well. Pardon? We did just didn't we just do the voice vote? We just did a voice vote on the amendment. Uh, councelor uh Baker, you want to speak to one other um just to be clear uh for those who are new to the council, the tradition is the the rules to elect as the presiding officer, the senior member of the council whom at at the time of the council elect, as long as I'm still standing, I think I qualify. But um I I just want to be clear that u there's no requirement that that be the case. I think that the uh the rules of the caucus have to be adopted. I'll be glad to do some informal inquiry on the presumption that I'm still standing and the senior member are going to presside, but I don't want anybody to get any illusions that I'm automatic. So that's all.

Thank you, councelor Baker. I can speak from experience that you've done an exemplary job on that role among many others. So thank you councelor Humphrey.

Thank you. So, this is a motion to add an amendment to the overall reform package here. Um, this was something that we didn't get worked in at a previous stage. And in fact, Councelor Oliver and I were still working out the exact language this afternoon on this. It's on there's a copy on your desk. Uh, it's a short paragraph with red uh and striketh through. So, this is a in section city committee reports. everything that's uh not in red um plus the part that's struck through is the current language that is not well enforced currently. Um but it basically says that you're supposed to get the stuff dealt with in committee one way or another within a year. But then there's also a kind of vague thing that says or to ask for further time. It does not actually specify who you're asking for further time from. So that seemed like it needed to be cleaned up. I would I was also suggesting that we tighten that down from one year to 180 days approximately six months on the basis that that is a quarter of the term. Um I think it's better than having a entire blackout year where like you could dock at something January 1st or the second year of the term and never have it come up to the city council. Um I think in most cases people would be pretty reasonable in committee if they felt like the work is not done on this item. need some additional time, but it at least puts some pressure on the chair to not lose track of an item either. Right? Again, you could have an item that's docketed in like June of the first year of the term and you might think, oh, I have plenty of time to get to that and then pretty soon it's June of the next year and oh shoot, I forgot to deal with this, right? And so if we shorten that to six months or 180 days, I think that would improve the processes. Again, there is a safety valve option here. Um, and the other thing is if you knew at the beginning like this item is something that cannot possibly be dealt with in 180 days, you would be within your rights at the time it is docketed

to move to suspend the rules to pre-extend that time and the full council could vote on that. Um, so that's not, you know, affected by this as well if you knew in advance like this is just too big of an item. I'm not going to be able to get this done in my committee uh within the amount of you know time that is specified by the normal rules. Um so again there's sort of two components here but it's the 180 days change and then also that you are specifying that you are asking for further time from a majority of the committee and also keeping the uh language that is there now that indicates that the council actions approved denied or no action necessary. um you're at least the chair and the committee are at least discussing with the primary docketer before that's happening. So it's not just getting rammed through. Um and this is sort of a a step down compromise from an earlier discussion we had about possibly having a discharge petition system or something like that. There wasn't a lot of enthusiasm for that. So this is an alternative mechanism of just making sure that things are somewhat moving through and that there's some safeguards procedurally for democratic process. Thank you.

Thank you. Councelor Humphrey says motion by councelor Humphrey. Is there a second to the motion? Seconded by councelor Lobovitz. Uh is there discussion on the uh motion to amend? Councelor Baker.

So I want to applaud councelor Humphrey for both thinking fresh about this issue and also including someone to whom the request can be made because the request was in our rules without anybody to whom it could be made. So, I think that's a significant improvement. Um, I just would prefer to keep it as a year simply because of the summer breaks and other things that may make it uh I think better to stay with what we currently have. That would be my preference if there's an opportunity to amend or the whether councelor Humphrey would consider that a friendly amendment and just leave it a year but make the other addition that he suggested. I think that was

so that's a request for a friendly amendment. That's up to you, Councelor Humphrey. Uh yeah, I'm not really interested in considering that although of course you know the council's free to vote however they want on that. Um again I think there is some merit to saying that within 180 days the committee at least needs to put it on the agenda have a discussion and if the committee at that point says yes you can have more time or no this item is done and maybe it's even a no action necessary but something gets dealt with at that point. Again, I think committee members will be reasonable if they feel that, you know, there is a genuine effort being made. This is a worthwhile item. We just need to do some more work on it. And I think that would address situations like, oh, this is falling within the summer and maybe we should deal with this in September or something like that.

So, the request for a friendly amendment is rejected. What I'm going to suggest is we have the amendment before us. It's been seconded. We're going to discuss it further if needed. We can vote on it. There can always be a motion to further amend after that. Any discussion on the motion by councelor Humphrey? Um, yes, councelor Liry.

I think councelor Humphrey's motion is very appropriate and I do agree with the 180 days. That's just a time for the committee to sort of check in and they could also extend the time at that point. Um, I would like us I do think that it behooves us to be as efficient as possible while still taking the time to do good work. Thank you, Council Larry. Council Lucas, uh, thank you. I will be brief. Um, I um would prefer the uh second change uh in red to uh from a majority of the committee and keep it at one year. So in agreement with uh councelor Baker.

Okay. So that is my preference. But right now we're still dealing with the motion. Anyone else in the motion? All right. Let let's see if we can do the motion to amend on a voice vote and then any further motions to amend of course are in order. All in favor of councelor Humphrey's motion to amend please say I. I. I. opposed. Two, three opposed. Four opposed. Okay. All right. So, um we should do a roll call then if we're going to uh we're going to have that many opposed. So, could you call the role, please, on the motion to amend?

Councelor Albbright. I councelor Baker. No. Councelor Bixby. I councelor Block. No. Councelor Danberg. I councelor DS. Hi. Councelor Frell. No. Councelor Gentile. Councelor Gats. Councelor Greenberg. Hi. Councelor Gman. Hi. Councelor Humphrey. Hi.

Councelor Kis. No. Councelor Kelly. Hi. Councelor Kinsman. No. Councelor Liry. Hi. Councelor Lipoff. Hi. Councelor Lavitz. Hi. Councelor Lucas. No. Councelor Malake. Hi. Councelor Mikley. Councelor Oliver. Hi. Councelor Wright. Hi. President Loredo. I.

The eyes's are 16. The naysay are six. Amendment is adopted. Motion passes. Councelor U. Baker, do you want to make a further amendment? Yes. I just think want to be clear about it. I'd like to move that the uh year period is opposed to 180 days. So you want to further amend what we just passed to strike six months or 180 days and change that to a year. That's what our current rule provides. I just want to be indicated.

That's fine. Just want to be clear. Is there a second for that? Seconded by councelor Lucas. Is there any discussion on that further motion? Councelor uh Humpley. I just respectfully I think we did just vote substantively on that question and the result was clear. I don't know why we would go back through and vote it again. So there's a motion in a second. So you're in we're going to vote it one way or the other. Okay. Anyone else wish to discuss it? Councelor Kinsman.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. This was uh to me the objection part. Um I just think six months is is very quick. I think a lot of things get docketed in the committees. There are no things I know that I take, you know, at least a year, if not 18 months to get to. And in part, that's because the sponsor is not ready. You know, the sponsor has filed it. I keep checking in with the sponsor. Hey, do you want to discuss this? Do you want to discuss this? No, no, no. So, uh, a year felt better to me. Okay. All right. Uh, Councelor Kis,

yeah, I agree with Councelor Kinsman, and I'd love to hear from more of the chairs that have, uh, quite a bit of items that are that are in front of them. I mean, it it it seems to me that many items actually don't come up for quite a while because there's just a lot going on. And um I' I'd rather allow for time instead of having these votes with the majority of the committee for the chairs to actually uh doc or or plan out what they're they're planning for the year and and have that their own decision on on when things come up. Um otherwise I think you're you're forcing things to happen and uh it it could actually be more disjointed for committees because the chair is kind of hamstrung by this timing.

Councilor Oliver.

Great. Thank you, Mr. President. Um while my comments are are going to be focused on the time frame here, I think there's also there's a there's an additive element to this in my opinion and we talked about this fairly uh significant. has spent a fair amount of time talking about it and that is simply this could drive other behaviors that everyone on the council needs to pay attention to. I think that councelor Kalis just brought up one of those elements that's pretty important as did councelor Kinsman. If it does come to a point where there is a particular committee that is that has 50 items on their docket that they have to dispose of one way, shape or form or the other. We as a body need to recognize that as does as would the committee because they're being asked to vote. Should we extend the time here? Should we not? There has to be flexibility on both ends of this. I think that councelor Humphrey's intent here is correct. But as a group, we this this is likely going to modify how we behave not only in in committee but as individual counselors. The intent here is not to I think the term we were using was gum up the system but to ensure that docket items are heard in a relatively you know you you name the time frame that's what we're doing right now. It does seem to me that it is important that any counselor here who dockets an item has the right to have that docket item heard. After all, they're representative representing residents. They're representing

right the will of the people, so to speak. So, I think that it's really kind of this does come with a responsibility, not only as a committee member, but a counselor. But I do think that regardless of the time frame, this does make sense. And as to the question, you know, I'm not a chair of a full committee, but I have seen councelor Baker go through the process routinely every two weeks. What's in front of us? How are we going to how are we going to parse these out? Are these big ticket items, small ticket items? Are they going to take a lot of time? Are they going to take a little bit of time? And involving the committee members in a bit of that process, I think only makes sense. So, thank you. Anyone else wish to be uh counselor Albbright?

I was just wondering if you know I I think I may have a a docket item at programs and services that I wasn't ready to discuss yet. Um, so I'm wondering if if this um language could be amended um either further time from approved by the majority of the committee or with the approval of the docketer because sometimes it's the docketer doesn't have it ready doesn't have the research ready. I I do on the other hand understand that there are some people who said I docketed an item and it hasn't been taken up and I feel I feel that the people I'm representing want this to be taken up. So I like the six months the 180 days but I I think it might be nice to involve the approval of the doctor.

You're not making a motion yet because we have a motion on the floor but that further motion would be in order after that's done. Councelor Gman,

I don't have a problem with any of these particular rules and I don't have strong feelings about six months for a year. Part of that is probably because the committees that I've chaired have always been pretty, you know, we don't have these big dragout issues that go on for very long periods of time. So, I'm more sensitive to committees like Zap and LAN use that that's different. My question, and it's not really to anybody specific, it's just sort of for the group to consider is who's enforcing this? because I know as the chair, I'm looking at the list. I'm I'm looking at the, you know, the various items, what we've taken up, what we haven't. I don't I don't know exactly what date it's all been docketed. Nobody's counting six months. And I guess the one thing that I'm wary of is adopting more rules that we don't actually pay attention to because I think we do a fair amount of that currently.

Thank you, Council Gman. Councelor Larry, you've been very patient. I apologize for getting you. Thank you. Um, just on the the answer to councelor Gman's question is nobody nobody is is following this or you know how long we take. Um, and I I don't understand why the word hamstrung was used because um it says referred you can ask for further time for a majority of the committee. So So it could easily go a year. I just think it sets a a goal that would be ideal because things sit in committees for, you know, a long time sometimes, but we still have absolute absolute freedom to do what you want in your committee. It really won't make that much difference. Sometimes I think we really overthink things in this chamber. We've we've really gone into a lot of detail tonight. Um, so I'm in favor of fewer words and make it more simple. Councelor Larry, thank you. I think some might say we don't think enough, so I'm glad you think we overthink here. Um, uh, Councelor Kinsman and Baker,

thank you. And, and I I actually, uh, appreciate the sentiment behind this, which is get the items uh, heard, get things moving. Uh, and I agree with that. My concern is, um, in this rule, it also says and report thereon. And so if if we actually took out and report there on uh I'd be fine here within six months and that gets the committee full knowledge of everything that's coming up because you can bring it up and say here's docket item 123 you know-26. We're not ready to take it up yet. It was filed within the last six months. We'll be taking it up at the time when we're ready. Anyone have an objection to that in committee? Okay, we'll hold. So uh it it's the report there on that I have a concern with. Councelor Humphrey and then Baker because Humphrey was first. I apologize.

Uh okay, just some quick clarifications. Uh again, part of this is about the existing rule that as councelor Gman and I previously mentioned is not well enforced currently either uh before any amendments. So, I did communicate with the clerk earlier today that I think there could be some changes made procedurally on the clerical side to make sure that we don't lose track. I think having six months personally would help with not losing track of things. It's a lot easier to keep track of something for six months than for a year. Um, but they could potentially put in things, you know, like we have for the mayor's appointments that have a specific deadline from the day it's docketed, like written right there. I don't think that requires a change in the rules. Again, I'm not saying that they have to do it that way, but I think there are options for that. Um, I would also just note, you know, in terms of discussing with the primary doctor, that is in the existing rule. That's a component there. So, I think that safeguard is already built in. And then, uh, to councelor Kinsman's point, I I think again, the current rule is report thereon. We should be trying to stick to the intent of the current rule and just make it work better. Um, and it's giving you the option, right? saying, "Okay, this at least has to go on the agenda one time for sure so that you can have a discussion with your committee and they can take a vote on whether or not you need more time." And then if they say no, well, I guess you're going to either vote approved, denied, or no action necessary. If they vote yes, they give you more time and it's not a problem, but at least you got it heard within six months, right? So, I think that's a sort of implied additional benefit to this to this system. And that's also why I think six months makes a lot more sense than a year because you're guaranteeing that there's going to be at least one time it gets put on the agenda within that six-month period, even if it's just a fairly brief discussion to say we need more time. Also, I think this would help some dockers actually get their stuff together in a more reasonable amount of time so they don't spend 18 months thinking about their docket item.

Councelor Baker. Thank you, Councelor Humphrey. Councelor Baker. So I think that uh councelor Albright's question is is resolved by having the year. I just have to say that part of the u the burden of being a chair is to try and manage the the business of the work of the committee and u I think those of you who've been on zoning and planning uh can attest to the degree to which we've had to take up items multiple times to get them done. I think that the problem is I can't imagine reporting some of the items that we've dealt with within uh six months. We've taken a full year and a number of these because of the complexity and one of which is coming up back to committee tonight on the inclusionary zoning. So um if also I think the tradition and perhaps even u uh the responsibility of the chair has been to set the agenda for the committee meetings and I just think it's going to be important to have the chairs of the new council have the ability to do the work they need to do within the time they need to do it. So I hope members will support the retention of one year, not six months. That's going to be a very short time to actually act on and report on an item. So

all right. So colleagues, any further discussion on the motion to change it from 6 months to a year. All right. Seeing none, we're going to call the role. If you vote yes or I, you're voting to change the sixmonth period to one year. If you vote no, you're voting to keep it at six months. Go ahead, please. Councelor Albbright, no. Councelor Baker, hi. Councelor Bixby, no. Councelor Block, hi. Councelor Danberg, no. Councelor DS,

no. Councelor Frell. Hi. Councelor Gentile.

Councelor Gats. Councelor Greenberg. No. Councelor Gman. No. Councelor Humphrey. No. Councelor Kis. Hi. Councelor Kelly. No. Councelor Krenman, hi. Councelor Liry, no. Councelor Lipoff, no. Councelor Lobovitz, no. Councelor Lucas, yes. Councelor Malaki, no. Councelor Mikley. Councelor Oliver,

no. Councelor Wright, no. President Laredo. No, the A's are six. The nays are 15.

So, the amendment fails. Are there any further amendments before we vote on the full item as amended? And I'll just just remind people this gets done every couple of years. If there's other things that are not working out or you want to change, there's always an opportunity to do that. Okay, with that, we're going to vote on the full item as amended. We're going to call the role. Councelor Humphrey,

just during the recess, we had a brief conversation about the effective date of this. Does that need to be clarified? I would personally like it to be effective immediately just because that would address the caucus issue. C through the president to councelor Oliver. Thank you. Um I think what I just heard a few minutes ago is that the caucus would vote to adopt these rules. Right. So I as far as I'm concerned we can make these edits uh either you know uh uh effective immediately or first of year. My personal preference would just be to make them effective immediately.

Is there any uh hold on uh do you want to make a motion to include that they shall be adopted effective immediately? Yes. Hopefully on a voice vote. Is there a second for that motion? Seconded by councelor Liry. Can we do this in a voice vote, folks? I I have a point of information. Sure. Um, isn't there isn't doesn't the charter require us require new ordinances to wait 20 days before they're effective? Uh, these are rules, not uh ordinances. So, am I correct, Councelor Baker?

All right. I can appine, but then I go to the source to get affirmation. Um, any other questions or comments? Let's see if we could do this on a voice vote with the amendment first and then we're going to take a roll call vote. Uh, Councelor Humphre uh made the motion to amend to make this effective immediately. Councelor Liry seconded. All in favor, please say I. I. I. Opposed? The eyes have it. Now, we are going to vote on the full item as amended. Please call the role. Councelor Albbright. Hi. Councelor Baker. Hi. Councelor Bixby. Hi. Councelor Block.

Hi. Councelor Danberg. Hi. Councelor DS. I. Councelor Frell. Hi. Councelor Gentile. Councelor Gats. Councelor Greenberg. I. Councelor Gman. I. Councelor Humphrey. Hi, Councelor Kis. Hi, Councelor Kelly. Hi, Councelor Kinsman. Hi, Councelor Liry. Hi, Councelor Lipoff. Hi, Councelor Lobovitz. Hi, Councelor Lucas. Hi, Councelor Malaki. Hi,

Councelor Mickley. Councelor Oliver. Hi, Councelor Wright. I President Loreno. Hi. The eyes are 21. The nays are zero. Great. And I just want to um on behalf of the council uh there thank uh chair Oliver of the subcommittee and the members of the subcommittee for really uh very good work very thorough work uh and important work. Uh last item is a zoning and planning item to recognize chair Baker.

So thank you Mr. President. Um the last item is uh item 37524 PNS 2 requesting discussion of amendments to chapter 30 zoning to allow certain residential alterations by right and this would be uh to allow additions to buildings with existing non-conforming height that increase the non-conforming height but do not got higher than the existing ridge line. Um, this is an item that the planning department brought forward and we heard initially in u September and then brought back into the committee because it had not been discussed in committee before the planning department brought it to a public hearing. The committee voted 701 in which I I abstained. Um, the item is explained in an attachment to the zoning and planning committee report. Um uh but at the conclusion of my report, I'm going to move that we recommmit this item so that we can clarify the impact um by the next meeting. I would prefer to vote for this item uh if I can have it clarified, but if I can't, I'm going to have to vote against it. And given the number of counselors who are absent and the fact that we need 16 votes, I think it would be prudent to send it back. Not the least of which reasons being the lateness of the hour tonight. I'm sure the council doesn't want to get into a substantive discussion about how you measure height and when it should be measured at 10:30. So,

we do need a twothirds vote for this. We are now at 21 counselors here, which means we need 16 of the counselors who are present to vote for it. Councelor Lucas, thanks. Um, I have no problem referring this back to committee, but why don't we just hold the item, uh, get your answers and we'll vote on December 2nd. uh because I'd prefer to have that discussion in committee and then we can bring it back. I intend to bring it back after a discussion in committee. For a procedural question, is your intent to take it up at the next zoning and planning committee meeting? Again, I want to make sure we do all our substantive business on the first meeting of

So, there's a motion by councelor Baker to uh refer it back to the committee. Is there a second? Seconded by councelor Danberg. We Yeah. Well, I just hope the chair takes it up right away. I I think the chair has represented that he will take it up before we come back for the next council meeting. Um and I'm sure that will be done. Okay. Uh can we do this in a voice vote? All in favor of referring it back to committee, please say I. I. Opposed? The eyes have it. It's referred back to committee. We are adjourned at 10:26 p.m. Uh thank you colleagues for uh a a productive evening.